- 32,359
- 20,298
I am 100% with AKM here. A beam being stated to be "light" and moving in a straight line isn't evidence for lightspeed. Not here and not never. This to me is non-negotiable. I don't care how many verses this affects.
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Bleach- PTS Speed Downgrade
- Thread starter Cyberblader90
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bleach renji abarai
- 8,170
- 2,204
Thankfully moving straight isn’t a main form of evidence lol
- 21,492
- 30,820
Yes.
- 11,141
- 14,180
If there wasn't a major difference between saying something is light and saying something is specifically made of photons/light, we wouldn't have it as an additional supporting point and literally every attack with "light" in it's name would have been accepted as lightspeed. lol
This is just a misunderstanding caused by wording that you're not getting for some reason.
This is just a misunderstanding caused by wording that you're not getting for some reason.
- 287
- 283
Mask's attack name isn't "Beam of light that kills all villains"
The name of his attack is Star flash/Hero flash
The rest of his dialogue is him giving further context on this attack. So no this isn't the name of his attack.
Saying beam of light specifically means a beam made out of light.
- 11,141
- 14,180
I'm sorry for not being convinced with a statement that goes like:
"The villain shall die... by the hero's beam of light"
I can argue this simply not meant to be taken literally given the flowery context that revolves around "villain", "hero", "light", "darkness".
And that's not even what I am arguing because I don't need to. If it were something like "beam that is made of photons", that would have been much direct, and your point about exposition would have been correct.
- 287
- 283
You dont need to be sorry for anything. Well this flowery context is literal because Mask's schrift is literally S- Superhero meaning he cheers himself on as a hero.( this isn't headcannon this is literally his ability)The villain would be the captain and his beam of light got rid of him.
It doesn't need be said to be made out of photons to be considered as fulfilling the criteria. It being made out if light as well can be considered which is why the requirement says "made out out of photon or light"
It doesn't need be said to be made out of photons to be considered as fulfilling the criteria. It being made out if light as well can be considered which is why the requirement says "made out out of photon or light"
Last edited:
- 8,170
- 2,204
You don’t really expect a mangaka to randomly say “I’m going to shoot this light beam of photons” right?
- 21,492
- 30,820
Google "Noro Noro Beam"
- 8,170
- 2,204
Slow Photon Beam...?
Still this isn’t the majority so my point still stands.
Still this isn’t the majority so my point still stands.
- 11,141
- 14,180
Him being a hero doesn't change how his statement is delivered. Like you said, if he is cheering himself with the word "hero", calling the opponent "villain", that means he is deliberately being extravagant in his speech, which means the statement should not be taken literally. This is like All Might going in some hero philosophical shit and saying "The villain shall be defeated by the Hero's punch of justice". Doesn't make his punch of justice be literal. He is just cheering himself to create hype. The use of "beam of light" can be the same here when it is against villains who are seen as related to darkness.
Well, it's not saying "beam made of light" either. So the point is weak.
- 8,170
- 2,204
That’s ridiculous. Nothing about his statement is flowery at all. He states it pretty clearly what the ability is. Him calling himself a hero doesn’t discredit his statement at all.
How could you even come to the conclusion this isn’t a literal statement.
How could you even come to the conclusion this isn’t a literal statement.
- 11,141
- 14,180
I provided my reasons above in my last comment. Although, that point won't need to be debated because as far as I am concerned, the feat does not fulfill the required conditions for being light speed, which should be clarified in Tempest's thread soon. Not to mention our standards also say that the burden of proof is higher when there are no other close to lightspeed scenarios in the series.
Arcker123
He/Him- 8,087
- 6,186
i find this point very hyper specific. Where is it stated the statement has to include the word made. Mask stating his laser is of light would imply it is light
- 8,170
- 2,204
And your reasoning regarding said statement is wrong. Randomly saying “hyperbole” based off him saying he’s a hero isn’t a counter argument.
That doesn’t mean you need more requirements AKM.
As for Tempest thread none of the issues are actually even being addressed besides saying “looks fine to me” when clearly that isn’t the case since one of the standards has literally been used another way for YEARS as far as I can tell.
The 3rd post on this thread is Damage saying that’s the only requirement Mask met.
You said it’s being used improperly, and in the other thread Damage states the wording is clear and doesn’t need a change so I’m very confused here?
That doesn’t mean you need more requirements AKM.
This is just some additional thing added for further support. It literally says that.
As for Tempest thread none of the issues are actually even being addressed besides saying “looks fine to me” when clearly that isn’t the case since one of the standards has literally been used another way for YEARS as far as I can tell.
The 3rd post on this thread is Damage saying that’s the only requirement Mask met.
You said it’s being used improperly, and in the other thread Damage states the wording is clear and doesn’t need a change so I’m very confused here?
Last edited:
- 1,529
- 856
not anymore
- 4,108
- 3,129
I don't know how to formulate this but everyone on this wiki CAN YOU BE ******* FAIR?
all the verses have upgrades and downgrades and they discuss the primary source material, no verse discuss what we do here like sound or new requirements I have never seen something like that with another verse, just because you don't think that bleach should be at this level doesn't mean you should go in details that even the Author doesn't care about, honestly this attitude should be stopped many knowledgeable fans are leaving the wiki because of many reasons including this one, we should try to solve problems not ignore them and do what we subjectively believe to be true even if it disagrees with the source material and contradicts the mechanism of the bleachverse.
That's all what I'm gonna say I know that this is off topic and apologize for that. I'm unfollowing this thread, have a nice day
all the verses have upgrades and downgrades and they discuss the primary source material, no verse discuss what we do here like sound or new requirements I have never seen something like that with another verse, just because you don't think that bleach should be at this level doesn't mean you should go in details that even the Author doesn't care about, honestly this attitude should be stopped many knowledgeable fans are leaving the wiki because of many reasons including this one, we should try to solve problems not ignore them and do what we subjectively believe to be true even if it disagrees with the source material and contradicts the mechanism of the bleachverse.
That's all what I'm gonna say I know that this is off topic and apologize for that. I'm unfollowing this thread, have a nice day
The_Alxhemist
Username Only- 817
- 553
Its not an HST revision thread of there isn't a side accusing others of bias against the verse.
- 11,141
- 14,180
Okay. We do this for every verse though. Stop playing the victim card. If there isn't enough evidence, there isn't enough evidence. You making a rant about it won't change a thing.
I don't think I am being unfair in my judgment here. Others still have a problem with the reflection thing, I don't. I am fine with that point. Others had a problem with the sound thing, I dropped it because it didn't seem that important. Others might have a problem with this being an outlier, I won't argue that.
But when it comes to following the standards, I believe I am in the right for questioning the things I am questioning.
Whether the statement is meant to be literal or not, is up to interpretation. I gave my reasons as to why I think what I think. You may think differently, and that's fine.
Even if the statement is taken literally, I am questioning whether it is as per the requirements of our standards because of the specific wording our requirement uses. It's a valid point according to me.
Whether this is sufficient evidence for a verse that doesn't have anything other near light speed is another valid point according to the standards because then it increases the burden of providing undeniable evidence.
Stop thinking that whatever anybody thinks about a verse will get accepted without there being a proper discussion about it and without people questioning it.
I don't think I am being unfair in my judgment here. Others still have a problem with the reflection thing, I don't. I am fine with that point. Others had a problem with the sound thing, I dropped it because it didn't seem that important. Others might have a problem with this being an outlier, I won't argue that.
But when it comes to following the standards, I believe I am in the right for questioning the things I am questioning.
Whether the statement is meant to be literal or not, is up to interpretation. I gave my reasons as to why I think what I think. You may think differently, and that's fine.
Even if the statement is taken literally, I am questioning whether it is as per the requirements of our standards because of the specific wording our requirement uses. It's a valid point according to me.
Whether this is sufficient evidence for a verse that doesn't have anything other near light speed is another valid point according to the standards because then it increases the burden of providing undeniable evidence.
Stop thinking that whatever anybody thinks about a verse will get accepted without there being a proper discussion about it and without people questioning it.
Last edited:
- 11,603
- 3,131
By characters who have the power to interact with “intangible” objects and souls. Is in their profiles look at it. You can also find the thread about it. All of these claims that you make happened in the intangible world to humans where the characters we know of can touch and interact with it.
- 21,492
- 30,820
So... y'all got nothing that says it's made out of light?
- 8,170
- 2,204
Being called a beam of light would logically mean it's well made of light.
- 21,492
- 30,820
Via the wiki's standards, no
- 21,492
- 30,820
Go read the staff discussion about this topic and see how many people agree or disagree with you, then we can have this conversation
- 20,607
- 17,607
Via the standards a ray of light is a ray composed of light.
Which can be used as a piece of evidence for a SoL rating.
- 8,170
- 2,204
Yes actually it does.
Attack is Star Flash, It is stated to be a beam of light therefore it is light.
If I used an attack called ice beam and stated it is a beam of ice are you going to ask me for a citation sayings it's actually made of ice?
Attack is Star Flash, It is stated to be a beam of light therefore it is light.
If I used an attack called ice beam and stated it is a beam of ice are you going to ask me for a citation sayings it's actually made of ice?
- 11,141
- 14,180
You can say it like that for every other requirement.
Being called a beam of light would logically mean it refracts in a new material, such as a liquid or...
Being called a beam of light would logically mean it reflects off a material that it can be expected to, such as a non-magical mirror
Being called a beam of light would logically mean it is lightspeed
Being called a beam of light would logically mean it is made of photons or light itself
Being called a beam of light would logically mean it is lightspeed
- 2,684
- 317
Says the Wiki that still doesn't have Inaccessible Speed.
- 8,170
- 2,204
No, I can't say it like that for any other requirement because it only really works for that said requirement. Since said requirement is pretty much asking is it light.
Seeing as the 1st sentence on the requirement page says most laser attacks aren't real in fiction.
Seeing as the 1st sentence on the requirement page says most laser attacks aren't real in fiction.
- 20,607
- 17,607
Personally without a direct speed statement I'm always iffy with one evidence SoL assumptions.
But as long as there's more than just the name and it operates as a beam I dont see why it can't be usable as long as it isn't inconsistent with the series speed wise.
- 31,588
- 28,049
I think it's fairly inconsistent. Characters jump up to FTL speed from previously MHS+ or Sub-Rel speeds for no real reason.
Similar threads
- Locked
