• 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: Renji and Mask

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antvasima said:
Please summarise the evidence and how that corresponds with our standards KingTempest.
Click to expand...
My pleasure.

The laser has 2 feats that are being prominently argued against as of now.
It reflected off of a reflective surface (a sword) and it is called a beam of light.

The issue with the reflective surface is/was that it wasn't really reflected I guess? That argument wasn't as clear as the other.

The other one and the main argument being pushed out now, the "beam of light", was one of the standards that got the laser previously accepted. Via my CRT from back in February, it was declined, but via Arc's CRT in early June, it was accepted.
The main issue now is that "beam of light" does not mean "beam comprised of light" which, via Arc's CRT, is incorrect and it fits the fourth standard on our laser dodging page.
  • It is stated to be composed/consisting of photons or light itself, again by a reliable source.
Click to expand...
So it reflects off of a surface and it's called a beam of light, which means it's comprised of light. These are the 2 standards being argued for as of now.
 
It reflected off of a reflective surface (a sword)
Click to expand...

I still think that this is disputable. It is just as easily "deflection" instead of "reflection". All Mask said is that his attack was "turned aside". That doesn't mean that whatever reflective property Renji's sword has is what is responsible for that.
 
Well, I suppose that Arc's thread seemed reasonable, but in the future, all revisions to our important fundamental rules/guidelines should preferably be done via our staff forum, and summon all of our senior staff members.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, I suppose that Arc's thread seemed reasonable, but in the future, all revisions to our important fundamental rules/guidelines should preferably be done via our staff forum, and summon all of our senior staff members.
Click to expand...
Arc's other thread may be reasonable, but that isn't the issue that AKM has brought up.

We should wait for AKM to be online again so he can clarify (though I think his earlier post did a good enough job of that).
 
When his argument is "beam of light is not enough for 4th R" then his argument is mute as of the new thread (which he also agreed with)
 
Anyway, KingTempest, please elaborate regarding how the information about the supposed beam of light was presented.
 
Damage3245 said:
Arc's other thread may be reasonable, but that isn't the issue that AKM has brought up.

We should wait for AKM to be online again so he can clarify (though I think his earlier post did a good enough job of that).
Click to expand...
Yes. Agreed.
 
Antvasima said:
Anyway, KingTempest, please elaborate regarding how the information about the supposed beam of light was presented.
Click to expand...
The character in question (Mask) states that he is shooting a Beam of light to kill his oponent

Said beam does not bend, explode etc. It vaporizes and so on

Has no antifeats of it being called a beam of light

2nd the beam of light is reflected/deflected of a surface such as a sword

Which fill 2 requirements

And has no antifeats
 
I thought that 3 requirements were needed to qualify, but may misremember.
 
vsbattles.fandom.com

Laser/Light Beam Dodging Feats

"Light" or "Laser" dodging is a fairly common trope seen in fiction and often the center of debate regarding characters' speeds, given that light is the fastest known thing in the real universe. This article will set forth the standards of this wiki in determining what is considered a real...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

two ive seen is the norm. Several feats/calc have been accepted with 2s
 
anyway for new comers:

25FBNqD.jpg


latest.png


光線/Kōsen beam; light ray

latest.png


0399-011.png


The beam is called light
Reflecting in a reflective material (Zanpakutô already demonstrated to be reflective )
Travel straight
Does not explode, simply burns / vaporizes what comes in contact

vsbattles.fandom.com

Renji intercepting beam of light

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

Calc itself is already accepted at 1.29c
 
Cyberblader90 said:
The beam is called light
Reflecting in a reflective material (Zanpakutô already demonstrated to be reflective )
Travel straight
Does not explode, simply burns / vaporizes what comes in contact

vsbattles.fandom.com

Renji intercepting beam of light

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

Calc itself is already accepted at 1.29c
Click to expand...
Well, I am neutral, but leaning towards finding this rather credible, then. Let's wait to see what AKM thinks about the above evidence.
 
Also, few means 2 or more. Few meaning 3 or more is a misconception, just saw talk of this earlier, so I'm here to clarify.
 
Okay. I think that DontTalk and I intended to to be 3 originally though.
 
for summary arc made this post before:

Pro-Light Speed Mask Attack
  • The laser is called a "beam of light", which as of this CRT, satisfies the fourth requirement given it is not contradicted.
  • The laser reflects off Renji's Zanpakuto, and is then re-affirmed by Mask stating his attack has been re-directed, satisfying another requirement.
    • Mask uses the phrase "turn aside", which means to deflect, and just refering to change in direction in general, as shown when it came into contact with a reflective blade.
  • Because Mask's laser has no anti-feats and meets two of the requirements it is light speed. Mask's laser was previous accepted as light speed before as well, but got removed when a CRT made it so "beam of light" doesn't satisfy the fourth requirement, but considering that change has been returned such that "beam of light" can satisfy said requirement, this thread was made.
Anti-Light Speed Mask Attack
  • Mask commonly refers to his opponents as "villains" and himself as a "hero", adding flair to his expressions by using phrases like "fist of justice", etc. Therefore, when Mask says "beam of light" he is also just being extra and dramatic, and he should not be taken seriously.
  • Damage specifically doesn't think Renji's blade reflected the attack. I'm not 100% sure how much the opposition holds this point as only Damage has really mentioned it, while the rest of the opposition is pushing hard for "hyperbolic Mask", but I figured I'd include it for transparency.
 
Let me post again what I've already posted a hundred times now because apparently that's what we're doing in this thread, making circular arguments.

The statement from mask is: "A villain shall die by a hero's beam of light"

According to the statement, one could say that the attack is called a light beam. Now let's look at the particular requirement it needs to satisfy, which all light beams need to satisfy in order to pass for the speed of light.

Quoting the light beam dodging page:
  • Therefore, lasers/light beams are only accepted as real if they meet, at a minimum, a few of these criteria:

We already consider that the attack in question is a light beam, and it additionally needs to fulfill the following requirement:
  • It is stated to be composed/consisting of photons or light itself, again by a reliable source.
In one of the threads, we had concluded that this standard exists because not every "laser" or "light beam" is real light. Hence, we need reliable info that states that the attack is composed of photons/light.

In a previous thread, we also concluded that being called "beam of light" can fulfill this requirement, but under the conditions that this statement has to be reliable. (Note that the conclusion of this thread was never reflected or applied in the standards page, so in a way, it is still not concluded. We need to conclude that properly.)

Quoting DontTalkDT from said thread:
I mean, that's ok I guess, although it weighs much less in favour of it than a scientific description such as "consists of photons".
One also needs to consider that the statement needs to be reliable, which in case of such a description is more of an issue. A random person might describe any glowing energy beam as a "beam of light", as that's their subjective impression of it and what's the closest thing they know to what they have witnessed, not because they know what it actually is and are trying to give an accurate description.
Click to expand...

The source and context play an important role in determining reliability. As DT said, simply being called "beam of light" is not enough without looking at the context. In the example he gave, a random user can describe any glowing energy as a beam of light as per their subjective impression.

An acceptable case of a reliable statement having the words "beam of light", would be a scientist or a reliable source going into detail about said attack: "this energy attack is a beam of light that has certain effects yada yada yada".

And this is where the misunderstanding is. People seem to think that any mention of "beam of light" fulfills the standard, something that was not accepted in the thread.

That's all for explaining the standards. Now let's take a look at this particular case.



Mask said: "The villain shall die by a hero's beam of light".

Just with a look, you can discern that this statement is not stated in a matter-of-fact way. This is not an elaborate explanation of the attack that informs us what it does or what it's made of. The purpose of this statement is to tell a character that he is going to die at the hand of Mask, with a "beam of light" phrase added without further context.

More importantly, let's take a look at Mask's character, since he is the person speaking. Something to know about Mask is he has a habit of adding flair to his language. He calls his attacks "punches and headbutts of justice", he refers to himself as a "star", that his "soul is burning up with justice". All of these are hyperboles.

Let's look at the statement again after taking the into account that Mask has a habit of adding flair and using hyperboles: "The villain shall die by a hero's beam of light".
The way this statement is delivered with the usage of terms like "villain" and "hero", it can easily be interpreted as something symbolic. Like villains, who are linked with darkness, shall perish at the hands of a hero, who spread light. All the talk about "justice this and justice that", this flowery language perfectly fits Mask. You can see the similarities between "headbutt of justice" and "hero's beam of light". Both justice and light are spread by the heroes in the world.



Let's recap:
  • There is a misunderstanding as to what was accepted in the previous thread (since it was never applied on the page).
  • Misunderstanding is that any mention of "beam of light", with no context whatsoever, is enough to fulfill the fourth requirement.
  • The reality is that it's not enough, context is important. "Beam of light" or "light beam" is already taken into account which additionally needs to fulfill the fourth requirement.
  • A mention of "beam of light" will only fulfill the requirement under the conditions that the statement is highly reliable, delivered in a matter-of-fact way, by a reliable source.
  • Mask's statement only has a good old "beam of light" which could refer to anything that glows, and still be true. Unless it is expanded upon with more information in a reliable manner, keeping the above point in mind, it's not fulfilling the requirement.
  • Mask also has a history of using such flowery language like "headbutt of justice" and all the stuff about heroes and villains, and "hero's beam of light" is very likely a part of that, which puts even more dent on the statement's reliability.
 
Last edited:
AKM sama said:
And yet you brought up a gun example. Hence, false equivalency.


I have already responded to everything in my comments.
The standards are being misinterpreted or misunderstood. "Light beam" already needs to fulfill the fourth requirement. "Beam of light" thing should be stated in a matter of fact way so that we know it's reliable. The statement here looks very flowery. The other requirements don't matter on their own as they are fulfilled by any generic energy beam. There is nothing else to say. If you don't want to get this thread concluded, then sure, let's keep doing this same song and dance for 4 more pages.
Click to expand...
DivineAura44 said:
This is mate in a few. First, let's ask why is he not reliable?
Click to expand...
 
As for the other points about how it fulfills the standard, I'll just quote DT on that since it's easier.

Wait so if Mask's attack isn't a beam then what is it?
Because other than the fact that he himself called it a beam..
it moved in a straight line.
didn't bend.
was reflected.
didn't explode.
All this supports the already giving statement.
Click to expand...

"To point out a common mistake here: The bolded things don't really support things at all.
The light beam calc page differentiates between feats that support real light and feats that disprove real light, because the negation of one isn't the other.
It's like: Something being fluid at room temperature means that it isn't iron. But something being solid at room temperature, like iron is, hardly supports the claim that it is iron. That's because all kinds of stuff that isn't iron are also solid at room temperature.
This is similar. A high-pressure water cutter would also fulfill those three points, but is obviously not light. Not to say that attack is that. However, generic energy beams also can have all of those properties.
So, while not having those properties could disprove it being real light (well, technically a real light laser could cause explosions if it vaporizes stuff), having these properties doesn't support it."

Before anybody brings these up again, these are not the matter of concern, because these requirements are fulfilled by any generic energy beam. The main core of this problem is the issue I addressed above, not this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Twisted_Little_Raven
  • Locked
Base Aizen and Yamamoto downgrade or Byakuya and Renji Upgrade. Possible can't fear your own world anti canon.
2
Replies
63
Views
4K
Twisted_Little_Raven
Twisted_Little_Raven
Arc7Kuroi
  • Locked
LowTierBleach
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
LordTracer
LordTracer
Majinere566
Should Goddess Magic be Lightspeed? ( Nanatsu No Taizai Thread)
2 3
Replies
89
Views
5K
Majinere566
Majinere566
Arc7Kuroi
  • Locked
Hollow Mask Markiplier
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
LordTracer
LordTracer
Damage3245
One-Punch Man - Atomic Samurai and Psykos Calcs Removal
Replies
39
Views
4K
Shadow_x007x
Shadow_x007x
Back
Top