Conceptual Manipulation Clarifications/Revisions

[Promestein]

It doesn't matter whether names are Type 1 or Type 2, it's just for the sake of the argument.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

I know..I was just trying to express that relation between concept and object should be more important criteria than anything else.

 

[Vietthai96]

At this we point we just nuke all and replace with Abstract Manipulation like @QuasiYuri suggested lol

 

[deonment]

no, thats even worse, the number of powers that would be put into it would be far too many to have it be worth it, a reminder that abstract stuff for us includes thoughts, dreams, laws, ideas, concepts, and even more that I cant remember off the top of my head right now

 

[Antvasima]

Deonment is most likely correct.

 

[Vietthai96]

no, thats even worse, the number of powers that would be put into it would be far too many to have it be worth it, a reminder that abstract stuff for us includes thoughts, dreams, laws, ideas, concepts, and even more that I cant remember off the top of my head right now

well it is just a joke, but if people fear of creating one or two more abilities, we all just merge most of them into a single thing

 

[QuasiYuri]

no, thats even worse, the number of powers that would be put into it would be far too many to have it be worth it, a reminder that abstract stuff for us includes thoughts, dreams, laws, ideas, concepts, and even more that I cant remember off the top of my head right now

Ideas and concepts are the exact same thing tho. The point is that people want to make too many useless distinctions.

 

[Promestein]

All we need are two types and all we need to do is specify on whatever given character's page.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @AKM sama

We would appreciate some help with trying to get this revision properly evaluated so we get it right.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Ichibe is manipulating the name, that is, the embodiment of what a thing is. The idea is changing Conceptual Manipulation to have controlling ideas (and similar abstractions) be the baseline, not the changing of the universe's fundamental principles.

An idea in common sense is an aspect of the mind. Not every idea (and much less any abstraction) should be concept manipulation. That would be diluting the ability in having no consistent effects and nature. That would be vast overgeneralization.

Again, it fundamentally is the manipulation of the abstraction, just not necessarily on a universal scale, and the problem is that we automatically slap 'universal scale' as the baseline for every concept in fiction, which is dumb.

Yeah, automatically slapping 'universal scale' on stuff is dumb. However, that was not the point of my concerns. My concern lies in that we are throwing completly different things, with different natures and different effects into the same bucket to avoid thinking about the subject.

Also, for the sake of an argument, the name itself could be a Type 2 or Type 1 concept. Could someone with resistance to Type 2 Conceptual Manipulation resist Type 1 Conceptual Manipulation, even if it's used in a non-universal context? No, not at all. This shouldn't be and can't be a third type as such; it's a matter of scope, not in the nature of what's being affected, and the nature of what's being affected can still be a Type 2 or Type 1 concept.

If anything, it'd have to be like, a subtype, but I think that's stupid and I still think we should just keep it at two types and make people specify.

A name in general should not be a concept at all. It's just a word.
Names as the special things Ichibe manipulates have more ground, but IMO lack proof of changing properties themself instead of just switching them out.
I mean, plot manipulation can do that too, but is plot manipulation by default also concept manipulation? I don't think so. It transforms things by changing something abstract (plot), but it doesn't influence what we would call concepts, exactly as it doesn't change fundamental principles.


Anyway, another suggestion which is really the lowest common denominator: We remove the universal range thing, but aside from that keep Type 1 and 2 just as concept manipulation in stricter sense.
In addition to that we create an "other" type, like I did for the Accelerated Development page to catch exceptions. That is then the type for stuff that can't be properly classified by the other types and, since it has no requirements, is the 'think for yourself'-type which does absolutely nothing without explanations on the profile (and can for that matter potentially be resisted by resistance against other abilities if the feats imply such).

 

[Promestein]

A name in general should not be a concept at all. It's just a word.

Well yeah, obviously, I was never saying that, I was talking in the sense of Ichibe's ability.

Plot manipulation is completely different.

An idea in common sense is an aspect of the mind. Not every idea (and much less any abstraction) should be concept manipulation. That would be diluting the ability in having no consistent effects and nature. That would be vast overgeneralization.

When said ideas are depicted as abstractions, and the manipulation of them in any way affects reality, it should be concept manipuation. What else would it be? Ichibe's ability alters these abstractions and in doing so affects reality.

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalk seems to make some good points above, as usual.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Plot manipulation is completely different.

How is it different? Plot is abstract and manipulating it affects reality. By your definition, any manipulation of something abstract that affects reality is supposed to be concept manipulation, so this would logically be as well.

When said ideas are depicted as abstractions, and the manipulation of them in any way affects reality, it should be concept manipuation. What else would it be? Ichibe's ability alters these abstractions and in doing so affects reality.

It should be a separate thing. Ideally an ability for changing properties or alternatively a different type of concept manip. Or, if we don't do that, then it would be the sum of the demonstrated effects (i.e. taking away powers is powernull, reducing stats stat reduction etc.).


Anyway, what do you think of my suggestion regarding the "other"-section?

 

[Promestein]

Plot Manipulation is a specific ability, not a different and general ability being saddled with this or grouped in. If an ability inflicts Power Nullification or Statistics Reduction through conceptual means, as Ichibe's does, then it should still be counted as Conceptual Manipulation.

I think the other section is way too vague to be of any use.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

It should be a separate thing. Ideally an ability for changing properties or alternatively a different type of concept manip. Or, if we don't do that, then it would be the sum of the demonstrated effects (i.e. taking away powers is powernull, reducing stats stat reduction etc.).

This is understandable as far as alteration or replacement of concepts is concerned. But what about Creation and Destruction??

Also from your proposal of "Essence Manipulation" I interpreted something.
Concept and its Manipulation may not necessitate them be of similar nature.

Concepts can have different types sure. But 1)altering properties of concepts, 2)Creation and Destruction of Concepts is Concept Manipulation. While altering /creating /destroying the properties of interaction between concept and its object can end up as Essence Manipulation.

For example an Concept can be Type 1 or 2 etc, but user manipulating it can end up with Essence Manipulation instead of Concept Manipulation.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Plot Manipulation is a specific ability, not a different and general ability being saddled with this or grouped in.

Problem is, your suggested definition doesn't make it a different thing at all. You can't define concept manipulation as something which plot manipulation also fulfils per default and then say it is a different ability anyway. If you do not adjust your proposed definition in a fashion that it actually doesn't meet the standards for being concept manipulation it makes no sense to say it isn't.

Anything abstract that influences reality is just not specific enough. Let me remind you that we for instance grant High-Godly Regeneration for surviving the deletion of one's concept. With a definition that allows anything abstract that affects reality to meet that standard, massive inflation in that respect is to be expected. Same for the inverse of overcoming regeneration levels via the ability.

I think the other section is way too vague to be of any use.

Yet your proposal is to make all types exactly that vague. You don't want the sections to be specific, you don't want a section to put vague stuff. I just can't see what appeal you find in that proposal.

This is understandable as far as alteration or replacement of concepts is concerned. But what about Creation and Destruction??

Considering the context, I don't understand what you mean with the question. Which definition of concept do you mean there?

Also from your proposal of "Essence Manipulation" I interpreted something.
Concept and its Manipulation may not necessitate them be of similar nature.

Concepts can have different types sure. But 1)altering properties of concepts, 2)Creation and Destruction of Concepts is Concept Manipulation. While altering /creating /destroying the properties of interaction between concept and its object can end up as Essence Manipulation.

For example an Concept can be Type 1 or 2 etc, but user manipulating it can end up with Essence Manipulation instead of Concept Manipulation.

I'm not sure I follow.

Is what you mean to say that while creating, destroying or changing a concept itself is concept manipulation, one could say that changing the properties of an object (i.e. performing Essence Manipulation) is fundamentally the same as changing which concepts the object "participates" in?

 

[Promestein]

Yet your proposal is to make all types exactly that vague. You don't want the sections to be specific, you don't want a section to put vague stuff. I just can't see what appeal you find in that proposal.

I want character pages to be specific. That's always better than needlessly adding more and more onto one page, giving more and more confusing information that users have to sort through.

Anything abstract that influences reality is just not specific enough. Let me remind you that we for instance grant High-Godly Regeneration for surviving the deletion of one's concept. With a definition that allows anything abstract that affects reality to meet that standard, massive inflation in that respect is to be expected. Same for the inverse of overcoming regeneration levels via the ability.

We have to apply such big abiities through the analysis of things on a case-by-case basis. If it's not appropriate in a character's case, it's not appropriate in that character's case.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Considering the context, I don't understand what you mean with the question. Which definition of concept do you mean there?

Honestly I never considered that factor of different definition of concept, not that I'd be able to properly visualise them.

Lets go with general definition. Concept of time/space, laws , emotions, stars, or concept of existence of some specific species or some individual in said species....etc.

I'm not sure I follow.

Is what you mean to say that while creating, destroying or changing a concept itself is concept manipulation, one could say that changing the properties of an object (i.e. performing Essence Manipulation) is fundamentally the same as changing which concepts the object "participates" in?

Quite the opposite actually, I was entertaining your proposal that both are different kinds of manipulations.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Honestly I never considered that factor of different definition of concept, not that I'd be able to properly visualise them.

Lets go with general definition. Concept of time/space, laws , emotions, stars, or concept of existence of some specific species or some individual in said species....etc.

Quite the opposite actually, I was entertaining your proposal that both are different kinds of manipulations.

Hmmmm... I have to be honest here. I'm completely lost on what you are trying to say. I'm very sorry about that.

Your first question was "But what about Creation and Destruction?"
Have you spotted a problem or unclearness in what we were debating when it comes to creation/destruction of concepts? If so, can you explain in more detail what it is?

I want character pages to be specific. That's always better than needlessly adding more and more onto one page, giving more and more confusing information that users have to sort through.

We have to apply such big abiities through the analysis of things on a case-by-case basis. If it's not appropriate in a character's case, it's not appropriate in that character's case.

Isn't an "others" section perfect for that purpose?

We can put something like this:

• Others: Various other types of abstractions which can be manipulated to affect reality, but don't exactly meet one of the other definitions, are imaginable. In that case, this type should be listed and an explanation regarding the nature of the concepts and uses of the ability is required on the page. Due to the wide variety of things of this nature, the relationship to the other types and to other abilities needs to be determined from said explanation on the page. As such it is, amongst others, possible that regenerating from erasure in body, mind, soul and such a concept doesn't grant High-Godly Regeneration or that concept manipulation of this type can be resisted by resistance to a completly different ability of sufficiently similar nature and feats.

If that isn't a strong prompt towards making the character page specific I don't know what is.
It would mean that either the concept manipulation is that specific thing we define in Type 1 and 2 or one has to put detailed explanations to make the ability worth anything. That should encourage people to put in the effort.

 

[Promestein]

But the thing is, what we've been talking about - Ichibe's names - doesn't not meet the standards of abstractions, it just is manipulated differently. It's not a third type, it's just one of those types altered in a different way from what you want to be the base. The abstraction isn't different, the ability is, and as it is the types that currently exist define types of abstractions, not how they're manipulated - and as I said before, an abstraction could be a Type 1 concept and still be manipulated in such a way.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

To be honest I've always found Concept Manipulation to be a very confusing ability. For some verses it's applied easily to things that don't effect reality on a universal scale and for others it absolutely needs to to qualify which seems pretty inconsistent.

I always thought Concept Manipulation was manipulating--whether that's destroying, creating, altering, inverting, etc.--the abstract "idea" of any "thing". Like a minor use would be changing the properties of things like air and water to become completely different such as solid and unmoving, or making space physical and walkable and all of this is achieved through direct alterations or removals of what governs how they function or work, because simply freezing or having manipulation of these could also grant such effects, though you can absolutely have conceptual power over a particular element or thing as well, which is where the higher applications come in for those specific abilities.

Often times in fiction there are cases where a being who embodies a concept and is responsible for it's existence can be killed and the concept lives on, but in other series it will die with it's progenitor, which is how I imagine we had the different Types come up to better classify these examples.

These other abilities that can crossover with Concept Manipulation only add to the frustration and confusion. The other proposed abilities are just a consequence of having such a vague and broad ability listed, as a "Concept" can be applied in many different ways. However, we do have Mind Manipulation, Possession, Willpower Manipulation, Empathic Manipulation, and Corruption listed separately despite the VERY common overlaps in fiction and despite everything being a subset of Mind Manipulation and that's because they all warrant their own profiles as some characters only specialize in a specific subset of Mind Manipulation.

For these new abilities to be properly implemented perhaps we should focus on finding very specific examples that would better fit these proposed abilities instead of the more general Concept Manipulation, and if we can't then perhaps it's not a good idea.

 

[DontTalkDT]

But the thing is, what we've been talking about - Ichibe's names - doesn't not meet the standards of abstractions, it just is manipulated differently. It's not a third type, it's just one of those types altered in a different way from what you want to be the base. The abstraction isn't different, the ability is, and as it is the types that currently exist define types of abstractions, not how they're manipulated - and as I said before, an abstraction could be a Type 1 concept and still be manipulated in such a way.

It might be some sort of abstraction, but I don't see how it is a type 1 or 2 concept.
The current definition is that a type 1 concept is like the "circleness" in which all circles participate (i.e. the fundamental source of a property) and one of the universe's fundamental principles that govern reality.
Maybe I'm forgetting what Bleach said in that regard, I'm not an expert in the verse, but from what I recall names were never said to amount to that. It was just that one could manipulate names to change the properties of things to some extend. In fact, didn't Ichibei decide the names of some things after they were created?
In another verse similar transformation could be achieved through manipulation of a fundamental energy field or something. Since the effect is the same I don't see why we would treat doing it via names different, just because a name is something abstract.

Anyways, ultimately this shouldn't be about Ichibei's case in particular. The debate might be useful as an example, but I hope we can agree that we shouldn't lay out our standards for Bleach. What it qualifies for can in principle be debated later.

What's important is which definition for concept we ultimately use. As I see it, and as the page defines it to this point, a type 1 concept is an abstract thing which is the source of a properties existence and nature. Something can only have the property a concept represents by 'participating' in it. Without doing so having the property should be impossible. By that nature it governs reality.
It is not just an abstract thing which's manipulation can have some sort of effect on reality. It's specifically an abstract source of properties, by current definition.
Personally, I don't think we should deviate from that for type 1 & 2.

 

[Promestein]

The point isn't that Ichibe's ability specifically is Type 1, but that an ability could exist that manipulates concepts and properties on a specific scale. This is what I said earlier - I said, for the sake of argument. You're misunderstanding the point that I'm making, which is that switching out a property of a Type 1 concept is still Type 1 concept manipulation, even if the concept itself is not fundamentally and wholly redefined. Same with type 2.

 

[Antvasima]

I still think that DontTalk seems to make good points. My apologies Promestein.

 

[DontTalkDT]

The point isn't that Ichibe's ability specifically is Type 1, but that an ability could exist that manipulates concepts and properties on a specific scale. This is what I said earlier - I said, for the sake of argument. You're misunderstanding the point that I'm making, which is that switching out a property of a Type 1 concept is still Type 1 concept manipulation, even if the concept itself is not fundamentally and wholly redefined. Same with type 2.

Provided that concept in question is the source of a property in itself then sure.

So that we're clear: We agree that changing an abstraction in a fashion that affects reality is not Type 1 or 2, unless said abstraction has demonstrated being the fundamental source of a property?

 

[Promestein]

Yeah sure, I guess.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Alright... so where do we stand then?
The universal requirement gets removed, but otherwise Type 1 & 2 stays the same. I think everyone agrees with that much.

So what about Type 3? "Others" is probably the easiest compromise (and would technically need no revisions to existing profiles). We also had other options on the table, though. I'm just not sure if any option has a great amount of agreement at this point.

 

[Promestein]

I don't like the "Others" option, because Type 1 and Type 2 can still involve manipulating properties as such, and doing as such may be their only feat.

 

[DontTalkDT]

It would make it easier to classify cases where it is not very clear whether they are Type 1 or 2 concept manip, though. Not all fiction is very clear on the matter. Concepts (or other abstractions) frequently are manipulated without really explaining what their nature is in detail.

What would your alternative suggestion regarding Type 3 be?

 

[Promestein]

I guess you could just go with some sort of generic Type 3...?

 

[Vietthai96]

I still think about keeping type 3 for some kind of safe zone. For example, a character name Toujo Basara, he is said to have a conceptual attack, but nothing more than that; and Siren from Azur Lane, they said that they can control the very fundamental, concept part of the pocket dimension they create, but nothing more than that, and we can't just assume they automatically govern reality universally. Or Tobio from Highschool DxD, he can destroy the concept of magic.

 

[Promestein]

That's what I meant.

 

[Antvasima]

So you (DontTalk and Promestein) have reached an agreement here then? If so, is one of you willing to apply the conclusions?

 

[DontTalkDT]

I guess you could just go with some sort of generic Type 3...?

I still think about keeping type 3 for some kind of safe zone. For example, a character name Toujo Basara, he is said to have a conceptual attack, but nothing more than that; and Siren from Azur Lane, they said that they can control the very fundamental, concept part of the pocket dimension they create, but nothing more than that, and we can't just assume they automatically govern reality universally. Or Tobio from Highschool DxD, he can destroy the concept of magic.

That's what I meant.

Wouldn't that be the Others type?

If not can I get a specific suggestion for the text of Type 3 that would follow this suggestion, so that I can understand it in more detail?

 

[Vietthai96]

Wouldn't that be the Others type?

If not can I get a specific suggestion for the text of Type 3 that would follow this suggestion, so that I can understand it in more detail?

1. What do you mean by other type
...let us make a Type 4, microscopic scale @.@

2. Anyway, yeah, i think we should make type 3 more specific.....

 

[Antvasima]

Just a note that I think that Promestein has gone on vacation for some time, so it may take a while until she can respond here.

 

[DontTalkDT]

1. What do you mean by other type
...let us make a Type 4, microscopic scale @.@

2. Anyway, yeah, i think we should make type 3 more specific.....

I mean what I suggested further above:

• Others: Various other types of abstractions which can be manipulated to affect reality, but don't exactly meet one of the other definitions, are imaginable. In that case, this type should be listed and an explanation regarding the nature of the concepts and uses of the ability is required on the page. Due to the wide variety of things of this nature, the relationship to the other types and to other abilities needs to be determined from said explanation on the page. As such it is, amongst others, possible that regenerating from erasure in body, mind, soul and such a concept doesn't grant High-Godly Regeneration or that concept manipulation of this type can be resisted by resistance to a completly different ability of sufficiently similar nature and feats.

I.e. a type to catch all cases of concept manipulation which aren't clear or don't meet one of the requirements for Type 1 or 2.

 

[Promestein]

I prefer 'Type 3' to 'Others'. Simply a matter of names there.

 

[Vietthai96]

We goes at each other throat again lol

Anyway i fine with either name because it is mostly just name, but i do prefer keep the name "Type 3" rather than using "Other".
Also i am thinking about rename Type 3 from Lesser Realist Concept to Local, Personal Concept. When we revise conceptual, we change type 1 and 2 to universal independant and universal dependant, the two name itself is really direct and easy to understand. But type 3 we still keeping the name Lesser Realist Concept which to many peoples, hard to grasp the meaning at first sight

I mean what I suggested further above:

I.e. a type to catch all cases of concept manipulation which aren't clear or don't meet one of the requirements for Type 1 or 2.

We should also fix some information on Regeneration page, High Godly section or people will just goes wild with High Godly when they saw someone regen from conceptual destruction. Anyway i'm in full agreement with description, as resist the effect of a local type can be resist by other type of resistance

Hey Ant what is your opinion

 

[Promestein]

Also i am thinking about rename Type 3 from Lesser Realist Concept to Local, Personal Concept. When we revise conceptual, we change type 1 and 2 to universal independant and universal dependant, the two name itself is really direct and easy to understand. But type 3 we still keeping the name Lesser Realist Concept which to many peoples, hard to grasp the meaning at first sight

I like that idea, personally. Local personal concept in such cases as where the individual concept is abstract and governs the individual. I think of Fate/shit with everyone's own concepts of x