Conceptual Manipulation: Not all Concepts are Created (or destroyed) Equal

[Kaltias]

I'm guessing we need to assign these new types to the existing Concept manipulators? (aren't that many so it shouldn't be that hard)

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Concept_Users

There is actually a fair amount of them

Edit: Also what Ant linked

 

[Assaltwaffle]

How much you wanna bet half of these don't even give reasoning for it?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, you don't have to insert specifications to those.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Alright. Is there a type of Concept manip we should default to in battles if we can't ascertain the Type?

 

[Antvasima]

I do not think that would be appropriate. Just leave the pages as they are in that case.

Our members will likely gradually improve on the specifications over time.

 

[Kaltias]

Alright. Is there a type of Concept manip we should default to in battles if we can't ascertain the Type?

I don't think that we should default them as anything. Just look for someone knowledegeable and ask them to make a CRT with proper evidence about the type of CM

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply adding types to the pages.

I just meant that, if they are used in a battle without a type, what do we treat it as?

 

[Antvasima]

I do not know. Sorry.

 

[Agnaa]

If they're used in a battle without a type, in my humble non-staff opinion, we should wait for someone knowledgeable in the verse to come around and describe it before it can be used (or until then assume it's the weakest form of concept manip described on concept manip's page). Perhaps asking those who edited it in for comment.

 

[Antvasima]

Waiting seems like the best option to me.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I'm fine with just not using unexplained concept manip.

For the characters we have knowledgeable members on, I guess I should probably ask them.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That seems fine.

 

[Aeyu]

I agree with Agnaa and Ant on this one.

I can help with some of the Concept Manip users in verses I've worked on, at least. It will be a collaborative effort and it probably doesn't matter if some are just kept "concept manip" like how Regenerationn can sometimes be just basically described.

 

[Crzer07]

Well, even then the explanations may not be good enough for you. For example, "able to create the concept of a witch", is that good enough or would we still not get it? Or something like "can modifying the representation of the continuum to suit and match the the observers idea of a civil war" and "manifesting metaphors" and we could all be like "you [insert said character's name]-tard, that's not concept manip". So it really doesn't matter whether we assign a type or try to justify it in our own words, we have created such a complicated ability that there is no satisfactory way of ensuring their qualification unless we get them to write a long ass essay just for that one ability, and even then we may not get that so in the end it is all moot.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I don't mean proof in that way. What KIND of concept is said "concept of a witch"

 

[RRTheEndMan]

How do we chose the type when it isn't specified? Like "can manipulate the concept of space"

 

[Agnaa]

I'd suggest it should be like most things on the wiki, assume the lowest thing that holds consistently with the feats presented.

Like how we don't assume existence erasure also erases from nonexistence unless it explicitly demonstrates to do so.

So assume Lesser Realist unless it's shown to govern reality, when it's assumed to be Aristotelian, unless the concept is shown to be transcendent above reality and doesn't exist alongside the concept, and so on.

 

[Kaltias]

^ Pretty much this

(Palkia is Aristotelian if that's what you meant)