Conversation as the main argument to invalidate a feat

[Leloutchis134]

@Mr. Bambu allowed me to do this.

Hi, I'm new here and I didn't want to waste anyone's time, but since I use VSBW as a source for my powerscaling discussions, including its rules and information about characters that I don't know, I feel I have to try to ensure the integrity of the Wiki.

I noticed that there is no rule on this wiki that prevents the use of arguments that ignore some narrative devices, such as Voice being FTL, FTL characters are not invisible or Talking is a free action. But If we use this kind of argument we would not have characters above sound speed because they communicate during the fight, we wouldn't have FTL characters because the author doesn't make the characters at that speed invisible to the human eye. I know most here abstain from using this kinda of argument, but as there is no rule that prevents it it can be used and accepted without consequences.


I'm here specifically to talk about the "Talking is a free action". In a thread, a staff member uses the characters' conversation and contemplation as the main argument against a feat, but we have this in practically all fiction, as well as the other two narrative devices, and it's common sense to ignore these points in order to preserve the narrative and the powerscaling.


I believe this is the case for a few reasons: we know that the author doesn't create his story for powerscaling purposes, because using conversation as a measure of time can destroy the narrative, or because we have no way of inventing a universal way of measuring the time of a conversation, for example: if we go by the number of words, there will be the problem of the difference between the original language and English, when translating there will be a reduction or addition of words, even in cases where the number of words is the same there will still be problems, people don't speak at the same speed even when speaking the same language, let alone when speaking different languages. We would have to guess the speed of the character's speech and in my opinion that is very arbitrary. I believe Powerscaling will be fine without this.

It would be extremely unfair if we use this for just one verse and that would reduce the credibility of the information we get from the Wiki. I may not agree with everything that happens here, but what I like is that everything has rules that must be followed, What makes me use this Wiki as a source of information is precisely that, but I would not use if the arguments were so arbitrary as "I don't think that this conversation is happening in X times, so that feat can't be in Y speed".


I believe that there is a need for rules in relation to this, this type of argument is arbitrary and can lead to a big difference between verses only because in a verse staff members chose to use conversations to invalidate feats. I read the rules and it says: "It is important to remember that all staff members, regardless of their rank, have a responsibility to act in the best interests of each verse by prioritizing accuracy and quality above personal preferences or biases. Staff members should strive to approach the evaluation of content revision threads with an open mind and a willingness to consider the perspectives of others." But we know that it is impossible for human beings to be completely impartial, much less in a situation of self-interest, I believe that everyone here knows what is confirmation bias. Hence the need for limiting rules.

 

[Samlex1234]

This is beautifully written. I was planning to bring up the same issue, but honestly, I couldn’t have expressed it better myself. Thank you!

 

[Demon_Lord18]

This is beautifully written. I was planning to bring up the same issue, but honestly, I couldn’t have expressed it better myself. Thank you!

This is a staff thread. Only staff members can comment.

 

[DontTalkDT]

This is a very case-by-case thing IMO.
Generally, a conversation taking place during a feat doesn't exactly support it. Talking can be a free action, but one should check against the time-measuring method used in the feat to see how it compares in reliability.

It also depends on the nature of the conversation.
On one hand, you have things like 3 characters going "wow, he's doing it!" in the middle of a sword swing.
On the other hand, you have things like characters having a lengthy debate about history while walking through a park and then arguing that "talking is a free action and they could be moving at super speed as these are Mach 200 characters".
I think there is a nuance to be had here.

 

[Damage3245]

I noticed that there is no rule on this wiki that prevents the use of arguments that ignore some narrative devices, such as Voice being FTL, FTL characters are not invisible or Talking is a free action. But If we use this kind of argument we would not have characters above sound speed because they communicate during the fight, we wouldn't have FTL characters because the author doesn't make the characters at that speed invisible to the human eye. I know most here abstain from using this kinda of argument, but as there is no rule that prevents it it can be used and accepted without consequences.

While those are common narrative conventions that we sometimes have to employ in order for some scenes to make any sense at all, they're not really something that can be proven to exist for all scenes. We only really use them when there's no other choice, and I don't think it makes sense to assert through the use of a rule that there is never any ambiguity in these cases.

I'm here specifically to talk about the "Talking is a free action". In a thread, a staff member uses the characters' conversation and contemplation as the main argument against a feat, but we have this in practically all fiction, as well as the other two narrative devices, and it's common sense to ignore these points in order to preserve the narrative and the powerscaling.

For the record, the scene in question being reference is in Chapter 613 of the Naruto manga. Where a projectile is fired across country-spanning distances, and in the time that it takes to reach its target destination the characters are able to react to it, contemplate the situation, discuss it, strategize, etc.

The problem arises in that naturally for such a situation to occur, the events taking place for the characters to have these multiple discussions and be shown in contemplation must be a longer than a few seconds - and yet if through powerscaling we assume the speed of the projectile to be travelling at Faster Than Light velocities then we end up with the timespan actually being a fraction of a millisecond long.

Which then leads to conflict between A) The narrative presented by the author, which is that the projectile is slow enough for the events to take place simultaneously to its travel time, and B) Our powerscaling assumptions that the velocity of the projectile must be FTL speeds.

We end up putting our own assumption over the narrative supplied to us by the author of the work.

I believe this is the case for a few reasons: we know that the author doesn't create his story for powerscaling purposes, because using conversation as a measure of time can destroy the narrative, or because we have no way of inventing a universal way of measuring the time of a conversation, for example: if we go by the number of words, there will be the problem of the difference between the original language and English, when translating there will be a reduction or addition of words, even in cases where the number of words is the same there will still be problems, people don't speak at the same speed even when speaking the same language, let alone when speaking different languages. We would have to guess the speed of the character's speech and in my opinion that is very arbitrary. I believe Powerscaling will be fine without this.

If we know the author doesn't create the story in mind for powerscaling, then why we do we take some statements from authors at their word when they arbitrarily declare an attack to be "lightspeed" without showing any indication of awareness of just how exceptionally fast the speed of light is? It seems to me that if it is convenient for our powerscaling then we take whatever the author gives us as unquestionable evidence.

It would be extremely unfair if we use this for just one verse and that would reduce the credibility of the information we get from the Wiki. I may not agree with everything that happens here, but what I like is that everything has rules that must be followed, What makes me use this Wiki as a source of information is precisely that, but I would not use if the arguments were so arbitrary as "I don't think that this conversation is happening in X times, so that feat can't be in Y speed".

I agree that it shouldn't be selectively employed just for a singular verse.

This is a very case-by-case thing IMO.
Generally, a conversation taking place during a feat doesn't exactly support it. Talking can be a free action, but one should check against the time-measuring method used in the feat to see how it compares in reliability.

It also depends on the nature of the conversation.
On one hand, you have things like 3 characters going "wow, he's doing it!" in the middle of a sword swing.
On the other hand, you have things like characters having a lengthy debate about history while walking through a park and then arguing that "talking is a free action and they could be moving at super speed as these are Mach 200 characters".
I think there is a nuance to be had here.

I agree with this too.

Not all "Talking is a Free Action" type scenes are exactly the same.

For example, DIO from Jojo's Bizarre Adventure, is able to take a number of actions and speak a lot in a timespan that is canonically only 5 seconds long, so it would be folly to try and use his actions to argue that his timestop is longer than it is stated to be. But in this scenario DIO is a superhuman vampire capable of moving and acting much faster than humans, and more importantly there is an explicit mention of time that would overrule it. Something that isn't present in the Naruto example where there is no exactly stated measurement of time.

 

[Leloutchis134]

This is a very case-by-case thing IMO.
Generally, a conversation taking place during a feat doesn't exactly support it. Talking can be a free action, but one should check against the time-measuring method used in the feat to see how it compares in reliability.

It also depends on the nature of the conversation.
On one hand, you have things like 3 characters going "wow, he's doing it!" in the middle of a sword swing.
On the other hand, you have things like characters having a lengthy debate about history while walking through a park and then arguing that "talking is a free action and they could be moving at super speed as these are Mach 200 characters".
I think there is a nuance to be had here.

But this is not the case here, I'm talking talking about situations when if chose to use conversation as a measure of time destroys the whole narrative, if in the situation it is said and shown that they are walking through the park in FTL you shouldn't use conversation as a measure of time to invalidate it just because you don't think that the conversation happened too fast, like Superman and Flash having a conversation while they are running in high speed, you can't just use the conversation argument to say that they aren't in high speed. Especially when we have the entire narrative saying that they are in that speed.

 

[Damage3245]

But this is not the case here, I'm talking talking about situations when if chose to use conversation as a measure of time destroys the whole narrative, if in the situation it is said and shown that they are walking through the park in FTL you shouldn't use conversation as a measure of time to invalidate it just because you don't think that the conversation happened too fast, like Superman and Flash having a conversation while they are running in high speed, you can't just use the conversation argument to say that they aren't in high speed. Especially when we have the entire narrative saying that they are in that speed.

Another example: Madara says that Guy is so fast that he is distorting space, we have proof that other characters are much faster than lightning and Guy is faster than him, But in the middle of the fight between Guy and Madara there is a conversation between Minato, Gaara and Kakashi, a conversation that should be long but the fight between Guy and Madara that should be happening in this meantime It does not seem to have any kind of advancement of time if we use the conversation as a measure of time then Guy would be below the lightning speed, which would break the whole narrative.

Just for the record, it'd be useful if you supplied scans of both examples used in your argument. Just in case some users or staff may not be familiar with the scenes in question.

For the Might Guy example, I think that's a bit misleading as when Might Guy is amped up to perform the "space-bending feat" in Chapter 672, there is no other conversation going on at the same time.

 

[Leloutchis134]

While those are common narrative conventions that we sometimes have to employ in order for some scenes to make any sense at all, they're not really something that can be proven to exist for all scenes. We only really use them when there's no other choice, and I don't think it makes sense to assert through the use of a rule that there is never any ambiguity in these cases.

I'm saying that these specific arguments should not be the Main argument to invalidate a feat, if the narrative implies that a character is FTL you cannot use "FTL are invisible" to say that it's not FTL.

The problem arises in that naturally for such a situation to occur, the events taking place for the characters to have these multiple discussions and be shown in contemplation must be a longer than a few seconds - and yet if through powerscaling we assume the speed of the projectile to be travelling at Faster Than Light velocities then we end up with the timespan actually being a fraction of a millisecond long.

Which then leads to conflict between A) The narrative presented by the author, which is that the projectile is slow enough for the events to take place simultaneously to its travel time, and B) Our powerscaling assumptions that the velocity of the projectile must be FTL speeds.

We end up putting our own assumption over the narrative supplied to us by the author of the work

The author is not thinking that adding a conversation or speech will indicate that the projectile is going slower, which is why we choose to ignore this most of the time In cases where the narrative would be destroyed, it doesn't matter if we have the impression that spoken words would take more than a few seconds to happen, we know that this is a common inconsistency in fiction. Or should we put all real logic above narrative? We return to the problem of Voices being faster than sound and characters being able to reach the speed of light and not becoming invisible.

Even though I'm new here I know that this wiki has rules on hyperbolic speeches and the need for evidence and, at no time did I argue that they speak should be considered as correct, you are bringing another discussion to this thread. And I want to remember that I never argue that Issen is SOL, my problem is with your argument to justify TBB not being ftl.

 

[Leloutchis134]

Just for the record, it'd be useful if you supplied scans of both examples used in your argument. Just in case some users or staff may not be familiar with the scenes in question.

For the Might Guy example, I think that's a bit misleading as when Might Guy is amped up to perform the "space-bending feat" in Chapter 672, there is no other conversation going on at the same time.

I used Madara's speech to emphasize the speed of Guy, something that indicates that it is at high speed, which is proof that the narrative is indicating that it is at a speed above common in that verse, while we have evidence that it is common for characters to reach speeds above what would be calculated if the Minato conversation were used as a measure of time. But we don't have the time of the conversation, just as you don't have the time of the Shikaku conversation. We can only make arbitrary assumptions in both cases.

 

[Damage3245]

I used Madara's speech to emphasize the speed of Guy, something that indicates that it is at high speed, which is proof that the narrative is indicating that it is at a speed above common in that verse, while we have evidence that it is common for characters to reach speeds above what would be calculated if the Minato conversation were used as a measure of time. But we don't have the time of the conversation, just as you don't have the time of the Shikaku conversation. We can only make arbitrary assumptions in both cases.

But there is no Minato conversation going on that would contradict it in that scene.

If you're referring to a different, earlier scene in Chapter 669, then I don't see there being any specific contradiction as there is no implication that a character's speed would be made any faster or slower during that scene.

 

[Leloutchis134]

But there is no Minato conversation going on that would contradict it in that scene.

If you're referring to a different, earlier scene in Chapter 669, then I don't see there being any specific contradiction as there is no implication that a character's speed would be made any faster or slower during that scene.

This is missing the point, Madara speech is just an emphasis on Guy's speed, it has absolutely nothing to do with my main point and you know it. Madara alone is extremely fast, Guy marking him already makes it above the common speed on the verse, the narrative saying that he is at a speed above what would be found if a calculation were made using the time of the conversation. I would like you to focus on the main argument.

 

[Damage3245]

This is missing the point, Madara speech is just an emphasis on Guy's speed, it has absolutely nothing to do with my main point and you know it. Madara alone is extremely fast, Guy marking him already makes it above the common speed on the verse, the narrative saying that he is at a speed above what would be found if a calculation were made using the time of the conversation. I would like you to focus on the main argument.

I was responding to this point:

Another example: Madara says that Guy is so fast that he is distorting space, we have proof that other characters are much faster than lightning and Guy is faster than him, But in the middle of the fight between Guy and Madara there is a conversation between Minato, Gaara and Kakashi, a conversation that should be long but the fight between Guy and Madara that should be happening in this meantime It does not seem to have any kind of advancement of time if we use the conversation as a measure of time then Guy would be below the lightning speed, which would break the whole narrative.

As I said, there is no contradiction that arises in this scene. Might Guy is shown to be circling Madara at high speed, looking for an opening to take advantage of. Might Guy isn't portrayed as moving super-slowly to be relative to a conversation that is going on elsewhere.

By no means would it make Might Guy be sub-lightning speed.

 

[Leloutchis134]

I was responding to this point:


As I said, there is no contradiction that arises in this scene. Might Guy is shown to be circling Madara at high speed, looking for an opening to take advantage of. Might Guy isn't portrayed as moving super-slowly to be relative to a conversation that is going on elsewhere.

By no means would it make Might Guy be sub-lightning speed.

So a Guy who is every second closer to death was waiting for Minato to finish the conversation he didn't even know that was happening? Just one question, would you accept if I used a conversation happening to extend someone's time into a time -limited transformation, even if it was against the narrative? If so, I will make a point of erasing this example. May this be more proof that Guy can stay longer in the eighth gate.

 

[Damage3245]

So a Guy who is every second closer to death was waiting for Minato to finish the conversation he didn't even know that was happening? Just one question, would you accept if I used a conversation happening to extend someone's time into a time -limited transformation, even if it was against the narrative? If so, I will make a point of erasing this example. May this be more proof that Guy can stay longer in the eighth gate.

No. There is no indication that Guy was waiting for Minato's conversation to finish, even if we did accept that the conversation was taking place at super-speed anyway. They're two separate unconnected things in this instance, which is different than the other example with Shikaku.

 

[Leloutchis134]

No. There is no indication that Guy was waiting for Minato's conversation to finish, even if we did accept that the conversation was taking place at super-speed anyway. They're two separate unconnected things in this instance, which is different than the other example with Shikaku.

They are not separated, the conversation happens because of Guy's fight, just as the conversation happens because of TBB. And in both cases the only measure of time is the conversation.

Even so, I'm going to delete this example, the main point is to use a conversation as a measure of time even if would destroy the narrative.

 

[Damage3245]

They are not separated, the conversation happens because of Guy's fight, just as the conversation happens because of TBB. And in both cases the only measure of time is the conversation.

Even so, I'm going to delete this example, the main point is to use a conversation as a measure of time even if would destroy the narrative.

Okay. I don't believe your example is a valid one but since you're removing it anyway then it doesn't matter and I'll drop it.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Talking should never be an anti-feat for high speed feats, yes