Deleting/Completely Rewriting the Reality-Fiction Interactions page

[Jinsye]

Data isn't fictional though. Its just data, which isn't a dimensionality lower or anything. Rewriting code is just a specific interaction with that world. The IRL player is just a 3-Dimensional human with no indication that they have god-like power or anything.

Ink on paper isn't fictional either. It's not the medium, but the ideas behind the medium. Data is capable of expressing the very same things that books can, saying that one can be R>F and the other can't be make little to no sense.

Plus, viewing a timeline as data is indeed a showing of qualitative superiority. You cannot fit an entire timeline into a computer without being a lower plane of existence compared to you.

Think about it this way, an entire timeline is a 4-Dimensional and infinite. However, if you see it as finite and 3-D, then you have qualitative superiority over it. Because no matter how many numbers you multiply that timeline it won't make it stop being finite and 3-D from your perspective. The only

If we assume the 'world' is literally an electron moving through the computer, then it would be 3-D from perspective of the higher world. Thus, if that electron is literally a timeline then qualitative superiority can be assumed.

Also is it necessary to have R>F Transcendence as tier 1 necessarily? Lower world itself can be just 2d or 1d R>F shouldn't be tier 1 in that case.

If it is below the baseline reality, we'd default to tier 11 by default. You would need a damn good argument for the baseline reality to be tier 1.

 

[Reiner04]

Ink on paper isn't fictional either. It's not the medium, but the ideas behind the medium. Data is capable of expressing the very same things that books can, saying that one can be R>F and the other can't be make little to no sense.

Ink or paper is not, true, same for data, true. But we aren't scaling ink or data, are we? We are scaling an entire 3D world whose existence for an tier 1 character is nothing more than fictional, not that they are literally paper and ink but just are being portrayed like that, papers and drawing aren't 3D world's, same for data and computer simulations unless shown or stated. We seems to take Portrayal of something as literal, that shouldn't be the case.

So yeah Data, computer simulation or whatever they don't scale anywhere

 

[Eficiente]

This is definitely going to be a confusing topic for some people by the way things are going so far; The sandbox mostly talks about "Reality>Fiction transcendence" for upgrades' sake, it should as well elaborate on how common it is for fictional settings to not have any more real settings with a qualitative superiority to it.

In doing so, we would inevitably see how common it is that they may be put in smaller places despite the bigger size of their realities once inside them, or how the travel between "fiction" and "reality" may not make anyone less or more real, or how the fictional settings may have qualities that make it inferior to a more real setting w/o this making it qualitative superior. This is because of something pretty basic; being "more real", "more fictional", "less real" or "less fictional" is definable in many ways and standards. Other conclusions follow that, but let's go by parts.

We seems to take Portrayal of something as literal, that shouldn't be the case.

In short, yes. But that's something worth 2 or 3 paragraphs of elaboration if someone wants to hope anyone to be able to keep up.

 

[Reiner04]

In short, yes. But that's something worth 2 or 3 paragraphs of elaboration if someone wants to hope anyone to be able to keep up

Fr.

 

[Jinsye]

I'm going to assume that Efi will elaborate more

 

[Antvasima]

There is a lot I wanted to go over in this topic, you sent me to have a private talk with DontTalkDT about it, that was on a pause and now this thread happens. That's ok but I fear everything's going to be very messy. Let's take this with patience and no derailment.

Oh. I apologise about not remembering that previously.

Should this discussion be temporarily closed until you and DontTalk have finished your discussion then, and would it be a good idea to involve Jinsye in you private message thread?

 

[Eficiente]

I'm not sure, if a decent amount of staff have the time to keep up with this thread with the attention it deserves then there should be no issue.

We never had a page properly explaining "R>F Transcendence", its premise is basic but the details aren't. A page that covers that would start off showing what those details were used as commonly by users over the years, rather than transcribe something we one day sat down and evaluated. And so some inconsistencies from users to users are bound to be found.

---

The Reality-Fiction Interactions needs to still be about interactions between reality & fiction, not just "R>F Transcendence" (as it calls it, which now so will I). On that note, it raises some issues

• The image shows the highest level of R>F Transcendence with a Tier 0 character. That is the most inadvisable image we could show.
• The Introduction is not accurate: It ignores what the pages used to say and the notes as if they weren't part of the page. It portrays R>F Transcendence as standard instead of something that needs to be achieved under rules and standards, and it dismisses how common it is for "reality" to not have a R>F Transcendence over "fiction". And to introduce R>F Transcendence it uses some very selected examples rather than just saying what it is.
• I find nonsensical how the page introduces "R>F Transcendence" as a new term but yet immediately shorts it by calling it "Reality-Fiction".
• Establish a term as something that simply happens & exists rather than what it is, a term we made up that stands for something, is always inadvisable.
• lf "What Is Reality-Fiction?" and "Qualifiers" aren't going to be the the same section (which they could) then the former should portray how easy it is to not get any R>F Transcendence via having a fiction or more real world in a verse. Or else another section before them could cover it.

Let's start with that.

 

[Jinsye]

The Reality-Fiction Interactions needs to still be about interactions between reality & fiction, not just "R>F Transcendence" (as it calls it, which now so will I). On that note, it raises some issues

It speaks about R>F in a tier 1 sense because that is where it matters the most of VS Debating. The qualitative differences between an 11-A and 10-B is completely irrelevant in the eyes of the community since you would then just scale the 10-B based off of their own feats.

And we generally don't assume 11-A baseline realities unless it is explicit as hell like Flatland. The name can be changed though.

• The image shows the highest level of R>F Transcendence with a Tier 0 character. That is the most inadvisable image we could show.

This specific image of the Writer got across the point fairly nicely. It's not necessarily the character behind it but the message it is supposed to portray. Which is that a more 'real' being has complete and total superiority over a lesser being. It was a struggle choosing between images and I think that got the point of R>F differences across.

The Introduction is not accurate: It ignores what the pages used to say and the notes as if they weren't part of the page.

The original page is frankly garbage. That's why it's contents aren't really mentioned until the 'notes' section. The contents are still there but it should not be the leading part of the page.

It portrays R>F Transcendence as standard instead of something that needs to be achieved under rules and standards, and it dismisses how common it is for "reality" to not have a R>F Transcendence over "fiction". And to introduce R>F Transcendence it uses some very selected examples rather than just saying what it is.

It's not really a big assumption that reality is > fiction. This is what is assumed by most people. Fiction cannot hurt you, because it is not real. By default, fiction cannot interact with reality and us real humans have transcendence over fiction.

If the verse proves that this higher world is more "real" than this "fake" world. That is transcendence/qualitative superiority, just like how we are more real than our thoughts/ideas.

We shouldn't assume "they are just looking into an alternate universe" or "reality is as real as fiction" because the real world does not work like that. You do not look into an alternate world every time you dream of a character and a character in a book is never as real as you.

Verses where reality is not necessarily more real than fiction (like Doki Doki) do exist, but they should not be the default. We should default R>F interactions to how they work in the real world.

• I find nonsensical how the page introduces "R>F Transcendence" as a new term but yet immediately shorts it by calling it "Reality-Fiction".

Ok. I can change that I guess.

• Establish a term as something that simply happens & exists rather than what it is, a term we made up that stands for something, is always inadvisable.

I can make it akin to a term that the wiki created, I suppose?

• lf "What Is Reality-Fiction?" and "Qualifiers" aren't going to be the the same section (which they could) then the former should portray how easy it is to not get any R>F Transcendence via having a fiction or more real world in a verse. Or else another section before them could cover it.

Uh. I'm not sure what you mean.

If you are 'more real' than a world, then that is textbook R>F. Once again, we don't assume the caveats (looking into an alternate universe) because that isn't how R>F interactions happen in the real world.

Our default assumption has fictional beings as 11-A and real humans having transcendence over them. This should logically apply to higher levels of R>F too.

 

[Eficiente]

I'm gonna take 1 thing at a time, as I said before.

It speaks about R>F in a tier 1 sense because that is where it matters the most of VS Debating.

Talking about interactions between reality & fiction that have no R>F Transcendence is key to explain R>F Transcendence for a number of reasons,

• It's not necessarily standard across its showings in fiction. I'm talking about fiction showing anything that can be called or classified as "fiction" (a dream, being inside a tv, internet, etc) or "real", out of all of them, some show a R>F Transcendence and others are proven not to. This causes some misguided beliefs along certain people; that any form of fiction would count due to our standards never saying otherwise, and being foolishly unaware of how likely it is for reality & fiction in a verse to not have any R>F Transcendence, as they dismiss a large amount of those cases for inapplicable reasons. This causes their standards for R>F Transcendence to be messed up due to biases.
• The cases that don't have R>F Transcendence often have a lot of information that matters to keep in mind: What happens to that fiction and reality in terms only we care about (The fiction may be alt. universes, be in spaces bigger in the inside than how they're from the outside, etc.). What reasons they have for R>F Transcendence that is insufficient and why, how does it get contradicted or outweighed? If we only focus on what triumphs as R>F Transcendence then that would be single-minded.
• Sometimes in fiction characters can view their own world as fiction due to some powers (like Plot Manip), and this doesn't mean they're Low 1-C, making the wording used in the sandbox wrong. But sometimes, the way in which this is done does qualify as Low 1-C. This means that it needs to be seen when that counts and it doesn't count, w/o the cases where that doesn't count being dismissed due to the cases that count "mattering more for Vs Debating".
  • In the cases where they don't qualify, verses may even have proof that a fictional timeline that can be easily manipulated can have the characters in it walk into the same 3-D room as the writer and punch him in the face. That's not to say that's any standard, but that it can happen, and to show that what things can happen and what things outweigh other things is important.

The qualitative differences between an 11-A and 10-B is completely irrelevant in the eyes of the community since you would then just scale the 10-B based off of their own feats.

And we generally don't assume 11-A baseline realities unless it is explicit as hell like Flatland.

Interactions between reality & fiction cover more than that as anything can be called fiction, even things that may simultaneously be real.

The name can be changed though.

This is big. You want to change a page that says it's talking about interactions between reality & fiction to only say when that causes upgrades.

This specific image of the Writer got across the point fairly nicely. It's not necessarily the character behind it but the message it is supposed to portray. Which is that a more 'real' being has complete and total superiority over a lesser being. It was a struggle choosing between images and I think that got the point of R>F differences across.

This only goes along the premise of the page only talking about R>F Transcendence.

The original page is frankly garbage. That's why it's contents aren't really mentioned until the 'notes' section. The contents are still there but it should not be the leading part of the page.

This again only goes along the premise of the page only talking about R>F Transcendence, if you don't care about it talking about interactions between reality & fiction then that's why you would left that at the end.

It's not really a big assumption that reality is > fiction. This is what is assumed by most people. Fiction cannot hurt you, because it is not real. By default, fiction cannot interact with reality and us real humans have transcendence over fiction.

If the verse proves that this higher world is more "real" than this "fake" world. That is transcendence/qualitative superiority, just like how we are more real than our thoughts/ideas.

We shouldn't assume "they are just looking into an alternate universe" or "reality is as real as fiction" because the real world does not work like that. You do not look into an alternate world every time you dream of a character and a character in a book is never as real as you.

Verses where reality is not necessarily more real than fiction (like Doki Doki) do exist, but they should not be the default. We should default R>F interactions to how they work in the real world.

Idk why you assume I don't know the initial description of R>F Transcendence, the issue is that no all fiction is the same. Anything can be called fiction in a verse, regardless of having any number of qualities that make it akin to what's "real". Reality is > than fiction, in verses that's something that needs to be either explicitly proven or assumed with nothing to contradict it, meaning that a standard needs to be put on what contradicts it. So, obviously the reasons why reality is > than fiction are the same reasons as in real life, which means that contradicting this contradicts a R>F Transcendence.

From there, people will be more or less forgiveful and with higher or lower standards on the topic. To avoid stubbornness and give anyone who reads this page examples to work with, it's important to talk about and list cases where fiction interacted with reality where there is no R>F Transcendence, to display what would imply R>F Transcendence in those cases and what makes that not be the case, to show how easy that is, and what relationship those fictional worlds end up having next to their real worlds (alt. universes, reality being as real as fiction, the fiction being within a smaller space than how it is from the outside).

Uh. I'm not sure what you mean.

If you are 'more real' than a world, then that is textbook R>F. Once again, we don't assume the caveats (looking into an alternate universe) because that isn't how R>F interactions happen in the real world.

Our default assumption has fictional beings as 11-A and real humans having transcendence over them. This should logically apply to higher levels of R>F too.

It revolves around the initial issue.

 

[Jinsye]

It's not necessarily standard across its showings in fiction. I'm talking about fiction showing anything that can be called or classified as "fiction" (a dream, being inside a tv, internet, etc) or "real", out of all of them, some show a R>F Transcendence and others are proven not to. This causes some misguided beliefs along certain people; that any form of fiction would count due to our standards never saying otherwise, and being foolishly unaware of how likely it is for reality & fiction in a verse to not have any R>F Transcendence, as they dismiss a large amount of those cases for inapplicable reasons. This causes their standards for R>F Transcendence to be messed up due to biases.

What do you mean "any form of fiction would count"? If it is literally less real than reality, then of course it counts for reality-fiction transcendences. I guess I could revise a section and have it say if a character can view a reality as fiction while not necessarily being more 'real' than reality (like via DDLC or Earth-33 which are already listed in the disqualifying examples) then it wouldn't count.

However, this is something that should be specified. We shouldn't default to 'fiction being as real as reality' by default.

The cases that don't have R>F Transcendence often have a lot of information that matters to keep in mind: What happens to that fiction and reality in terms only we care about (The fiction may be alt. universes, be in spaces bigger in the inside than how they're from the outside, etc.). What reasons they have for R>F Transcendence that is insufficient and why, how does it get contradicted or outweighed? If we only focus on what triumphs as R>F Transcendence then that would be single-minded.

I have no clue as to why you're bringing this up when it's pretty much already on the disqualifiers example. That should cover the questions as to what doesn't qualify for R>F transcendences without making the introduction and definition incredibly clunky.

Sometimes in fiction characters can view their own world as fiction due to some powers (like Plot Manip), and this doesn't mean they're Low 1-C, making the wording used in the sandbox wrong. But sometimes, the way in which this is done does qualify as Low 1-C. This means that it needs to be seen when that counts and it doesn't count, w/o the cases where that doesn't count being dismissed due to the cases that count "mattering more for Vs Debating".

"Naturally" is perhaps poor wording on my part. I'll probably change "state" to "state of existence" and add a disqualifier example for plot manipulation users. The general question is if their state of existence is qualitatively superior due to seeing the world as fiction. If they still participate in the "fiction" so to speak then they would most likely not qualify for R>F.

Interactions between reality & fiction cover more than that as anything can be called fiction, even things that may simultaneously be real.

Okay and how is this relevant at all. The page is a guideline on what we do when there is a "real world" that controls the fictional world. You're going to need to explain how "well anything can be called fiction" is actually a relevant point because anything can be called anything. This statement feels like a giant nothingburger.

Reality-Fiction Interactions as a title could be a little misleading, though the original page implies that it is talking about the differences between viewing a world as fiction. I don't know what else could be covered.

Idk you assume I don't know the initial description of R>F Transcendence, the issue is that no all fiction is the same. Anything can be called fiction in a verse, regardless of having any number of qualities that make it akin to what's "real". Reality is > than fiction, in verses that's something that needs to be either explicitly proven or assumed with nothing to contradict it, meaning that a standard needs to be put on what contradicts it. So, obviously the reasons why reality is > than fiction are the same reasons as in real life, which means that contradicting this contradicts a R>F Transcendence.

I still don't know what your point is with "anything can be called fiction". This is true, but I do not see how this is relevant at all. Especially how most cases have a higher being actively showing the lower world as fiction.

I don't think the problem is proving that reality is > fiction, because that is the blatant assumption. You do not need to prove that reality is stronger than fiction. What you need to prove is that the lower world is sufficiently less real than the higher world.

Viewing it as fiction is generally strong evidence that the lower world is less real than the higher world. That should be good enough on it's own.

Now, if there are strong contradictions to this where despite it being viewed as fiction in some way (for example in Earth-33's case it is simply another universe in the multiverse that is equally as real as every other universe) then we would put the R>F into question.

From there, people will be more or less forgiveful and with higher or lower standards on the topic. To avoid stubbornness and give anyone who reads this page examples to work with, it's important to talk about and list cases where fiction interacted with reality where there is no R>F Transcendence, to display what would imply R>F Transcendence in those cases and what makes that not be the case, to show how easy that is, and what relationship those fictional worlds end up having next to their real worlds (alt. universes, reality being as real as fiction, the fiction being within a smaller space than how it is from the outside).

Disqualifiers section.

Your wording might be a bit messed up. There are a total of two cases where viewing something as fiction is not grounds for R>F.

1. It's a gag feat like Bugs Bunny animating his own story.
2. Fiction is just as real as reality.

We assume Reality is > Fiction by default otherwise. The main concern is if the character actually views the reality as fiction. This can be proven visually or stated or whatnot (i.e. by stating a Player is playing a video game, or the entire universe is simply a dream of a higher being).

Once it is proven that the character views a reality as some sort of fiction, then any sort of causes or caveats that allow fiction to be as real as reality must be stated BY THE STORY.

If the story has no proof that the lower world and the higher world are equally real despite the implications otherwise, then it'd be considered for a R>F difference.

 

[Eficiente]

What do you mean "any form of fiction would count"? If it is literally less real than reality, then of course it counts for reality-fiction transcendences. I guess I could revise a section and have it say if a character can view a reality as fiction while not necessarily being more 'real' than reality (like via DDLC or Earth-33 which are already listed in the disqualifying examples) then it wouldn't count.

However, this is something that should be specified. We shouldn't default to 'fiction being as real as reality' by default.

"Any form of fiction" means literally anything shown in a verse that is portrayed as fiction by their own verse or by the audience "as a category" (ie a dream is fiction in the real world, so real people can call dream worlds & dream people fiction in a verse that shows them, regardless of how the verse itself may not do so and treat them sufficiently real). Again, having a R>F Transcendence is a standard that needs to be achieved, that you look at me saying "Any form of fiction" and reply saying the equivalent of "If it already counts as R>F Transcendence then it of course counts as R>F Transcendence" proves my point. Imagine less experienced users who commonly make the mistake of thinking characters meet the standards to gain something OP they doesn't, just because they somewhat appear to have what the less experienced users think is what other characters had to accurately meet those standards. Even more experienced users can do this mistake, especially if our standards are written incompetently.

As said before, being "more real", "more fictional", "less real" or "less fictional" is definable in many ways and standards. You can't just talk about things like that (fiction and reality) and assume that they will apply to all forms of context any verse can have. The issue needs to be grabbed by the roots, which means you can't just explain things by saying "If this specific scenario happens, don't do this".

I have no clue as to why you're bringing this up when it's pretty much already on the disqualifiers example. That should cover the questions as to what doesn't qualify for R>F transcendences without making the introduction and definition incredibly clunky.

Unacceptable Examples=/=Elaborate about the whole matter. Which revolves around the initial premise that the matter needs to be elaborated. Just saying some examples that don't count and the why for their individual context is incredibly unwise.

"Naturally" is perhaps poor wording on my part. I'll probably change "state" to "state of existence" and add a disqualifier example for plot manipulation users. The general question is if their state of existence is qualitatively superior due to seeing the world as fiction. If they still participate in the "fiction" so to speak then they would most likely not qualify for R>F.

This helps to a degree, but it can't really be described as simpy as that.

Okay and how is this relevant at all. The page is a guideline on what we do when there is a "real world" that controls the fictional world. You're going to need to explain how "well anything can be called fiction" is actually a relevant point because anything can be called anything. This statement feels like a giant nothingburger.

Reality-Fiction Interactions as a title could be a little misleading, though the original page implies that it is talking about the differences between viewing a world as fiction. I don't know what else could be covered.

The page doesn't do that, it talks about fiction and reality within any verse/fiction, it's just that it does by simply saying a few things it wanted to say on the topic, and doesn't define that "this is not necessarily something particularly impressive by our standards" it starts with, which needs to be defined in a satisfactory & conclusive way. It is pretty useless but that is to be fixed, not repurposed.

Don't act as if "anything can be called fiction" means that I'm no longer talking about fiction, because I clearly am, and therefore that makes it as much of a relevant point as anything else. Again, talking about any form of "fiction" in a verse doesn't always mean talking about R>F Transcendence, and any misleading portrayal of that will be inaccurate. "Fiction" in a verse doesn't stop being fiction if it doesn't have any R>F Transcendence to its "reality", regardless of how the fiction may be portrayed in the same or similar ways as other fiction shown in other verses that do have R>F Transcendence.

I still don't know what your point is with "anything can be called fiction". This is true, but I do not see how this is relevant at all. Especially how most cases have a higher being actively showing the lower world as fiction.

I don't think the problem is proving that reality is > fiction, because that is the blatant assumption. You do not need to prove that reality is stronger than fiction. What you need to prove is that the lower world is sufficiently less real than the higher world.

Viewing it as fiction is generally strong evidence that the lower world is less real than the higher world. That should be good enough on it's own.

Now, if there are strong contradictions to this where despite it being viewed as fiction in some way (for example in Earth-33's case it is simply another universe in the multiverse that is equally as real as every other universe) then we would put the R>F into question.

I hope the point is clear by everything I said so far. It wouldn't matter the cases where a higher being actively shows the lower world as fiction since this doesn't cover the whole topic.

It's about going over the matter thoroughly, not an issue of proving that reality is > fiction. If I make a verse with reality & fiction in it and its mechanics follow all the things you're saying so far that would qualify as R>F Transcendence, then sure it would qualify, but an actual verse can be far more complex than that in any diverse way, the things you say may be implied rather than shown, or they may be implied only depending on who you ask, or they may be contradicted in ways far more subtle than actually being another equally real universe.

Again the reasons why reality is > than fiction are the same reasons as in real life, which means that contradicting this contradicts a R>F Transcendence...on paper, it is more complex than that, and all of it needs to be elaborated rather than having some things here & there grabbed in and used to satisfy some what-ifs questions/views on the matter. You say that "if there are strong contradictions to this where despite it being viewed as fiction in some way [...] then we would put the R>F into question", and for a reader of the page this should come off as a natural conclusion in which they know if a case counts as having a R>F Transcendence or not before they read the Examples part (It's also not clear if "put the R>F into question" means they count, don't count, or "likely/possibly" count, what those "strong contradictions" were, and what if there was simply a contradiction).

Disqualifiers section.

Your wording might be a bit messed up. There are a total of two cases where viewing something as fiction is not grounds for R>F.

1. It's a gag feat like Bugs Bunny animating his own story.
2. Fiction is just as real as reality.

Bugs Bunny animating his own story doesn't lack R>F Transcendence because it's a gag, but because he's still just as real as his own reality. Something being a gag doesn't inhereditary mean anything, if something happened that was a gag it still happened. Messing with reality in a way akin to an animator creating fiction can all be done with things lower than Low 1-C, the limits of what Bugs was doing are still around what he was shown doing, Daffy Duck could still talk to him unless prevented with Bugs' powers, Daffy could still act on its own w/o Bugs/the animator allowing him to, and Bugs and Daffy had around the same speed and perception of things, despite Bugs having more power to do things, as Daffy could react to the pencil drawing things out around or on himself.

It doesn't matter that it's a gag, it doesn't qualify because it doesn't meet the standards of what R>F Transcendence should be, because it's not how a real life animator would work a fictional character. An ideal Reality-Fiction Interaction page would explain this in a way that everyone can standard it and know when cases like this happen. Fiction in a verse can be "real" w/o being the same size as "real people", or with the latter having some form of superiority over the former, it depends on context.

 

[Reiner04]

The general question is if their state of existence is qualitatively superior due to seeing the world as fiction.

Perhaps didn't noticed and you meant something else here but I'll say it again, "them seeing a world as fiction is no proof for them being qualitative superior in existence".

But if it's just you didn't expressed yourself properly(because I've noticed before) and meant something else then fine.

 

[Reiner04]

As said before, being "more real", "more fictional", "less real" or "less fictional" is definable in many ways and standards. You can't just talk about things like that (fiction and reality) and assume that they will apply to all forms of context any verse can have.

Draft is not really talking about any form of fiction though, it has set that there is need to be a qualitative transcendence as well even if it's in just examples but it does, and as he has said he will make the definition more clear to it I guess that this is not a problem anymore.

Unacceptable Examples=/=Elaborate about the whole matter. Which revolves around the initial premise that the matter needs to be elaborated. Just saying some examples that don't count and the why for their individual context is incredibly unwise.

Can agree with.

 

[Jinsye]

If your main concern is that there needs to be a section on how to not qualify for R>F then brief draft.

"Despite certain characters seeming to see other realms as literal fiction, this concept can be contradicted by context which may prove that the realms they see as fiction are equally as real to themselves.

Examples include simply seeing it as another universe, or the characters simply using Plot Manipulation and not being transcendent themselves.

If these contradictions are found, then the character may not qualify for R>F Transcendence."


On your opinion that R>F is a standard that needs to be earned, it's not as complicated to earn like you're making it out to be.

All you need to do is to view a reality as literal fiction. That is all you need to do to earn a R>F transcendence. You can have it taken away by further context of the R>F transcendence but viewing reality as fiction should be defaulted to an R>F Transcendence unless the verse states otherwise.

Also a few things I find confusing about your post.

"this is not necessarily something particularly impressive by our standards"

This is taken from the original R>F page and I mostly disagree. The page talks about the difference between Mxy and The Amaranth. When you compare the low end and the high end of course it's not particularly impressive.

But, "not particularly impressive" in context only means that. It's comparing a Low 1-C and a tier 0. It does not mean that viewing reality as fiction is not an impressive feat at all.

You can't just talk about things like that (fiction and reality) and assume that they will apply to all forms of context any verse can have

Again, talking about any form of "fiction" in a verse doesn't always mean talking about R>F Transcendence, and any misleading portrayal of that will be inaccurate. "Fiction" in a verse doesn't stop being fiction if it doesn't have any R>F Transcendence to its "reality", regardless of how the fiction may be portrayed in the same or similar ways as other fiction shown in other verses that do have R>F Transcendence

When you are talking about fiction, it generally means an R>F Transcendence is involved even implicitly. I find it silly that the verse needs to specifically spell it out to achieve an R>F Transcendence when the implications are already there.

More commonly than not, when a verse speaks on fiction, it is generally an R>F transcendence.

For example, in a 3-D verse, when they speak about fiction we generally assume it is not real. Thus, the story they are speaking about would be 11-A. That is an R>F Transcendence over an 11-A realm (the fictional image of the story).

You see how easy it is to get without having to literally spell it out? R>F transcendence is the most common and reasonable explanation for how fiction is fiction, thus we can generally assume that when verses talk about fiction it will generally imply an R>F Transcendence.

This is just the same concept applied to viewing our world as fiction. Do you agree with R>F Transcendence being the default assumption for the explanation on viewing the world as fiction in lack of another explanation being given by the verse?

 

[Jinsye]

Fiction in a verse can be "real" w/o being the same size as "real people", or with the latter having some form of superiority over the former, it depends on context.

How so?

How can a fiction be equally real to the real world but also not be on the same ontological level? That's not possible and not what we assume by default.

Unless you mean like physical size difference like between a dude and graphite on paper, in which that is irrelevant to the main point.

 

[Andytrenom]

As long as the reality and fiction are linked together cosmologically I feel the default assumption being a dimensional superiority is fine

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to clarify the concept of fictitious material and frame narratives. Fiction that exists within fiction but won't give transcendence from a powerscaling perspective

 

[Reiner04]

While I agree that seeing a world as fiction shouldn't default to R>F in any case unless qualitative superiority is clear from the setting of the verse but at the same time I do agree with other points of @Jinsye , I think we are over complicating the matter, R>F will be R>F if verse has outright shown that character from "real world" are qualitative superior in power or any form to the the world shown as "fiction" or whatever to the point that "fictional world" vandalises to nothing or existentially inferior, trying to add more contradictions and over complicating it with points that are as rare as non existent then it will affect the quality of page in bad way.

 

[Eficiente]

Draft is not really talking about any form of fiction though, it has set that there is need to be a qualitative transcendence as well even if it's in just examples but it does, and as he has said he will make the definition more clear to it I guess that this is not a problem anymore.

I find it unwise to already start with that, as I already explained, it's limited and misleading.

If your main concern is that there needs to be a section on how to not qualify for R>F then brief draft.

"Despite certain characters seeming to see other realms as literal fiction, this concept can be contradicted by context which may prove that the realms they see as fiction are equally as real to themselves.

Examples include simply seeing it as another universe, or the characters simply using Plot Manipulation and not being transcendent themselves.

If these contradictions are found, then the character may not qualify for R>F Transcendence."


On your opinion that R>F is a standard that needs to be earned, it's not as complicated to earn like you're making it out to be.

All you need to do is to view a reality as literal fiction. That is all you need to do to earn a R>F transcendence. You can have it taken away by further context of the R>F transcendence but viewing reality as fiction should be defaulted to an R>F Transcendence unless the verse states otherwise.

Well, you're not understanding me properly, you shouldn't try to be the one to explain something that you barely want to talk about and don't understand its full importance. We're not coming to an agreement here and then a proposal was made based on that, no, I said things that you partially agreed with while having other things that you disagree with or didn't understand and in that state of things you made a proposal, it's well-intended but not appropriate.

You keep saying things are immensely vague as they can be interpreted in many ways by anyone, that they are correct when interpreted in the way you intended them to be doesn't matter if we neglect to explain it all in a way that anyone can understand given any context they may face. You say "it's not as complicated to earn like you're making it out to be" but you're not actually disagreeing with any standard I stated by saying that, you appear to disagree with what I stated aesthetically or for having tried to be more specific, which are wrong things to disagree with. I already said why taking that relaxed approach to this is bad, and again you're not disagreeing with it in any meaningful way.

This is taken from the original R>F page and I mostly disagree. The page talks about the difference between Mxy and The Amaranth. When you compare the low end and the high end of course it's not particularly impressive.

But, "not particularly impressive" in context only means that. It's comparing a Low 1-C and a tier 0. It does not mean that viewing reality as fiction is not an impressive feat at all.

What the page means by saying that is close to what I mean, "fiction" and "reality" are definable in many ways and standards, so to say that "this is not necessarily something particularly impressive by our standards" means that it will not be impressive unless it meets our standards for it to be impressive. That's a smart premise to start talking about fiction and reality within a verse, regardless of how meeting those standards ends up being easy or how common it is to meet those standards (which I believe it's far more likely for verses to not meet those standards, by a large margin). The page isn't comparing a Low 1-C and a tier 0, it's talking about any form of "fiction" and "reality" within a verse, because any form of "fiction" and "reality" within a verse doesn't inhereditary have R>F Transcendence. As bad as the page is, it understood that saying the words "fiction" and "reality" aren't always communicating the same mechanics.

When you are talking about fiction, it generally means an R>F Transcendence is involved even implicitly. I find it silly that the verse needs to specifically spell it out to achieve an R>F Transcendence when the implications are already there.

More commonly than not, when a verse speaks on fiction, it is generally an R>F transcendence.

For example, in a 3-D verse, when they speak about fiction we generally assume it is not real. Thus, the story they are speaking about would be 11-A. That is an R>F Transcendence over an 11-A realm (the fictional image of the story).

You see how easy it is to get without having to literally spell it out? R>F transcendence is the most common and reasonable explanation for how fiction is fiction, thus we can generally assume that when verses talk about fiction it will generally imply an R>F Transcendence.

This is just the same concept applied to viewing our world as fiction. Do you agree with R>F Transcendence being the default assumption for the explanation on viewing the world as fiction in lack of another explanation being given by the verse?

A verse wouldn't, we are the ones that need to be specific on what we mean with fiction and reality. If a verse has little information on their reality and fiction then it can still have R>F Transcendence. But we are the ones to say what things can happen that would contradict R>F Transcendence and what mechanics would a verse have instead of R>F Transcendence.

If you mean fiction as characters that act or worlds that take part of the story, then I don't agree at all that it generally has a R>F Transcendence across all fictional works. If you include things like cartoons characters watch and the like then sure.

I do agree with R>F Transcendence being the default assumption for the explanation on viewing the world as fiction in lack of another explanation or context being given by the verse.

How so?

How can a fiction be equally real to the real world but also not be on the same ontological level? That's not possible and not what we assume by default.

Unless you mean like physical size difference like between a dude and graphite on paper, in which that is irrelevant to the main point.

Imagine you encounter something that should be fictional, and you can still alter it as you can with anything else of its kind, but it's sentient to a real degree. That makes it real, even if you can still call it with the same category you would if it was fictional.

Idk what you think the "main point" would be, what I said made sense on its own, a drawing character that sees a pencil coming in to alter the reality around himself sure is having that happening to him, but not like a real world pencil would to a drawing.

As long as the reality and fiction are linked together cosmologically I feel the default assumption being a dimensional superiority is fine

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to clarify the concept of fictitious material and frame narratives. Fiction that exists within fiction but won't give transcendence from a powerscaling perspective

I agree that the latter should be considered but I'm not sure if I understand the first sentence. If a cosmology is everything in a verse then wouldn't all fiction and reality be linked together like that?

 

[Jinsye]

I am frankly so lost on what you want me to do here.

You keep saying things that I don't necessarily disagree with because I don't understand your point at all. Do you want the page to be more strict? That the R>F page is too vague? Do you want an explanation on how not to qualify for R>F? Do you want a definition for what 'Reality' and 'Fiction' are?

 

[Reiner04]

I also didn't understood what efi meant here, most common examples where fiction don't qualify for r>f has already been mentioned in the draft, seeing a world as fiction is default to be R>F unless contradicted which he agrees as well with. If probably there are still some unique examples or cases from fiction that has been left unnoticed by draft then it can be mentioned if pointed out or some other unique common fictional cases? Or if it's defining the terms used within R>F draft such as "reality" and "fiction"? I am not sure if this what efi is suggesting.

 

[Eficiente]

I am frankly so lost on what you want me to do here.

You keep saying things that I don't necessarily disagree with because I don't understand your point at all. Do you want the page to be more strict? That the R>F page is too vague? Do you want an explanation on how not to qualify for R>F? Do you want a definition for what 'Reality' and 'Fiction' are?

I don't want you to do anything in terms of work (As in, when person A proposes things and person B doesn't understand, person A doesn't wait until person B says they understand and asks person B to word the proposal themselves). I wanted you understand and hopefully agree with what I'm saying.

I do want a definition for what 'Reality' and 'Fiction' are and can be in fiction, what mechanics we give to them and say how common that is (which is often dismissed, be it mechanics verses explicitly show or we have to conclude). I don't necessarily want the standards for R>F to be more strict, but I do very much want them to be portrayed as standards that need to be achieved, and I want the standards more elaborated on what they mean and what causes something to not have R>F.

 

[Reiner04]

Uh, so ig Fictional portrayal(as for R>F) can be defined as a world that has been portrayed as fiction,video games, stories, etc within or compared to the "more real world" and so "existentially inferior" to "more real world" that views it as fiction?

 

[Antvasima]

So should we wait until DontTalk gets some free time to properly evaluate this suggested revision?

 

[Reiner04]

So should we wait until DontTalk gets some free time to properly evaluate this suggested revision?

I guess so, OP has already made the explanation and definition in the Draft more specific and accurate but w/o ultima or DT this thread is not moving forward anyway. So until they get some time to evaluate, we can only wait.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Antvasima]

So should we wait until DontTalk gets some free time to properly evaluate this suggested revision?

I guess so, OP has already made the explanation and definition in the Draft more specific and accurate but w/o ultima or DT this thread is not moving forward anyway. So until they get some time to evaluate, we can only wait.

@DontTalkDT

 

[DontTalkDT]

This is the most recent draft, yes?

 

[Jinsye]

This is the most recent draft, yes?

Yes. It's pretty rough and unpolished but that's my idea of it.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Some improvements in wording aside I think it's mostly fine in sentiment. Only paragraph I find difficult is this one:

It should be noted that there are ways to view reality as fiction in a way that does not constitute an R>F difference, however it would generally require more logical leaps that should be specified rather than just assumed by default. A clear indication of transcendence/superiority however is necessary in order for qualify, as vague statements should not be inferred to this interpretation.

The first sentence seems in favour of R>F being (somewhat) default, while the latter seems to state the opposite.
I also think that "indication of transcendence/superiority" might need some additional explanation. The way it stands there it could be interpreted as "infinitely more powerful" types of statements being necessary. Not sure if that's what's intended. I personally think one can argue such a difference also completely by nature of the relationship. (E.g. the character has a reality in a book, they themselve are not part of that reality, and they are shown to be able to freely cross out parts and rewrite them. That would be enough for me, unless contradictory showings exist)
If that is supposed to be included in "indication of transcendence/superiority" I would reformulate that part to make it more clear.

One stylistic point of debate: Does it make more sense to have that Reality Equalization section on this page or on the actual Reality Equalization page? I think integrating it into the reality equalization page and then just linking to it (with a short text) might be more elegant (removes redundancies and stuff), but idk.

It is also entirely possible for characters from a lower reality to attack or oppose those who view them as fiction. It would simply mean their AP and abilities scale to the higher level of existence, but their actual state of existence would be equal to the lower planes they exist in.

Here I would add a disclaimer that this has to be analyzed. It might also very well be a contradiction (i.e. anti-feat). That would depend on context and portrayal, I think.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for helping out, DontTalk. It is very appreciated.

 

[Jinsye]

I also think that "indication of transcendence/superiority" might need some additional explanation. The way it stands there it could be interpreted as "infinitely more powerful" types of statements being necessary. Not sure if that's what's intended. I personally think one can argue such a difference also completely by nature of the relationship. (E.g. the character has a reality in a book, they themselve are not part of that reality, and they are shown to be able to freely cross out parts and rewrite them. That would be enough for me, unless contradictory showings exist)

I don't think "infinitely more powerful" statements are necessary, yes. The scenario you described would qualify, but I wasn't quite sure how to word something I had in mind. It had something to do with dealing with more "vague" stuff that we wouldn't necessarily default to tier 1. Though that might be case-by-case.

 

[AKUTO123]

infinitely more powerful" types of statements being necessary. Not sure if that's what's intended

The expression of infinite strength can be taken as a support, but I don't think it should be specified.

 

[Eficiente]

@DontTalkDT Please read my comments on this thread.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Here's a rewrite of the draft. Made a number of changes in terms of wording, but I think I kept to the same spirit for everything. Do tell me if I made anything worse and what I could improve.

@DontTalkDT Please read my comments on this thread.

I did now. I feel like a number of those are addressed by my rewrite (I have added a paragraph of not qualifying now for instance)

I can agree with the point that for a page on reality-fiction interaction, the introduction maybe focuses too much on transcendence. Then again, I'm not sure what relevant stuff is to say on the topic aside from that. Sure, there are other interactions as well, but do we have some reason to care about those other than "they don't qualify for reality-fiction transcendence"? I wouldn't know what.
Hence I would, as well, instead suggest to rename the page to "Reality-Fiction Transcendance" or similar, as that's what it would end up primarily being about.

What I'm not obliging is giving a definition for what reality and fiction is in terms of a fictional setting. Trying to do so is, in my opinion, trying to generalize things over all of fiction, which is generally complicated and any result would just be more confusing than helpful as far as I can come up with it.
I also consider it just... not relevant. 99% of all cases are self-evident.
The page lists "written media (Books or stories), images (Paintings, comics, or movies), data (Simulations or video games), or mental constructs (thoughts or dreams)". That covers most and if such actually appears one looks at the rest of the qualifiers to judge them.
For anything else... well, the page explains why we consider qualitative superiority for R>F cases. And I think for edge cases asking oneself whether the reasons our tiering assumptions are taken still makes sense is a better strategy than to see whether it in some abstract sense qualifies as reality and fiction. (I have included an explanation of that nature in a paragraph)

 

[Antvasima]

I think that your version looks awesome and is good enough to be applied, DontTalk. Thanks a massive amount for helping out with this.

 

[Jinsye]

Are there any other objections or can we apply it?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Let's give it some time. I assume Eficiente will have an opinion to give on the matter.

 

[Antvasima]

Let's give it some time. I assume Eficiente will have an opinion to give on the matter.

@Eficiente

 

[Eficiente]

Here's a rewrite of the draft. Made a number of changes in terms of wording, but I think I kept to the same spirit for everything. Do tell me if I made anything worse and what I could improve.


I did now. I feel like a number of those are addressed by my rewrite (I have added a paragraph of not qualifying now for instance)

It's several steps in the right direction, but in my opinion it's still has things to be polished.

On the Qualifiers

(Minor) I don't think it should start with "A general rule of thumb" as it's saying the qualifiers as they are.

Being "of no physical consequence to their being" is misleading, any fictional character has no consequence to us in a physical, non-physical and metaphysical way. We can word that while also allowing fictional characters to affect real things with a R/F t. over them due to specific powers or abnormal stats.

I.e. one should ask oneself: Is it by nature of the depiction likely that nothing that happens in the 'fictional world', no matter how powerful, could affect the 'real world' due to the fictional nature of the former?

That covers one aspect of what makes them fiction, which is their lack of any power. What about the beings in the 'fictional world' being sentient in a real sense as opposed to in a fictional/fake way? And what about their passage of time being fictional and nothing to the real world, as opposed to the same or with different, yet clearly real mechanics on how their time works. A fictional world can lack the ability to affect the real world just because everyone there is too weak to do that or nobody just so happen to have any ability that would allow them to do so, in a way that's not the same as it having a R/F t. in their real world. Do we agree that the previously mentioned things about their sentience and their time matters to whether or not they're fictional in the way R/F t. implies?

The space those fictional worlds occupy should also be appropriate to what they are, but I'm gonna go over that very quickly.

However, there are also factors that can speak against Reality-Fiction Transcendence, even if all of the above is given.

(Minor) I think this part could be done in bullet points, to make it easier to handle.

Those include the realities being portrayed like parallel universes or otherwise as comparable to each other in scale or nature

So, as said before the space those fictional worlds occupy should also be appropriate to what they are, but this wasn't established initially and so it needs to be said there. It's not clear by the text itself what "comparable" means, it doesn't say how any real size would be...real, and thus not have any R/F t. We should either define what "comparable" means in this context or just say what it means in this context w/o saying "comparable". One would intuitively think that a small town for example would not be comparable to the whole universe or the timeline, yet it is comparable in this context due to occupying real space, as it would only a house, only a room, and so on. This not being the same as the media in which the nothing that is fiction is being presented.

It also says nowhere that a fictional world can be in a pocket space bigger in the inside than how it is from the outside. I take that as something to mention for people to be aware of, as a case like that may feel like it qualifies while being something else.

Then again, I'm not sure what relevant stuff is to say on the topic aside from that. Sure, there are other interactions as well, but do we have some reason to care about those other than "they don't qualify for reality-fiction transcendence"? I wouldn't know what.
Hence I would, as well, instead suggest to rename the page to "Reality-Fiction Transcendance" or similar, as that's what it would end up primarily being about.

What I'm not obliging is giving a definition for what reality and fiction is in terms of a fictional setting. Trying to do so is, in my opinion, trying to generalize things over all of fiction, which is generally complicated and any result would just be more confusing than helpful as far as I can come up with it.
I also consider it just... not relevant. 99% of all cases are self-evident.

Well, to me it's appropriate to talk about "fiction" in fiction in general before saying how it could have a R/F t. in its real world, as it's important to know how common and versatile 'fictional worlds' can be w/o qualifying for R/F t., having many mechanics that in other context for other verses may intuit R/F t. It covers the topic more completely, "reality-fiction transcendence" being a part of it and not all of it or its main premise as to why we care about it, which is how I think it should be presented to others to explain it.

But if we're more comfortable not doing that then ok.

 

[MattSatire]

It's several steps in the right direction, but in my opinion it's still has things to be polished.

On the Qualifiers

(Minor) I don't think it should start with "A general rule of thumb" as it's saying the qualifiers as they are.

Being "of no physical consequence to their being" is misleading, any fictional character has no consequence to us in a physical, non-physical and metaphysical way. We can word that while also allowing fictional characters to affect real things with a R/F t. over them due to specific powers or abnormal stats.



That covers one aspect of what makes them fiction, which is their lack of any power. What about the beings in the 'fictional world' being sentient in a real sense as opposed to in a fictional/fake way? And what about their passage of time being fictional and nothing to the real world, as opposed to the same or with different, yet clearly real mechanics on how their time works. A fictional world can lack the ability to affect the real world just because everyone there is too weak to do that or nobody just so happen to have any ability that would allow them to do so, in a way that's not the same as it having a R/F t. in their real world. Do we agree that the previously mentioned things about their sentience and their time matters to whether or not they're fictional in the way R/F t. implies?

The space those fictional worlds occupy should also be appropriate to what they are, but I'm gonna go over that very quickly.



(Minor) I think this part could be done in bullet points, to make it easier to handle.



So, as said before the space those fictional worlds occupy should also be appropriate to what they are, but this wasn't established initially and so it needs to be said there. It's not clear by the text itself what "comparable" means, it doesn't say how any real size would be...real, and thus not have any R/F t. We should either define what "comparable" means in this context or just say what it means in this context w/o saying "comparable". One would intuitively think that a small town for example would not be comparable to the whole universe or the timeline, yet it is comparable in this context due to occupying real space, as it would only a house, only a room, and so on. This not being the same as the media in which the nothing that is fiction is being presented.

It also says nowhere that a fictional world can be in a pocket space bigger in the inside than how it is from the outside. I take that as something to mention for people to be aware of, as a case like that may feel like it qualifies while being something else.

Well, to me it's appropriate to talk about "fiction" in fiction in general before saying how it could have a R/F t. in its real world, as it's important to know how common and versatile 'fictional worlds' can be w/o qualifying for R/F t., having many mechanics that in other context for other verses may intuit R/F t. It covers the topic more completely, "reality-fiction transcendence" being a part of it and not all of it or its main premise as to why we care about it, which is how I think it should be presented to others to explain it.

But if we're more comfortable not doing that then ok.

Can the L1C criterion be obtained by R>F to a 2A structure simply by considering it as fiction?

isn't it necessary to have a universal affect on 5D structures to get the L1C tier? or by being in the 5D dimension and perceiving Reality underneath as fiction (4D structure) you will automatically get the L1C tier?

i need the answer