• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Fixing Errors with Sonic and The End's Abilities

I concur with the removal of CM. However, I'd like to understand on what basis this isn't considered a manipulation of concepts. No evidence has been provided to contradict the ability.

Inflicting harm can encompass modifying. I'm interested in finding out, based on the available evidence, why it doesn't apply in this situation.
 
Harming a human being does not give you biological manipulation.

Fighting a ghost does not give you soul manipulation.

Fighting a hologram does not give you light manipulation.

Fighting a NEP being does not give you void manipulation.

Should I continue?
 
Thank you for providing examples, but it doesn't alter the fact that it could be considered "modifying". Please send evidence that could refute the current abilities.

I don't arbitrarily downgrade profiles without any supporting evidence just because "the current reasoning seems senseless".
 
StrymULTRA said:
Harming a human being does not give you biological manipulation.

Fighting a ghost does not give you soul manipulation.

Fighting a hologram does not give you light manipulation.

Fighting a NEP being does not give you void manipulation.

Should I continue?
Click to expand...
Such as Harming an abstract or concept does not give you CM?
 
StrymULTRA said:
Harming =/= Altering.

It's all that is needed to say.
Click to expand...
You have yet to refute any of my statements, and I respectfully assume that you did not comprehend my posts. With that, I will allow others to address the matter.
 
This is the most childish reply I've ever read. Claiming an absurdity, then expecting others to link proofs when common sense is enough.
 
Concept manipulation should be removed yeah, we don’t give Puss concept manipulation because he harmed Death.
 
I respectfully request evidence to be provided. Why should I be required to justify my stance? I would like to view the situation in question to determine if harm has been inflicted, and if so, to what extent. If it is determined that harm was inflicted through modification, I am opposed to the removal of the relevant ability.
 
ImmortalDread said:
I respectfully request evidence to be provided. Why should I be required to justify my stance? I would like to view the situation in question to determine if harm has been inflicted, and if so, to what extent. If it is determined that harm was inflicted through modification, I am opposed to the removal of the relevant ability.
Click to expand...
While I can understand the stance of inflicting harm on concepts can be viewed as "concept alteration", it's quite clear the site doesn't accept it as such given Knuckles (among many others) who can physically punch souls has NPI as opposed to Soul Manipulation. Simply on attrition of the sites standards it should be removed, even if you believe attacking a concept is concept manip (You would need to make a CRT for that).

Evidence doesn't really need to be posted as what needs to be posted is already on the profile as justification for them having concept manip, with the people who added it to the profile even agreeing it isn't appropriate by the sites standards. Addressing the evidence used as proof for concept manipulation in and of itself should suffice as enough proof for why it should be changed as this is simply a dispute of interpretation of an evidence already viewable.

If you believe scans are still required, then you can find all the scans needed on the profiles.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Do you mind quoting where I stated this?
Click to expand...
Sure:
ImmortalDread said:
I concur with the removal of CM. However, I'd like to understand on what basis this isn't considered a manipulation of concepts. No evidence has been provided to contradict the ability.

Inflicting harm can encompass modifying. I'm interested in finding out, based on the available evidence, why it doesn't apply in this situation.
Click to expand...
ImmortalDread said:
Just post them here.
Click to expand...
It's in the op. The reasoning for Sonic's CM can be seen there, or on his profile. It is for being able to physically attack The End who is a concept.

Are you suggesting you need a video of Super Sonic attacking The End? Do you not believe that to be the case?
 
LaserPrecision said:
Sure:
Click to expand...
I explicitly said "can". Where exactly I said it does?
LaserPrecision said:
It's in the op. The reasoning for Sonic's CM can be seen there, or on his profile. It is for being able to physically attack The End who is a concept.
Click to expand...
This seems odd right now, how he is physically attacking AE type 1 character? This seems anti feat for AE type 1 as to get it, you need to be pure abstraction.
 
ImmortalDread said:
I explicitly said "can". Where exactly said it does?
Click to expand...
It was implicative with you being dismissive of others presenting the same argument as I (That attacking a concept would only warrant NPI). You don't need to explicitly state something to make it clear you believe something. While I could've more carefully worded what I said, you could've more carefully got your point across.

My statement was that you were under the impression that Super Sonic has CM for being able to attack The End. As you were requesting for evidence as to why it is not when it seems rather clear in the OP.
ImmortalDread said:
This seems odd right now, how he is physically attacking AE type 1 character? This seems anti feat for AE type 1 as to get it, you need to be pure abstraction.
Click to expand...
That I can't help you with unfortunately. You're going to wait for the response of others regarding that.
 
My point is pretty much clear. Harming can also be "modifying" depending on the given context. And I explicitly stated, it can. It is not what i primarily believe, but I think it could be in this case. I did not say "harming is modifying".

LaserPrecision said:
That I can't help you with unfortunately. You're going to wait for the response of others regarding that.
Click to expand...
Ya this is a bit odd since this is either anti feat for AE type 1 and NEP or the current CM would fit the criteria as causing damage to AE type 1 can mean modifying his shape.
 
ImmortalDread said:
My point is pretty much clear. Harming can also be "modifying" depending on the given context. And I explicitly stated, it can. It is not what i primarily believe, but I think it could be in this case. I did not say "harming is modifying".
Click to expand...
So you're in agreement with my first comment. If you recall, I made it quite clear that you didn't believe it is considered CM under ALL contexts:
LaserPrecision said:
While I can understand the stance of inflicting harm on concepts can be viewed as "concept alteration"
Click to expand...
My argument is that you believe it is in the case based on how you were dismissive of arguments that claimed he didn't have CM and explained as to why it wouldn't be considered CM in this context. You certainly could've been more clear. Let me give an example:
I would like to know the context under which Sonic "inflicted harm" on a being of conceptual nature before deeming it incorrect
Click to expand...
That way, you would've gotten video evidence much sooner than you would with the wording you have currently used. Thus why I said you certainly could've gotten your point across better. Not that the way you did is inherently wrong, but you have to admit the way you put it does make it seem you believe Sonic DOES have CM in this case.
 
Not sure what is the issue here right now, yes I do believe that Sonic does have CM in this case if the current context is referring to "harming as modifying".

And to solve this, I would like to see evidences. "Physically harming" is odd since this is not anymore AE type 1.

Also going to your first comment, yes I was. The only thing I disagreed with, is you stating that I believe "harming is modifying" which is not the case.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Not sure what is the issue here right now, yes I do believe that Sonic does have CM in this case if the current context is referring to "harming as modifying".
Click to expand...
This is covered in the NPI page:
The power to interact with intangible or non-corporeal beings or objects. Users can both see and interact with intangible, or non-corporeal, abstract, and nonexistent objects or life-forms and entities, allowing them to make physical contact and possibly cause harm.
Click to expand...
CM is not really required.
 
This is not my issue. When I harm you to the point, your shape is modified, then this is CM.

Your shape is square, I harmed it and it became two sided, even tho, I only harmed it and not necessarily modifying it, the outcome is still a alteration.

And we are talking about AE type 1 entity who has no physical body, rather completely pure abstraction. You can't harm and not modifying his shape at the same.
 
ImmortalDread said:
This is not my issue. When I harm you to the point, your shape is modified, then this is CM.

Your shape is square, I harmed it and it became two sided, even tho, I only harmed it and not necessarily modifying it, the outcome is still a alteration.

And we are talking about AE type 1 entity who has no physical body, rather completely pure abstraction. You can't harm and not modifying his shape at the same.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I'm not too well researched on the standards of CM on the wiki, so I won't argue too much, but if that were the case, would that not mean anyone who can like kill a ghost by splattering them with a punch has soul manipulation? And other similar examples like that.
 
Not necessarily no, in fiction it mostly treated differently. Also, I have no clue why you are applying on other different instances with different setting while I am explicitly talking about AE type 1.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Not necessarily no, in fiction it mostly treated differently. Also, I have no clue why you are applying on other different instances with different setting while I am explicitly talking about AE type 1.
Click to expand...
It was a comparison. It proposes that if we treat changing the form of something by damaging it as a result of being able to physically attack them as CM, then why would we not be able to do so with Soul Manipulation?
 
Because I am explicitly talking about it to AE type 1. I am unsure why you are applying it to those who are not AE type 1.

Also, we are discussing as AE type 1 here is even valid to begin with
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Eseseso
Sonic General CRT
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
GlaceonGamez471
GlaceonGamez471
Deceived3596
Viernes (Fairy Tail) Conceptual Manipulation Rework
Replies
18
Views
1K
LordGinSama
LordGinSama
ShakeResounding
Not So Stellar: Classic Sonic Downgrade
Replies
24
Views
846
CloverDragon03
CloverDragon03
Peptocoptr27
Sonic Side Character Additions + Shadowlizard Downgrade
Replies
13
Views
1K
Theuser789
Theuser789
ShakeResounding
Useless Robots, Corrupted Moons: Sonic Frontiers CRT
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
Eseseso
Eseseso
Back
Top