Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And whoever wrote the blurb is an author of DC's official website.You've changed the subject. They don't need to write comics to be a DC author, if they are the author of an official guide book.
That's not how it works, if this is how you see it, make a CRT and change the Editing Rules, or if you think guidebooks being applicable to the rule is obvious, add the word guidebooks to that rule.If your contention is that "maybe" phrases are unacceptable for WoG, but acceptable for Guidebooks, simply because the page didn't explicitly say that this problem is universal, then you're just refusing to use common sense in order to perpetuate a pointless argument.
They are lower relative to comics, which doesn't mean they are any sort of bad evidence. And it's not vague, it explicitly expressed a probable possibility of the PS having infinite power, which was definitively confirmed by the blurb.I never said they aren't used at all. They are simply lower-tier evidence, and since the phrase is vague six ways to sunday, it's completely unusable.
I have proven my interpretation by the process of cancellation. It's very explicit, if someone says "He can destroy the Universe" there's no room for error, there's no room for interpreting it as something other than the person saying the guy can actually destroy the Universe. This is explicit as such and if it's vague, it's your job to provide alternate interpretations and prove so.I am not concerned with whether you "assume they exist." The phrase is vague, and proposing a theory doesn't change that. I do not need to compete with an alternative theory. Yours is not accepted by default, it must be proven with actual evidence.
I agree they aren't as great of an evidence as comics, but the guide here isn't contradicted by the comics. There's no reason to not use it.Well, we do generally use guidebooks as less conclusive evidence than actual stories, yes, but they can be used as clarifying supporting evidence if it is consistent with the stories.
Whether or not the page is updated to address this edge case, the statement is still unusable. You can perpetuate the argument if you see fit, but it will never be used for tiering.That's not how it works, if this is how you see it, make a CRT and change the Editing Rules, or if you think guidebooks being applicable to the rule is obvious, add the word guidebooks to that rule.
Possibility is explicitly vague, and blurbs on a website are unusuable as evidence.And it's not vague, it explicitly expressed a probable possibility of the PS having infinite power, which was definitively confirmed by the blurb.
You mean "process of elimination."I have proven my interpretation by the process of cancellation
He says "may pay the price" not "will be destroyed." That is vague, because we are given no information as to what that "price" is. This phrase is unusable for tiering. How much more time do you intend to waste on this subject?It's very explicit, if someone says "He can destroy the Universe" there's no room for error, there's no room for interpreting it as something other than the person saying the guy can actually destroy the Universe. This is explicit as such and if it's vague, it's your job to provide alternate interpretations and prove so.
He linked a guide book quote which said: "The immortal Phantom Stranger's powers are mysterious and may be without limit."Can you remind me what it say exactly? We cannot use it as standalone evidence, especially if it may have been worded as hyperbolic flowery language in a less seriously handled information blurb within a publication that mixes stories and very brief information, rather than as more matter-of-fact schematic logic.
Yes, that seems far too unreliable (hyperbolic, speculative, and unspecific) to use. My apologies.He linked a guide book quote which said: "The immortal Phantom Stranger's powers are mysterious and may be without limit."
He also linked a description of a comic from DC's website which says "The Stranger's powers know no limit!"
Any reasonable person would have immediately dismissed the idea of using these to tier a charcter.
Okay, but-Yes, that seems far too unreliable (hyperbolic, speculative, and unspecific) to use. My apologies.
We still need well-considered input regarding this issue.
You haven't proved they are any other possibility or that there are infinite possibilities, you have just claimed there are other interpretations without anything to support that. So far my interpretation is the only one presented.Also, no. Process of elimination refers to a finite number of possibilities where one can be confirmed by proving the others wrong. That does not apply here. There are not a finite number of possibilities, and you have not ruled any of them out.
When a CRT doesn't get opposition it generally gets accepted(as long as it has enough agreements). You haven't provided a valid counter-argument yet.Once again, your theory is not going to be accepted by default simply because someone else has not come up with an opposing theory.
There's nothing else it can refer to. It's a price creation pays when PS and Spectre fights. Once again, you haven't even given possibilities of what else it could mean.He says "may pay the price" not "will be destroyed." That is vague, because we are given no information as to what that "price" is. This phrase is unusable for tiering. How much more time do you intend to waste on this subject
I don't need to. Your theory doesn't win by default in the absence of someone else proposing another theory. You must provide evidence from the comics.You haven't proved they are any other possibility
Yes I have. The definitive counter argument is this: pay the price is a vague phrase that can refer to any negative consequences. Your theory about what those consequences would be are purely speculation, and speculation doesn't suffice as evidence.When a CRT doesn't get opposition it generally gets accepted(as long as it has enough agreements). You haven't provided a valid counter-argument yet.
I provided valid evidence, and the only interpretation to "might pay the price" here that can fit the context is that they are destroying creation-I don't need to. Your theory doesn't win by default in the absence of someone else proposing another theory. You must provide evidence from the comics.
There's nothing else it can refer to. It's a price creation pays when PS and Spectre fights. Once again, you haven't even given possibilities of what else it could mean.
Simply saying it is vague is not enough, you need to expand on that. It would be vague if it could refer to multiple things, but you haven't proved there are other things it could refer to, you haven't provided alternatives.Yes I have. The definitive counter argument is this: pay the price is a vague phrase that can refer to any negative consequences. Your theory about what those consequences would be are purely speculation, and speculation doesn't suffice as evidence.
The phrase "pay the price" is not being contested. Your unsupported theory about its meaning is.I provided valid evidence
I don't need to provide alternatives. As I said, your theory isn't correct by default simply because an opposing theory hasn't been presented.Simply saying it is vague is not enough, you need to expand on that. It would be vague if it could refer to multiple things, but you haven't proved there are other things it could refer to, you haven't provided alternatives.
My "theory" isn't unsupported, it's the only possible interpretation here which I even explained. I then quoted that portion for you to see. You ignored both times. I don't understand why you take a portion of my post and throw away the rest of it.The phrase "pay the price" is not being contested. Your unsupported theory about its meaning is.
Sure, but it is correct if there cannot be any alternative. "Pay the price" could mean different things in other contexts, but not hereI don't need to provide alternatives. As I said, your theory isn't correct by default simply because an
likely Multiverse level+ (The Monitor ranked his full power on par with that of Jim Corrigan)
Simply claiming that your theory is "the only possible interpretation" isnt evidence.My "theory" isn't unsupported, it's the only possible interpretation here which I even explained
You are the one making the claim. Until you have evidence for your theory, it's meaningless. You can perpetuate this argument for as long as you like, but it will not be a substitute for evidence.If you cannot prove it's vague, your claim gets cancelled via Hitchen's Razor.
Prove that with evidence. Not just your opinion."Pay the price" could mean different things in other contexts, but not here
Simply claiming that your theory is "the only possible interpretation" isnt evidence.
Prove that with evidence. Not just your opinion.
It's a price creation pays when PS and Spectre fights. Once again, you haven't even given possibilities of what else it could mean.
Can you give an alternative interpretation then, please?I also find the evidence for this intended upgrade too vague and open to interpretation.
That is not required. We do not accept diffuse statements, period, according to our rules.Can you give an alternative interpretation then, please?
@Antvasima; What do you think?I think Post-Crisis Trigon can be downgraded.
The Monitor didn't exactly say Trigon was on par with Spectre, he said both of their powers were above 8000. This doesn't necessarily mean they are on par with each other, just that they are both above those with power levels below 8000.
Also, may I ask why Jim Corrigan is stated to be above Nabu? Nabu matched an Unbound Spectre once.
Nabu fought Unbound Spectre.I think that classic Nabu Doctor Fate was shown to be inferior to the Spectre in a flashback during John Ostrander's Spectre run, but may misremember.
So do we give Nabu a "possibly higher" and remove Trigon's "likely Multiverse level+"?Yes, the Day of Vengeance feat should also be very relevant. Nabu is weaker, but apparently not overwhelmingly so.
Do we need a new CRT or can we do it here?I think that it seems like very reasonable suggestions at least, but we preferably need further input from our staff and knowledgeable members.
but pay the price doesn't really tell us anything specific regarding what was intended.
That is not required. We do not accept diffuse statements, period, according to our rules.
Can you give an alternative interpretation then, please?
Trigon is extremely wanked, but I have found that people tend to be extremely resistant to that notion. In reality he doesn't even have universe busting feats or reliable universe-busting scaling in the form of actual fights. It's all vague statements like the Spectre one.I also do not think that Post-Crisis Trigon had any feats remotely of the same scale as The Spectre and that it seems like a vague and inconsistent statement to base his entire scaling on.
If I am not mistaken there was some sort of amp going on. I know of at least one fight against Spectre where his opponent was super charged by a lot of magicians but I am not sure if it was this fight.Yes, the Day of Vengeance feat should also be very relevant. Nabu is weaker, but apparently not overwhelmingly so.
We never argued for such a high rating thoIt would be pretty inconsistent to rate The Phantom stranger and The spectre to 2A ;high 1C- 1B based on single statement.
That's Post-Crisis, not Post-Flashpointjim corrigan Spectre has consistently shown to be weaker than Hal Jordan Spectre and Unbound Spectre . He got bodied by parllax and Antimonitor.
Nabu explicitly matched him, and Spectre was amped too iircUnbound Spectre is the strongest Spectre . He destroyed the lord of orders and chaos.
In JLD, Nabu and the other Lords of Order were destroying the SphereWhat makes them Low 1-C? I'd argue even his 2-A rating is a bit generous.
I think i once saw a Nabu upgrade thread.In JLD, Nabu and the other Lords of Order were destroying the Sphere
I think I once saw one by Confluctor, though iirc he didn't use this feat.I think i once saw a Nabu upgrade thread.
Did they succeed, or did they try?In JLD, Nabu and the other Lords of Order were destroying the Sphere
They tried, and they damaged it pretty well if I remember correctly. There were statements about them being able to destroy the whole thing thoDid they succeed, or did they try?
Hal could only use the power of the Logos when he was sent beyond the threshold of consciousness.jim corrigan Spectre has consistently shown to be weaker than Hal Jordan Spectre and Unbound Spectre . He got bodied by parllax and Antimonitor.
Hal Spectre was the only version who could use the power of logos without getting overwhelmed and considered to be the stronger than any Green lantern entities like Parallax.