Light/Laser Feat Fourth Requirement. Key Word, "Made"

[KingTempest]

Brought up in this thread.

I put this in staff discussion because
A. I was recommended to put it there since it's a wiki standard and it's extremely controversial.
B. A lot of regular members are going to be bitter about this.
The regular rule of "you can ask staff for permission to post" is valid and can be used.

Before you comment on this thread, I advise you to thoroughly read this page if you haven't already.

Laser/Light Beam Dodging Feats

"Light" or "Laser" dodging is a fairly common trope seen in fiction and often the center of debate regarding characters' speeds, given that light is the fastest known thing in the real universe. This article will set forth the standards of this wiki in determining what is considered a real...

vsbattles.fandom.com

The Topic At Hand​

Straight to the point. I request that the fourth qualification for light be either emphasized on or removed.
The fourth requirement of a laser being lightspeed is this.

• It is stated to be made of photons or light itself, again by a reliable source.

Read the sixth word please, made.
A lot of people confuse the phrase "stated to be light" and "stated to be made out of light". I've heard a lot that "stated to be light" is not a requirement, and I understand why).

"Light" or "Laser" dodging is a fairly common trope seen in fiction and often the center of debate regarding characters speeds, given that light is the fastest known thing in the real universe. This article will set forth the standards of this wiki in determining what is considered a real "light beam" and what to do once the feat has achieved that status.

The first sentence for the page is basically saying that it being called light isn't good enough.

A verse I have in mind is Naruto.
The character, Darui, has an attack called "laser circus".
It's stated to be light, but it's also stated to be made out of water and lightning.

Another verse I have in mind is Dragon Ball.
Frieza, Ginyu, and Piccolo all have attacks stated to be light.
They are all made out of Ki, not light.
None of them are accepted as lightspeed, even though they all take place in the timeline where the verse is from rel levels to ftl (before people say that DB is MFTL+ so this shouldn't be an argument).

Something I recommend? This line being added (maybe reworded prior).
"An attack being called a light beam, light ray, laser beam, beam of light, ray of light, or anything similar to those is not enough justification to fit the fourth requirement."

Another Perspective​

In the case that the phrases above do count as justification, I request that the page could be edited to add that as a justification.

• The beam refracts in a new material, such as a liquid or...
• The beam reflects off a material that it can be expected to, such as a non-magical mirror
• The beam is called lightspeed by reliable sources
• It is stated to be made of photons or light itself, again by a reliable source
• It is stated to be a "light beam, light ray, beam of light, ray of light" or anything similar
• It has its origin at a realistic source of light, such as a camera

Worst case scenario, this justification could be removed from the wiki's standards altogether.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Do we really need to be stricter about Light Speed? I mean at this point nobody's gonna be Light Speed...

 

[KingTempest]

Do we really need to be stricter about Light Speed? I mean at this point nobody's gonna be Light Speed...

This thread isn't like the reflection one where they point out the science behind it and such.
All this thread is for is to emphasize the phrase "made of light". Some people take the phrase "it's light" as a justification, even though that's what's being tested.
I said this in the thread I linked in the OP.

Why would it be a requirement if that's what's being tested?

If you go to see if you have real diamonds, is calling it "diamonds" a justification for it being real?

Also, this is also an option.

Worst case scenario, this justification could be removed from the wiki's standards altogether.

Because me personally, I don't like this rule, so if you want to vote for "remove from wiki" to make it less strict, I'm all for it.

 

[AKUTO123]

this will affect all wiki characters in ftl and above, not just one series, and will likely drop 99% off from ftl. Because almost all the series I have read are referred to as beam of ligth and I don't know if there is a series that will not be affected by it.

 

[KingTempest]

this will affect all wiki characters in ftl and above, not just one series, and will likely drop 99% off from ftl. Because almost all the series I have read are referred to as beam of ligth and I don't know if there is a series that will not be affected by it.

And those lasers all have external reasons.
They reflect off mirrors.
They refract off water.
They are stated to be made out of light or photons.
They are called lightspeed.
They have realistic sources of light.

Again, staff can vote for the rule to be removed if it’s too strict.

 

[AKUTO123]

And those lasers all have external reasons.
They reflect off mirrors.
They refract off water.
They are stated to be made out of light or photons.
They are called lightspeed.
They have realistic sources of light.

Again, staff can vote for the rule to be removed if it’s too strict.

my opinion will be decisive for the staff whose light speed rules are strict enough, but anyway I'll watch from now on.

 

[KingTempest]

I’m gonna state this now.

I’m just asking for more emphasis on this rule, which could affect a bunch of verses with very few criteria.
Another solution is to add

Something I recommend? This line being added (maybe reworded prior).
"An attack being called a light beam, light ray, laser beam, beam of light, ray of light, or anything similar to those is not enough justification to fit the fourth requirement."

You could switch this around and say that these key phrases can be justification for lightspeed (if someone wants that to be a criteria ofc, making it easier for the verses less fortunate of direct statements to get the requirement.

 

[KingTempest]

This is irrelevant irl lasers are stated to be made light. Authors intent its a beam of light. This is just plane Nit-picky.

1. This is a staff thread. Exit.
   1. I didn't request for the @AKUTO123's messages to be deleted because he/she was noting a genuine concern about the consequences of the OP.
2. Irl, lasers are made from atoms. Light is made from photons/particles. Is a photon an atom? No.
3. This is not nit-picky, this is the wiki's standards. The OP flat out links the standards of lasers for the wiki.

unless the beam is stated to be made of more than just light theirs no reason to assume otherwise

The wiki states

Most lasers in fiction are not real or provable as real. Often they are supernatural in nature and do not function anywhere close to how real light should.

Which is valid.
Prove a supernatural laser = real life laser then we can talk.

 

[Qawsedf234]

The character, Darui, has an attack called "laser circus".

Actually that's a mistranslation. In Japanese it's like "Chain Tormenting Principle".

As for ki the Solar Flare is explicitly an attack that relies on bright light and their are other light based moves in the series.

The definitions given in the page is supposed to be a shotgun all verse coverage sort of thing. It falls apart at the individual level for some series, but it's not really made for that either. It's good as is in my view.

 

[AKM sama]

I think the main misunderstanding in the thread is that the criteria:

• It is stated to be made of photons or light itself, again by a reliable source

is being misunderstood. If an attack is simply called a "beam of light / light ray / light attack" or something similar, that doesn't have the same meaning as being stated to be "made of photons" or "made of light", given how common it is for names of attacks to have the term light in it (example, Piccolo's makankosappo or light of death) or characters hyping themselves up.

I personally don't think this point should be misunderstood (it's clear enough for me), but if it is, we can probably just tweak the wording a little bit to make it more clear.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Repeating what I said in another thread:
I am 100% with AKM here. A beam being stated to be "light" and moving in a straight line isn't evidence for lightspeed. Not here and not never. This to me is non-negotiable. I don't care how many verses this affects.

 

[KingTempest]

Actually that's a mistranslation. In Japanese it's like "Chain Tormenting Principle".

Completely forgot about this, but the databook portrays it to be light, yet it's made out of lightning and water.

As for ki the Solar Flare is explicitly an attack that relies on bright light and their are other light based moves in the series.

Solar Flare works because it manipulates real bright light and focuses on intensity and such.

But everything else? Nah.

The definitions given in the page is supposed to be a shotgun all verse coverage sort of thing. It falls apart at the individual level for some series, but it's not really made for that either. It's good as is in my view.

That's fair.
Basically, everything you said is right, just a difference of opinion on the last point. All is well though

 

[KingTempest]

I think the main misunderstanding in the thread is that the criteria:

• It is stated to be made of photons or light itself, again by a reliable source

is being misunderstood.

THANK YOU AKM.

If an attack is simply called a "beam of light / light ray / light attack" or something similar, that doesn't have the same meaning as being stated to be "made of photons" or "made of light", given how common it is for names of attacks to have the term light in it (example, Piccolo's makankosappo or light of death) or characters hyping themselves up.

I personally don't think this point should be misunderstood (it's clear enough for me), but if it is, we can probably just tweak the wording a little bit to make it more clear.

This is really the center of the thread.

 

[AKM sama]

I mean, personally, I don't see how anybody can confuse that being called "light" in some form is the same as being "stated to be made of photons/light". The former answers the question of "What is the attack?" and the latter answers the direct question "What is the attack made of?".

I don't have any opinion regarding how to improve that specific bit of wording because it is painfully clear to me. If this misunderstanding is used to justify certain cases of related feats, I think those cases need to be looked at separately.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Mr._Bambu @Therefir @Ugarik @Damage3245 @Jasonsith @Wokistan

What do you think about this?

I would personally prefer to not make any drastic changes, just possibly clarify the wording slightly.

 

[Damage3245]

I am in agreement of AKM's assessment of the requirements. I'm not sure any specific changes need to be made, because the requirements are quite clear already.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the evaluation.

 

[Jasonsith]

I mostly concur with what AKM said.

Then, what currently listed as criteria for claiming supernatural beam/light/laser attacks light speed is also valid and ready for tailor-made enough.

For the rephrasing of the "It is stated to be made of photons or light itself, again by a reliable source"

What about

"It is stated to be composed/consisted of photons or light itself, again by a reliable source"

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. That seems fine to me. Although I made a minor grammar correction:

"It is stated to be composed/consisting of photons or light itself, again by a reliable source."

 

[AKM sama]

I mean, personally, I don't see how anybody can confuse that being called "light" in some form is the same as being "stated to be made of photons/light". The former answers the question of "What is the attack?" and the latter answers the direct question "What is the attack made of?".

Like I said here, there is also a misunderstanding regarding whether simply being called "light" or "beam of light" or "ray of light" is enough to satisfy that particular requirement, or does it have to specifically be stated that the attack is "made of photons" or "made of light"? I'd like this misunderstanding to be answered by other members like @DontTalkDT too before moving forward.

 

[Jasonsith]

I hope I am not side-tracking but I am wondering on some principles:

Does a laser/beam/light beam attack need to be carrying certain level of energy to be considered a valid laser/beam/light attack? Currently in the rules of Lightning Feats, it says "It is required to show that the electricity carries an energy of at least 1.6 billion Joules or a voltage of at least 100 million Volts in order to qualify". Since laser/beam/light should travel faster than lightning (reversed leader or return stroke), should the requirement be even stricter? Or is it that the current requirement for lightning be too strict and needs to be relaxed?

Spoiler: Read if you feel like it

Say, Pri-Pri-Prisoner blocked/tanked some attacks which shows more properties of lightning than counter-properties, but that lightning is shot by Maiko Plasma and redirected by Electric Catfish Man - weaklings who are physically "weaker" than an "average" natural lightning.

Later, Vacuuma absorbed Maiko Plasma and ECM. Vacuuma attacked Pri-Pri-Prisoner with ranged attacks, which PPP blocked.

Can a lightning dodging/reacting feat actually be reliably calculated from it?

Can we assume the ranged attacks from Vacuuma be travelling at lightning speed?

I will open another thread if this is too off topic thanks.

 

[KingTempest]

Does a laser/beam/light beam attack need to be carrying certain level of energy to be considered a valid laser/beam/light attack? Currently in the rules of Lightning Feats, it says "It is required to show that the electricity carries an energy of at least 1.6 billion Joules or a voltage of at least 100 million Volts in order to qualify". Since laser/beam/light should travel faster than lightning (reversed leader or return stroke), should the requirement be even stricter? Or is it that the current requirement for lightning be too strict and needs to be relaxed?

The difference with that and lightning is that irl lightning varies in voltage and such to the point of where their energy output changes astronomically.
(This is my own knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong) Lasers irl aren't measured by their energy output, or at least we don't have a standard on what is the minimum to be required to be a "laser". All lasers do irl is burn, simple. Lightning has too many purposes.

Some lasers even have durability negation, so saying "it should have this much energy output" while we put them as dura neg is an issue.

I know that some people take burning through their target as a personal justification, maybe that is one.
I know for sure that laser justifications shouldn't be stricter though, and the lightning standard is perfectly fine.

 

[KingTempest]

@AKM sama

"An attack being called a light beam, light ray, laser beam, beam of light, ray of light, or anything similar to those is not enough justification to fit the fourth requirement."

That could be the basis on it being valid for justification, but people would still argue that "beam of light" = "beam made out of light" if this isn't emphasized.

 

[Wokistan]

"Lasers irl aren't measured by their energy output, or at least we don't have a standard on what is the minimum to be required to be a "laser". All lasers do irl is burn, simple. Lightning has too many purposes."

Yeah, this isn't correct, as burning is the result of that transfer of energy to heat.

As for the other thing, no, there's no set amount of energy that needs to be there for it to be light. Even if I have some tiny amount of light, it's still moving that same speed.

As for what I got called to give my opinion on, I prefer not just using all the "beam of light" things unless you can make a proper argument for why it should work in your verse. There's no difference between that and something called a laser for speed purposes, so I don't see why one should fit the standard while the other shouldn'tbe.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Wokistan. Thank you for helping out.

 

[AKM sama]

As for what I got called to give my opinion on, I prefer not just using all the "beam of light" things unless you can make a proper argument for why it should work in your verse. There's no difference between that and something called a laser for speed purposes, so I don't see why one should fit the standard while the other shouldn'tbe.

I agree with this point especially. Being called "laser" or "beam of light" just means it is fictional light and both need to fulfill the criteria of being stated to be "made of photons/light" to be treated as real light, or as having real light speed.

 

[Antvasima]

"It is stated to be composed/consisting of photons or light itself, again by a reliable source."

So is it fine if we apply this?

 

[Jasonsith]

I mostly concur with what AKM said.

Then, what currently listed as criteria for claiming supernatural beam/light/laser attacks light speed is also valid and ready for tailor-made enough.

For the rephrasing of the "It is stated to be made of photons or light itself, again by a reliable source"

What about

"It is stated to be composed/consisting of photons or light itself, again by a reliable source"

So is it fine if we apply this?

I concur. (Who else?)

(And am I going to do the lightning CRT in another thread?)

 

[AKM sama]

I am in agreement. That wording would make it easier to differentiate the two points over which the confusion was raised.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thanks. I will add it then.

 

[Antvasima]

I have fixed it:

Laser/Light Beam Dodging Feats

"Light" or "Laser" dodging is a fairly common trope seen in fiction and often the center of debate regarding characters' speeds, given that light is the fastest known thing in the real universe. This article will set forth the standards of this wiki in determining what is considered a real...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Is there anything left to do here, or should we close this thread?

 

[AKM sama]

We can close it.