• 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.

Light Speed Standard Revision

Agree for the most part.
 
Looks good. I always found that light manipulators being able to bend their own light being disqualified as real light pretty dumb.
 
Your summary of the for/against appears to be inaccurate. Just for a start, everybody who agree with DontTalkDT should be listed as "against" as far as I am aware.

And yes, he is the main authority in this wiki regarding our math instruction pages. We are not going to change the page without his approval.
 
With all due respect Ant, while DT's opinions are definitely highly regarded and respected, his word is not suddenly absolute. His arguments, while good, have been countered by rebuttals by myself and so if he should reject this proposal he needs to address them. That is all im saying.

And yes your right about the for/against. I'll update that now too.
 
This would be a drastic and likely ill-considered change for the standards of this wiki that would require a lot of revisions, and DontTalkDT is our main authority that is specifically assigned to evaluate subjects such as this, and extremely busy IRL, so again, if he opposes this, I will not allow it to pass. My apologies.

You can ask him to comment here again via his message wall if you wish. Just make sure to properly define what you need his help with in the title of your post.
 
And it's not like we are rejecting this just because only a single person (DT) disagrees. Like you said "his word is not suddenly absolute", but there are other staff members who also share the same opinion as him and agree with him on this matter.
 
Yes, and again, DontTalkDT is our main authority for cases such as this, and is specifically assigned to help us evaluate, and if necessary apply, them. He is extremely reliable.
 
That might be true, but saying "we are not going to change the pages without his approval" goes directly against his word not being final inherently. He could just disagree forever and nothing happens, regardless of his argument making sense or not by this case. I'm almost giving up because the whole thing here is that staff have more power than non-staff. No matter how much we disagree, we're just wrong and that's that. Its like we're not even trying to find what is true anymore, the "argument" part isn't being valued if we trust someone's word as that individual instead of the argument standing on its own merits.

With AKM, yeah. There's also staff who agree with our position, some more than others and some less, but it's true. It doesn't really make any sense to me anymore, you can't be listening to every side and looking for a direct argument and also appealing to an authority and reject based on their word alone. Let DT's argument hold up to criticism, rather than him say something you already agree with, as you disagreed with us before he said anything.

But ok.
 
Look, for major policy decisions it is up to the staff to together decide what to do, and DontTalkDT is our go-to expert for evaluating this type of issue. In addition, he makes good sense, so several staff members agree with him.

Also, this would lead to a lot of revisions, so a clear staff consensus is needed before any changes are applied.
 
That's fine. But that's not what's happening. There's no debate about what is happening being had if we just defer to his word due to his reliablility.

Nvm.
 
Again, you can ask him to comment here again if you wish, but he tends to be busy IRL.
 
If staff can't get a hold of him consistently, I won't have much luck. I only found him because he recently posted on a Gravity Rush thread. And if he's so busy he can't entertain a debate like us, you might as well just veto us without considering what we have to say, because we will never manage to convince you his argument is wrong without any dialogue.

But this is Kukui's thread, so.
 
If other staff were to actually argue about the rebuttals, I would agree with that statement of Ant's, but as things are now, DT's arguments are debunked and have no value.
 
Yes and there are staff members who also agree with these changes. Heck, Bambu, Therefir and DMUA agree that my proposals are fine and they are calc-group members.

Again, I am not saying the opposition's arguments are irrelevant. They very much are. I am just saying that one side does not get the absolute last word over the other when rebuttals that have debunked arguments still stand and they cannot just be ignored for the sake of standards being potentially changed.
 
Yobo Blue said:
Yes, but the amount of actual arguments against them is nearly zero
Click to expand...
>181 comments arguing

>nearly 0

wot?
 
>181 comments arguing

>nearly 0

wot?

I see you missed the fact that the last 100 have been random complaints.
 
No they're not. 100 is a massive exaggeration, just like your earlier "nearly 0" comment.
 
Eh, maybe a small exaggeration, but it's definitely by no means a big one. Maybe I'm just too used to rounding things though.
 
Yes, saying there are nearly 0 arguments against this in a thread reaching 200 comments sure is rounding off and small exaggeration.

Anyway, that's enough derailment.
 
Well, there is nowhere near enough staff consensus to accept such an important change, so you can either accept that DontTalkDT is our main authority for these types of situations and ask him to comment here again, or we could just close this thread and stop wasting time on it.
 
I had already messaged multiple calc-group members about this, so I did my part in asking other qualified users to give their opinions on this.

That said, if there's not enough staff consensus then this should be highlighted to get more attention if its such an important change Ant. Not rely on only one persons word with all due respect.
 
No, it is most likely a very bad idea to significantly loosen our standards, we have already wasted enough time on it, and I am far too overworked to continue to deal with it.

We should also be very cautious regarding these types of official wiki policy changes, and they are not up to regular members to decide in the first place.

Either you should show some patience and wait for DontTalkDT, rather than continue to repeatedly bother me about this, or we should close this thread immediately.
 
Except I am not trying to significantly change anything though Ant. I said this from the beginning. I am only looking towards making our standards looser by a bit due to a few aspects of it that I and several other people here too think is flawed and should be changed. That is it.

I am sorry if this is bothering you, that is not my intent. We have several staff and calc group members here who have weighed in their opinions on this too so you are not alone in this discussion. All I am saying is that DontTalk's arguments have been discredited by rebuttals that have yet to be countered. So as of now, DT's arguments have been debunked and he needs to come to address them if the disagreements are to stand on this.
 
Question:

if the lights come from a credible source of light (like the sun) or/and confirmed to be light itself, if someone can absorb it and use this as attack, why the one who make those feats's attacks isn't lightspeed like real light? for a general case: If a light come from a real light source is this lightspeed even if this light bend?
 
He has not been debunked. You have just voiced disagreements, and given the current staff opposition, you will have to learn to deal with that this suggestion is most likely not going to be accepted.

Still, fine, since you refuse to bring DontTalkDT, I will ask him myself. This thread will be closed in the meantime until he decides to respond though. I am far too tired and overworked to deal with this.
 
Amexim said:
Most of me forgot what my own point even was, so bare with me on the specifics. Often times I see people using light bending as proof that the attack ISN'T light, and that it's enough to disprove its assumed speed on that front alone, irrelevant to the other pieces of evidence. I think that's what people tried to make happen with Solar Beam, which is stated and acts like light pretty consistently. They argue that because light can be bended by the user, it's not light no matter what. Because light can be made to explode, it isn't light no matter what. I think that if they've done attacks that were considered to be real light as they were then the bending shouldn't count against it?
Click to expand...
As said, it depends on the amount of evidence on each side.

If it has very strong evidence of being actual light, it might be possible to overlook a piece of evidence of it not necessarily being lightspeed in favor of that.

Still, one needs more than the basic evidence for it being light then.

ProfessorKukui4Life said:
This point here would only apply to characters who's light manipulation isnt being considered to being real light in the first place, which is not what my thread is tackling here. There's a distinct difference between saying a non-real light technique being manipulated isnt light speed and an actual real light technique being manipulated isnt light speed, the latter of which I and multiple others don't immediately agree with currently.
Click to expand...
There is no difference between a real light technique that isn't lightspeed and a non-real light technique. Any light that isn't lightspeed is supernatural non-real light, as real light is always lightspeed.

That aside, I disagree. The argument was that their attacks should be considered lightspeed, because they have demonstrated the capability of using lightspeed light. However, that isn't evident at all.

And said:
Question:
if the lights come from a credible source of light (like the sun) or/and confirmed to be light itself, if someone can absorb it and use this as attack, why the one who make those feats's attacks isn't lightspeed like real light? for a general case: If a light come from a real light source is this lightspeed even if this light bend?
Click to expand...
What you are reffering to would in detail be: A supernatural power is used to gather light, temporarily stores that in form is some supernatural power (like mana) and then uses a spell to convert that supernatural power back to light. At that point the connection between what the light originally came from and the light that is fired as attack is basically completly lost, as it is in no way the same light anymore.

Given, if we aren't talking about all that stuff being done via supernatural means it is a different story, but that basically never happens. (and would then fall under the "realistic light source" category of things)
 
The Causality said:
Question:

if the lights come from a credible source of light (like the sun) or/and confirmed to be light itself, if someone can absorb it and use this as attack, why the one who make those feats's attacks isn't lightspeed like real light? for a general case: If a light come from a real light source is this lightspeed even if this light bend?
Click to expand...
As I have said many times, I completely disagree with "character absorbs real light and fires energy beam > energy beam has the speed of real light"

Energy conversion is a thing.
 
@DontTalkDT

Thank you very much with helping out to solve this argument.
 
I honestly have no idea what you said lol. All I just wanted to know is if light bending over a significant distance disqualifies it as real light. Or is it a case-by-case situation?
 
Antvasima said:
@DontTalkDT
Do you think that the Laser/Light Beam Dodging Feats page needs any adjustments based on the above discussion?
Click to expand...
I think I will add a clarification that considerable evidence in favor of lightspeed can overrule minor evidence against it. Aside from that I don't think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Reiner04
Does this qualifies as light speed?
Replies
6
Views
743
KLOL506
KLOL506
Mr_Sugabz
SOL Kanaguri and potentially FTL for Sakamoto
Replies
27
Views
3K
SDTaro
SDTaro
TheUnshakableOne
Does this suggest the speed of light has Infinite velocity in this verse?
Replies
10
Views
1K
Jaakor48
CNBA3
Precognition to Reaction speed via beyond light?
Replies
11
Views
739
Jaakor48
Deidalius
Light Yagami vs Walter White | 0-0-0
Replies
30
Views
1K
XxZetsuxX
XxZetsuxX
Back
Top