Maou Gakuin Resistance Discussion [STAFF ONLY]

[EldemadeDityjon]

What I'm trying to get across is that, if by "resistance to concept manip" you mean "resistance to concept manip when used to do these specific things" then sure, but people seemed to be arguing for something much broader, and to alleviate confusion, it seems better to not mention concept manip separately.

I am only talking about specific Orders and their abilities which purely works on order. I am not trying to give all Abilities CM type 1 or law manipulation

Then sure, his magic resists power null done through concept manip.

Sure.

If a character from another verse tried to power null by applying the concept of "non-functional" on his magic, we wouldn't say "it works because Anos doesn't resist concept manip".

And not being affected could be done by resisting multiple things in the scene.

I agree that making it more explicit likely would've been cringe, but that applies to literally every series. Getting high-tiers and OP hax pretty much requires being very explicit in ways that are cringe.

That's not sufficient. We index things based on their effects, not just their causes. That cause (applying the concepts of restraint and stagnation) has other effects (creating chains, restricting magic, restricting the body, restricting the senses, restricting the mind) which we'd also index separately (Creation, Power Nullification, Body Control, Sense Manipulation, Mind Manipulation).

The CM isn't general, it's just to index they can resist conceptual abilities.
yeah just like you said it's depends on specific feats. We are not giving all abilities CM or law manipulation only specific ability which they have feat too.

Though I don't know what your Idea on general law manipulation resistance will be. Resisting any Law hax should be resisting Law hax. But I do get your point on CM.

 

[Agnaa]

I am only talking about specific Orders and their abilities which purely works on order. I am not trying to give all Abilities CM type 1 or law manipulation

Sure.

The CM isn't general, it's just to index they can resist conceptual abilities.
yeah just like you said it's depends on specific feats. We are not giving all abilities CM or law manipulation only specific ability which they have feat too.

If it's clearly limited at that and isn't misinterpreted, then sure.

Though I don't know what your Idea on general law manipulation resistance will be. Resisting any Law hax should be resisting Law hax. But I do get your point on CM.

Law hax generally doesn't have supplementary effects, you'd have to get to pretty weird cases for it to not be generally applicable. The best idea I can think of is being able to resist the laws of physics changing, because a character has weird physiology that works fine with different physical constants, but that's more in the realm of Physics Manip.

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

Snip

I forgot tell you Nosgalia Words has feats for converting Fundamental Concepts of Normal human into Worlds Order(Law and Concepts type 1) itself. In other words Character needs to Resists Law Manipulation and CM type 1 if they Want to Resists Nosgalia Words.

　かつて人間だった者の根源。そこに聖水の力と天父神の秩序によって、強大な魔力が注ぎ込まれ、想像を絶するほどの力を放っていた。

「天父神の権能をもちて、憎悪とともに生きし人間よ、汝、新たな魔法秩序の名を授ける。＜魔族断罪ジェルガ＞、＜根源母胎エレオノール＞。二つの理、二つの力をもちて、汝ら魔王を滅ぼし、その子孫どもを殲滅せん」

The source of what was once human. There, through the power of holy water and the order of God the Heavenly Father, mighty magical power was poured into it, releasing unimaginable power.

"With the authority of God the Heavenly Father, you humans who live with hatred, I bestow you the name of a new magical order. <Jerga>, the Destroyer of Demons, and <Eleonore>, the Mother of Sources. With two truths and two powers, you will destroy the Demon King and his descendants."

 

[Deagonx]

Staff permission to comment needs to come from a thread mod or Admin. But also, under the new rules authorization is only for a single comprehensive post outlining the issues and the users full argument, not perpetual arguing like seen above.

 

[Deagonx]

Huh, I already created the policy and I can use it if I want, I can use the Web Novel, I can use LN raws scans + TL from Jp people, I can use Fan TL as the rules say so.

Also, on this point, this bears out more discussion actually. It has long been the case that near-identical WNs and LNs are often merged into single profiles, but it wasn't codified until recently. However, this doesn't actually solve the issue at hand, because MGK was specifically deleted and brought back with the understanding that we would use official LN translations only, so MGK serves as an exception to this.

In conclusion, the decision to exclusively utilize official LN translations represents a positive step towards promoting accuracy, consistency, and professionalism within the literary community.

If we are going to re-include WN content, raws, fan translations, then we will need to create a new staff discussion to overturn the consensus to switch MGK to solely official LN translations.

 

[Reiner04]

However, this doesn't actually solve the issue at hand, because MGK was specifically deleted and brought back with the understanding that we would use official LN translations only, so MGK serves as an exception to this.

MGK was deleted because of incorrect MTLs nothing else. I was there on the time of deletion, in discussion and all.

WN content, raws, fan translations

We are going against our translations rules. Fan translations, human translations can be more accurate than official many times and infact official translation can itself be wrong.

LN was decided to use because it's translated already and due to being official translation can be considered accurate. The issue was accuracy and mistranslations that occurred due to MTLs and so was nuked. We allow WN and LN profiles in one as long no contradiction.

 

[Deagonx]

This wouldn't be the best venue to discuss what the best approach would be or why, my purpose is to point out that we had a specific thread which concluded that we would only use the official LN translations for MGK, as an exception to common practice, due to the issues with the verse.

I understand that Dereck made a thread which codified the rules about LNs and WNs and translations, but that was putting an existing practice into writing, like Celestial_Pegasus pointed out:

I thought we basically already did this, but I guess it wasn't written anywhere.

The fact that it's now in writing doesn't overturn the fact that we had a staff discussion where we decided that MGK was an exception to this practice, and that moving forward we would only use LN content, official translations only. If we want to undo that, we need a specific thread about MGK's exception, not lumping it in because we have since codified the unwritten rule that we were already going by.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

You are ignoring the entire premise of that thread, which was to exclusively use LN translations. This is an exception to the rules, sure, but one brought about by exceptional circumstances.

 

[Reiner04]

This wouldn't be the best venue to discuss what the best approach would be or why, my purpose is to point out that we had a specific thread which concluded that we would only use the official LN translations for MGK, as an exception to common practice, due to the issues with the verse.

I understand that Dereck made a thread which codified the rules about LNs and WNs and translations, but that was putting an existing practice into writing, like Celestial_Pegasus pointed out:



The fact that it's now in writing doesn't overturn the fact that we had a staff discussion where we decided that MGK was an exception to this practice, and that moving forward we would only use LN content, official translations only. If we want to undo that, we need a specific thread about MGK's exception, not lumping it in because we have since codified the unwritten rule that we were already going by.

I see, if it's LN exclusive was what being proposed then I overlooked the proposal intents with I believe almost everyone had the same thoughts that it being deleted because of MTLs. But okay, I disagree with that thread LNs and official translations intent then.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/mgk-ln-wn-and-all-officially-secondary-merchandise-sources-as-well-as-raws-validation.155029/

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Bump, I guess.

Is there any reason to not remove the resistances now?

 

[Deagonx]

I don't think so. We're currently 4-1 for the vote. If other staff aren't planning on coming, then this should be sufficient for the removal.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Cool. I'll apply the edits once the profile is unlocked.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The only problem before was whether there was enough staff consensus- there wasn't, not regarding that specific point.

As more staff have spoken on it and given explicit consent, it is now acceptable.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Bambu you're literally an admin, can't you just unlock the page yourself

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Bambu you're literally an admin, can't you just unlock the page yourself

Playing Dwarfy Forts and vibing, you're only catching me when it's autosaving.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

(that said, I will begrudgingly oblige, what pages need unlocked)

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

(that said, I will begrudgingly oblige, what pages need unlocked)

Anos Voldigoad.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Just him? Alright. It's changed, lmk when you're done.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Edits have been applied, we're good to close this now. Anos was the only page since he's the only MGK character with a profile rn.

 

[Antvasima]

The purpose of the thread is whether resisting an ability means resisting the cause of the said ability for example, if I resist flame from a flamethrower, do I also get resistance to the source of the flame which will be "technology or flamethrower"
The premise of this thread is that Anos could resist the ability of Order which is CM but has no statement that he resist Concept manipulation itself so the CM resistance on his profile should be removed

Ultima, Agnaa, Theglassman12, Deagonx, MaverickzeroX and me Agrees with the thread

Dereck and DDM disagrees.

So evaluating staff count it is 4 - 1

Well, it seems mostly reasonable to me to remove the concept manipulation resistance then, but maybe we can use a compromise solution of "Possibly Resistance to Concept Manipulation" instead?

 

[Deagonx]

Well, it seems mostly reasonable to me to remove the concept manipulation resistance then, but maybe we can use a compromise solution of "Possibly Resistance to Concept Manipulation" instead?

We've removed it now, only DDM and Dereck were in favor of keeping it, but myself, Mav, Ultima, Agnaa, and Glass advocated for it's removal.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

...Why do we need to compromise, exactly? The votes are quite clear cut, and there's not enough benefit of the doubt to give even a possibly resistance.

 

[Antvasima]

Because it isn't quite an entirely certain case.

 

[Agnaa]

My conclusion was that there essentially needs to be an understanding that, if "Resistance to Concept Manipulation" is included, that it doesn't resist other applications of Concept Manip.

An unexplained resistance to Death Manip with a conceptual source would protect the character from other instances of Death Manip with a conceptual source, but not EE with a conceptual source, or Death Manip with Plot Manip as the source.

I don't care too much how this is indexed, since it'd functionally work the same way. But I think that not including the resistance to Concept Manip is somewhat less likely to confuse people into extrapolating it.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Never mind then.

 

[Reiner04]

This thread can be closed since concluded.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Because it isn't quite an entirely certain case.

No it is. We have a 5 vs 2 vote tally, it's clear what has been accepted.

You're legit being biased towards @Dereck03 in this one.

 

[KingNanaya]

No it is. We have a 5 vs 2 vote tally, it's clear what has been accepted.

You're legit being biased towards @Dereck03 in this one.

this is staff only still

 

[Reiner04]

No it is. We have a 5 vs 2 vote tally, it's clear what has been accepted.

You're legit being biased towards @Dereck03 in this one.

A staff or a user always have rights to propose whatever they think right regardless of consensus. DB 3-A downgrade would have been passed if Ant hasn't interfered that had proper consensus as well. We all can act as we see true. He's not forcing anything but expressing his view point which is close to mine as well. That said this comment was unnecessary.

 

[StrymULTRA]

DB 3-A downgrade would have been passed if Ant hasn't interfered that had proper consensus as well.

Then it should have been. You see, democracy is a thing, especially in such delicate topics.

This wiki has the issue of "a single staff can change everything" which is... bad.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Enough yall. This thread has concluded. Let it be closed.

 

[Reiner04]

Then it should have been. You see, democracy is a thing, especially in such delicate topics.

This wiki has the issue of "a single staff can change everything" which is... bad.

That's not our issue, veto exists for reasons and necessary in many cases to use. And neither proposing something against the consensus is non-democratic. I'll ask for closure.

 

[Antvasima]

I will close this thread then.

Thank you to everybody who helped out here.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, I was referring to the resistance not the vote tally with that the case did not seem entirely certain.