• 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.

Please Remove Reality-Fiction Interaction

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pritti

Pritti

235
335
Hello, we have an issue worth addressing here. The Reality - Fiction Interaction page seems to be built on the principle that reality and fiction cannot interact and thus any case (with few exceptions), where there is a reality fiction interaction, it is immediately dismissed due to violating the policy of reality-fiction interaction based on "reality and fiction cannot interact". So let's address the elephant in the room. No fictional series on this site has ever treated their reality-fiction interaction as actually interacting with reality. More times than not, if not all times, it is treated purely fictitiously. It's a myth based on how vs debaters wrongly interpret this practice rather than how the verse treats it.

Who in their right mind believes authors have actually created new alternate realities? No one sensible believes that. The page frankly is worded in a way that treats people like children that can't distinguish reality from a fictional representation of reality interacting with fiction. No one in 2018 believes The One Above All creates all of fiction and no one ever believed he created reality (again, assuming good faith that they are sensible). So who is this page lecturing?

The page also lists no reliable sources that show authors claiming immediate superiority over all fiction excluding their own, or any sources proving most author avatars are unreliable and treated as omnipotent deities. No reliable sources whatsoever.

Few people even think that's impressive nowadays. If George Lucas created an author avatar as the "God of the Star Wars universe", he wouldn't be Tier 0, and no one would claim he is unless they have a very primitive mindset that thinks real life authors are omnipotent in relation to their fictional stories. Hardly anyone in 2018 has this mindset. If they do, please with all due respect, who are these people? They certainly don't represent the majority.

The page seems to just be one big lecture on basic common sense that any sensible person would be aware of. I agree that Fourth Wall Awareness and Fourth Wall breaking are something to be cautious of, as more people tend to believe it's some form of extremely useful power when it's really not.

At the very least, the page needs to be reworked extensively from what I can see. It does not seem to reflect the views of the community as a whole because most people, more often than not, agree that this disdain towards reality and fiction interacting is an outdated mindset, especially when it is purely ficticius, is bad practice as no fiction ever claimed to have actually affected reality within reality itself.

TL;DR the Reality-Fiction interaction page seems to be more of an indoctrinated lecture than a page reflecting the concerns of the modern community.

Thank you for reading.
 
Ok. First and foremost, this was very well put together for a wall of text. That alone gets a kudo form me. Also, this is the most sensible and open interpretation of this argument to date. Even if you disagree with the proposal it's still thoughtful, considerable, and polite. I'm impressed, Pritti.
 
The page seems to just be one big lecture on basic common sense that any sensible person would be aware of. I agree that Fourth Wall Awareness and Fourth Wall breaking are something to be cautious of, as more people tend to believe it's some form of extremely useful power when it's really not.

There is an unbelievable truth to this.
 
It's probably because people have argued for stuff like this before.
 
The page also lists no reliable sources that show authors claiming immediate superiority over all fiction excluding their own, or any sources proving most author avatars are unreliable and treated as omnipotent deities. No reliable sources whatsoever.

There is equally an unbelievable truth to this.
 
"The Omniverse means all of reality in fiction" is a myth. Omniverse has never meant "all of reality and fiction". It was only described that way in a stupid guidebook that no credible vs debater takes seriously and it should stop being used as an argument against Marvel's cosmology every single time the word "omniverse" is brought up. Omniverse always means all possible universes and multiverses and is essentially describing a sort of "existential totality" that contains all universes, multiverses, dimensions, and layers of existence. There is not a single scan from a Marvel comic that claims all fictional universes and even reality itself are part of Marvel. Not a single one.
 
Yeah. It was made back in 2016 and it's a leftover from those days. needs to be removed really.

Very well put together, Pritti.
 
Honestly, when I was not into vsdebating and first found this site, I did assume that any sort of author avatar should logically be omnipotent as an author (in theory) has absolute control over their story. I feel like a clarification on how we classify something like that should remain.
 
There's a story behind every warning sign.

Experience wise at least something like "author avatars are not automatically omnipotent" needs to actually be said. Of course we can also simply explain it every time some new user makes a mistake in that direction, but why not have a page?

That aside I usually see no reason to remove content just because it is common sense or trivial. If it doesn't do harm there is no reason not to say it, right?

Also I am suprised that people on here still have faith in common sense
 
@DT Except that according to the OP, there is some harm involved with it, since it's used to dismiss a lot of legitimate discussions simply because it involves reality-fiction interaction. But I'd be more in favor of a rewrite.
 
From reading the page I am note quite sure how it's used to dismiss discussions, since it doesn't suggest to ignore the feats and things that happen only in fiction.

It only dismisses actual reality-fiction interaction, not fiction-reality fiction-fiction interaction.


I have not really seen it being commonly abused or anything. If it is really that common adding a sentence, about what it should not mean, to it might even be relevant irregardless of the page content, as that would indicate a common misunderstanding of the subject into the opposite extreme.
 
I think only the "author avatar" section is needed, but still needs a rewrite because it's condescending. The majority of the page is just a lecture that, I'm afraid, insults the intelligence of a sensible debater, assuming they are the regressive type you see every blue moon that think Bugs Bunny is beyond omnipotent.
 
I'm inclined to agree with Pritti. The condescending nature of these pages comes off the wrong way. There is no need to have "Author avatars seeing their verses as fiction is not very impressive by our standards" on the page. That violates NPOV and does not belong on a page. Who are we braging to? That extremely small number of people that think seeing something as fiction on any scale is the best power ever? Someone may actually find that impressive whereas others don't. It's merely an opinion.

I really need to write a page about Neutral Point of View later. It's been a long time coming.
 
It only dismisses actual reality-fiction interaction, not fiction-reality fiction-fiction interaction.

There is no such thing as "actual reality-fiction interaction". There are no sources or scans to prove this. It is always a fictional semblance of reality being interacted with. Michael Jordan will not tell you he literally played basketball with the Looney Tunes against aliens. No one would. You only find that nonsense in Suggsverse and similar ridiculousness, which isn't notable fiction.
 
Sera EX said:
There is no such thing as "actual reality-fiction interaction". There are no sources or scans to prove this. It is always a fictional semblance of reality being interacted with. Michael Jordan will not tell you he literally played basketball with the Looney Tunes against aliens. No one would. You only find that nonsense in Suggsverse and similar ridiculousness, which isn't notable fiction.
Click to expand...
These are facts. I'm glad someone finally brought this up.
 
Yes, if you make claims against something not many people believe anyway, it becomes self-fulfilled propaganda.
 
I would also like to reiterate Sera's point about the term "omniverse". I've searched for any scans mentioning the word and not a single one claimed to own all reality and fiction.
 
Milk Wars tho

The Omniverse thing is from the one databook and generally just what people say as opposed to some offical source. However, with how people on some parts of the internet take it, right or not, a declaration that we're not gonna use the term that way is still useful. I'd be more in favor of a page rework, as it is still a good idea to outline standards for that sort of topic.
 
I don't care that we don't use the term. I care that every time the word is brought up when talking about the Marvel cosmology, the "omniverse is a nonsensical term meaning all of reality and fiction" which I constantly have debunked as the real nonsense.
 
That, j agree with. Within the verse that's not a definition adhered to anymore. What I'm? Saying is that due to the other meaning the term seems to have acrued, it's probably still good to outline how we'd treat the term/why it's not used regardless. What people think is what's needed to be addressed bt pages like these, moreso than how the verse itself treats is.
 
I'm fine with the the explanation of why we don't use the term.
 
We are too woke for your silly terminology with the orefix "Omni", cower in the shadow of our condescending 2016-15 pages

Sera's probably best person to write that sort of explanation, considering she brought up the misuse of the term and is knowledgeable in marvel.
 
Why is it all so condescending? The reality-fiction page is condescending, the discussion rules are condescending, the omnipotence page was condensing. Who is writing these pages? I seriously have a few words for them >~>.
 
I agree. I fear the lack of regard for NPOV will come off the wrong way for casual visitors, which I'm sure it already does.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
You can very easily find who wrote them by looking at the history. They align
Click to expand...
Hmmm.... I just did and you are correct.
 
Let's not take the thread in that sort of direction.


Ant might be asleep, but I don't see the harm in sending him a message if he hasn't already seen it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Requiem_Yoriichi
Reality-Fiction Transcendence: Why is it qualitative superiority?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Astral_Trinity439
Astral_Trinity439
Agnaa
Data/Information Tiering Revision
Replies
13
Views
3K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Elyartaker
qualitative superiority & reality-fiction
Replies
4
Views
1K
Elyartaker
Elyartaker
Braking
Waiter! Waiter! A R>F question please!
Replies
2
Views
561
Secimatar
Secimatar
BoundlessDumbness
Reality-Fiction Transcendence: And why True Gods and Secondary Beings are Separated
Replies
1
Views
979
BoundlessDumbness
BoundlessDumbness
Back
Top