Question regarding Type 5 Acausality

[ImmortalDread]

No, I answered the topic.

We don't give creation feats E = MC^2, even if there's no anti-feats, unless the series explicitly establishes that E = MC^2 applies.

I don't actually believe you when you say that there's cases without anti-feats where the series doesn't explicitly establish that such a quality makes them difficult to interact with. Such characters would have to do literally nothing in the entire story, and have literally nothing happen to them. They do exist, but they're so rare that I don't believe that you're talking about them.

Mate, and what if there are no anti-feats, why you are assuming it won't qualify for type 5 IMAO? This is even the proof that it qualify for acc type 5.
+ what you believe ≠ what the series presents something.

Also, I have a question, since you misunderstand the difference between type 4 and type 5.
Do you really think being impossible to interact with is a significant statement and should be shown in the series?
What if character A can't interact with character B because character B is in a different type of causality of the system? Does character B get type 5 because character A could not interact with him? No mate, interaction statements are only supportive statements, they should not be explicitly mentioned to get qualified for type 5. Being beyond all systems is literally the main core of type 5. This is the main concept of type 5. It is completely different to type 4.

 

[Agnaa]

Mate, and what if there are no anti-feats

I already addressed this in my last post.

We don't give creation feats E = MC^2, even if there's no anti-feats, unless the series explicitly establishes that E = MC^2 applies.

This is even the proof that it qualify for acc type 5. + what you believe ≠ what the series presents something.

I don't know what this means.

Also, I have a question, since you misunderstand the difference between type 4 and type 5.

I helped redefine it but okay.

Do you really think being impossible to interact with is a significant statement and should be shown in the series?

Yes, I and others in the thread thought that, which is why the revision went through.

What if character A can't interact with character B because character B is in a different type of causality of the system? Does character B get type 5 because character A could not interact with him? No mate

Yes, they should get that.

Being beyond all systems is literally the main core of type 5. This is the main concept of type 5. It is completely different to type 4.

Not any more. Type 5 no longer requires being beyond all systems. And being beyond all systems does not automatically put one in type 5. The point of the revision was to remove that language.

 

[Antvasima]

We don't give creation feats E = MC^2, even if there's no anti-feats, unless the series explicitly establishes that E = MC^2 applies.

I agree about adhering to this principle in general as well.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Mate, and what if there are no anti-feats

I already addressed this in my last post.


This is even the proof that it qualify for acc type 5. + what you believe ≠ what the series presents something.

I don't know what this means.

Also, I have a question, since you misunderstand the difference between type 4 and type 5.

I helped redefine it but okay.

Do you really think being impossible to interact with is a significant statement and should be shown in the series?

Yes, I and others in the thread thought that, which is why the revision went through.

What if character A can't interact with character B because character B is in a different type of causality of the system? Does character B get type 5 because character A could not interact with him? No mate

Yes, they should get that.

Being beyond all systems is literally the main core of type 5. This is the main concept of type 5. It is completely different to type 4.

Not any more. Type 5 no longer requires being beyond all systems. And being beyond all systems does not automatically put one in type 5. The point of the revision was to remove that language.

I feel like part of the issue is the miscommunication about what the new definition is, so evidently it didn’t really do a good job of clearing that up if that was the intentio. Regardless, it does need to be elaborated on what exactly it does mean since it seems everyone’s interpretation is rather disjointe. As you said you helped redefine it, it would help greatly explain what the new definition is

edit:

I do have a few responses and issues with the arguments presented, but I want to make sure everyone is on the same page before we continue

 

[Agnaa]

The new type 5 is for characters who are disjointed enough from regular causality for processes operating under regular causality to be completely unable to affect them.

This does not apply to characters who have sufficiently warped causality to where it's difficult to meaningfully affect them. If a character's causality is "reversed", such that all attacks on them were felt in the attacker's past, and are healed in the attacker's future, it would not qualify, as the character with reversed causality is still affected by ordinary causality, even if the effects are changed to be less advantageous for an attacker.

This does not apply to characters who are made difficult to interact with through temporal shenanigans without a causal element being explicitly stated.

This does apply to characters who are on another system of cause and effect (still affected by causality), but for whom being on that different system makes them unable to be interacted with.

Characters who transcend "all systems of cause and effect", and who are made unable to be interacted with because of it, still qualify for type 5.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

The new type 5 is for characters who are disjointed enough from regular causality for processes operating under regular causality to be completely unable to affect them.

This does not apply to characters who have sufficiently warped causality to where it's difficult to meaningfully affect them. If a character's causality is "reversed", such that all attacks on them were felt in the attacker's past, and are healed in the attacker's future, it would not qualify, as the character with reversed causality is still affected by ordinary causality, even if the effects are changed to be less advantageous for an attacker.

This does not apply to characters who are made difficult to interact with through temporal shenanigans without a causal element being explicitly stated.

This does apply to characters who are on another system of cause and effect (still affected by causality), but for whom being on that different system makes them unable to be interacted with.

Characters who transcend "all systems of cause and effect", and who are made unable to be interacted with because of it, still qualify for type 5.

After consideration then in light of that, I’m gonna say neither that or the arguments above actually address the counterpoints raised

It seems the e=mc^2 argument is being used to set a present but the two situations are not equatable. Creation feats in fiction are inherently ambiguous in their method unless otherwise stated, which is why we treat them as not necessarily equatable to AP, simply because we don’t actually reasonably know if the method itself would be something that would result in such a extrapolation being feasible. But in the case of say, for example, being stated to be unbound from all forms of causality, the method is already known, and the idea of being uninteractible follows naturally. The two situations aren’t really comparable at all nor does the former give precedent to the latter ruling because the issues are inherently different

Additionally, even if we decide to completely handwave the fact that the rulings address two completely different individual, we still wouldn’t be applying the acausality ruling in the same manner as we do creation feats, because with creation feats, the cause (e=mc^2 based physics being used for creation) being assumed to be false, none of the implications that follow (namely AP that is based on e=mc^2, matter and energy manipulation in addition to creation, and the power being affected by powers which manipulate such equations) are all assumed to also not be applicable. But in this case of acausality, only one specific implication (invulnerability and lack of interaction) is removed if the method (being unbound from causality), we also keep some implications like paradox immunity, instead of actually doing what we do with creation feats and ignoring all implications besides the directly shown (in the case of creation feats, that would be having the power of creation, and in the case of statements of being unbound from causality, that would be Resistance to Causality Manipulation)

The long and short of it is, even if we completely ignore all the issues with such a comparison and assume it does set a precedent despite completely different issues, we don’t even actually follow the precedent anyway because we actually give those statements more leeway than creation feats by giving them an Acausality subset rather than just resistance to causality. So regardless, the current system isn’t consistent with either side’s argument

As for the idea of existing within a series in the same fashion as other characters, I would agree personally that that would register as an anti-feat for whatever individual was said to be unbound from causality being uninteractible of course, but the argument that that somehow follows to create blanket rulings like this one is a bit…. I don’t see how it follows?

Ignoring the issue that we don’t judge powers and rulings existence by how many people have them (Transduality and Power Modification come to mind as having few users and applications), but rather by consistent definition, so the number of characters that would apply isn’t super relevant. I’d also point out that there are plenty of characters who don’t interact in the story due to their nature, and plenty of them are only interactible through specific methods, which would be a feat for those methods, not an anti feat for them in any case.

Mind you, the rest of the rulings seem fine, but it seems pretty clear statements of being unbound from cause and effect should include interaction by definition unless otherwise shown. Sure, that may only apply to a few characters since there are a lot of possible anti feats, but our job is to evaluate those things on a case by case basis, not throw out blanket assumptions because “other series have situations where anti feats exist”. In fact, if the list of potential anti feats is so broad, that shows that the necessary strictness for such a ruling would be there anyway simply because literally any character existing in the story in a normal fashion would already be disqualifie. Additional requirements for evidence would be redun anyway and would be more based in assumptions as vs debaters seeing other verses rather than the internal consistency of the story

 

[Yobo_Blue]

(Also as I’m busy getting stuff set up for college rn I may be a bit to respond just so y’all know, so Ultima can handle it from here for a bit lol)

 

[Agnaa]

e=mc^2

We give creation feats an AP rating no matter what, we just don't consider it applicable in fights unless certain conditions are met. This AP rating is derived from the table in the Creation Feats page, or PE (if the object was created above ground), or temperature change (if the object is anomalously hot/cold), or GBE (if the object is gravitationally bound), or e=mc^2 (if we get explicit confirmation that this formula applies in this verse).

We don't use the most scientifically accurate formula, despite it being true IRL, unless we get explicit confirmation it was used, due to it inflating results and often being contradicted in fiction.

My reason for bringing it up, is that we do that even when the piece of fiction being talked about doesn't have anti-feats.

A lot of your response has issues since you misunderstand how we treat Creation in ways that make the comparison less sensical. The only thing that changes with Creation is the exact AP number we give, and as a bonus, the AP number we refuse to give is the one that's literally observably true in our reality. The only thing that changes with Acausality is whether we give invulnerability or not, and we refuse to give it despite it making some amount of logical sense.

I don't see how people having anti-feats matters for a blanket rule

We often make blanket rules if a lot of fiction treats something in an unrealistic way. It's not about the number of characters who have true Acausality Type 5, it's about the number of characters who give a certain piece of evidence (i.e. "I'm outside of causality") and then have an anti-feat to that. Which is important when the evidence presented is limited. If 95% of the time that evidence is presented it's contradicted, 4% it's neither contradicted nor confirmed, and 1% of the time it's confirmed elsewhere, it may be safe to only let in the 1%, rather than the whole 5%.

 

[PrinceofPein]

There is a difference between a character A that is unbound by causality and that is stated or shown that it usually impossible to interact with them having anti-feats and character B that was stated to be unbound by causality and not shown or stated to be impossible to interact with i.e. people can still interact with character B normally.
Character A qualifies for type 5 and character B does not.
In fact if anyone is shown to interact with character A, it will not be an anti-feat but rather a feat for whoever interacts with Character A, cause they have a statement or shown to be impossible to interact with normally.
the entire purpose of the revision is that just a single statement of "Unbound by causality" without actual showings no longer qualifies for Aca 5

 

[Yobo_Blue]

e=mc^2

We give creation feats an AP rating no matter what, we just don't consider it applicable in fights unless certain conditions are met. This AP rating is derived from the table in the Creation Feats page, or PE (if the object was created above ground), or temperature change (if the object is anomalously hot/cold), or GBE (if the object is gravitationally bound), or e=mc^2 (if we get explicit confirmation that this formula applies in this verse).

We don't use the most scientifically accurate formula, despite it being true IRL, unless we get explicit confirmation it was used, due to it inflating results and often being contradicted in fiction.

My reason for bringing it up, is that we do that even when the piece of fiction being talked about doesn't have anti-feats.

A lot of your response has issues since you misunderstand how we treat Creation in ways that make the comparison less sensical. The only thing that changes with Creation is the exact AP number we give, and as a bonus, the AP number we refuse to give is the one that's literally observably true in our reality. The only thing that changes with Acausality is whether we give invulnerability or not, and we refuse to give it despite it making some amount of logical sense.

I don't see how people having anti-feats matters for a blanket rule

We often make blanket rules if a lot of fiction treats something in an unrealistic way. It's not about the number of characters who have true Acausality Type 5, it's about the number of characters who give a certain piece of evidence (i.e. "I'm outside of causality") and then have an anti-feat to that. Which is important when the evidence presented is limited. If 95% of the time that evidence is presented it's contradicted, 4% it's neither contradicted nor confirmed, and 1% of the time it's confirmed elsewhere, it may be safe to only let in the 1%, rather than the whole 5%.

I fully understand why it was brought up, my issue with it still remains even in what you say

We give them creation sure, and the baseline AP of what they create, but every other implication of the method being used being e=mc^2 is thrown out. If it’s contradicted in fiction, then yes, that tends to be an anti feat, but none of that addresses the core issue, namely that it really has no real parallels to the situation of acausalit. In fact, everything you brought up further solidifies the issue, because the issue is at its core that in the case of creation feats, we consider the method of power being used (temperature change as an example that you brought up) different, and the method of e=mc^2 being thrown out still removes the implications from that method. We give them creation sure, but that doesn’t actually address the issue at hand in that we don’t do the same with acausality. If we were to, the comparable conclusion would be to only give Resistance to Acausality

i highly recommen giving my response another read because I get the distinct impression that you feel I’m arguing something I’m not. I’m simply saying that A. The parallels to the issue of acausality do not exist here, and B. If they did, we would reach a different conclusion than our current ruling does. Whether or not we give AP feats based on creation is irrelevant because it doesn’t actually address either issue, as it is specifically given based on a different method and thus different implications

As for the blanket rule statements, yes, some do exist, and it’s easy to bring it up here, but none of them really set a precedent for anything in this situation. If you have one as an example, it would definitely help streamline the ruling question being brought up, so I recommend explaining which one you have in mind here

 

[Sniper670]

I made the law of causality

I'm outside the law of causality = Type 5

 

[ImmortalDread]

There is a difference between a character A that is unbound by causality and that is stated or shown that it usually impossible to interact with them having anti-feats and character B that was stated to be unbound by causality and not shown or stated to be impossible to interact with i.e. people can still interact with character B normally.
Character A qualifies for type 5 and character B does not.
In fact if anyone is shown to interact with character A, it will not be an anti-feat but rather a feat for whoever interacts with Character A, cause they have a statement or shown to be impossible to interact with normally.
the entire purpose of the revision is that just a single statement of "Unbound by causality" without actual showings no longer qualifies for Aca 5

You are still arguing the same as Agnaa, no one disagrees with this. We are just saying that if the plot never showed them being impossible to interact with but also stated to be beyond all systems of causality, still does not justify he got no type 5. He gets regardless of type 5 or at least a possible rating.

If type 5 main core is to be impossible to be interacted with, remove the first sentence of the definition or switch it with the second sentence. I am sorry, but I am sure the main core of type 5 is being unbound by all systems.

I made the law of causality

I'm outside the law of causality = Type 5

Now he won't be qualified for type 5 because it needs to be stated he is impossible to interact with, but creating the whole system of causality does not grant it. Oh, my. Whoever brought that the statement of interaction should be brought otherwise it won't be qualified even tho he is shown to be outside all systems of causality did not understand the basic nature of this type.

Note: Before anyone comments and says: iT iS tYpe 4, I said “all system of causality”, even beyond causality seems legit for me if the verse only has one system.

 

[Sniper670]

There is a difference between a character A that is unbound by causality and that is stated or shown that it usually impossible to interact with them having anti-feats and character B that was stated to be unbound by causality and not shown or stated to be impossible to interact with i.e. people can still interact with character B normally.
Character A qualifies for type 5 and character B does not.
In fact if anyone is shown to interact with character A, it will not be an anti-feat but rather a feat for whoever interacts with Character A, cause they have a statement or shown to be impossible to interact with normally.
the entire purpose of the revision is that just a single statement of "Unbound by causality" without actual showings no longer qualifies for Aca 5

But some characters are too far beyond the things they created the scenario for the feat/anti feat won't even happen

Most tier high 1A-0 fit what I'm talking about


In fact as it was said before, Absolute Causality Type 5 should be beyond change. So moving/acting enacting change on things is an anti feat for all type 5s, even the strict standards you're setting

 

[ImmortalDread]

But some characters are too far beyond the things they created the scenario for the feat/anti feat won't even happen

Most tier high 1A-0 fit what I'm talking about

Yap. I have no idea why we need an explicit clear statement that they never can be interacted with, bro they are so high that smth is already logical and fits the context.

 

[Sniper670]

I made some changes, but you get what I'm talking about

 

[Sniper670]

Some character's can be known ONLY by word of mouth

Some are dreaming the realities and it will be impossible to be interacted with by anyone within its dreams

That's what I call perfect type 5 Acausality. Absolute. Unchanging as reality is nothing more than a dream, unreality. Nothing besides him, is real.

 

[PrinceofPein]

You are still arguing the same as Agnaa, no one disagrees with this. We are just saying that if the plot never showed them being impossible to interact with but also stated to be beyond all systems of causality

Except the entire purpose of the thread we just finished is to say a single statement saying someone is beyond causality then gets interacted with without any problem or hax is not enough for type 5 anymore.

But some characters are too far beyond the things they created the scenario for the feat/anti feat won't even happen

Most tier high 1A-0 fit what I'm talking about

Naturally a flame inside a picture cannot burn you, so are you above causality??
The reason those ones are beyond causality is due to the difference in level making it impossible to interact with them to begin with. Not because they are above causality.
So yes this kind of characters should not qualify since they need to show been unaffected by characters in the same level of existence but at most a possibly works.

In fact as it was said before, Absolute Causality Type 5 should be beyond change. So moving/acting enacting change on things is an anti feat for all type 5s, even the strict standards you're setting

Why would absolute type 5 be beyond change? Outside of causality means cause and effects don't apply to you, e.g. if you staying in -273°C somehow makes your body hot instead of you freezing to death. The effect of the cause 'absolute zero' does not apply to you.
So I think you are mixing this up to say people not affected or above causality are above change, that's a wrong interpretation

 

[Dereck03]

Except the entire purpose of the thread we just finished is to say a single statement saying someone is beyond causality then gets interacted with without any problem or hax is not enough for type 5 anymore.

Even if this is not the case, it is still not accepted to be beyond all the laws/concepts/system of causality = Type 5 even if no one has ever been able to interact with you just because there is no evidence that anyone isn't capable of doing so. This happens now with God-Tiers of any verse who have such statment.

 

[Sniper670]

Except the entire purpose of the thread we just finished is to say a single statement saying someone is beyond causality then gets interacted with without any problem or hax is not enough for type 5 anymore.

Naturally a flame inside a picture cannot burn you, so are you above causality??
The reason those ones are beyond causality is due to the difference in level making it impossible to interact with them to begin with. Not because they are above causality.
So yes this kind of characters should not qualify since they need to show been unaffected by characters in the same level of existence but at most a possibly works.

Give me an example of a character who qualifies under your system

Why would absolute type 5 be beyond change? Outside of causality means cause and effects don't apply to you, e.g. if you staying in -273°C somehow makes your body hot instead of you freezing to death. The effect of the cause 'absolute zero' does not apply to you.
So I think you are mixing this up to say people not affected or above causality are above change, that's a wrong interpretation

Then you're missing the point of what being beyond causality truly meams

You must be ever unchanging. There's something we call it irl, I'll point it out when it comes to mind

Para Brahman is an example of type 5 acausality

 

[Sniper670]

Even if this is not the case, it is still not accepted to be beyond all the laws/concepts/system of causality = Type 5 even if no one has ever been able to interact with you just because there is no evidence that anyone isn't capable of doing so. This happens now with God-Tiers of any verse who have such statment.

Give me an example of type 5

 

[Dereck03]

Give me an example of type 5

Why do I have to give you examples? I am simply saying that if a character has statments of being beyond all causality but has no feats that no one is able to interact with him, even though no one has been able to interact with him (Happens mainly with God Tiers of any qualifying verse) then he can't have Aca 5.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Why do I have to give you examples? I am simply saying that if a character has statments of being beyond all causality but has no feats that no one is able to interact with him, even though no one has been able to interact with him (Happens mainly with God Tiers of any qualifying verse) then he can't have Aca 5.

Oh, damn, so you are trying to say: that no feats = no qualification. But the plot does not matter at all. Eh, seems messed up ngl.

 

[Antvasima]

What is the staff consensus here so far?

 

[Sniper670]

Do note, type 5 should not be able to enact any change on anything because they're removed from causality


That's what you want right? Yeah, it was never combat applicable to begin with.

In fact type 5 Acausality you'll find in Para Brahman, Plotinus The One,

They "emanate" from their overflowing boundlessness. They don't act in the traditional sense

 

[Dereck03]

Oh, damn, so you are trying to say: that no feats = no qualification. But the plot does not matter at all. Eh, seems messed up ngl.

I did not state that, the new Aca 5 practically is "You can have statments of transcending, beyond all the laws of causality/system/concept and never have been interacted by anyone, but if there is nothing that says you cannot be interacted with, then you do not qualify for type 5" and that is why I say the God Tiers of many verses, where no one can interact with them.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I did not state that, the new Aca 5 practically is "You can have statments of transcending, beyond all the laws of causality/system/concept and never have been interacted with anyone, but if there is nothing that says you cannot be interacted with, then you do not qualify for type 5" and that is why I say the God Tiers of many verses, where no one can interact with them.

Ngl, this is stupid. The main purpose/reasoning of type 5 is literally beyond/transcending all the laws of causality/system/concept/cause and effect and has never interacted with anyone or able to be interacted with. But if there is no statement of interaction, it does not mean it does not qualify for one. But if he interacted with a character with the same level, there are two options:

• Anti-feat (in the show, it seems he is still under the cause and effect system)
• Or he is also acc type 5 (seems both are at same level and is meant in the plot to be so)

I am actually talking about more of those outerversal characters and higher. I have an example to explain to you better, but the problem is you are not allowed to talk about religions so r.i.p.

Also, one question, being impossible to be interacted with, so how do you counter those characters? I am sure, you can only interact with them if you are also acc type 5. This is not anti-feat.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Give me an example of a character who qualifies under your system

Outer Gods

Then you're missing the point of what being beyond causality truly meams

You must be ever unchanging. There's something we call it irl, I'll point it out when it comes to mind

Para Brahman is an example of type 5 acausality

I think you still dont get what causality means, even the text on the page says this

Characters of this nature require evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality

now refer back to this example, although it has been simplified to entail what type 5 is in its most basic form

Why would absolute type 5 be beyond change? Outside of causality means cause and effects don't apply to you, e.g. if you staying in -273°C somehow makes your body hot instead of you freezing to death. The effect of the cause 'absolute zero' does not apply to you.
So I think you are mixing this up to say people not affected or above causality are above change, that's a wrong interpretation

Oh, damn, so you are trying to say: that no feats = no qualification. But the plot does not matter at all. Eh, seems messed up ngl.

pretty much

Naturally a flame inside a picture cannot burn you, so are you above causality??
The reason those ones are beyond causality is due to the difference in level making it impossible to interact with them to begin with. Not because they are above causality.
So yes this kind of characters should not qualify since they need to show been unaffected by characters in the same level of existence but at most a possibly works.

 

[Sniper670]

Where are the scans for Outer Gods. I haven't seen it

In fact for some reason, most tier high 1A and up with type 5 lack any justification. It's just there and I know EXACTLY why

Because they full transcend their verse on all possible/impossible levels that inner workings like "laws" don't apply to them

Am I lying? Saying you need "its impossible to be interacted" statements is silly because for such characters, the "interaction" will never happen because of their transcendence no?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Ngl Yemma sounds logical with this. No Feats = no qualification is just dumb.

 

[Antvasima]

@Pain_to12 @Dereck03

What are the supposed problems that all of the argumentation here is concerned with exactly?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Where are the scans for Outer Gods. I haven't seen it

In fact for some reason, most tier high 1A and up with type 5 lack any justification. It's just there and I know EXACTLY why

Because they full transcend their verse on all possible/impossible levels that inner workings like "laws" don't apply to them

Am I lying? Saying you need "its impossible to be interacted" statements is silly because for such characters, the "interaction" will never happen because of their transcendence no?

tbh, I already explained all these to you, transcendence should never be the reason for acausality type 5.
As most of this characters have type 5 due to being above their verse and not because they truly qualify for it, which means they only get acausality type 5 in vs battles when paired against someone of lower dimensionality not of higher or equal, as that was within the scope of what was shown. again if you don't understand read this again

Naturally a flame inside a picture cannot burn you, so are you above causality??
The reason those ones are beyond causality is due to the difference in level making it impossible to interact with them to begin with. Not because they are above causality.

Same with you writing a novel, the characters in the novel can obviously not interact with you and that should naturally grant you acuasality within the scope of the story, but not in real-life.
So the new thing here is that characters in your story unable to interact with you will not grant you acausality type 5.
I dont see you addressing my points aside from saying "it makes no sense" that is not an argument

Ngl Yemma sounds logical with this. No Feats = no qualification is just dumb.

it is dumb and it makes no sense is not argument, if you cannot say the reason why it is dumb to begin with

 

[PrinceofPein]

@Pain_to12 @Dereck03

What are the supposed problems that all of the argumentation here is concerned with exactly?

Tbh, I don't quite understand.
They want characters to be given type 5 beyond the scope of what they were shown to do.

 

[Dereck03]

Ig this addition to Acausality 5

Characters of this nature require evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality, meaning that interacting with them normally is impossible.

the new Aca 5 practically is "You can have statments of transcending, beyond all the laws of causality/system/concept and never have been interacted by anyone, but if there is nothing that says you cannot be interacted with, then you do not qualify for type 5"

Practically statments don't count unless there is evidence that says you can't be interacted with, regardless of whether anyone has been able to interact with you. Whether they require evidence that you cannot be interacted with regardless of all kinds of statments that already established that you cannot be interacted with because you transcend, beyond all causality.

 

[Antvasima]

Tbh, I don't quite understand.
They want characters to be given type 5 beyond the scope of what they were shown to do.

Okay. That doesn't seem likely to ever be applied, given that our rules are our rules.

What did DontTalk think, and should we close this thread?

 

[Dereck03]

Quite frankly, I just want to ask (As someone who largely didn't participate in the thread): Why is that, exactly? Cause and effect, by definition, are just the principle of "An event is dependent on (Caused by) another," so why does existing beyond that not qualify for Type 5, on its own?

Even Ultima pointed it out in the OP.

 

[PrinceofPein]

What did DontTalk think,

same thing based on his reply, agnaa too i think.
but they can speak for themselves

and should we close this thread?

well let's wait for the OP, and also anyone else who may want to reply to this thread

 

[ÆONS]

Why do I have to give you examples? I am simply saying that if a character has statments of being beyond all causality but has no feats that no one is able to interact with him, even though no one has been able to interact with him (Happens mainly with God Tiers of any qualifying verse) then he can't have Aca 5.

My gripes with your position comes from you giving them Acausality 4 (or really any type of acausality) simply due to lack of evidence or feats.

From what I understand, Type 4 is made for characters who either exist in an irregular or higher system of causality, not those who are allegedly above all types and variations of causality. When there are statements which clearly describe them transcending causality altogether, we cannot suddenly interpret them to mean that they exist in a higher order of cause and effect when nothing in the story implies that such a thing exists. It would just be an assumption based on nothing beyond our sensibilities not being met by the story.

It would be one thing for a character to claim or be claimed to transcend causality yet still be affected by one who succeeds in imposing such a thing, it is another thing entirely for a character to claim that they do indeed transcend causality and for that claim to never be contradicted yet still be assumed to be bound by the thing it supposedly exists above of due to featlessness.

Like I said before, if you are serious about not being convinced that a character transcends causality due to lack of evidence then the much better choice in my opinion is to not give them acausality at all because of lack of context and understanding about the matter. Do nothing and wait and see if there's more content that would explain it. If not, then don't give such a rating period.

 

[ImmortalDread]

it is dumb and it makes no sense is not argument, if you cannot say the reason why it is dumb to begin with

Pain I got a question, character A created the system of causality (all systems/ or the verse only one system and he is the one who created it) and he is above it, does it qualify for acc type 5?
Depends on your answer to this, I will judge if you are just trying to trying to be dumb or not.

 

[Dereck03]

Let it be clear that I am against the new Aca 5.

 

[ÆONS]

Let it be clear that I am against the new Aca 5.

I see. I apologize for misunderstanding your position on the matter.