Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,456
- 13,659
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.
I don't see how that was demonstrated in your posts.
Whatever, fighting over the example sucks. I don't care if there's precedent, trying to dig around and argue over one is pointless. I still agree with this new implementation. If the reasoning doesn't satisfy you, then there's not much I can do.
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.
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.
This is just you disagreeing with/not understanding the new definition.
If you still don't understand it, and you honestly think it still says you need to be "beyond all systems of causality", I don't know what I can say.
If you just disagree with it, too bad. A thread concluded barely over two weeks ago where people argued the same thing you are now, you got outvoted. There's no point running it back now.
What are the supposed problems that all of the argumentation here is concerned with exactly?
Nothing new, we argued about this exact thing for over 300 posts less than a month ago.
Ig this addition to Acausality 5
I don't understand your suggestion here, the rules already say exactly that.
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.
You don't understand, because the definition was changed away from this 17 days ago.
Let it be clear that I am against the new Aca 5.
Cool. Continuing the votes from the last thread, that leaves us with 6 agrees, 2 disagrees, and 1 neutral. The new definition is still preferred by staff.
I don't see how that was demonstrated in your posts.
Whatever, fighting over the example sucks. I don't care if there's precedent, trying to dig around and argue over one is pointless. I still agree with this new implementation. If the reasoning doesn't satisfy you, then there's not much I can do.
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.
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.
This is just you disagreeing with/not understanding the new definition.
If you still don't understand it, and you honestly think it still says you need to be "beyond all systems of causality", I don't know what I can say.
If you just disagree with it, too bad. A thread concluded barely over two weeks ago where people argued the same thing you are now, you got outvoted. There's no point running it back now.
What are the supposed problems that all of the argumentation here is concerned with exactly?
Nothing new, we argued about this exact thing for over 300 posts less than a month ago.
Ig this addition to Acausality 5
I don't understand your suggestion here, the rules already say exactly that.
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.
You don't understand, because the definition was changed away from this 17 days ago.
Let it be clear that I am against the new Aca 5.
Cool. Continuing the votes from the last thread, that leaves us with 6 agrees, 2 disagrees, and 1 neutral. The new definition is still preferred by staff.