Question regarding Type 5 Acausality

[Agnaa]

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.

 

[Elizhaa]

Just putting in my two cents but

Essentially from what I’ve gathered, the current ruling is essentially, in the event of a statement of being unbound from cause and effect, more evidence is necessary to prove they are unbound from cause and effect, and instead that they are simply follow a different system of cause and effect, usually specifically a system that allows them to interact with damage caused to them

the logic is essentially that this is a much reasonable lower interpretation of the statement but my issue with it is essentially this

There’s no possible world where such a conclusion is actually an interpretation of the original statement in most cases

The current conclusion isn’t actually “we need more evidence for something anyway”

The ruling is right now

“I don’t think that this statement is evidence enough, so I’m going to say one specific part of the statement is wrong, and assume that “unbound from causality actually means” has “a type of acausality which has everything the statement would normally imply. Except for that one thing I don’t like, and we can just assume what it actually meant is that it has a system of causality where it does everything except what I don’t like”

what I mean by this is, in order for this conclusion to work (namely the idea that type 5 with lack of evidence should be downgraded to type 4), the argument essentially alleges that because the statement needs more evidence, we must use a different interpretation where the original statement actually meant something entirely different, namely that the user actually follows a different system of causality which the series in question never alludes exists, and usually with the implication that it is specifically a system that allows the user to be interacted with by people of our normal causality


this isn’t even really a low interpretation, it’s actively twisting the original statements in an entirely different direction. A low interpretation would be that it only refers to things insofar are mentioned within the series, not that the series itself has an entirely different set of rules which are never implied

It would be one thing if it was that the statements of being unbound from causality needed more evidence to be taken as true, but the thing being said is instead “oh it’s actually type 4“ which is just


what

tldr. Current ruling seems to be a case of vs battles thinking where “lowest interpretation“ means “assume weakest possible idea unless otherwise stated” when the two aren’t the same.

Honestly, I shared similar thoughts. It is one to have statements regarding something like transcending causality like Radukai's case, but the characters are interactable by normal humans or many others.

It is another thing to have valid statements being interpreted, with basically no anti-feats, as just a higher level of Type 4 acausality.

 

[Dereck03]

I don't understand your suggestion here, the rules already say exactly that.

I meant to say that this specific part is what many disagree with.

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 wasn't even staff at the time so I didn't even participate and even if you count votes it's useless because unless someone makes a thread nothing is going to change that.

 

[Dereck03]

It is another thing to have valid statements being interpreted, with basically no anti-feats, as just a higher level of Type 4 acausality.

I think we will have to get used to this.

 

[PrinceofPein]

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.

In the nature in which he was shown, i.e. to lower D's, yes he is above their causality system like any good R>F relationship.
but to those who are on the same plane as him, then NO unless he was shown to be unaffected by them too

 

[Delta333]

In the nature in which he was shown, i.e. to lower D's, yes he is above their causality system like any good R>F relationship.

Pretty sure higher D characters don't have acau 5 by default as being unable to get interacted by lower D is default ability for practically any higher D being

 

[PrinceofPein]

Pretty sure higher D characters don't have acau 5 by default as being unable to get interacted by lower D is default ability for practically any higher D being

The character he described has the acausality because the verse it created cannot interact with it.

 

[ImmortalDread]

In the nature in which he was shown, i.e. to lower D's, yes he is above their causality system like any good R>F relationship.
but to those who are on the same plane as him, then NO unless he was shown to be unaffected by them too

And what if he allowed himself to interact with others?

 

[PrinceofPein]

And what if he allowed himself to interact with others?

That still won't change anything
And by others you mean the things he created?

 

[ImmortalDread]

That still won't change anything
And by others you mean the things he created?

No, others mean the characters inside his own system of causality

 

[PrinceofPein]

No, others mean the characters inside his own system of causality

A system he created? also in a verse he created according to you.

 

[ImmortalDread]

A system he created? also in a verse he created according to you.

I will rephrase my question, I am sorry

And what if he allowed himself to interact with the characters inside his own system of causality (that he created | the only system in verse as well)

 

[Antvasima]

@Agnaa @Dereck03 @Elizhaa @Pain_to12

So what should we do here exactly?

 

[Agnaa]

Ultima said he'd respond again but hasn't yet.

I see no changes that should be made from what's been brought up here so far.

This thread turned from Ultima asking a question he'd know the answer to if he read the last thread instead of leaving it partway through, into people being not understanding or being annoyed at the new Type 5 definition.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the reply.

Should I close this thread then?

 

[Agnaa]

I don't know.

A Q&A thread doesn't need to result in changes, so it's not necessary to close it.

But if we did, Ultima could just re-open it to respond whenever he wants to.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I will rephrase my question, I am sorry

And what if he allowed himself to interact with the characters inside his own system of causality (that he created | the only system in verse as well)

That still will not change the fact that they are fiction to him.

@Agnaa @Dereck03 @Elizhaa @Pain_to12

So what should we do here exactly?

I don't know but let's wait for Ultima

 

[Antvasima]

Okay then. Is it fine if I unfollow this thread then?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Okay then. Is it fine if I unfollow this thread then?

Sure it's a QnA

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will do so. Thank you for the reply.

 

[ImmortalDread]

That still will not change the fact that they are fiction to him.

Which I am aware and agree with, thought u were acting dumb at start, dats all

 

[PrinceofPein]

Which I am aware and agree with, thought u were acting dumb at start, dats all

So what did I say that sounds like I was acting dumb?

 

[ImmortalDread]

So what did I say that sounds like I was acting dumb?

Did you realise how you asked a question?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Did you realise how you asked a question?

I did
I made a simple answer to what was said in the thread and you went off right by call me dumb.
And I am simply asking to point out what I said at first that made me sound dumb

 

[ImmortalDread]

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

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

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

This message. The logic behind did not really convince me. A transcendent god-level being that made all systems including the system of law aka causality should get acc type 5 regardless of being interacted with or not because he can allow himself to get interacted with.

 

[Agnaa]

I do not think we should give every supreme creator or character with a reality-fiction difference Acausality Type 5, despite some reasoning implying that path.

 

[PrinceofPein]

This message. The logic behind did not really convince me. A transcendent god-level being that made all systems including the system of law aka causality should get acc type 5 regardless of being interacted with or not because he can allow himself to get interacted with.

And again the only reason he can choose how he gets interacted with is because of the R>F, difference.
Like I said, light a match, take the picture of the fire, now print that picture, can the fire in the picture burn you?
Light another match, now put your hand in the fire, not to worry I will pay for the hospital bills.
Now you see why it makes no sense for you to get Aca5 just because characters you have R>F cannot interact with you unless you will it so.
As things that you have a R>F diff cannot interact with you to begin with

The arguments were never dumb, you just could not understand or comprehend it but either way If you cannot understand this example above, then I cannot help