"Realms with starry skies" feats

[Antvasima]

Okay, but now we have to do something constructive about that in practice by writing an official regulation page.

 

[Ionliosite]

Matthew made some really good guidelines here:

I am fine with Starry Sky feats as long as:

1. It is made clear that what was created was an actual dimension with real space-time and not just some illusion, or distorted realm, or immersion effect

2. There's reason for you to believe the "shining dots in the sky" are actual stars.

3. There's reason to believe why this would scale to the character's offensive power.

 

[00potato]

3 is the only valid one there.

2 makes an unfounded assumption that the clearly star-like bits in the space aren’t stars unless they are pointed out, the base assumption. Pretty much Occam’s razor is all you need to point out here.
1 Is pretty much the same thing. When you see a realm being summoned, why would the base assumption be that its fake? Wouldn’t that need to be proven via any in-verse evidence.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

3 is the only valid one there.

2 makes an unfounded assumption that the clearly star-like bits in the space aren’t stars unless they are pointed out, the base assumption. Pretty much Occam’s razor is all you need to point out here.
1 Is pretty much the same thing. When you see a realm being summoned, why would the base assumption be that its fake? Wouldn’t that need to be proven via any in-verse evidence.

This. Like I said on AKMs message wall too.

At the absolute least, it should be the oppositions burden of proof to prove the Stars in question aren’t real. Otherwise the Occam’s razor normally goes to the idea that they are stars.

And then after that, we go into the discussion in proving the feat scales normally and isn’t an outlier or hax ability.

 

[Ionliosite]

Occam's Razor doesn't say the lights we see in any place are stars by default. If it was actually space, it would be stars by default, but this is some weird pocket dimension that we don't know the full extend of, so we shouldn't default to any light being = star.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Occam's Razor doesn't say the lights we see in any place are stars by default. If it was actually space, it would be stars by default, but this is some weird pocket dimension that we don't know the full extend of, so we shouldn't default to any light being = star.

That’s what I mostly meant actually.

If the realm is clearly something that resembles actual outer space, the Occam’s razor should be that the Stars are real first.

 

[Ionliosite]

No, if the realm is specifically NOT space, but a pocket dimension, Occam's Razor is that they are lights, not stars, stars requires assuming a massive size for the realm.

 

[00potato]

A pocket of space is still space, so Occams Razor would say that it is a set of stars.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

A pocket of space is still space, so Occams Razor would say that it is a set of stars.

This and the fact that it resembles a typical outer space environment (having celestial bodies or nebulaue for instance).

A realm without those things is a different case.

 

[Ionliosite]

A pocket of space is still space, so Occams Razor would say that it is a set of stars.

No, a pocket dimension is a pocket dimension, not space, assuming it is big enough to hold a whole star and the distance needed for it to look like a tiny light in the sky is far bigger of an assumption to make.

 

[SomebodyData]

Most pocket realities kind of throw away occam's razor in general- they usually have funky gravity laws and do not scale the sizes of their insides to the outside, both of which significantly affect the reliability of a starry sky within a pocket dimension.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Most pocket realities kind of throw away occam's razor in general- they usually have funky gravity laws and do not scale the sizes of their insides to the outside, both of which significantly affect the reliability of a starry sky within a pocket dimension.

For pocket realities that are wacky, cartoonish or otherwise I can see where your coming from.

But why would a pocket reality that actually demonstrates it’s similar to real outer space throw away the Occam’s razor?

 

[00potato]

A pocket dimension clearly made to look like space, obviously would be space. I mean what else would it be? A room with glowing moth-balls on it that are only modeled after space? Again that’s a ridiculous assumption. What

Most pocket realities kind of throw away occam's razor in general- they usually have funky gravity laws and do not scale the sizes of their insides to the outside, both of which significantly affect the reliability of a starry sky within a pocket dimension.

What setting ever goes over the gravitational laws of any dimension? Pretty much none of them, so you are only extrapolating this wacky theory of different gravitational laws from nothing. It logically would be the same thing, just condensed.
Also why does the outside size thing matter? It is called a pocket dimension for a reason, it is tucked away from the larger reasons

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

2 makes an unfounded assumption that the clearly star-like bits in the space aren’t stars unless they are pointed out, the base assumption. Pretty much Occam’s razor is all you need to point out here.

It can be literally anything. The realm can be ilussory, it can be a visual effect, whatever.

1 Is pretty much the same thing. When you see a realm being summoned, why would the base assumption be that its fake? Wouldn’t that need to be proven via any in-verse evidence.

Because it could be an illusion or an immersion realm that's not real.

 

[00potato]

That is an assumption that needs evidence, it looks like space, smells like space, it is up to you to prove that it isn’t space.
You could give this “what if it’s X ridiculous idea.” Against everything and it would still be stupid. What if you aren’t even real, or don’t even belief what you are saying, or aren’t even the real Matthew Shodonger, but a hacker disguised as him?
Great Critical Thinking Skills.

 

[SomebodyData]

It doesn't take a genius or the author going "Oh yes, inside the dimension there exists the exact same gravity as Earth despite not being set on a planet (most of the times)" to realize that most pocket dimensions don't have gravity functioning the same as the real world.

"It logically would be the same thing, just condensed." ...How exactly do you think gravity works?

Yeah, that's the point. Pocket dimensions already mess with its own size and by extension the spacing of things within it.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

It can be literally anything. The realm can be ilussory, it can be a visual effect, whatever.


Because it could be an illusion or an immersion realm that's not real.

It sounds like “it can be” is trying to be taken as more of a priority over the burden of proof of it is fake.

Aka, it being possibly fake doesn’t matter when it’s just as likely that it isn’t fake. What matters is its proven, and the Occam’s razor should go for them being real than anything else first.

 

[Ionliosite]

The burden of proof falls in the series proving its pocket dimensions are stellar in size, since assuming it is the bigger jump.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

That is an assumption that needs evidence, it looks like space, smells like space, it is up to you to prove that it isn’t space.

You can't smell like space.

Looking like space effectively just requires anything to having three dimensions.

You are inverting the burden of proof and immediately assuming intent, that is bad faith debating.

 

[00potato]

You can't smell like space.

Looking like space effectively just requires anything to having three dimensions.

You are inverting the burden of proof and immediately assuming intent, that is bad faith debating.

Did you take that bit seriously? Did you actually believe I meant space had a smell? I am not sure if you are trolling or not at this point, impressive in its own right.
Do you seriously not know what space looks like Mattew, it is a little more then just anything in 3-D? Dark sky, little white lights throughout, we can often see the moon. While worlds a bit farther out, past our earthly view. It’s wonderful, you should check it out sometime.

Me inverting Burden of proof? You are the one claiming what looks like stars in space should be treated as fake lights modeling stars by default. Stop projecting and get to critical thinking.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I’m just going to throw in a little reminder to stay civil and respectful here please.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

A Pocket Reality or Pocket Universe is best defined as a usually smaller than average universe that can either exist outside the traditional space, or be contained in an object via Hammerspace. The "Outside size" is completely irrelevant and it's typically accessible only via a portal, teleportation, or dimensional travel. The components within the pocket reality or the actual size may vary greatly.

But it's the standard assumption to use the most observable comparisons to the real world; if it has starry skies, nebulae, or galaxies, the logical standard is to consider those actual stars, nebulae, or galaxies unless statements say otherwise. If it specifically says planet sized, sure we consider it planet sized and maybe consider more outside skies not legit. But if there's no real statement other than the fact that it's an "Alternate Dimension" or "Entire World" or "Quantum Space". It's also not the logical assumption to assume it's tiny just because the portal is rather small. You do not assume the door of a house is the same size as the entire house. If a dimension is accessed via a mirror or a painting that happens to be magical; the painting is merely a painting sized portal and it is not assumed that the dimension is as small as said painting. Same with a character's mouth, it's not assumed the pocket reality is the same size as one's stomach, but rather that their pocket reality stomach exists outside traditional space and their mouth is a dimensional gateway.

But yes, we should prove that a reality or dimension was created, and not just assume that in place of teleportation, illusion abilities, ect.

Anyway, Kukui is right as usual that we should try to maintain a respectable and friendly society as much as possible.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Gonna be honest, all this talk about the different types of pocket realities makes me wonder why we dont just seperate them into what I just said. Different types.

Kinda like how we used to seperate voids into different types to differentiate fake voids from real ones, we could do the same with pocket realities to differentiate ones that are real with actual outer-space qualities and distances from ones that are more wacky and cartoonish.

 

[AKM sama]

What if you aren’t even real, or don’t even belief what you are saying, or aren’t even the real Matthew Shodonger, but a hacker disguised as him?
Great Critical Thinking Skills.

Don't incite reactions from others. I have been observing and your behavior hasn't been great in threads. Take it as a warning. If you can't properly respond with actual arguments without throwing shade at others and being confrontational, don't bother.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. I have also noticed that 00potato has been a repeated disturbance ever since he first came to the wiki and constantly interfered in rule violation threads.

He needs to make a serious effort to shape up and be friendly, constructive, and polite, just like most others here are trying to do.

Anyway, what is the staff consensus here, and is somebody willing to assemble our current standards and conclusions in this thread to a new instruction page?

 

[00potato]

But that was actually to get a point across, you can say “What if it’s x.” But that wouldn’t make it a reasonable default assumption. The whole post was mostly constructive argument, maybe somewhat repetitive. You can’t really accuse me of not being constructive when the whole thread, I was somewhat constructively working with or against everyone else.


Also why are you saying complaining about “polite constructive-ness.” When Schroeer is right there? And Efieciente is still a Mod? I can assure you nothing done here is worse then their attitude yet you are fine with that. Not really saying much is wrong with them specifically or that their position is unwarranted but it’s weird that they are considered perfectly fine around here.

 

[Antvasima]

Matthew has not been a problem for quite a long time now. You are dragging up old issues, and both he and Eficiente have continuously tried to help out with evaluations and other important work. As such, they are valuable resources. In addition, Eficiente has been repeatedly severely reprimanded recently, and AKM will talk with him even further in private.

That you have tried to cause hostility between the staff and the regular members based on exaggerations and misrepresentations is part of the problem with you.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, Matthew was demoted back when he was genuinely problematic. He is not being hostile anymore as far as I have noticed though.

 

[Andytrenom]

We talk about how the stars in a pocket dimension might be just lights but think about it, why choose a pattern of lights that immediately looks like the night sky if your intention is to not have it be the night sky And if you are drawing what is supposed to be the sky of another realm, and you go with what looks like the sky of the real world, would you not assume that the author/artist just replicated a starry sky instead of drawing a pattern that just happened to look starry without actually being it?

What's happening is obvious, but because it happens to be a high tier feat we immediately start making assumptions that haven't been indicated and only serve to lowball the feat. This is just a vs debating mentality which sometimes ignores common sense and warps what is presented to you in very simple terms.

Assuming these realms to not be starry skies is a much bigger exercise in hypotheticals and I don't find it to be a good assumption at all

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

We talk about how the stars in a pocket dimension might be just lights but think about it, why choose a pattern of lights that immediately looks like the night sky if your intention is to not have it be the night sky And if you are drawing what is supposed to be the sky of another realm, and you go with what looks like the sky of the real world, would you not assume that the author/artist just replicated a starry sky instead of drawing a pattern that just happened to look starry without actually being it?

What's happening is obvious, but because it happens to be a high tier feat we immediately start making assumptions that haven't been indicated and only serve to lowball the feat. This is just a vs debating mentality which sometimes ignores common sense and warps what is presented to you in very simple terms.

Assuming these realms to not be starry skies is a much bigger exercise in hypotheticals and I don't find it to be a good assumption at all

This. So much this.

What I was trying to say but 100x better.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Me inverting Burden of proof? You are the one claiming what looks like stars in space should be treated as fake lights modeling stars by default. Stop projecting and get to critical thinking.

You have to prove that any fancy starry sky effect is a real dimension that stretches across thousands of light-years and has burning balls of plasma millions of miles in diameter riddled across its space. Yes. That's the burden on you because it's a positive claim.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

We talk about how the stars in a pocket dimension might be just lights but think about it, why choose a pattern of lights that immediately looks like the night sky if your intention is to not have it be the night sky And if you are drawing what is supposed to be the sky of another realm, and you go with what looks like the sky of the real world, would you not assume that the author/artist just replicated a starry sky instead of drawing a pattern that just happened to look starry without actually being it?

I don't know man. I don't make judgements over what any would-be author might or might not be implying here. They could just think it looks cool and that' it. In fact, most of the time that's all it ever is.

You only start getting the "Oh, this is a dimension light-years in size with stars" when you are already fully immersed in a perpetual battleboarding mindset and you look at everything as a feat.

 

[Antvasima]

Both Andytrenom and Matthew make good points regarding this, so I am not sure what we should do beyond that we need to create a new instruction page after we reach a decision.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Sera_EX @Promestein @AKM sama @Ryukama

What do you think that we should do here? We seem to have reached an impassé.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm with Andy. While I do agree with Matt on some things, such as one; I agree the first piece of evidence is a pocket (dimension/reality/universe) being created, not simply teleported or a character having the ability to create fancy illusions of a starry sky background with a simple hand wave. But if it's a confirmed, "Alternate Dimension" or "Entire World", Andy is right that the logical assumption is too consider the stars real unless otherwise shown or stated the stars are small or illusory.

Furthermore, created a starry sky dimension is a 4-A creation feat; usually for one specific spell. If that's technically their strongest spell, it won't scale to any other spell unless they happen to have spells that are stronger tier wise. There should be proof that it scales to other stats; there are no objections that destroying them outright are solid AP feats. A generic same energy source isn't enough in itself unless they use the same amount has evidence, but a detailed 1:1 scale if proven is fine, but there should be better clarifications on 1:1 scale.

Also, if you have problems with other staff members, politely message HR groups in private and show more recent examples. Matt's last extreme comment was on July 2020, which he already received a final warning for that. But please, do not mentioned it publicly any further until he actually makes a comment just as bad past this point. Otherwise, try to keep all on site comments simple with no direct attacks.

That's what I can say for now before my work shift.

 

[Antvasima]

Andy and Medeus:

Okay. So do either of you have an alternative suggestion for a set of guidelines than the ones that Matthew suggested?

 

[00potato]

Overall, I agree with Mede on this.

Seems like a good compromise.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I'm with Andy. While I do agree with Matt on some things, such as one; I agree the first piece of evidence is a pocket (dimension/reality/universe) being created, not simply teleported or a character having the ability to create fancy illusions of a starry sky background with a simple hand wave. But if it's a confirmed, "Alternate Dimension" or "Entire World", Andy is right that the logical assumption is too consider the stars real unless otherwise shown or stated the stars are small or illusory.

You also need evidence that this is an actual pocket / alternate dimension.

A character going "Welcome to my world!" or whatever bullshit isn't enough. Things can be quite blatant visual effects, or illusory, or much smaller than it looks.

This is like when Power Rangers was 3-C because of this scene where a character pulls another to another dimension and says "This is my world". Calling something "yours" is not evidence that you created it in the slightest.

Likewise, being the "Lord of a Realm" or whatever isn't evidence either. People can rule over nations and countries and not have created them. Why would it be different with realms or dimensions.

You need explicit evidence that a character created this dimension. Preferrably with something along the lines of "He created this whole dimension".

And then after this is established you need evidence that he did this in a way that scales to AP. And "Oh I think it makes sense for it to scale to AP because its magic energy and blahblahblah" is not evidence for that. This is like saying that people who can summon storms can have their individual lightning bolt attacks scale to the entire storms.

 

[Ionliosite]

Matthew is without a doubt making the most sense here, otherwise we would be falling into making tons of assuptions regarding these kind of scenes just to get a higher tier.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

The scaling portion isn’t the issue here, everyone agrees we need evidence that it scales to overall AP.

The issue here is what should first be taken as the Occam’s razor and what should then become the burden of proof for these feats.

And i for one am not seeing how “it can be fake, an illusion, etc” means the Occam’s razor normally means a dimension is fake first before anything else. “It can” isn’t an argument since it’s just as much likely that dimensions can be real ones.

Simply put, this discussion is shifting around where common sense and logical assumption should be placed before the need for evidence comes. You need to have a reason to think the dimension would be an illusion or a fake.