• 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.

SAO Upgrade CRT | Absorbing the Sun or something idk

But yes, this entire time I have been fine with going the possible route, same with a solid rating, I don't get why we have to be here for so long.
 
CurrySenpai said:
I could ping staff, but like, are any of them even going to pay attention? This isn't an insult, I just don't think people are as invested in SAO like some of us are, especially since Moon Cradle isn't adapted and isn't exactly the most popular arc.
Click to expand...
It's fine. We still have to ask some staff for input, one way, OR ANOTHER
images_11.jpg
 
Reiner04 said:
To me, 'Solus lost all its light' doesn't look flowery tbh. The novel provides details on events as they unfold, presenting them as they are:
  1. What is he doing? He is absorbing light.
  2. How much? All the light of solus.
I feel like "lets say he absorbed the light at this angle, at this point and at this precision (never stated) and what stated was just bunch of flowery languages" seems kinda... off. A flowery argument can be made against anything and so, should not be used if less supported and takes way more assumptions than direct interpretation (it does in this case it seems). For example, if someone has a statement about being capable of destroying the Earth, but we decides to scale him equivalent to a nuclear bomb coz it might have been flowery language w/o any basis to back such claims doesn't makes much sense.
Click to expand...
That comparison to nuclear bombs is, frankly, complete nonsense. The article talks about the nuke being able to "destroy the world" because of the risk of it causing a chain reaction in that atmosphere; essentially creating a planet-wide nuclear explosion. It's not an issue of flowery language, it was due to people being unsure about the physics behind that until they ran the numbers more.

And to be more clear, my contention is that when people talk about objects in the sky, they often talk about them as they're perceived from the planet they're on. When people talk say "the sun will dim", they mean "the light from the sun coming to this part of the Earth will dim". And similarly, I think when the narrator says "Solus on the western horizon lost all its light", I think they mean "Solus on the western horizon, as it appears to people on this part of the planet, lost all its light". I don't think they're using some rich metaphors, I just think it's similar to how in most languages "star" just means "stellar object" and so covers planets and galaxies as well. The way we talk about stellar objects is more grounded in how we perceive them, than in how they actually are.

And I'd again point out that absorbing light from a point partway to Solus, and absorbing all the light from Solus itself, wouldn't require obscenely different amounts of precision and range.
Speezenator said:
Honestly if the only dispute against the CRT going through is "reliable narrator" and "not taking it literally" with no actual evidence against it, then I see no reason this shouldn't go through. That's how I see it at least. While, I agree that Reki is known for using flowery language in his works, he also makes it clear when he does use it and this is not it. To me there's a big difference between "Every star in the universe began to shudder" due to Alice screaming (this case is clear flowery language) and something like this.
Click to expand...
That's not the only one; there's other supplementary reasons to take this interpretation. As mentioned, the light coming back instantly is more in-line with it being absorbed partly on the way, rather than all the way to the star, and the direct comparison to an eclipse makes this eclipse-like interpretation have a bit more ground.
CurrySenpai said:
I’m honestly surprised the people who disagree with the flat out rating aren’t fine with the possibly. Like, if such a minute detail is what we’re debating why can’t we just settle at a compromise? Starting to feel like stone walking at this point
Click to expand...
I already said why up here.
 
Agnaa said:
That comparison to nuclear bombs is, frankly, complete nonsense. The article talks about the nuke being able to "destroy the world" because of the risk of it causing a chain reaction in that atmosphere; essentially creating a planet-wide nuclear explosion. It's not an issue of flowery language, it was due to people being unsure about the physics behind that until they ran the numbers more.
Click to expand...
I was talking about Oppenheimer quote "I've become death, destroyer of worlds" part...
 
Reiner04 said:
I was talking about Oppenheimer quote "I've become death, destroyer of worlds" part...
Click to expand...
We don't actually take grandiose unsubstantiated titles like that as evidence for 5-B for that exact reason.
 
Speezenator said:
honestly I feel until more mods get here we can't really progress much lol
Click to expand...
Such is VSBW. This feat is so simple that I don't really think there are any breakthroughs that could be made, not like Unital Ring or Moon Cradle will tell us anything more.

Edit: when I say simple I don’t mean simple as in “How do these guys not realize my point.” I mean that it’s a simple one where no matter how hard I would luck I probably couldn’t find more on this feat.
 
Last edited:
Speezenator said:
honestly I feel until more mods get here we can't really progress much lol
Click to expand...
Bambu, Agnaa and I are indeed staff. The input you're seeking just doesn't agree as a majority, and though he hasn't commented directly, Antvasima has liked a post where I let Kaantantr in on the thread (and he's been in on the SAO threads of the past), so...
 
DMUA said:
Bambu, Agnaa and I are indeed staff. The input you're seeking just doesn't agree as a majority, and though he hasn't commented directly, Antvasima has liked a post where I let Kaantantr in on the thread (and he's been in on the SAO threads of the past), so...
Click to expand...
I don't think that's what he was getting at, I think he was getting at the fact that we're at a stand still of pretty equal staff agreement to disagreement, with us waiting to see if Bambuu changes his mind.
 
wh

I've been called here three or four times now, and every time the discussion has extended for some duration of time afterwards, so I deigned not to come in yet- because there's other stuff to do that would require less of me at that time and achieve more.

It seems to be that this is winding down, so I am forced (at gunpoint, as usual) to give my opinion.

I hate to give such an unexciting review after making you wait probably longer than you would have liked, but I really do have very little to add beyond "I agree with Agnaa and DMUA on this topic". I would rather lean in favor of lesser interpretations as a default anyways, and here I find that the evidence suggests that to be the more correct route as well.

I find myself saying "sorry Curry" a lot. Anywho. Sorry Curry.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
wh

I've been called here three or four times now, and every time the discussion has extended for some duration of time afterwards, so I deigned not to come in yet- because there's other stuff to do that would require less of me at that time and achieve more.

It seems to be that this is winding down, so I am forced (at gunpoint, as usual) to give my opinion.

I hate to give such an unexciting review after making you wait probably longer than you would have liked, but I really do have very little to add beyond "I agree with Agnaa and DMUA on this topic". I would rather lean in favor of lesser interpretations as a default anyways, and here I find that the evidence suggests that to be the more correct route as well.

I find myself saying "sorry Curry" a lot. Anywho. Sorry Curry.
Click to expand...
is it fine if we at least wait to see if any other staff wanna rule in? I know DarkGrath may come and one other I was talking to, and I don’t think it’s exactly unreasonable to ask given the amount of support for my points.
 
But, not even a possibly? I don’t really see how not even a possibly can be afforded when the text doesn’t outright say it’s a weaker potency, if anything it says more things to suggest that it WAS the full High 6-A.

But hey, it’s whatever.
 
CurrySenpai said:
is it fine if we at least wait to see if any other staff wanna rule in? I know DarkGrath may come and one other I was talking to, and I don’t think it’s exactly unreasonable to ask given the amount of support for my points.
Click to expand...
If you really insist, I don't mind. There's enough staff votes here to call it conclusively rejected, but if you believe Grath may have a case in favor of it, this can be permitted.

CurrySenpai said:
But, not even a possibly? I don’t really see how not even a possibly can be afforded when the text doesn’t outright say it’s a weaker potency, if anything it says more things to suggest that it WAS the full High 6-A.

But hey, it’s whatever.
Click to expand...
I don't agree that it more heavily suggests the High 6-A feat- I wouldn't even agree it suggests it sufficiently to call it a "possibly". While the name may suggest that it covers all things that can be considered possible, there is a cutoff point of likelihood below which we would no longer award the rating of "possibly"; it is my opinion that this evidence falls below that cutoff point.
 
CurrySenpai said:
First I want to establish one thing, Ronye Arabel, especially for this scene is a RELIABLE NARRATOR, and her perspective and words can actually be taken literally in this specific context. For context to those who do not watch SAO, Ronye is Kirito's "Page". Back when Kirito was an Elite Swordsman Trainee at the Swordcraft Academy he got a page, essentially a mentee for him to train and teach the way of swordcraft. Aside from Asuna she is one of the closest people to Kirito at the time of Moon Cradle taking place. The reason I bring this up is because Kirito not only taught her the Aincrad style but also taught her other important things and personal things, which would include the Night Sky Sword's abilities and whatnot. When Ronye says Solus lost all its light, and that he sucked up the light of Solus with the Memory Release ability, she is likely being literal and isn't overexaggerating! She knows how the sword works, she has seen and been told its capabilities first hand, there is no reason for her to make guesses on the functions and potency of a weapon she already knows a lot about. This is not like the universe shaking scene where Steeka is witnessing for the first time a powerful incarnation and would easily exaggerate what she is witnessing, Ronye knows what is happening, and is stating what has happened directly.
This is especially important because this scene revolves around the Night Sky Sword, Kirito’s signature weapon, a thing that Ronye would know a lot about.
Click to expand...
Would like to call back to this for anyone else who comes back to the thread, likely won't be interacting with this one much more unless the staff votes equalize out.
My-Hero-Academia-All-Might-----warning-Deku.jpg

Next, it's your turn, @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
 
I was messaged to come look at this thread, obviously, I don't know the verse but seems this thread is in a bind. Overall, I do think the feat is one that is clear in my opinion. Now I don't know every argument presented but I have looked over some, and while I think I see the points some are trying to make, I'd be lying if I said I fully understood what they were getting at (pretty confusing at times).

Generally, I think the OP interpretation is ok, I was a little hesitant regarding the legitimacy of the Sun in question (the physics) but it I've seen verses who's suns act a bit differently and can be just chalked up to writer being a writer. Other than that, I don't have much else to say. Sorry for the lack of a detailed response but I hope my stance can get things moving.
 
LordGriffin1000 said:
I'd be lying if I said I fully understood what they were getting at (pretty confusing at times).
Click to expand...
If there's anything you'd like me, or anyone else, to elaborate on, please let us know!
 
Agnaa said:
If there's anything you'd like me, or anyone else, to elaborate on, please let us know!
Click to expand...
It was hard to follow all the arguments as I mentioned in my post, though I saw you mentioned you had a different interpretation of the feat. Do you mind linking the comment where you gave your interpretation (or just quoting it) so I can read it.
 
LordGriffin1000 said:
It was hard to follow all the arguments as I mentioned in my post, though I saw you mentioned you had a different interpretation of the feat. Do you mind linking the comment where you gave your interpretation (or just quoting it) so I can read it.
Click to expand...
Looking back I don't have one great post, so I'd summarize it as...

I believe that the OP's interpretation is seeing a common turn of phrase when witnessing a certain phenomenon, and taking it too literally. As if you saw "he was up in an instant" and you tried arguing for infinite speed, because an instant is 0 seconds. Saying such a statement would probably mean something more like 1 second isn't saying that the narrator is lying.

My contention is that when people talk about objects in the sky, they often talk about them as they're perceived from the planet they're on. When people talk say "the sun will dim", they mean "the light from the sun coming to this part of the Earth will dim". And similarly, I think when the narrator says "Solus on the western horizon lost all its light", I think they mean "Solus on the western horizon, as it appears to people on this part of the planet, lost all its light". I don't think they're using some rich metaphors, I just think it's similar to how in most languages "star" just means "stellar object" and so covers planets and galaxies as well. The way we talk about stellar objects is more grounded in how we perceive them, than in how they actually are.

And so, I don't think the entirety of Solus' light was absorbed; only the amount that fell on a certain area of the planet for a time.
 
Last edited:
Agnaa said:
Looking back I don't have one great post, so I'd summarize it as...

I believe that the OP's interpretation is seeing a common turn of phrase when witnessing a certain phenomenon, and taking it too literally. As if you saw "he stood up instantly" and you tried arguing for infinite speed, because an instant is 0 seconds. Saying such a statement would probably mean something more like 1 second isn't saying that the narrator is lying.

My contention is that when people talk about objects in the sky, they often talk about them as they're perceived from the planet they're on. When people talk say "the sun will dim", they mean "the light from the sun coming to this part of the Earth will dim". And similarly, I think when the narrator says "Solus on the western horizon lost all its light", I think they mean "Solus on the western horizon, as it appears to people on this part of the planet, lost all its light". I don't think they're using some rich metaphors, I just think it's similar to how in most languages "star" just means "stellar object" and so covers planets and galaxies as well. The way we talk about stellar objects is more grounded in how we perceive them, than in how they actually are.

And so, I don't think the entirety of Solus' light was absorbed; only the amount that fell on a certain area of the planet for a time.
Click to expand...
Let me hop on my PC to make a short response to this.
 
Agnaa said:
Looking back I don't have one great post, so I'd summarize it as...

I believe that the OP's interpretation is seeing a common turn of phrase when witnessing a certain phenomenon, and taking it too literally. As if you saw "he stood up instantly" and you tried arguing for infinite speed, because an instant is 0 seconds. Saying such a statement would probably mean something more like 1 second isn't saying that the narrator is lying.

My contention is that when people talk about objects in the sky, they often talk about them as they're perceived from the planet they're on. When people talk say "the sun will dim", they mean "the light from the sun coming to this part of the Earth will dim". And similarly, I think when the narrator says "Solus on the western horizon lost all its light", I think they mean "Solus on the western horizon, as it appears to people on this part of the planet, lost all its light". I don't think they're using some rich metaphors, I just think it's similar to how in most languages "star" just means "stellar object" and so covers planets and galaxies as well. The way we talk about stellar objects is more grounded in how we perceive them, than in how they actually are.
Click to expand...
I’d like to say, I’d understand the argument for it being flowery language more if the context behind this scene was different.

This scene isn’t her seeing a powerful never before seen attack, I already mentioned that she knows how the Night Sky Sword works and thus has no reason to extrapolate her words, but this scene reads as an explanation to the ability Kirito is performing. Her entire narration goes out of its way to describe what has happened and how it happened. She says that it’s because of the NSS resource absorbing ability, which she then says he used the stronger Memory Release version, which helps her explain how so many light elements formed alongside why Kirito’s sword was so bright.
It’s not her seeing a super duper powerful event and being shocked at it and going “H-How is this possible… he absorbed all of Solus’ Light!” which could be seen as flowery language, she is explaining the function and potency of an attack that she knows how it works, once again I need to stress she has no reason to guess on this and extrapolate her words.

Why would Reki make a scene where a reliable character describes the ability of the sword of her mentor with flowery dialogue that would just mislead or confuse the viewer? He doesn’t have a reason for her to not literally explain the ability.
 
In my last post, I said no less than five times that I wasn't calling it unreliably/flowery language/etc.

You're responding to a point that I wasn't making. I cannot make it any clearer than that.
 
I mean that’s what it is from my POV, but my point still stands. Why have her use a phrase or specific dialogue for a scene where she is literally describing the swords capabilities, doesn’t make much sense to me.
 
I don't understand your question. Why would the translator's choice of words there need to be justified as if it's something weird? It's a completely ordinary way of describing something like that.

I've shown you piles of evidence for that and I have mountains more.
 
Agnaa said:
I don't understand your question. Why would the translator's choice of words there need to be justified as if it's something weird? It's a completely ordinary way of describing something like that.

I've shown you piles of evidence for that and I have mountains more.
Click to expand...
There's already been a back-and-forth about the translator's "choice of words" and credibility once in this thread, it really should be dropped.

Also your linked evidence in this comment is also heavily reliant on that assumption that the setting's sun is a carbon copy of the real world's sun and all of the real world's sun-dimming phenomena, which is astonishingly arbitrary and impossible to prove in this instance. This is a fictional world. I don't see how you can argue that the fossil fuel emissions of this world, which debatably doesn't even have as much sulfate aerosols in the air to affect the sun's rays, would matter; let alone suggesting that this fictional world has an ongoing phenomenon that is derivative to widespread industrial/volcanic activity... in the real world. This comes off as an incredibly cherry-picked argument that I just don't buy, no offense.
 
Last edited:
Quibster said:
Also your linked evidence in this comment is also heavily reliant on that assumption that the setting's sun is a carbon copy of the real world's sun and all of the real world's sun-dimming phenomena, which is astonishingly arbitrary and impossible to prove in this instance. This is a fictional world. I don't see how you can argue that the fossil fuel emissions of this world, which debatably doesn't even have as much sulfate aerosols in the air to affect the sun's rays, would matter; let alone suggesting that this fictional world has an ongoing phenomenon that is derivative to widespread industrial/volcanic activity... in the real world. This comes off as an incredibly cherry-picked argument that I just don't buy, no offense.
Click to expand...
This is just baffling.

Why would you think I'm trying to argue "Actually this feat is just gases blocking out the sun", when I've clearly, explicitly, and repeatedly said "The feat is just absorbing the light hitting that part of the planet".

I'm linking that since it shows dozens of examples of people, who are reliable, not lying, and not using flowery language, saying things like "we could dim the sun" to mean "we could reduce the amount of light that gets from the sun to the surface of the planet" and not "we will make the sun's entire luminosity decrease". It's yet another example of people practically and literally talking about a star's light in reference to how it reaches surface-dwellers, rather than how it gets emitted into space as a whole.
 
Agnaa said:
This is just baffling.

Why would you think I'm trying to argue "Actually this feat is just greenhouse gases covering up the sun", when I've clearly, explicitly, and repeatedly said "The feat is just absorbing the light hitting that part of the planet".
Click to expand...
To be fair, you gloated about having mountains of evidence and linked sun dimming out of context, so.

Edit: I've also previously disagreed with the idea of the light hitting just that part of that planet to absorb. We dont even know if he did absorb just the planet's light.
 
Quibster said:
To be fair, you gloated about having mountains of evidence and linked sun dimming out of context, so.
Click to expand...
The context was me talking about the wording and only the wording for the past 3 posts.
 
Agnaa's posts all appear to be basically sensible from where I sit. Not sure where the need for this particular arm of the argument is coming from or what it hopes to achieve, but I would agree: moving on is smart.
 
Bump
Agnaa said:
I don't understand your question. Why would the translator's choice of words there need to be justified as if it's something weird? It's a completely ordinary way of describing something like that.

I've shown you piles of evidence for that and I have mountains more.
Click to expand...
Also I wasn’t saying it was the translator’s choice of words. I really doubt it’s much different. Besides, I feel like honing I’m on this one specific piece which seems to be the only thing left holding up the opposition for the CRT feels kinda… idk the world pedantic? Just feels really unimportant and I’m not really interested in this specific discussion too much anymore
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CurrySenpai
SAO Aincrad Pages Fix
Replies
5
Views
717
Small_Ophion
Small_Ophion
CurrySenpai
An actual Aincrad CRT because Mark won't stop complaining
Replies
10
Views
905
Nierre
Nierre
Gorkyss
Kirito Mini Hax Upgrade
Replies
10
Views
670
Gorkyss
Gorkyss
CurrySenpai
Too High Hypersonic+… AND BEYOND!
2
Replies
70
Views
6K
Success0906
Success0906
Artorimachi_Meteoraft
The Looper vs Kirito (aincrad)
Replies
1
Views
558
Artorimachi_Meteoraft
Artorimachi_Meteoraft
Back
Top