Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I believe , and this is from my opinion, "ben" is a completely different "entity" per se, from Swann's proposal. Yes, "Ben" is the writer of SCP-3812, but "Ben"is still within, and his existence, was in the story of that article, while Swann's Proposal is meant to be representing those Writers , those authors , the folks back at the SCP Foundation wiki , so Swann's Proposal, would be above SCP-3812.Orion887 said:How can Swan's Proposal be above SCP-3812? Honest question. SCP-3812 could see Ben typing and decided it wasn't worth his effort. I think that the point is that SCP-3812 will always alter the plot/narrative to insure that any reality it exists in conforms to fit its perception. The article implied that it sees "Ben" as just another aspect of its narrative. So, if "Ben" and Swann's Propsal are even remotely similar, then I don't see how SCP-3812 can lose, as it has power over all narratives--even breaching the 4th wall. I understood that to be 3812's entire "thing"- being unconsciously above all levels of reality/narrative.
We can't know that those writers can actually write up the entire narrative stack, or if they're just one narrative above and it's actually implying that the narrative structure stretches above the real world.The Wright Way said:Wasn't Swann outright stated to be all the writers on the Foundation website? Wouldn't that be enough or should we make a CRT about this?
This is difficult. Scp-001 would win, because we are real. But our avatars are not. And scp-3812 trascend all the scp verse, if not others ( the fiction itself.) . So the avatar lose, the real one wins. But scp-001 swann real are we, so we cant fight into the wiki. So the winner is scp-3812Succa said:I've got nothing to say other than that this battle will be a hell of a debate on who would win.
I disagree with what the page says, if a character kills an avatar of a writer, that avatar is actually beyond the character, even if the avatar is dead or defeated, as he represents the creator of it all, so does TOAA and Thanos in Infinity Conflict. Even more, 001 SWS is above all SCP omniverse because he is the one who created and has control over him, in other words, he is the writer, and the writer is above the work, even though he is an "avatar".The Wright Way said:No. 001 is still a fictional character. Being the writer does not make you tier 0. There's a reason Andrew Hussie isn't tier 0. See our fiction and reality interaction page for more info.
1. SWS can be both website and writerAgnaa said:I disagree with what the page says, if a character kills an avatar of a writer, that avatar is actually beyond the character, even if the avatar is dead or defeated, as he represents the creator of it all, so does TOAA and Thanos in Infinity Conflict.I can't tell what this has to do with SAS being tier 0.
Even more, 001 SWS is above all SCP omniverse because he is the one who created and has control over him
Proof? The only statements we have for SAS is that it created the main SCP reality, which certai characters are superior to.
in other words, he is the writer, and the writer is above the work, even though he is an "avatar".
SAS isn't a representation of the writer, but of the site itself, and even that has no implication of being above the narrative stack.
Lionel Suggs (Heir's writer to The Stars / Suggsverse) said that in Suggsverse's wikia, Voyagers are beyond the Tiering system
The tiering system extends forever upwards and forever downwards. There are no upper and lower bounds, so you cannot be beyond the tiering system.
and that Voyagers are beyond the necessity and essence of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence.
You cannot be beyond omnipotence because on omnipotent being holds every property, including ones that you'd say are "beyond omnipotence". Also, many of Suggs omnipotent/beyond omnipotent characters get beaten, which proves that they're simply not omnipotent.
There is no way to define fiction in general, are several different conceptions, narratives, abilities, characters, paraverses (verses, uni, xeno, meta, hyper, outter, omni, dimensions and others) and characters with abilities that contradict other conceptions and attributes.The Wright Way said:>Can't define anything we want.
We can on our own website though. Defining how strong fictional characters are is literally the purpose of this website.
Also, Suggsverse is a really bad example to use in vs debates in my experience. Especially given Suggs reputation.
And the avatar argument really doesn't work. Stan Lee's cameos are in no way related to Stan Lee the person for instance. They aren't the author in any respect, just fictional versions of them.
EODAgnaa said:1. It could be, but that's not how SAS is written. SAS is only the site, Swann's Avatars are the writers and are separate from 001-SAS itself.
2. I don't know what this has to do with anything.
3. ?????
4. ?????
5. So Suggs is just wrong about how words work?
6. What does this have to do with anything?
Yep, smart boi. Goodbye.The Wright Way said:End Of Discussion.
Because apparently he decides when discussions end lol.
heh suggsverse sucksTony di bugalu said:The moment he started using Suggs you should have ignored him