Some Rewordings About Type 5 Acausality

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Agnaa @Planck69

 

[Georredannea15]

Even if you've never come across it, nothing's preventing it from existing. We don't need a concrete example of above baseline Type 5 Acausality to tell you that we accept it on our site, and once again, you'll have to take it up with individual page creators if you believe they should mention it on their profiles.

This has already been thoroughly rejected by Planck69, Agnaa, and myself, so @Antvasima, I do think we should have this thread closed, as Georredannea15 is just repeating a rejected point.

I am still waiting for DT and there is an admin who supports this thread. Also,content mods votes were not valid, but anyway...

As I said, "this is the first time I've heard of layered type 5 acausality in the same dimensional plane, so I'm waiting for DT."

And if DT says that there is no such thing, then yes, all type 5s in the same plane on the wiki will be assumed to be the same, and this is very wrong, it should be corrected and the requirement in the OP should be added.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I am still waiting for DT and there is an admin who supports this thread. Also,content mods votes were not valid, but anyway...

As I said, "this is the first time I've heard of layered type 5 acausality in the same dimensional plane, so I'm waiting for DT."

And if DT says that there is no such thing, then yes, all type 5s in the same plane on the wiki will be assumed to be the same, and this is very wrong, it should be corrected and the requirement in the OP should be added.

First, content mod votes are still worthy of partial consideration even if they're not official. Second, Qawsedf234 only partially supports this thread and was concerned about your wording being too restrictive. Third, do we seriously need @DontTalkDT to clarify a policy Agnaa has already clearly explained to you? You can't stall a rejected thread by just saying "let's wait for DT." Wiki policy threads don't need DT's vote to be considered settled when they've been clearly rejected.

 

[Georredannea15]

First, content mod votes are still worthy of partial consideration even if they're not official. Second, Qawsedf234 only partially supports this thread and was concerned about your wording being too restrictive. Third, do we seriously need @DontTalkDT to clarify a policy Agnaa has already clearly explained to you? You can't stall a rejected thread by just saying "let's wait for DT." Wiki policy threads don't need DT's vote to be considered settled when they've been clearly rejected.

Uhhh... no. Because only Agnaa suggested the layered type 5 Acausality, and I thought it would be better to wait for more admins, including DT, to verify this. Also Qawsedf agrees with the OP that the wording should be clearer and on other issues. If you have nothing else to object, let's wait for the staff and DT instead of arguing nonsensically.

Also, if you are still going to continue with this "layered type 5 acausality" nonsense, please give me an example of a profile with "layered type 5 acausality". Because you are the ones who put forward this claim, it is up to you to prove it. Just like I did...

 

[Antvasima]

I think that DarkGrath and Agnaa seem to make sense here, so we can probably close this thread, yes.

 

[ImmortalDread]

The thread can be closed.

@Georredannea15 No one is obligated to provide evidence that an ability exists only when a profile possesses it. This rule is arbitrary and without basis. The potential for such a scenario remains valid.

"Layered Type 5 Acausality" arises as an inherent outcome of the ability's definition, similar to how other layered abilities function.

Also, this is entirely counter-productive and truly absurd, till now you did not even introduce the “rewording” at all. You simply engaged in persistently obstructing Agnaa until the very end, and furthermore, you shifted the responsibility of providing evidence onto him. Now, you're inquiring about the existence of layered acausality type 5, as it was a fact that VSBW's perspective rested on the assumption of its nonexistence, which is in reality incorrect.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Uhhh... no. Because only Agnaa suggested the layered type 5 Acausality, and I thought it would be better to wait for more admins, including DT, to verify this. Also Qawsedf agrees with the OP that the wording should be clearer and on other issues. If you have nothing else to object, let's wait for the staff and DT instead of arguing nonsensically.

Ant has also assented to this thread being closed, so this objection is completely dead in the water now.

Also, if you are still going to continue with this "layered type 5 acausality" nonsense, please give me an example of a profile with "layered type 5 acausality". Because you are the ones who put forward this claim, it is up to you to prove it. Just like I did...

ImmortalDread has already explained why we don't need to.

I think that DarkGrath and Agnaa seem to make sense here, so we can probably close this thread, yes.

Do it, then.

 

[Georredannea15]

The thread can be closed.

@Georredannea15 No one is obligated to provide evidence that an ability exists only when a profile possesses it. This rule is arbitrary and without basis. The potential for such a scenario remains valid.

"Layered Type 5 Acausality" arises as an inherent outcome of the ability's definition, similar to how other layered abilities function.

Also, this is entirely counter-productive and truly absurd., till now you did not even introduce the “rewording” at all. You simply engaged in persistently obstructing Agnaa until the very end, and furthermore, you shifted the responsibility of providing evidence onto him. Now, you're inquiring about the existence of layered acausality type 5, as it was a fact that VSBW's perspective rested on the assumption of its nonexistence, which is in reality incorrect.

He was the one who had to provide the evidence because Agnaa was the first to raise the issue of layered type 5 acausality. And when I said "this is the first time I've heard of such a thing, could you please give me an example of a profile?", suddenly I was the one who had to provide the evidence.

Even if this thread is closed, I will ask DT about this "layered type 5 acausality" nonsense. If he refuses this, I will reopen it again, with stronger language.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I hope you are aware that “stronger language” is a bit threatening.

@Antvasima @IdiosyncraticLawyer Any opinion on this comment?

 

[Georredannea15]

I hope you are aware that “stronger language” is a bit threatening.

@Antvasima @IdiosyncraticLawyer Any opinion on this comment?

No, I would only argue that we need more precise wording and context, which would provide a "stricter standard".

I have no idea why you take everything so aggressively. I guess you want chaos

 

[The_Emperor4th]

I was the one who had to provide the evidence.

…This is hilarious thing that comes from you, the fact that me and Agnaa (even Dread) asked you to provide the examples for your claim about “all possible causality can exist in the verse!”, and yet you did not give any examples or evidence about your claim instead of assuming something that no-in the verse that applies such things.

Just my 2cent here.

 

[Georredannea15]

…This is hilarious thing that comes from you, the fact that me and Agnaa (even Dread) asked you to provide the examples for your claim about “all possible causality can exist in the verse!”, and yet you did not give any examples or evidence about your claim instead of assuming something that no-in the verse that applies such things.

Just my 2cent here.

I suggest you look above. I have illustrated this in many ways and even provided proof in several profiles.

However, this is not what Agnaa and I were discussing, it was the "layered type 5 on the same plane" nonsense

 

[Agnaa]

He was the one who had to provide the evidence because Agnaa was the first to raise the issue of layered type 5 acausality. And when I said "this is the first time I've heard of such a thing, could you please give me an example of a profile?", suddenly I was the one who had to provide the evidence.

I could not give you an example of a profile with any type of Acausality. Nor could I give you an example of a profile which explicitly lists any layered ability.

My inability to provide an example doesn't prove that something can't happen.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Any opinion on this comment?

@Georredannea15, I will report you if you continue to threaten "stronger language."

 

[Georredannea15]

I could not give you an example of a profile with any type of Acausality. Nor could I give you an example of a profile which explicitly lists any layered ability.

My inability to provide an example doesn't prove that something can't happen.

So why do they want proof of something that doesn't exist? I could have said, "Just because there are no examples doesn't mean it can't be", "which is what they said, even though I gave several profile examples"

As I said, I would like to ask DT about this "layered type 5 in the same plane" nonsense. If he confirms it, then no problem, because every type 5 acausality that will exist in the same plane will not be of equal level. But if he rejects it, I will add a few more arguments to the same arguments and recreate this thread.

 

[Georredannea15]

@Georredannea15, I will report you if you continue to threaten "stronger language."

You're free for this. Assuming, as before, that you are still not paying attention to your words

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

So why do they want proof of something that doesn't exist? I could have said, "Just because there are no examples doesn't mean it can't be", "which is what they said, even though I gave several profile examples"

As I said, I would like to ask DT about this "layered type 5 in the same plane" nonsense. If he confirms it, then no problem, because every type 5 fluentism that will exist in the same plane will not be of equal level. But if he rejects it, I will add a few more arguments to the same arguments and recreate this thread.

For the last time, stop trying to use "let's ask DT" as a way to keep an overwhelmingly rejected and misguided thread open.

 

[DarkGrath]

Frankly, I concur with Ant that this thread should be closed. Reasonable lengths should be taken to explain issues of confusion, but this is far beyond a "reasonable" length. This thread has been dragged on, to the detriment of the users within it, over a discussion that has not shown any merit or cause to believe it will produce merit.

In regard to both Ant's approval, my approval, and the continued aforementioned detriment posed by this thread, I will be closing it now. If a more coherent argument regarding this topic or a related topic is produced in the future, it is acceptable to bring it up as a new discussion.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you to everybody who helped out here.