Some World of Darkness justification issues

[Udlmaster]

Also, just saying, Assaultwaffle, me, Hadouwitch, NoodIes and a few others all agree that WoD is so clear and consistant with it's depiction of Platonism and Platonic archetypes/concepts that they the Type 1 versions.

 

[DMB_1]

Moving into something that lacks Type 1 concepts is Irrelevant speed, actually.

 

[The_Causality]

I don't know the verse so I can't said much about their feats, but "Transcend" isn't enough for Type 2, Platonic Concept ? sure but "basic" Transcendance without other indication isn't enough. That what I wanted to point

 

[Udlmaster]

Moving into something that lacks Type 1 concepts is Irrelevant speed, actually.

It is indeed, but Irrelevent speed is saved for Tier 1-A.

 

[Udlmaster]

I don't know the verse so I can't said much about their feats, but "Transcend" isn't enough for Type 2, Platonic Concept ? sure but "basic" Transcendance without other indication isn't enough. That what I wanted to point

Oh, yeah, definately, you can have 4 and 3 concepts that transcend the normal reality.

 

[DMB_1]

Irrelevant speed is not necessarily reserved only to 1-As. That would be like saying that immeasurable speed is restricted only to Tier 2s, or at least, to my knowledge.

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

Irrelevant is only for 1-A. Otherwise it's immeasurable.

 

[DMB_1]

>Being able to move in a void that lacks the type 1 concepts of space and time.

>Only immeasurable.

Ok

 

[The_Causality]

Actually, Type 1 Concept are 1-A so indeed, move in a void which lack of these is Irrelevant, the 1-A rant of irrelevant is understandable

WOD Concepts are Type 2.

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

Well actually that's still very debatable. The debate on that hasn't been done yet it was "postponed".

 

[Udlmaster]

Actually, Type 1 Concept are 1-A so indeed, move in a void which lack of these is Irrelevant, the 1-A rant of irrelevant is understandable
WOD Concepts are Type 2.

They are listed as Type 2 because the 1-A thread got put off, honestly, for the greater good at the time, currently, the opposition's argument was very flimsy at best, and it was trying to argue the mountain of Evidence for Type 1 I had gathered, to put it into context, people on the opposing side had chosen to leave the argument.

I'd like to see it be done again at a later date, and put it all to rest and finally get WoD to the 1-A position it deserves.

 

[The_Causality]

I guess? But it's better to not bring 1-A stuff here, just finish this thread and move on

About Speed, I don't see how Moving in a void beyond time and Space (Type 2 Concepts) isn't Immeasurable

About the "Hyperbole/Flowerly" stuff, I let people choose.

 

[Udlmaster]

This is my reaction to "Flowery language"

 

[SomebodyData]

I lack the knowledge necessary to really assess these ratings but:

- The low 2-C feat sounds a lot like King Crimson on a grander scale, which is still not quantifiable.

- The attitude of the side supporting the feat comes off as arrogant and rude, and seem to believe that flowery language needs to be proved when it usually needs to be justified first. So y'all need to calm down and prove these statements aren't flowery language.

- A lot of the statements, do indeed, sound flowery.

 

[Udlmaster]

- The low 2-C feat sounds a lot like King Crimson on a grander scale, which is still not quantifiable.

I have no knowledge on said character so I cannot comment on it, however, it is the destruction of a Universe for 1 moment to the rest of a timeline, which is still an infinite amount, call it High 3-A or something, but it's still the destruction of a timeline.

>and seem to believe that flowery language needs to be proved when it usually needs to be justified first.

OH SWEET IRONY! Okay, do you know what the definition of justify is? I'll give it to you to show what you just said is incorrect and you do in fact need to prove it's flowery language:

"

justify

Dictionary result for justify
/ˈdʒʌstɪfʌɪ/

verb

1. 1.

show or prove to be right or reasonable."


I'll give you time to prove that it's flowery language now.

 

[Antvasima]

Look, I have told you several times that we need input from more staff members here, and that you should politely ask more of them to help out, if you want anything to happen.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Uldmaster

If there is sufficient context showing the feats' literality then this shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Essentially; give the context of the feats instead of asking us to take the quotes at face value.

I feel like Ogbunbali has provided some of the context that contradicts how the feats are being described here, I'd like to see the same rather than insisting that it isn't hyperbole.

 

[Antvasima]

I am very busy and distracted, so I will have to unsubscribe from this thread now. My apologies.

 

[Udlmaster]

>Essentially; give the context of the feats instead of asking us to take the quotes at face value.

I still don't have to prove a negative, stop shifting the burden of proof.

>I feel like Ogbunbali has provided some of the context that contradicts how the feats are being described here,

Irony isn't a heavy enough word to describe what this sentence is. Okay, firstly, Ogbunbali hasn't provided any scans to anything besides my own scans which debunk himself.

Secondly, Ogbunbali has only LIED about a scan and intentionally tried to decieve me about my own scans until I called him out on his bare-faced lie and actually linked the scan in question which proved his quote to be totally wrong and to be a, once again, bare-faced lie.

So, ironically, have the roles switched here.

 

[SomebodyData]

Are you saying that giving context is proving a negative, or did I misunderstand that?

Regarding the King Crimson part: Diavolo. Also "Also take note that we consider most small scale time-space abilities as hax, not as AP."

I don't understand your point, are you saying its unreasonable to assume that its flowery language when you don't want to give context or scans? Really?

This isn't even new either, we don't just assume something is a legitmate or reasonable quote without context or anything.

 

[Udlmaster]

Are you saying that giving context is proving a negative, or did I misunderstand that?

You misunderstand that. I have given the scans, and if there was additional context that changed the view of the feat, I'd already have given it.

Now, it's on you lot the prove the positive claim you're all doing and prove it is flowery language.

I do not have to prove the negative, which is that it is not flowery language.

Like, I am so sick of the "Full context! Full Context! Give us the full context or flowery language/metaphor/hyperbole!!!", I know what you're doing and you're (Not specifically you SomebodyData) bad at it.

 

[DMB_1]

If you are talking about this thread, you actually didn't give scans: the only scans that were posted here were the ones that Ogbunabali presented as hyperboles and misunderstanding, and that you disagree with his view.

 

[Udlmaster]

If you are talking about this thread, you actually didn't give scans: the only scans that were posted here were the ones that Ogbunabali presented as hyperboles and misunderstanding, and that you disagree with his view.

>Congradulations you have just described time travel, however this is not a justification for a tier rating.
Absolutely disgraceful behavour, firstly, I disapprove of lying to people, because what you just did there was lying.

Firstly, the first line of the paragraph is:

"Where less-advanced Time Mages can only undo actions leading directly up to the present, a Master may choose any moment in her subject's timeline and destroy everything after it,..."

https://imgur.com/4pVDZn3

I literally posted the one he was talking about that he bare-face lied about. And I am the one who made all the scans in question, so I know everything about them, most of all when they're flat out lied about.

 

[Udlmaster]

Are you saying that giving context is proving a negative, or did I misunderstand that?
Regarding the King Crimson part: Diavolo. Also "Also take note that we consider most small scale time-space abilities as hax, not as AP."

I don't understand your point, are you saying its unreasonable to assume that its flowery language when you don't want to give context or scans? Really?

This isn't even new either, we don't just assume something is a legitmate or reasonable quote without context or anything.

I'll address this again since you've edited the comment, however, most of this comment has been responded to as it doesn't apply any new information.

>I don't understand your point, are you saying its unreasonable to assume that its flowery language when you don't want to give context or scans? Really?

Not what I am saying remotely, and I'd prefer you not strawman me, I am saying I do not need to prove a negative, see my above comment to see why there is no "additional context" that I am somehow removing from it, like me quoting an entire paragraph about a subject like the Eye of Caine which is it's entire description in the book, or me capping the entire spell description for the Timeline destruction feat, even though I wanted to get that upgraded to a much better 5-D feat, but I was (What I assume was) shadow banned from posting in threads and creating them.

>This isn't even new either, we don't just assume something is a legitmate or reasonable quote without context or anything.

See the above statement on why I have given full context.

 

[SomebodyData]

Its not a strawman since you literally answer the request for context with 'proving a negative'

I'm not asking for context for this one exact quote. I'm saying context in general for most of these responses.

Shadow... ban?...

 

[Udlmaster]

>Its not a strawman since you literally answer the request for context with 'proving a negative'

And that is cutting out the context for what that "essentially" is, which is "Prove they're not flowery language", which again, I still don't have to prove, you guys have to JUSTIFY why they are flowery language besides: "Well, it just looks like flowery language" which is absolute bull.

>I'm not asking for context for this one exact quote. I'm saying context in general for most of these responses.

Okay, I really do need to explain it all don't I?

Lilith's cloak: In the Screenshot provided it literally states she drapes the cloak over the garden and plucks stars from it, What more context is needed? Do you want the part were Lucifer himself gave it to her stating that with it she has power over the night as he does with the day? Like, the scan is self-explanatory, the literally turns the cloak into the night sky and plucks stars from it, like this is incredibly stupid point of contention.

The Eye of Caine: That's literally the full description from the book, there is no more context, that is flat out the context.

Timeline Destruction: That's the full piece for the spell. Again, no more context.

 

[Ogbunabali]

Well at least you're finally getting us somewhere.

We can at least put to rest the eye of Caine and the timeline destruction, since one is clearly not literal by that scan alone and the timeline destruction is just time travel. But the Lilith's cloak has promise so feel free to provide the scans of Lucifer giving her the cloak and all of that.

 

[Udlmaster]

>We can at least put to rest the eye of Caine and the timeline destruction, since one is clearly not literal by that scan alone

I ask that you either stop being intellectually dishonest and start taking this with dignitity, because currently, you have none.

I've already shown that the Eye of Caine is literal and your flawed interpretation that you tried to apply but failed to due to your severe ignorence towards the topic.

Yes, it is literal, otherwise, much like the Angel quote, it'd say it was a metaphor, but it's not, because the Star is where Wormwood comes from.

 

[Ogbunabali]

No you didn't show anything actually. You just said "you're wrong" that isn't proof of anything. And again on it's own that scan isn't a viable justification of a tier, so unless you have something to back it up the case is closed on that one.

Also please provide the scans for Lilith.

 

[Udlmaster]

Here, Lucifer literally states she rules the Night as he rules the day: https://imgur.com/RUdeSzy

I cannot show more of the scan because it has nudity in it and I would be banned.

 

[Ogbunabali]

Thank you. I don't know why you didn't do that from the start it, literally would've been over with right there if you did that.

 

[Udlmaster]

>No you didn't show anything actually. You just said "you're wrong" that isn't proof of anything. And again on it's own that scan isn't a viable justification of a tier, so unless you have something to back it up the case is closed on that one.

Once again, as this has been around the bend, prove it's flowery language.

And again, do you even know what wormwood is in WoD? Because I guess not.

 

[SomebodyData]

"Essentially" literally means the fundamental thing (or point, in this case) it doesn't change the context here.

"Okay, I really do need to explain it all don't I?"

...Yes, yes you do. The entire issue is that only a few people actually know the verse, and us that don't would obviously not have any knowledge regarding it. The fact that you haven't and that you actually need to be told to explain the verse to people in an indexing website is remarkable for the wrong reasons.

Regardless, now that you've providing context:

I see that Lilith's cloak = ok, timeline destruction = hax not ap, Eye of Caine = will think about it and wait for more debating.

 

[Ogbunabali]

If you have scans that shed light on it like you did with Lilith, feel free to do so.

 

[Udlmaster]

Lilith's cloak: I'm glad to see we agree.

Timeline destruction: It doesn't matter, it's being replaced with an "At least High 2-A" feat.

Eye of Caine: It gets better because while reading through Werewolf: The Apocalypse, it turns out they call it: "Anthelios" which literally means "Anti-Sun" and was originally described as in Sons as Ether to be a Hyperdimensional comet, so, it gets better, that it's actually not 4-C at all and I was downplaying, and it's actually 5th dimensional to 9th dimensional.

However, this was later retconned to it being the Eye of Caine and it being the cause of Wormwood and to being Anthelios, the Anti-Sun.

 

[Ogbunabali]

Yeah but we need actual scans that would show that it is the literal eye of Caine, because according to the WoD wiki (I don't know how reliable it is or anything) it says that they gave it the name of Caine as a reference, not because it was literally it.

" There was, at the time, an actual stellar object with the provisional designation of 2001 KX76, which is a trans-Neptunian Kuiper Belt object. It is, in fact, reddish in color, although far too small and distant to be seen with the naked eye. Coincidentally, it has since been named Ixion, after Ixion, the Greek equivalent of Caine. Ixion (in the form of the Ixoi and the Knife of Ixion) is relevant to the main scenario in Ascension. "

 

[Udlmaster]

WoD is fairly okay, it misses loads of details though, which is a given since it's purely fans of the series doing what they can remember rather than a multitude of people raping the pages for all they can offer to formulate a coherent story.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

>Essentially; give the context of the feats instead of asking us to take the quotes at face value.
I still don't have to prove a negative, stop shifting the burden of proof.

I wasn't asking you to prove a negative, I was asking you to give context for the feat.

 

[Udlmaster]

>Essentially; give the context of the feats instead of asking us to take the quotes at face value.
I still don't have to prove a negative, stop shifting the burden of proof.

I wasn't asking you to prove a negative, I was asking you to give context for the feat.

However, the irony here is that you're ignoring the context which is that your "Essentially" part is summerizing the people saying "Prove it's not flowery language".