Timeless Voids Standards Issues (Staff only)

[Matthew_Schroeder]

The idea that if you enter a timeless void in fiction you shouldn't be able to move at all unless you have infinite speed is frankly ridiculous. At most entering a timeless void would simply mean that you wouldn't feel the passing of time / the effects of time, not that you would be perpetually frozen.

The idea that Timeless Voids = Infinite Speed is solely born out of fridge logic intended to extract a feat from where there is none, so characters will be rendered vastly stronger than they should be.

 

[Sera_EX]

Either unknown or undefined (lack of context) or immeasurable for true timeless voids which transcend time/history.

 

[Crabwhale]

Right, I can agree with that.

 

[Moritzva]

tfw this thread is ending in both an upgrade and a downgrade for Timeless Voids.

I agree, though.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

There are verses where time is treated like a current, and a place being "timeless" is basically not a feat at all.

When this isn't the case, the logic is that, since they don't need time to do stuff there, they can do stuff without time elsewhere.

 

[Kepekley23]

Either unknown or undefined (lack of context) or immeasurable for true timeless voids which transcend time/history.

I'm assuming characters who predate time would receive the latter?

 

[Sera_EX]

Yep.

Edit: Of course, excluding cases of any major contradiction.

 

[Kepekley23]

> immeasurable for true timeless voids which transcend time/history.

Can you elaborate on what type of descriptions would qualify?

 

[Sera_EX]

Predates/transcends/etc.

Simple "outside of time" or "devoid of time" doesn't apply without additional context.

 

[Antvasima]

The idea that if you enter a timeless void in fiction you shouldn't be able to move at all unless you have infinite speed is frankly ridiculous. At most entering a timeless void would simply mean that you wouldn't feel the passing of time / the effects of time, not that you would be perpetually frozen.

The idea that Timeless Voids = Infinite Speed is solely born out of fridge logic intended to extract a feat from where there is none, so characters will be rendered vastly stronger than they should be.

I am inclined to agree with this. Automatically assigning immeasurable speed for some voids might worsen our current problem.

 

[AKM sama]

"The idea that Timeless Voids = Infinite Speed is solely born out of fridge logic intended to extract a feat from where there is none, so characters will be rendered vastly stronger than they should be."

Thank you. I've disagreed with this headcanony logic for the longest times since even before I debuted on this site.

Same with immeasureable speed by travelling through time. It's unquantifiable and inconsistent throughout fiction. We don't give unquantifiable AP rating for someone who destroys a random dimension. Just treat it as a time travel ability and get rid of the useless wonky headcanony speed ratings.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Scrolling up above, people are also getting bold with the accusations of what "Lying" is. A deliberate attempt to deceive an audience or individual based on the actor claiming statements the actor knows to be false. So word of advice, it's impossible for people who state their own honest opinion to "Lie". Misunderstanding or "Being wrong" is a different story, but they aren't lying if they state what they legitimately believe.

Anyway, I agree that simply existing outside of time is not enough. It's being above the flow of time or being unbounded from the concept of time is a different story.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that immeasurable speed by arriving at your destination before you started and the like is legitimate and shouldn't be messed with. This is also a big enough potential revision as it is without complicating it further.

Anyway, this is derailing the original topic.

 

[Sera_EX]

@AKM

Immeasurable via physical speed based time travel is the textbook example of immeasurable. Such speed cannot be measured, hence the name.

 

[AKM sama]

Listing it as a speed rating is redundant just like listing unquantifiable as an AP rating. Only an ability called "time travel via running" would suffice. But okay, not derailing anymore.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for being reasonable.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

'''Immeasurable''' speed characters are for people who perceive linear time a spatial dimension than can roam around freely in. But stuff like characters travelling through time via flying laps around the Earth at '''FTL''' speeds do not qualify. And time travel as an ability also doesn't quite warrant '''Immeasurable''' speeds.

 

[Antvasima]

That is probably mostly correct, yes. However, landing attacks before they were launched via speed alone seems to warrant such a rating.

 

[Antoniofer]

Although, that one last may be Causality Manipulation too, and may not be peformed by Immeasurable Speed. The most simple example of immeasurable is moving through space-time with the same difficulty that we move through ground and air, effects vary from Time Stop to Duplication.

 

[Sera_EX]

Ant has the right idea. The best way to know the difference is to ask "Was this done by speed, hax, or through an external source?" Only if it was the former is it immeasurable speed, the latter two are ability or equipment-based feats.

 

[Antvasima]

@Sera

Would you be willing to rewrite our Timeless Voids Standards page?

 

[PlozAlcachaz]

With all due respect, I'd like to post soon before we try and conclude this. I plan to only reply once more with gigantic stuff supporting it and that's it. I didn't get to post yesterday because I was trying to get specific sources to back what I was saying.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Sera_EX]

The math's already been confirmed as not the issue, so there's no point in going over that again.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Okay so quite alot of things happened here since my last reply was made. I was busier than expected to reply back to this sooner, so I guess i'll reply to a few things that I want to address and leave it at that for now.

>Let's say Character X got a power up, and then timeless void shenanigans happen. There is no infinite speed feat other than navigating a timeless void (this is the logical inconsistency I'm always talking about). Character Y fights X in the same location and defeats them. You are basically arguing that X should get infinite speed and not Y because Y's feat is an outlier. Never mind that Y still will likely scale to X's AP. This is abhorrent logic.

While I can see where your coming from here Sera, this wasn't quite what I was arguing. My point was that, for the characters who are being scaled to the infinite speed character (so in your example, Character Y scaling to Character X) for whatever reason that's being applied, it's an outlier for them in general to even be on the same standing as the former. This isn't a case of selective scaling (where one scales to AP, but not speed or vice versa), it's a case of the entire scaling process being flawed. If it's consistent for Character X to be infinite in speed, depending on his standing in his verse and the provided context, his rating should be kept. But if it's a problem for the random Character Y who comes and beats Character X, Character Y as a whole would be the outlier and should not be comparable to X at all.

>To grant an infinite speed rating, what we have to do is make sure that this isn't the case. The verse doesn't have to explicitly say infinite speed is required, but there should be evidence that normal movement is impossible in the void and that those who are seen to move, have special characteristics that specifically make them exempt from this. That much should be the minimum

I actually agree with this suggestion from Andy. Especially the "normal movement is impossible" bit. Again, if just anyone and their mother can enter voids when they want, then the void in question shouldn't be considered a void that grants infinite speed. Or any speed for that matter. Unless really good reasoning is given for it.

And I just have a question for personal future reference. Assuming these changes are made to the standards, what would happen to voids that aren't just timeless but lack both space and time?

 

[PlozAlcachaz]

The math is still part of the issue. If t Ôëá 0, that invalidates the entire expression regarding timeless voids. I plan on covering the idea that t would be 0 in a timeless void along with other general refutes people tried to apply outside of specific mathematical nitpicks. The math ties very heavily into other applications such as the logic aspect so it's important to me we establish being on the same page.

There was also the complaint of "Calculus can't be used". So yes, there are still things to address regarding that topic. I've already covered them in my almost complete response for the sake of complete review.

 

[Antvasima]

@Sera

Thank you for helping out. I hope that you will be able to endure a bit more of this and then possibly rewrite our instruction page.

 

[Sera_EX]

@Ploz

Depends on the void. In a timeless void (meaning just no time), that's definitely "zero" and thus can be infinite, but in many cases where time is nonexistent, there's no definitive answer.

@Ant

I don't feel like arguing much more, but I will rewrite some of the timeless void page once we've reached a conclusion.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for helping out. I appreciate it.

 

[Moritzva]

Does someone have a summary of the main and alternate arguments regarding Timeless Voids, Infinite, and Immeasurable speed?

 

[PlozAlcachaz]

Alright, I'm going to just note I did this on a Google Doc, mainly to avoid trying to annoy anybody just entering the thread with a long reply. Some of it may seem redundant from stuff I've already mentioned, but I tried covering pretty much every point that was used against timeless voids on this thread. So yes, pardon the length of it, but it was practically necessary at the end of it all.

Also, just to quickly reply to @Pritti. Apologies for saying ignorant, I was in a bit of a foul mood from being called a "liar" by Yumi that it kind of soured the tone for that response since it was to everybody.

I ask that you give it a thorough read with an open mind as well without reading it just for the sake of "How am I going to be ready to refute this?" because that seems rather counterintuitive to a discussion. Anyway, here's my link.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aQn5sP2rs_dcbzxaU9ju9lyvzmEudBjR0DfO6Waj5DA/edit?usp=sharing

 

[Pritti]

I've been busy with school so I haven't been able to reply in some time. I did however read Alachaz's doc to refresh my view of his perspective. It was an informative read and I do agree with a good chunk of it. Btw thank you for the apology, I really appreciate it.

After reading the doc first and Sera's reply second, I do feel that Sera has the right idea here. Some voids are actually places where time doesn't flow or has stopped. Those (assuming all other requirements are met) are infinite speed.

We can't justify this by synonyms unfortunately, not because there's anything inherently wrong with doing so, but because the site's standards have been made in such a way that - for example - "endless" is not treated as the same as "infinite" for number of universes.

Also, and excuse me if this is a language barrier thing, I don't agree with "zero is a synonym for nonexistent". I'm sure it is the same in English as it is in Japanese. Synonyms can be "ranked" according to how close they are related to the definition of the synonymous word. For example, words like "big" and "enormous" are synonyms, but "large" is closer to the definition of "big" than "enormous" - and "gigantic" is closer to the definition of "enormous" than "big". Nonexistent(/ce) is much different than zero in multiple ways, though they are loosely synonymous as both have definitions that share a mutual relationship to the word "nothing".

I'm sure this is why the staff decided that "endless" isn't enough of a justification for "infinite" as well. Endless, while synonymous with infinite, is loosely connected by a similar definition of "never-ending". However, the similarities stop there.

Make no mistake, without a doubt infinite speed is:

A. Crossing a finite distance in zero time

B. Crossing an infinite distance in finite time

C. Crossing zero distance in infinite time

So, I do really understand your viewpoint (hopefully), and can see your points. Though from a power-scaling perspective and given that authors misuse words all the time, I still feel inclined to not keep the standards exactly the same as they are now. Something has to change.

 

[Sera_EX]

I think you should just naturally exist in a void to get the infinite speed rating. As Matt said, simply entering a void isn't ever going to be enough for me. Yes, even if the type of void is consistent with the verse. I'm strongly against these villainous-types getting time-based power ups, being overhyped by both authors and characters and being accepted as gospel by fans without thinking of the scaling involved.

 

[Antvasima]

It should also be explained in some manner what is actually required to move in the void in question. Most fictions do not treat it as anything special.

 

[Sera_EX]

I certainly agree.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you.

 

[Moritzva]

Thank you, Ploz. Summary posts do wonders at progressing threads and you did a great job.

 

[Sera_EX]

There's too many POVs for a full on summary.

But the summary of Pritti's argument is:

Nonexistent time =/= Zero time. S=D/0=Infinite is only relevant within time. Plus, add DarkLK's quote on top of that "just because you can swim in water doesn't mean you can swim on land" and keeping in mind that we don't grant FTL to people being in places without light or where light cannot exist and you have more than enough reasons to not treat timeless voids as granting infinite speed.

And

I don't agree with "zero is a synonym for nonexistent". Synonyms can be "ranked" according to how close they are related to the definition of the synonymous word. For example, words like "big" and "enormous" are synonyms, but "large" is closer to the definition of "big" than "enormous" - and "gigantic" is closer to the definition of "enormous" than "big". Nonexistent(/ce) is much different than zero in multiple ways, though they are loosely synonymous as both have definitions that share a mutual relationship to the word "nothing".

The summary of Matt and Yumi's argument is:

The idea that if you enter a timeless void in fiction you shouldn't be able to move at all unless you have infinite speed is frankly ridiculous. At most entering a timeless void would simply mean that you wouldn't feel the passing of time / the effects of time, not that you would be perpetually frozen.

The summary of Medeus' argument is:

Immeasurable speed characters are for people who perceive linear time a spatial dimension than can roam around freely in. But stuff like characters travelling through time via flying laps around the Earth at FTL speeds do not qualify. And time travel as an ability also doesn't quite warrant Immeasurable speeds.

My take is simple:

Speed cannot be conditional.

 

[Yumi-tan]

Listen, I apologize for assuming bad intentions, but it doesn't help that there's empathy all over this thread. Lie or not, there's comments like "this will affect my verses" and on Discord there was talk of "I just don't want these things to mess up my infinite speed verses". So it's hard for me to take "let's use any and all mathematical, semantical, technical, and fringe theories to keep our favorite verses at infinite speed and possibly even get them immeasurable" as not the driving force for these arguments. That's why I am unconvinced that (to quote Matt) The idea that Timeless Voids = Infinite Speed is solely born out of fridge logic intended to extract a feat from where there is none, so characters will be rendered vastly faster than they should be. I'll apologize for my comment but next time, please don't assume I'm just being blunt for the sake of being mean, it's based on what I see in the thread.

 

[Sera_EX]

If it means anything, I knew where you were coming from. Though we should preferably not assume intentions as to keep the thread productive. No one likes being called out.