- 5,845
- 3,291
If CM gets downgraded, this will help them keep their HGR I suppose
-
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.
Type 3 Concept based HGR revision.
- Thread starter Reiner04
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hgr high godly regeneration
- Status
- 18,393
- 14,323
How is this an accusation? He literally posted, argued and talked about it in a MG downgrade thread, now let's be clear, how is this not effecting other thread?
I don't want Fuji to think that we people are creating this thread, so we can just pass it after 48 hours and get her thread closed. A staff thread has other policies than a normal content revision.
I don't want Fuji to think that we people are creating this thread, so we can just pass it after 48 hours and get her thread closed. A staff thread has other policies than a normal content revision.
Really? Sure, go to Fuji's thread (preferabbly last page), and see how it is not only relevant, it is connected.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #44
Dread is concerned that this thread ppl may will interpret as alteration of standard.
Nothing much, A problem arises while evaluating a HGR thread related to Maou which highlights that how awkward standards for Type 3 are, even among staff, nothing much.
^ Yeah this.
- 18,393
- 14,323
Exactly, and I am saying this as MG supporter who is in disagreement with her thread. Yes, I am saying that as opposing party.
- 4,621
- 6,678
I had a feeling that this was started due to the recent MGK revisions, but that's not particularly important or relevant. Starting CRTs for P&A pages due to confusions in CRTs for verses isn't anything unusual; often, it's just because these threads highlight issues with the P&A pages rather than any active attempt to wank/downplay a verse.
And besides, this is not an MGK thread. We don't need to discuss the particular verse that instigated this thread here, nor should we. Let's not derail any further.
And besides, this is not an MGK thread. We don't need to discuss the particular verse that instigated this thread here, nor should we. Let's not derail any further.
- 32,835
- 38,111
I'm just curious as to why you would immediately jump to the assumption that this favors MGK. That's all.
Can you kindly point out these connections for me?
- 18,393
- 14,323
This was indirectly coming from MG discussion, and the only verse that will get effected by this is MG, and the only reason this thread is created is from that thread.
Should I bring more clearness in the table?
- 5,845
- 3,291
Exactly, and I'm pretty sure Reiner did this thread in regards of that matter.
I'm sure most people here know why this thread was done in the first place. I'm pretty sure of that.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #51
I agree, Maou doesn't have to be discussed everywhere, this thread should stay on topic.
Everyone please stay on topic from here on, no need for anything unnecessary.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,100
- 6,037
Well MGK about to lose their HGR due to it being type 3 concept was what prompted the thread creation, but either way the reasons do not matter since the concerns are valid
- 4,621
- 6,678
Alright, this is explicit derailing at this point. What's being discussed has no relevance to the validity/invalidity of the conclusions in this thread.
If you want to talk more about it or clarify concerns, talk on message walls. I'll be deleting further derailing messages from this point onwards.
If you want to talk more about it or clarify concerns, talk on message walls. I'll be deleting further derailing messages from this point onwards.
- 10,939
- 12,428
Type 3 is a catch-all term and as such making rules that don't boil down to case-by-case is difficult.
As I argued in the original thread it was added saying "more fundamental" is so vague that you could argue pretty much anything qualifies.
My general measuring stick is that someone mid-godly definitely can't regenerate from it. So regenerating only slightly differently doesn't work and regeneration also would not restore the concept or anything. Of course, to begin with, the thing in question may not be capable of existing without a concept, so that concept erasure is erasure in body, mind and soul at least.
Probably some more edge cases I can't think of right now as well...
As I argued in the original thread it was added saying "more fundamental" is so vague that you could argue pretty much anything qualifies.
My general measuring stick is that someone mid-godly definitely can't regenerate from it. So regenerating only slightly differently doesn't work and regeneration also would not restore the concept or anything. Of course, to begin with, the thing in question may not be capable of existing without a concept, so that concept erasure is erasure in body, mind and soul at least.
Probably some more edge cases I can't think of right now as well...
- 18,664
- 18,751
Aite then. Does that make this thread wrong or invalid?
It doesn't matter why a thread is made, so long as the contents are sound. You're welcome to agree or disagree for your own reasons but I will clear up that where a thread comes from is largely irrelevant so long as it doesn't break any rules.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,100
- 6,037
this looks good to add, although it should be rephrased, but it should be added
- 32,835
- 38,111
Since DT has responded, I don't think we need to continue this any further. The other guys above seem to have cleared it up for me.
- 5,845
- 3,291
So it seems DT agrees with this CRT
- 32,835
- 38,111
- 18,393
- 14,323
Yap, seems concluded. However, my stance should be clear that I was first who is in agreement of this thread, I only differ how it was made. That's all
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #61
Yeah, seems alright.
- 32,835
- 38,111
'Kay.
- 18,393
- 14,323
Since this has been concluded, and as per standards of content revision, we can wait for further input from staff members or members till 48 hours are passed.
- 11,055
- 19,446
Definitely agree.
Always found it strange that the requirements for High-Godly dictates you need to regenerate from all three of your existences (body, soul and mind) and a fundamental aspect about your existence, and not having Type 3 work in similar ways to Type 2 or 1 in this instance despite the fact Type 3 Concepts, by definition, are usually concepts which are personally fundamental to one's existence. The burden to prove that Type 3 Concepts would need to work similarly to Type 2 or 1 Concepts in terms of difficulty to regenerate from never made sense to me since the previous explanation never implies "scope" or more "abstractness" are required for High-Godly, just that you need to regenerate from the destruction of a fundamental (usually ontological) aspect about yourself, alongside the three baseline existences of body, soul and mind.
I personally agree with Garth's interpretation as well.
Always found it strange that the requirements for High-Godly dictates you need to regenerate from all three of your existences (body, soul and mind) and a fundamental aspect about your existence, and not having Type 3 work in similar ways to Type 2 or 1 in this instance despite the fact Type 3 Concepts, by definition, are usually concepts which are personally fundamental to one's existence. The burden to prove that Type 3 Concepts would need to work similarly to Type 2 or 1 Concepts in terms of difficulty to regenerate from never made sense to me since the previous explanation never implies "scope" or more "abstractness" are required for High-Godly, just that you need to regenerate from the destruction of a fundamental (usually ontological) aspect about yourself, alongside the three baseline existences of body, soul and mind.
I personally agree with Garth's interpretation as well.
EldemadeDityjon
He/Him- 17,000
- 12,682
Definitely agree with this. This makes more sense.
Dark has good explanation. I agree with this.
- 5,091
- 2,917
My understanding of why it's this way is because of type 3 concepts whose nature isn't elaborated upon. What i mean by this is type 3 concepts that are affected by the alteration of their object an example being destruction of the object destroying the concept too or objects that can't be altered by the alteration of it's concept, in other words the object defining the concept an example being concepts based on perception.
Personal concept or not, if it's a fundamental aspect of existence and regenerating it is more difficult than regenerating the body, mind, soul then it should more than qualify
Personal concept or not, if it's a fundamental aspect of existence and regenerating it is more difficult than regenerating the body, mind, soul then it should more than qualify
- 10,939
- 12,428
I think "fundamental aspect separate from body, mind and soul" is still too vague. Something being a fundamental aspect doesn't necessarily mean that you can't continue to fight without it. (Like in some verses characters can fight without a soul) It also doesn't cover the case of concepts that come into existence when something that participates in them starts existing, which should also be excluded.
Edit: We should also mention how vague concepts are disqualified, as they could have problems like that.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #68
What about a "most fundamental aspects of one's existence than body, mind and soul without which a existence cannot be sustained"?
But in anycase a fiction may have a exception even to this for few particular characters as "contradictions" but as long as above definition is fulfilled.
- 4,621
- 6,678
Do you have any suggestions for an amendment to the phrase? It'd be best not to make it too wordy, but rephrasing it as to incorporate those concerns shouldn't be impossible.
- 31,638
- 34,662
I think DontTalkDT makes sense.
- 11,055
- 19,446
It's probably better to just create a separate note , similar how we do with defining the specific "type" of High-Godly one possesses, rather then finding less wordy ways to explain all of these concerns away within the Parentheses.
It would allow us to explain in more-depth about what's considered allowed or unallowed without compromising the visual integrity of the section.
Something like (Type 1, 2, or sometimes 3 within specific instances (check "notes" for further context) could work, or at least something in spirit to this.
It would allow us to explain in more-depth about what's considered allowed or unallowed without compromising the visual integrity of the section.
Something like (Type 1, 2, or sometimes 3 within specific instances (check "notes" for further context) could work, or at least something in spirit to this.
- 13,330
- 21,303
I definitely agree that this needs to be reworded. So far, DarkGrath’s proposal looks best to me, though DontTalk’s concerns are also noteworthy
EldemadeDityjon
He/Him- 17,000
- 12,682
Why don't we use this
- 15,950
- 12,355
I'm obviously fine with making it more understandable and less vague. But I'll let the more knowledgeable members handle what the best course is.
- 20,606
- 17,607
- 10,939
- 12,428
That loses some minor details of the original (which type of information? Narrative isn't mentioned anymore? Why temporal existence instead of history?). I think there is also no need to split it into a note. I would suggest something like this instead:
- Status
Similar threads
