-
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
Looks good 
- 32,835
- 38,108
- 18,393
- 14,323
Planck literally gave thoughts above
- 32,835
- 38,108
Ah, didn't see it.Planck literally gave thoughts above
- 18,393
- 14,323
No worries
- 4,604
- 6,575
The proposal looks good overall.
At risk of sounding pedantic, it's a bit unnecessarily wordy - you could say "their history" rather than "their entire history", or "should" instead of "should usually", or "However, for those to qualify" rather than "However, in order for those to qualify", or so on. I generally think we should aim to be concise with our definitions, but concision is more of a "nice-to-have" than a necessity. The proposal isn't wrong by any means.
At risk of sounding pedantic, it's a bit unnecessarily wordy - you could say "their history" rather than "their entire history", or "should" instead of "should usually", or "However, for those to qualify" rather than "However, in order for those to qualify", or so on. I generally think we should aim to be concise with our definitions, but concision is more of a "nice-to-have" than a necessity. The proposal isn't wrong by any means.
- 12,191
- 6,130
Well, concepts thing has never been easier, and explaining some things about it is not easy at all, but that's good, I really like that things get easier, I could do the same for type 1 and type 2, looks pretty hard too, I'm not really aware of it, but I agree.
- 20,541
- 17,454
It's fine, though in my view its a bit wordy.
- 4,604
- 6,575
I would like to suggest this as an amendment to DontTalkDT's proposal, given several notes regarding its wordiness:
High-Godly: The ability to regenerate after the erasure of body, mind, soul, and at least one other fundamental aspect of a character's existence. Such an aspect could be their place in the narrative, their history, their information (type 2), their concept, et cetera. For any aspect to qualify, destruction of that aspect must cause erasure of the character in some form, and mustn’t be something that would ordinarily be restored by regenerating body, mind, or soul. As such, type 3 concepts in particular must be evaluated with care.
For ease of comparison, this was DontTalkDT's proposal:
High-Godly: The ability to regenerate after the erasure of body, mind, and soul, along with at least one more fundamental aspect of a character's existence. Such an aspect could be the character's place in their narrative, their entire history, their information (type 2), their concept or something else. However, in order for those to qualify destruction of that fundamental aspect has to equate to erasure of the character, meaning that something existing without such an aspect should usually be impossible. Additionally, the aspect shouldn't be something that would be restored by regenerating body, mind or soul in a regular fashion, so that a character with just mid-godly regeneration would indeed by incapable of regenerating from it. Aspects which are not sufficiently extended upon to make conclusive judgement will be assumed not to qualify. As such, type 3 concepts in particular need to be evaluated with great care.
To my understanding, this amendment keeps every intended aspect of the description, while encapsulating it in a more concise manner - all situations in which HGR would/would not apply are maintained, while keeping room for purely elaborative text that may help with clarity (i.e.: when/if this applies to type 3 concepts). I am open to input on this suggestion, and would also appreciate a response from DontTalkDT in the event there has been a misunderstanding about any information that must be included.
High-Godly: The ability to regenerate after the erasure of body, mind, soul, and at least one other fundamental aspect of a character's existence. Such an aspect could be their place in the narrative, their history, their information (type 2), their concept, et cetera. For any aspect to qualify, destruction of that aspect must cause erasure of the character in some form, and mustn’t be something that would ordinarily be restored by regenerating body, mind, or soul. As such, type 3 concepts in particular must be evaluated with care.
For ease of comparison, this was DontTalkDT's proposal:
High-Godly: The ability to regenerate after the erasure of body, mind, and soul, along with at least one more fundamental aspect of a character's existence. Such an aspect could be the character's place in their narrative, their entire history, their information (type 2), their concept or something else. However, in order for those to qualify destruction of that fundamental aspect has to equate to erasure of the character, meaning that something existing without such an aspect should usually be impossible. Additionally, the aspect shouldn't be something that would be restored by regenerating body, mind or soul in a regular fashion, so that a character with just mid-godly regeneration would indeed by incapable of regenerating from it. Aspects which are not sufficiently extended upon to make conclusive judgement will be assumed not to qualify. As such, type 3 concepts in particular need to be evaluated with great care.
To my understanding, this amendment keeps every intended aspect of the description, while encapsulating it in a more concise manner - all situations in which HGR would/would not apply are maintained, while keeping room for purely elaborative text that may help with clarity (i.e.: when/if this applies to type 3 concepts). I am open to input on this suggestion, and would also appreciate a response from DontTalkDT in the event there has been a misunderstanding about any information that must be included.
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,726
- 3,122
Uhhh... I'm not an admin and I don't know how much my opinion counts but I still wanted to write . As an example of this, I think that in order for regeneration from type 3 conceptual extinction to give HGR, it must prove to be at least as difficult as regeneration from anywhere in the story. For this, it is necessary to look at the context in the verse.
Of course, the final decision is yours.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #93
It's really just a vague comparison which creates same problem as before, "what it means to be as difficult as [[insert your preference]](?)", no, it's fine the way Donttalkdt and Grath suggested.
- 5,796
- 3,264
Then we can pretty much conclude this thread
No need to drag this longer tho.
- 5,796
- 3,264
Someone close the thread.
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,726
- 3,122
DT said that type 3 concepts need to be studied very rigorously and carefully in order to give HGR (i.e. it will be necessary to look at the contexts carefully and meticulously).
I agree with Btw OP, but I think that the contexts given in the verse should be carefully and rigorously examined so that Type 3 can give HGR. Otherwise I don't think every type 3 will give HGR.
- 5,796
- 3,264
Exactly.
So let's not drag this further. This is a case by case scenario.
And DT already clarified it.
So lets drop this
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,726
- 3,122
- 20,541
- 17,454
Yeah, I think your amendment is easier to digest while getting the point across.
- 18,393
- 14,323
Given that all staff members and the DT have unanimously agreed to the proposed changes without any objections, would it be appropriate to implement them?
- 32,835
- 38,108
@DontTalkDT This look good to you?
EldemadeDityjon
He/Him- 16,917
- 12,599
It should be
- 18,393
- 14,323
DarkGrath rephrased the draft, but the fundamental premise remains unchanged. Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that the revised version is applicable.
- 20,541
- 17,454
Give them until Monday. If they don't respond them we'll just go with the recent DT revision.
- 4,604
- 6,575
@DontTalkDT Could you provide input on this amendment?
- 1,502
- 468
He's quite the busy man.
- 10,958
- 19,137
I personally like Garth's amendment more compared to DT's draft since it still explains the core issues which DT's draft wanted to address without it being needlessly wordy or long, there's admittedly a little bit of repetition in DT's draft, like it saying those with Mid-Godly can't regenerate from the erasure of their specific, fundamental aspect, despite the fact in the previous sentence he explains that the aspect in question should be independent from the regeneration of one's body, mind and soul, which is Mid-Godly, it's basically just re-stating the premise again, just in different words.
- 10,901
- 12,338
I feel like it loses some important points:
- Experience wise it is a very good idea to note that vagueness disqualifies. Otherwise people will argue that because their vaguely defined aspect isn't shown to have any problems, it de facto has none. I would very strongly suggest to keep that in there.
- It doesn't mention that something existing without such an aspect should usually be impossible. Consider again verses where there are living creatures without a soul so that soul crush just isn't lethal. A similar thing could happen with a fundamental aspect and, if so, surviving regular erasure and erasure of that shouldn't qualify.
- The bit of a mid-godly character not being able to regenerate from it could be left out. I spontaneously can't come up with a case where it would definitely be needed. Such a rule of thumb can be useful when it comes to clearing out technicalities, though. There are always cases where there is something that basically every mid-godly can regenerate from that one can have long debates on whether it doesn't technically meet the criteria. (e.g. lifeforce erasure or something, if erasing the lifeforce destroys the soul as well)
Last edited:
- 20,541
- 17,454
I get keeping it but not as a separate sentence. It can be added like this
So then we could reword it to this
- 10,901
- 12,338
That's fine, I suppose.
- 18,393
- 14,323
Alright, it seems it can be applied.
- 20,541
- 17,454
I think a mod has to do it since the page is locked. I'll do when I get off work if no one else has.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #116
Thanks!
- 5,343
- 6,087
Deweck 
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #120
No sis, it's Dereck-chaDeweck
- Status
Similar threads
