Various Medaka Box Changes

[Agnaa]

Think of it like a character pushing a rock slowly, but using their whole power so that nobody that tries to stop it will succeed. It's not really doing a constant amount of work on something more so than making sure the total force applied is stable by using your entire power.

I don't understand this. If they were using their entire power the rock wouldn't be pushed slowly. That's not how physics works. If someone is applying a force from the opposite direction, you'd have to apply more force from your direction if you want to counteract it, otherwise it will slow down. And you can't apply a high force and expect something to move slowly, you'd have to not be applying the full force for that to happen.

Like, if you're applying a force of 6A, which moves the rock at 6 m/s, someone applying a force of A from the other side should have the rock move at 5 m/s. I do not see how you can just keep it moving at the same speed without adding force.

I am really confused since I'd expect you to get some basic physics like this correct, but I also think it's so basic that I can't be wrong either.

It can't be a reliable statement because we factually know that Hinokage can not have this knowledge, if it were literal. We know he does know nothing about Encounter when the fight starts, we see exactly how the fight goes and we also know that nobody gives any explanation regarding this. All Hinokage can factually know is that he delivered an amount of damage that would under regular circumstances be lethal and that Gagamaru pushed said lethal damage away. That can not be equated to resurrection by any means.

Maybe I just have a different view on statements to the rest of the wiki, but I believe that we shouldn't dismiss a statement just because the character saying it couldn't have that knowledge. As the entire work was written by the author, who does have authoritative knowledge, we'd need a reason to believe that we're not meant to take that statement seriously. And I think a character's opponent explaining an ability is simply good writing, rather than an indication that we're meant to ignore those statements from them as false.

I think it's pretty bloody ridiculous to go into deep dives over what exactly a character knows to figure out whether or not their statement isn't reliable, something which the author obviously doesn't intend any reader to do, to come to the conclusion that what most people would take as true is actually a lie.

Additionally, as with other statements of 'immortality' and 'being unkillable', something like Low-Godly regeneration wouldn't be handed out without further feats.

Pretty sure we hand out Resurrection pretty handily for stuff like this. I also feel like "Even if he is killed instantly, he can push his death away" is a much better statement than "is immortal/unkillable".

 

[Antvasima]

Agnaa and DontTalk:

Have you reached any conclusions/agreement yet? I think that the two of you figuring this out should be enough.

 

[Agnaa]

Not yet I'm afraid, hopefully it shouldn't take us too much longer.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Please stop with any stonewalling Earl. We are unlikely to ever get anywhere otherwise.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Excuse me? Ok Ant that is extremely rude. Why is Agnaa making arguments fine but me making arguments is stonewalling? Even though we're arguing on the same side....

I convinced Agnaa that my points make sense, but i am stonewalling huh? Seems fair.

I get that you trust Agnaa and DT more than you trust me, but don't go to such lengths it just gets rude.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. My apologies. I have received some complaints about you stonewalling lately, but likely misunderstood here then.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Please don't be so quick to jump to conclusions just based on what other people tell you.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I have limited time available, but alright then.

 

[Agnaa]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

So have you and DontTalk reached any agreements here yet? Also, what do you still need to decide?

 

[Agnaa]

Out of the outstanding issues, I believe DT and I's only disagreement is on how to treat Encounter.

Earl and Ion disagree with DT and I on Kakegae's note. Yungmanzi and Bobsican seem to disagree with Blackcurrant, Earl, Ion, DT, and I on Ajimu's tier. Iapitus disagrees with everyone else on leaving Hanten, and on changing Iihiko's possession.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we should probably go with what you and DontTalk decide in lack of better options then. You are the most experienced members.

 

[Ionliosite]

That still leaves us the issue of Encounter, which is basically me, Earl and Agnaa disagreeing with DT.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That needs to be figured out then.

@DontTalkDT we need some help from you here.

 

[Agnaa]

Bump?

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

We still need to reach a conclusion here, so help would be appreciated.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I don't understand this. If they were using their entire power the rock wouldn't be pushed slowly. That's not how physics works. If someone is applying a force from the opposite direction, you'd have to apply more force from your direction if you want to counteract it, otherwise it will slow down. And you can't apply a high force and expect something to move slowly, you'd have to not be applying the full force for that to happen.

Like, if you're applying a force of 6A, which moves the rock at 6 m/s, someone applying a force of A from the other side should have the rock move at 5 m/s. I do not see how you can just keep it moving at the same speed without adding force.

I am really confused since I'd expect you to get some basic physics like this correct, but I also think it's so basic that I can't be wrong either.

Then let me explain this on a practical analogy: Say you have a car. Say that car has a top speed of 100 km/h and 100 horsepowers. Now say I drive that car with 1 km/h and put in cruise control. Obviously, it isn't using 100 horsepowers to drive with that speed. Do you think 10 strong men could stop that car from rolling with 1 km/h?
Obviously not. While the car is set up to not perform to the greatest extent possible, that is to drive with 100 km/h, due to cruise control it is set up to perform the task of going at that very slow speed with all its strength. In other words, the moment it becomes necessary due to 10 strong men trying to stop it, it will increase the number of horsepowers to continue going 1 km/h. So it's using the whole power available to it, all 100 horsepowers, it does perform the act of going 1 km/h, even if it isn't constantly having that specific output.

Or another example, more related to ripping something and hence more directly applicable: Say you are supposed to make a 10 cm deep rip in a piece of paper. That isn't difficult. You could do so with very few force. However, you could also rip the paper with all your strength and still make just a 10 cm rip. The timing for doing so is more difficult, you would need to let go at exactly the right moment to not make too deep a rip, but it is possible. Basically, you can have the same end result using much force, as when you use few force. You just need to use the force differently.

Maybe I just have a different view on statements to the rest of the wiki, but I believe that we shouldn't dismiss a statement just because the character saying it couldn't have that knowledge. As the entire work was written by the author, who does have authoritative knowledge, we'd need a reason to believe that we're not meant to take that statement seriously. And I think a character's opponent explaining an ability is simply good writing, rather than an indication that we're meant to ignore those statements from them as false.

I think it's pretty bloody ridiculous to go into deep dives over what exactly a character knows to figure out whether or not their statement isn't reliable, something which the author obviously doesn't intend any reader to do, to come to the conclusion that what most people would take as true is actually a lie.

Yeah, you definitely run into problems with our wiki standards here. We only accept statements coming from reliable sources and Hinokage is not one in this case. It would definitely go against our general standards to accept it.

Also, consider that the author expects you to interpret statements within context. The author could just as easily have given this statement to one of Gagamaru's companions. Instead, it was given to Hinokage as a short throwaway line, because the author doesn't intend this to be some big reveal regarding some important new truth regarding his power that wasn't explained prior. It's just a repeat of what was already established: That Gagamaru can push all of Hinokages damage away, regardless of how fast he beats him. A reader is supposed to understand that "instantly" obviously is figurative and just means "really fast" here. Likewise, a reader that doesn't intend to do a vsbattle analysis of such text, would be expected to understand that "pushing death away" doesn't mean some manipulation of the metaphysical state of death that was never mentioned prior, but that it just means to push the injuries he has away as he was explained to do the entire fight to prevent himself from dying.
Basically, the assumption that the author intent is literal is already pretty damn shaky.

Pretty sure we hand out Resurrection pretty handily for stuff like this. I also feel like "Even if he is killed instantly, he can push his death away" is a much better statement than "is immortal/unkillable".

Not really. For something to be resurrection, the person in question needs to be actually dead before coming back, more dead than someone that qualifies just for regeneration. That isn't given here.
Furthermore, resurrection also comes in degrees, same as regeneration (as the resurrection page explains). Resurrection is often on the low-godly scale, but that is just because resurrection feats usually have the characters return in new bodies. Something that is not the case here.

Essentially, resurrection has a stronger burden of proof than regeneration, because you don't just have to proof all the regeneration stuff, but also that they were truly and properly dead before regenerating.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[Agnaa]

Then let me explain this on a practical analogy: Say you have a car. Say that car has a top speed of 100 km/h and 100 horsepowers. Now say I drive that car with 1 km/h and put in cruise control. Obviously, it isn't using 100 horsepowers to drive with that speed. Do you think 10 strong men could stop that car from rolling with 1 km/h?
Obviously not. While the car is set up to not perform to the greatest extent possible, that is to drive with 100 km/h, due to cruise control it is set up to perform the task of going at that very slow speed with all its strength. In other words, the moment it becomes necessary due to 10 strong men trying to stop it, it will increase the number of horsepowers to continue going 1 km/h. So it's using the whole power available to it, all 100 horsepowers, it does perform the act of going 1 km/h, even if it isn't constantly having that specific output.

So the car starts off with a small energy output, and ramps up when it meets sufficient resistance. You're saying that, similarly, Gagamaru's ability starts applying a small energy output, a level that would barely hurt a regular human, then senses the resistance to that force at a distance, gradually amping up the force until the appropriate wound is made.

This seems like it would fail for certain types of wounds. Gradually applying stronger and stronger punches to someone's chest until you've provided a punch of adequate damage would not actually recreate the original wound. It would create a wound of many punches, of gradually increasing severity. And similarly, if we consider placing a fist at someone's chest, and gradually pushing it forwards with more force, that wouldn't really recreate a punch wound either.

I don't think this "gradual wound recreation" method is coherent, so we should go with the more coherent "durability negation wound recreation" route instead.

Or another example, more related to ripping something and hence more directly applicable: Say you are supposed to make a 10 cm deep rip in a piece of paper. That isn't difficult. You could do so with very few force. However, you could also rip the paper with all your strength and still make just a 10 cm rip. The timing for doing so is more difficult, you would need to let go at exactly the right moment to not make too deep a rip, but it is possible. Basically, you can have the same end result using much force, as when you use few force. You just need to use the force differently.

This may be true for humans who can't output millions of joules, but I'm not confident that it's correct for superhumans. I feel like a sufficiently strong character ripping paper with extreme force in a short timeframe would end up running into a barrier where they'd start destroying the paper completely the attosecond they start applying their full force.

Yeah, you definitely run into problems with our wiki standards here. We only accept statements coming from reliable sources and Hinokage is not one in this case. It would definitely go against our general standards to accept it.

I can't tell how true that is, because I haven't heard a statement with this type of credibility get rejected before, and our relevant instruction page doesn't outright support either of us. The only examples of "character is unreliable" are "person with obvious incentive to lie/exaggerate is saying something obviously false" and "they're telling the truth but only in the context of the verse".

Also, consider that the author expects you to interpret statements within context. The author could just as easily have given this statement to one of Gagamaru's companions. Instead, it was given to Hinokage as a short throwaway line, because the author doesn't intend this to be some big reveal regarding some important new truth regarding his power that wasn't explained prior. It's just a repeat of what was already established: That Gagamaru can push all of Hinokages damage away, regardless of how fast he beats him.

I do agree, I think it's only a minor expansion on his abilities.

A reader is supposed to understand that "instantly" obviously is figurative and just means "really fast" here. Likewise, a reader that doesn't intend to do a vsbattle analysis of such text, would be expected to understand that "pushing death away" doesn't mean some manipulation of the metaphysical state of death that was never mentioned prior, but that it just means to push the injuries he has away as he was explained to do the entire fight to prevent himself from dying. Basically, the assumption that the author intent is literal is already pretty damn shaky.

Whoa whoa whoa, I never made the assumption that the author intent was literal. Obviously "instantly" just means "really fast", and "pushing death away" isn't some metaphysical state of death manipulation. I just took it to mean that even if he was killed he could push those injuries away. We already know from his backstory that he can push mental damage away after he receives it, and from extra content that he can push physical damage that bypasses his ability away after he receives it. This just expands on it to where he can push away his death after he's received it.

Furthermore, resurrection also comes in degrees, same as regeneration (as the resurrection page explains).

I saw this and almost wanted to reply "Oh, it does say that, I guess regardless Gagamaru's ability would have some limit like that," but then I saw that the Resurrection page wasn't completely clear:

The ability has similar limitations to regeneration, and one should not assume that, because a character has never failed to resurrect, that they can resurrect regardless of how they've been killed.

Is this trying to say that resurrection only works on levels of damage that the character has sustained before? Or is it trying to say that certain characters have esoteric ways of killing that can nullify resurrection, and so we shouldn't automatically assume that a character can just resurrect from EE across all of time?

The other limits talked about on the page are for conditions on resurrection (i.e. can only resurrect someone who's died in the last hour), and duration of the resurrection process.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I don't think this "gradual wound recreation" method is coherent, so we should go with the more coherent "durability negation wound recreation" route instead.

You assume it needs multiple attacks of trial and error to find the correct output. That isn't really necessary. It could just ramp up the power of one attack until it has the right output or just use the correct output similar to Fiamma's Holy Right.
Or it could just attack with its full power, which gets us to:

This may be true for humans who can't output millions of joules, but I'm not confident that it's correct for superhumans. I feel like a sufficiently strong character ripping paper with extreme force in a short timeframe would end up running into a barrier where they'd start destroying the paper completely the attosecond they start applying their full force.

You're basically committing to an AoE fallacy there. What I mean is that it's like saying "that punch couldn't be planet level, it only made a hole in a brick wall without destroying the continent behind the wall". As the AP page puts it "it isn't proof of a low attack potency, if a character's attacks only cause a small amount of destruction."

Virtually every strong character in fiction can and has to be assumed to have a supernatural power limiting their Area of Effect. So yeah, in fiction you can make a small rip in a piece of paper while using planet level strength. In reality, it might catch fire if you do that due to friction, but we are not in reality.

I can't tell how true that is, because I haven't heard a statement with this type of credibility get rejected before, and our relevant instruction page doesn't outright support either of us. The only examples of "character is unreliable" are "person with obvious incentive to lie/exaggerate is saying something obviously false" and "they're telling the truth but only in the context of the verse".

I was there, 3000 years ago, when that page was made and I can tell you that a person that has no particular business knowing something is already shaky. Someone that we know doesn't canonically have that knowledge is basically "Squire that quite obviously exaggerates" level of unreliable. Heck, consider that educated wizard that researched the character is still "not completely believable". Given an "indestructible" claim is somewhat stronger, but you get the point.

I mean, read further and and it tells you to evaluate it relative to what the character could know.

In truth, he is only invincible in comparison to whatever this wizard could dish out.

So obviously interpretations that would be beyond Hinokage's knowledge ahre out.

Whoa whoa whoa, I never made the assumption that the author intent was literal. Obviously "instantly" just means "really fast", and "pushing death away" isn't some metaphysical state of death manipulation. I just took it to mean that even if he was killed he could push those injuries away. We already know from his backstory that he can push mental damage away after he receives it, and from extra content that he can push physical damage that bypasses his ability away after he receives it. This just expands on it to where he can push away his death after he's received it.

Yeah, I don't think the statement can safely be interpreted as him pushing his death away after he is completely braindead or something. That's extrapolating way too far from that vague statement. Like, we can talk about it as an indication that he can take someone breaking his neck or stopping his heart, but something like him surviving getting his head smashed is completely beyond what this could be taken to mean given the context.

Is this trying to say that resurrection only works on levels of damage that the character has sustained before? Or is it trying to say that certain characters have esoteric ways of killing that can nullify resurrection, and so we shouldn't automatically assume that a character can just resurrect from EE across all of time?

The other limits talked about on the page are for conditions on resurrection (i.e. can only resurrect someone who's died in the last hour), and duration of the resurrection process.

I'm pretty sure it makes a connection to regeneration here, given that it straight up says that "similar limitations to regeneration" apply. It's also kinda common sense that it would get the same scrutiny in regards to restoring the body back to a functional level.

Not to mention that there are countless examples in fiction of resurrection only working on certain levels of damage. I.e. the Starburst in Skulduggery Pleasant can only resurrect from heart stop and (probably) brain death, but doesn't fix any other injuries. The Kindness skill in kumo desu ga can resurrect from decapitation, but needs a reasonably intact corpse regardless. The Edo resurrection jutsu in Naruto requires DNA remains to resurrect people. Etc. Not all resurrection is low-godly and it would make no sense for us to assume so. Regeneration has levels, healing has levels, resurrection is basically the same as those two + some getting a soul back from the afterlife.

 

[Agnaa]

You assume it needs multiple attacks of trial and error to find the correct output. That isn't really necessary. It could just ramp up the power of one attack until it has the right output or just use the correct output similar to Fiamma's Holy Right.

Ramping up the power of one attack until it has the right output is an option that I considered in my post. I don't think softly placing a fist at someone's gut, then slowly ramping out the force at which I push with it would anywhere resemble a punch.

It feels like a bit much to also tack on that Encounter can detect the exact durability of everything Gagamaru could output energy on, so that it can output the perfect amount of energy. Extremely niche lower-end depictions that add other abilities aren't always what we default to.

You're basically committing to an AoE fallacy there. What I mean is that it's like saying "that punch couldn't be planet level, it only made a hole in a brick wall without destroying the continent behind the wall". As the AP page puts it "it isn't proof of a low attack potency, if a character's attacks only cause a small amount of destruction."

Virtually every strong character in fiction can and has to be assumed to have a supernatural power limiting their Area of Effect. So yeah, in fiction you can make a small rip in a piece of paper while using planet level strength. In reality, it might catch fire if you do that due to friction, but we are not in reality.

AoE fallacy does not let you dismiss every single anti-feat in fiction just because you can always say that they were holding back.

Also, I'm not sure that AoE fallacy actually gets applied the way you're suggesting here. Your first example was valid, a punch can cause planet-level damage to a character without destroying the planet behind them, but it seems way more weird to say that passive attack reflection can be tanked by anyone and everyone because... not saying that would be AoE fallacy? AoE fallacy usually isn't brought up when a tier 7's punch directly at an ordinary human fails to kill an ordinary human. That'd be an anti-feat, unless there's context explaining why it didn't harm them.

I was there, 3000 years ago, when that page was made and I can tell you that a person that has no particular business knowing something is already shaky. Someone that we know doesn't canonically have that knowledge is basically "Squire that quite obviously exaggerates" level of unreliable.

I find this ludicrous. I know a bunch of statements that were accepted despite the in-verse narrator technically not really having a reason to have that knowledge, and I think they should be accepted for reasons I've outlined in earlier posts. Frankly I don't know why you accepted a bunch of shit in the OP if you have this standard of evidence.

• How does Kikaijima know how Oudo's ability works?
• How does Wanizuka know that Momo needs to know people's names to seal them?
• How does Hanten know that Kakegae could have copied Iihiko/Medaka?
• How do these random abnormals know that Medaka, by stopping her reflexes, can suppress her pain? They're not in her head, they don't know that she's not just ignoring the pain.
• How does Nienami know that Zenkichi's not using Model Zenkichi because he can't use it on someone with Hansode's flesh?

I think this stuff can all be explained by a thing called "good ******* writing", where you don't just have one or two characters who should canonically be experts on the relevant abilities explaining everything about a characters' abilities during battle. So that he can change things up in the manga extras by having different characters have their personality and speaking style come across in them, rather than having the same nigh-omniscient Ajimu, or the relevant characters themselves, explaining every single one even when that wouldn't make narrative sense.

Heck, consider that educated wizard that researched the character is still "not completely believable". Given an "indestructible" claim is somewhat stronger, but you get the point. I mean, read further and and it tells you to evaluate it relative to what the character could know. So obviously interpretations that would be beyond Hinokage's knowledge are out.

That claim was considered believable up to what the wizard could dish out. It doesn't consider the possibility that the wizard damaged that character slightly and still decided to call it "indestructible", it considers the character as telling the truth with their words, even if they can't test up to infinity. If Hinokage says that Gagamaru can instantly push away his death, that'd mean that Hinokage inflicted a lethal wound, and Gagamaru pushed that away in a timeframe Hinokage would perceive as "an instant".

Yeah, I don't think the statement can safely be interpreted as him pushing his death away after he is completely braindead or something. That's extrapolating way too far from that vague statement. Like, we can talk about it as an indication that he can take someone breaking his neck or stopping his heart, but something like him surviving getting his head smashed is completely beyond what this could be taken to mean given the context.

Ehhhhhhh I guess so. I didn't consider "braindead" as only being a subset of "death", but with that idea presented I'd be fine at limiting at something like that.

So a character would need to inflict brain death at FTL speeds to be able to overcome Encounter?

I'm pretty sure it makes a connection to regeneration here, given that it straight up says that "similar limitations to regeneration" apply. It's also kinda common sense that it would get the same scrutiny in regards to restoring the body back to a functional level.

Not to mention that there are countless examples in fiction of resurrection only working on certain levels of damage. I.e. the Starburst in Skulduggery Pleasant can only resurrect from heart stop and (probably) brain death, but doesn't fix any other injuries. The Kindness skill in kumo desu ga can resurrect from decapitation, but needs a reasonably intact corpse regardless. The Edo resurrection jutsu in Naruto requires DNA remains to resurrect people. Etc. Not all resurrection is low-godly and it would make no sense for us to assume so. Regeneration has levels, healing has levels, resurrection is basically the same as those two + some getting a soul back from the afterlife.

I've just never seen this thing done without the ability itself outlining explicit limitations. I've never seen someone go "Well, they can resurrect after being decapitated, but we don't know if they can resurrect from having their heart ripped out, so they still die." or "They've only canonically shown off their resurrection once, when they died to a fever, so they'll die to blood loss."

Maybe that's just because I've happened to only see fights where resurrection has a good mechanism that gets around those questions, or where the resurrection already has really good feats, but I've generally assumed that basic, contextless resurrection would be able to bring characters back from all non-esoteric deaths.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Ramping up the power of one attack until it has the right output is an option that I considered in my post. I don't think softly placing a fist at someone's gut, then slowly ramping out the force at which I push with it would anywhere resemble a punch.

How about quickly ramping up the force?

It feels like a bit much to also tack on that Encounter can detect the exact durability of everything Gagamaru could output energy on, so that it can output the perfect amount of energy. Extremely niche lower-end depictions that add other abilities aren't always what we default to.

True. As I said before, I default to "we have no idea how it works and therefore we can't make any kind of reasoning beyond feats" not anything in particular. I'm basically making the null hypothesis and you have to disprove it with reasonable certainty.

AoE fallacy does not let you dismiss every single anti-feat in fiction just because you can always say that they were holding back.

Yes, only the vast majority and this case in particular as you try to say an option can't be the case because of AoE considerations.

Also, I'm not sure that AoE fallacy actually gets applied the way you're suggesting here. Your first example was valid, a punch can cause planet-level damage to a character without destroying the planet behind them, but it seems way more weird to say that passive attack reflection can be tanked by anyone and everyone because... not saying that would be AoE fallacy? AoE fallacy usually isn't brought up when a tier 7's punch directly at an ordinary human fails to kill an ordinary human. That'd be an anti-feat, unless there's context explaining why it didn't harm them.

Because you assume that it produces a regular punch here, which is of course not the case. If you admitted that this ability replicates punch damage by applying force in the fashion of a punch, this debate would basically be settled on grounds that force-based attacks don't ignore durability.
However, what both me and the side that argues for durability negation claims is that it doesn't replicate the punch, but replicates the punch injury. In other words that the force doesn't need to be applied in the normal fashion for a punch, just as long as it replicates the result.

If you punch a wall and it just cracks, then you can't normally punch the wall with planet level force and it cracks, that would indeed contradict a planet level punch. However, you could easily replicate the crack exactly by ripping apart the stone with telekinesis in a precise fashion.
We are back at the paper ripping with that. Yeah, if you just mindlessly ripped with planetary force on a piece of paper, the rip wouldn't be small. However, if you just make a tiny rip and stop moving the paper at the right moment, it is small. The only thing preventing that in real life is stuff like "Oh, because of friction there would be a huge explosion doing that", but that is exactly what we do not consider as by the AoE fallacy.

Your mistake is to compare a case where the power is applied without precision and without being set up to stop at a precise amount of damage, to one where it is.

If that still doesn't explain it, let's take the argument ad absurdum: Assume that the ability applied force so precisely that it could apply force separately to every single atom in the targets body. (I'm not claiming that, just taking it to the logical extreme as an example)
In that case, you just have to decide where every single body should be after the damage is applied. Then apply the full force on each atom in the direction where the atom should be. Then, once the atom has reached the desired position, you stop applying force to move it and instead add a force to hold it in place there. Done. You now have perfectly replicated the injury on an atomic level using only a set maximum amount of force applied with extreme precision.

I find this ludicrous. I know a bunch of statements that were accepted despite the in-verse narrator technically not really having a reason to have that knowledge, and I think they should be accepted for reasons I've outlined in earlier posts. Frankly I don't know why you accepted a bunch of shit in the OP if you have this standard of evidence.

• How does Kikaijima know how Oudo's ability works?
• How does Wanizuka know that Momo needs to know people's names to seal them?
• How does Hanten know that Kakegae could have copied Iihiko/Medaka?
• How do these random abnormals know that Medaka, by stopping her reflexes, can suppress her pain? They're not in her head, they don't know that she's not just ignoring the pain.
• How does Nienami know that Zenkichi's not using Model Zenkichi because he can't use it on someone with Hansode's flesh?

I think this stuff can all be explained by a thing called "good ******* writing", where you don't just have one or two characters who should canonically be experts on the relevant abilities explaining everything about a characters' abilities during battle. So that he can change things up in the manga extras by having different characters have their personality and speaking style come across in them, rather than having the same nigh-omniscient Ajimu, or the relevant characters themselves, explaining every single one even when that wouldn't make narrative sense.

Aside from the last two they are contextually different due to being essentially guidebook statements despite being character speech. I'm not saying we should completely ignore context and the page doesn't intend to say that either. Quite the opposite.

As for the latter two: The random abnormals demonstrate knowledge on the topic. You're of course correct that they are just applying deduction, but deduction by a credible source can be accepted within reason.

As for the last: The characters in question are knowledgable on the topic. We might not know how they got this knowledge, but other than in Hinokage's case they have a potential way to have gotten it. So as in the wizard case, it can be used as long as it is about something within their scope.

Ehhhhhhh I guess so. I didn't consider "braindead" as only being a subset of "death", but with that idea presented I'd be fine at limiting at something like that.

So a character would need to inflict brain death at FTL speeds to be able to overcome Encounter?

That would be ok with me as far as killing him goes. Although it should not strictly be 'at FTL speed'. Like, a planet busting relativistic energy ball would still blow his head up and hence inflict brain death. The fact that he can start undoing the damage in the time the energy ball needs to reach the brain probably doesn't really help with that power difference, since he can't really undo the energy ball.
FTL is the speed at which encounter activates, so it would be more relevant for accumulating damage from multiple attacks.

I've just never seen this thing done without the ability itself outlining explicit limitations. I've never seen someone go "Well, they can resurrect after being decapitated, but we don't know if they can resurrect from having their heart ripped out, so they still die." or "They've only canonically shown off their resurrection once, when they died to a fever, so they'll die to blood loss."

Maybe that's just because I've happened to only see fights where resurrection has a good mechanism that gets around those questions, or where the resurrection already has really good feats, but I've generally assumed that basic, contextless resurrection would be able to bring characters back from all non-esoteric deaths.

In addition to what you said as possible reasons, let me add that rules aren't always consistently applied and that people tend to claim whatever is best for their point as long as nobody challenges them on it.

 

[Agnaa]

How about quickly ramping up the force?

I'm still not sure that that could accurately replicate a punch. A punch that gradually builds up force starting at a chest would produce a different result than a punch striking a chest having already reached its peak velocity.

True. As I said before, I default to "we have no idea how it works and therefore we can't make any kind of reasoning beyond feats" not anything in particular. I'm basically making the null hypothesis and you have to disprove it with reasonable certainty.

I think that if the only situations where A is not true require B, C, and D to be true, that the null hypothesis isn't "A, B, C, and D are all false"; I don't think we can just default to "nothing in particular". I think it's better to take A as true (assuming of course that A isn't already absurdly unlikely and B, C, and D aren't all already absurdly likely).

Paragraphs on replicating punches

I'm conceptually not sure if that can actually done in a way that isn't "applies an equivalent amount of force using an invisible telekinetic hand". I especially don't think that's possible if that process has to work on all levels of durability (up to that mechanism's own AP). That wall-cracking explanation is somewhat convincing, but I'm not sure how well could be done if that wall has any durability between [incredibly brittle material] and [incredibly tough material]. I feel like the necessary testing would render replication unfeasible.

In that case, you just have to decide where every single body should be after the damage is applied. Then apply the full force on each atom in the direction where the atom should be. Then, once the atom has reached the desired position, you stop applying force to move it and instead add a force to hold it in place there. Done. You now have perfectly replicated the injury on an atomic level using only a set maximum amount of force applied with extreme precision.

I feel like that requires the atoms to essentially be indestructible, but I guess if we assume they are, and that there's high enough reaction speed and good enough perception, then that could work.

I am still a little unsure about that assumption, isn't AoE fallacy usually dismissed by saying "characters control their release of energy to not destroy the environment"? I don't think I often hear it be dismissed as "Those buildings/atoms/continents are literally indestructible in this scene."

Aside from the last two they are contextually different due to being essentially guidebook statements despite being character speech. I'm not saying we should completely ignore context and the page doesn't intend to say that either. Quite the opposite.

I feel like we may just be, frustratingly, drawing our lines only a few cm apart, with this Hinokage statement being caught in the middle.

As for the latter two: The random abnormals demonstrate knowledge on the topic. You're of course correct that they are just applying deduction, but deduction by a credible source can be accepted within reason. As for the last: The characters in question are knowledgable on the topic. We might not know how they got this knowledge, but other than in Hinokage's case they have a potential way to have gotten it. So as in the wizard case, it can be used as long as it is about something within their scope.

Couldn't we apply these arguments here, and say that Hinokage could have deduced it over the course of the battle? Perhaps even off-screen? (As you say we don't even have to know how characters could have gotten that knowledge.) The statement in question comes right at the end of their fight.

That would be ok with me as far as killing him goes. Although it should not strictly be 'at FTL speed'. Like, a planet busting relativistic energy ball would still blow his head up and hence inflict brain death. The fact that he can start undoing the damage in the time the energy ball needs to reach the brain probably doesn't really help with that power difference, since he can't really undo the energy ball. FTL is the speed at which encounter activates, so it would be more relevant for accumulating damage from multiple attacks.

Fair point about not being able to undo the object itself, but that'd only make speed not be a factor for sufficiently large projectiles, right? For example, if someone punched his head, could he not push away the damage as the shockwave travels through his skull?

In addition to what you said as possible reasons, let me add that rules aren't always consistently applied and that people tend to claim whatever is best for their point as long as nobody challenges them on it.

Fair enough, I'll keep this limit to resurrection in mind in the future.

 

[Antvasima]

So have you reached any agreements here?

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'm still not sure that that could accurately replicate a punch. A punch that gradually builds up force starting at a chest would produce a different result than a punch striking a chest having already reached its peak velocity.

That depends on how fast it builds up force. In case of a punch at peak velocity the force builds up as fast as the fist deccalarates on impact.

I think that if the only situations where A is not true require B, C, and D to be true, that the null hypothesis isn't "A, B, C, and D are all false"; I don't think we can just default to "nothing in particular". I think it's better to take A as true (assuming of course that A isn't already absurdly unlikely and B, C, and D aren't all already absurdly likely).

We have to go with "nothing in particular" here one way or another. If we were to accept it as negating durability we would run into the same problem. How do you explain how it negates durability?

Causality Manipulation? That's adding on a niche-ability for the sake of a high end interpretation.

Reality Warping? Same issue.

Plot Manipulation? Yep, also has the problem of assuming an ability not actually stated.

Every explanation for how it works will require some ability being added on top, because it's just not explained in detail. So it's "A is not true requries B or C or D to be true" or "A is true, requires E or F or G to be true". Both require assumptions.
The mistake lies in the idea that you can say "it negates durabilty" without having to explain that further, which isn't the case.

And you have the burden of proof. If we are stuck at not know whether A is true or not, we will usually default to the negative side. Hence it suffices for me to show that we can't be reasonably certain of anything.

Let's also take a more general look on the argument. What you're currently arguing is essentially "Any technique that can replicate wounds on another person should be per default assumed to negate durability". Would you really assume that if such a spell existed in, for example, harry potter?
Let's generalize further. Say you have a spell that always breaks a targets arm in a single hit, without causing other damage. Is it really better to default to that negating durability? Since I can do the same line of argumentation here. Either it needs to know the appropiate output or apply full force in a specific way etc. Or it could of course just use causality manipulation to make sure the result is correct.
Personally I don't think an ability that causes a specific injury negates durability, just because the injury is supposed to have a specific shape.

Of course, all of that is already assuming a mechanism exists in the first place. In fiction abilities often enough "just work" without details such as durability negation even being decided. Has the author even thought about any means by which it works? Who knows.

I'm conceptually not sure if that can actually done in a way that isn't "applies an equivalent amount of force using an invisible telekinetic hand". I especially don't think that's possible if that process has to work on all levels of durability (up to that mechanism's own AP). That wall-cracking explanation is somewhat convincing, but I'm not sure how well could be done if that wall has any durability between [incredibly brittle material] and [incredibly tough material]. I feel like the necessary testing would render replication unfeasible.

Nothing breaks if there is no force applied to it. So as long as the force is controlled on only the area that are supposed to be destroyed nothing else breaks.

I feel like that requires the atoms to essentially be indestructible, but I guess if we assume they are, and that there's high enough reaction speed and good enough perception, then that could work.

I am still a little unsure about that assumption, isn't AoE fallacy usually dismissed by saying "characters control their release of energy to not destroy the environment"? I don't think I often hear it be dismissed as "Those buildings/atoms/continents are literally indestructible in this scene."

Yeah, but the case is 'control the energy to not destroy the stuff they don't plan to destroy' here. Want to make a wound? Also apply destruction to where the wound is. Want to break the bone? Apply destruction to where the bone should break and move it into place.

As for the atom case: As long as you apply force equally across the entire atom nothing breaks. Only if forces are applied in different way on different parts something breaks. Same also goes on larger scale. If you for example move a bone in a new position, it won't break as long as every part of the bone always has the same force applied on it during movement. Basically the reason why a characters can telekinetically launch rocks without them breaking from G-Force and stuff.

Couldn't we apply these arguments here, and say that Hinokage could have deduced it over the course of the battle? Perhaps even off-screen? (As you say we don't even have to know how characters could have gotten that knowledge.) The statement in question comes right at the end of their fight.

Hinokage can have deduced what we are trying to apply right now. I.e. "I made a lethal injury and he didn't die. Therefore he can push away lethal damage at my damage output." He can't deduce something if there is nothing to deduce it from. "Gagamaru can come back after his body was vaporized" is something impossible for him to deduce, as he never damaged Gagamaru to such an extend.

This goes back to the wizard case. The wizard that deduces invincibility is only assumed to do so in the realm he can deduce that in i.e. his power output. Since he couldn't make an experiment with universe level attacks, we can't stretch the statement that far, as he has no known means to do such a deduction.

And of course, nothing of this should be confused with the "we don't specifically know who told them" case. Given how knowledgable the two in the last example shown themself to be, that isn't reasoning but something they were likely told in preparation for the battle. Basically, if a character shows to be an expert in quantum mechanics you don't need to know which university they studied at. It suffices to be established as an expert. Which Hinokage, of course, isn't. If he had gone into the battle saying "I know exactly how Gagamaru's power works" things might be different.

Fair point about not being able to undo the object itself, but that'd only make speed not be a factor for sufficiently large projectiles, right? For example, if someone punched his head, could he not push away the damage as the shockwave travels through his skull?

He could start pushing the damage away while the shockwave travels, yes. Only really helps him if the punch isn't so hard that the fist goes straight through his head and the shockwave isn't so strong that his brain just explodes, though.

 

[Agnaa]

Paragraphs about durability negation

Those are all actually really good points. I'm now convinced that it shouldn't be considered durability negation.

As for the atom case: As long as you apply force equally across the entire atom nothing breaks. Only if forces are applied in different way on different parts something breaks. Same also goes on larger scale. If you for example move a bone in a new position, it won't break as long as every part of the bone always has the same force applied on it during movement. Basically the reason why a characters can telekinetically launch rocks without them breaking from G-Force and stuff.

Huh, I never realized that was a thing.

Hinokage can have deduced what we are trying to apply right now. I.e. "I made a lethal injury and he didn't die. Therefore he can push away lethal damage at my damage output." He can't deduce something if there is nothing to deduce it from. "Gagamaru can come back after his body was vaporized" is something impossible for him to deduce, as he never damaged Gagamaru to such an extend.

I guess this makes sense. If resurrection's treated that way (which it seems to be), there should be some limit, but it'd be more particular than the current one of "He can't push away attacks above this tier", he'd be unable to push away attacks that would have sufficient AoE and be above that tier.

He could start pushing the damage away while the shockwave travels, yes. Only really helps him if the punch isn't so hard that the fist goes straight through his head and the shockwave isn't so strong that his brain just explodes, though.

You're probably right about the first going straight through his head, but he would still have some of his brain intact, and I'm not sure how we treat situations like that.

I'm not sure why the shockwave exploding his head would be unrecoverable, if he's pushing away the shockwave as it travels. As long as it doesn't happen at sufficiently FTL speeds, he should be able to recover through that.

So have you reached any agreements here?

I believe we pretty much agree on everything now. Only thing left is that, while I agree with roughly where Gagamaru's healing should be limited, I have a few questions about the ultra-specifics.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

That depends on how fast it builds up force. In case of a punch at peak velocity the force builds up as fast as the fist deccalarates on impact.

Actually that shouldn't be the case. If the punch accelerates while already being in contact with an object the object would accelerate with it meaning the 2 punches wouldn't have the same effect (the one that decelerates and the one that accelerates).

About the rest of the things regarding the "why assume A?". The thing is saying A is true is already to some extent supported by the text directly (with the effect thing), on the other hand saying B, C or D are true, leads to more questions than answers. For us to say A is true all we'd have to assume would be "the text is being literal with the usage of effect", on the other hand for B to be true we would need "Encounter works on TK, has a way to know the person's durability/starts from small damage and accelerates into a lot of damage, and this only applies to physical attacks as emotional attack reflection has different mechanics altogether to assume/figure out". The assumptions were never on equal ground to begin with.

So it shouldn't be hard to tell which one answers more points with less assumptions here. And i know you will say "oh but im saying don't assume anything", well we have to. We either have to say "it ignores durability" or we say "it doesn't", not assuming anything in this case is just saying "it doesn't ignore dura, but for reasons we won't bother with", which is kind of an assumption on its own. And ignoring possible context just cus there is a very unlikely, overcomplicated way that requires dozens of extra assumptions doesn't seem like a good way to deal with the situation.

 

[Antvasima]

I believe we pretty much agree on everything now. Only thing left is that, while I agree with roughly where Gagamaru's healing should be limited, I have a few questions about the ultra-specifics.

Okay. That is good then.

 

[DontTalkDT]

You're probably right about the first going straight through his head, but he would still have some of his brain intact, and I'm not sure how we treat situations like that.

I'm not sure why the shockwave exploding his head would be unrecoverable, if he's pushing away the shockwave as it travels. As long as it doesn't happen at sufficiently FTL speeds, he should be able to recover through that.

I mean, for a start the exploding brain pieces would in themself turn into projectiles injuring more brain.
Then there is the question of whether really his entire brain needs to be taken out or just a specific small part in charge of controlling the ability or something like that. (That is for example how it works for Shiba Tatsuya)
Lastly, a shockwave isn't quite a perfectly two-dimensional thing. I think in practice it would probably damage greater areas at the same time. I mean, Gagamaru isn't pushing away the shockwave itself, but the damage. Since he can only do that after the damage was caused multiple areas getting damage at once are still a problem.

Actually that shouldn't be the case. If the punch accelerates while already being in contact with an object the object would accelerate with it meaning the 2 punches wouldn't have the same effect (the one that decelerates and the one that accelerates).

No, because of the inertia of the targeted object. All that ultimately matters would be the force that is applied on the object by the fist, which could be the same in both cases. In a normal punch the force is produced by the deceleration of the fist and the muscle strength, while for a punch from direct contact all the force would need to be produced from the muscle. That's why punches from rest a comparatively inefficient. Just means one needs to try harder, though.

About the rest of the things regarding the "why assume A?". The thing is saying A is true is already to some extent supported by the text directly (with the effect thing),

No, it isn't. As I already explained, the effect thing means something completely different, you're just interpreting it wrong.

on the other hand saying B, C or D are true, leads to more questions than answers. For us to say A is true all we'd have to assume would be "the text is being literal with the usage of effect"

i.e. you would have to assume it is based on causality manipulation for no good reason, as the text doesn't mean that. You're literally just jumping on the word "effect" being used and claim that anything with that word is probably causality manipulation.

on the other hand for B to be true we would need "Encounter works on TK, has a way to know the person's durability/starts from small damage and accelerates into a lot of damage, and this only applies to physical attacks as emotional attack reflection has different mechanics altogether to assume/figure out". The assumptions were never on equal ground to begin with.

And a spell with the effect of breaking an arm without ripping it off should be considered as durability negation for that same reason then?

It's like saying that if you see some unexplained phenomenon it makes more sense to assume god did it than to make a complicated theory that explains it via physics, since the physics theory needs more assumptions on the circumstances.

You also got it wrong. You count all the different options together. Really prime assumption made is "it's a precise application of force". The acceleration business is part of that. Knowing durability where things that came up along the way as additional options for how things could alternatively work. It's an "or" not an "and". The only reason this seems like a lot in the prior debate is that we got extremely detailed on the mechanics.
I had a similarly deep debate on the details of stopping trains without being flung away before, which was fixed around considerations regarding what to assume in regards to momentum. When it comes to physics it really depends on how complicated you want to make it.

So it shouldn't be hard to tell which one answers more points with less assumptions here. And i know you will say "oh but im saying don't assume anything", well we have to. We either have to say "it ignores durability" or we say "it doesn't", not assuming anything in this case is just saying "it doesn't ignore dura, but for reasons we won't bother with", which is kind of an assumption on its own. And ignoring possible context just cus there is a very unlikely, overcomplicated way that requires dozens of extra assumptions doesn't seem like a good way to deal with the situation.

Actually, on profiles we don't really have to assume anything. Remember we are primarily a character indexing side. For a vs-thread a decision needs to be made, but the principle is that anything that is not reasonably certain is not assumed.

And I repeat myself, but this is something where we have no word on the actual mechanism. Hence you are essentially arguing that the ability to cause injuries in specific shapes equates to durability negation.

 

[Agnaa]

Then there is the question of whether really his entire brain needs to be taken out or just a specific small part in charge of controlling the ability or something like that. (That is for example how it works for Shiba Tatsuya)

Right, I guess that is hard to say.

Lastly, a shockwave isn't quite a perfectly two-dimensional thing. I think in practice it would probably damage greater areas at the same time. I mean, Gagamaru isn't pushing away the shockwave itself, but the damage. Since he can only do that after the damage was caused multiple areas getting damage at once are still a problem.

Right, I meant to say the damage. But I'm not sure how much of a problem that is, if he is pushing things away at SoL speeds, that's 874,030x faster than the speed of sound (I believe a shockwave would travel through a human brain at speeds roughly comparable to mach 1), and I think with that much of a speed blitz, the damage from the shockwave shouldn't reach very far, even in this 3-D environment, so I don't think it'd damage a very great area before it's healed off.

In other news, Iapitus has caught the coronavirus and the brain fog has made him unable to participate in this thread. Since he still has some outstanding disagreements he hasn't been able to explain, I'll wait until he's better before applying stuff.

Although @DontTalkDT, Iapitus did bring up an interesting point that profiles currently treat Scar Dead as durability negation, but in comparisons in this thread you've said that both Encounter and Scar Dead should be treated as not negating durability. Does this mean you want to revise it?

This is a bit of a holdup for me, an ability that opens all wounds no matter how old they air, and which extends to mental wounds, and wounds caused in construction, doesn't really sound like it's just done in a way that doesn't negate durability.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

No, because of the inertia of the targeted object. All that ultimately matters would be the force that is applied on the object by the fist, which could be the same in both cases. In a normal punch the force is produced by the deceleration of the fist and the muscle strength, while for a punch from direct contact all the force would need to be produced from the muscle. That's why punches from rest a comparatively inefficient. Just means one needs to try harder, though.

Inertia is not the only factor though as it depends on the time of interaction. Similar to how a rock will break/shatter glass whereas a bullet will pierce through it without shattering it. By just pushing from already being in contact means the interaction time is significantly higher leading to a different result.

I won't comment on the rest of the points as it's just different opinions at this point, agree to disagree. What i will comment on however is:

you're just interpreting it wrong

You interpreting it differently doesn't mean others are interpreting it wrong buddy. You have 0 facts to back up your point being right and until you do gather facts you have no right to claim other points of view are "wrong".

You're literally just jumping on the word "effect" being used and claim that anything with that word is probably causality manipulation

That and the fact that it says "he would redirect the effects of the damage done by scar dead" instead of "he would recreate the effects of the damage".

Hence you are essentially arguing that the ability to cause injuries in specific shapes equates to durability negation.

Yes...causing injuries in certain ways is durability negation, the mechanics decide it all.

 

[Agnaa]

That and the fact that it says "he would redirect the effects of the damage done by scar dead" instead of "he would recreate the effects of the damage".

That is a good point actually. I think there's reason to distinguish between "This inflicts an effect" (i.e. a spell that breaks an arm) and "This redirects an effect".

 

[DontTalkDT]

Right, I meant to say the damage. But I'm not sure how much of a problem that is, if he is pushing things away at SoL speeds, that's 874,030x faster than the speed of sound (I believe a shockwave would travel through a human brain at speeds roughly comparable to mach 1), and I think with that much of a speed blitz, the damage from the shockwave shouldn't reach very far, even in this 3-D environment, so I don't think it'd damage a very great area before it's healed off.

I don't think a shockwave from a punch far above his durability would just be Mach 1 in reality. Then again one can debate whether or not the shockwave speed is coupled to the speed of the punch or its kinetic energy in our system.
That said, a wave has a wavelength, right? And basically everything in that wavelength would be damaged at the same time, with the parts to the peak more than the parts to the side (until the point where the strength at that point in the wave is below Gagamaru's durability). Since the damage of everything in that area is simultaneous even FTL stuff wouldn't fix one part before the other. Like, one is AoE the other one is speed, basically.

This is a bit of a holdup for me, an ability that opens all wounds no matter how old they air, and which extends to mental wounds, and wounds caused in construction, doesn't really sound like it's just done in a way that doesn't negate durability.

The mental wounds part would still negate durability, of course.

Aside from the Scar Dead case seems even easier to argue than the Encounter one. Like, we know the ability needs to have an aspect that figures out all the old wounds in great detail. And since people grow and change it also needs an aspect that figures out exactly how an old wound would apply to a new body. So it already has all the tools to inflict a replica of the wound via a well-judged telekinetic blast or similar.

Inertia is not the only factor though as it depends on the time of interaction. Similar to how a rock will break/shatter glass whereas a bullet will pierce through it without shattering it. By just pushing from already being in contact means the interaction time is significantly higher leading to a different result.

Pretty sure the rock vs bullet example actually depends on force, or more precisely pressure, than time per so. That said how do you know the "interaction time" here anyway? We have absolutely nothing that limits in timeframe for this.

You interpreting it differently doesn't mean others are interpreting it wrong buddy. You have 0 facts to back up your point being right and until you do gather facts you have no right to claim other points of view are "wrong".

Ma dude, they explain how Scar Dead can work on Gagamaru in that paragraph. They say that it works because it doesn't prevent the damage, but only pushes the away the effect.
So what's the effect here? Let's assume it would be effect in a causality manipulation kind of sense. In that case, after it was pushed away, it would have never happened. What this means is that Gagamaru would retroactively never have been hurt, like Kumagawa basically. But that goes against what they are saying. They say the wounds actually happened and hence Scar Dead can open them.
However, if we instead interpret effect in the not causality manipulation sense we don't have that problem. Interpreting it as the physical effect of damage, i.e. the wounds, the wounds being pushed away doesn't make it so that they never happened. As such there would be nothing strange about Scar Dead opening them up. So in context, that interpretation is the only one that makes sense.

That and the fact that it says "he would redirect the effects of the damage done by scar dead" instead of "he would recreate the effects of the damage".

It says redirect, because his ability doesn't just recreate the damage, but also makes it disappear from Gagamaru's body. Saying it recreates damage would be missing half of his ability. The total effect, regardless ofsuggested mechanism, can be summarized as "redirecting damage" or "pushing damage away". The explanation even says he "rejects damage", which is technically just the first half of the ability.

Yes...causing injuries in certain ways is durability negation, the mechanics decide it all.

The mechanics that we know neither here nor in the examples, I brought up.

 

[Agnaa]

Hmm fair points, I think I agree with you on the shockwave thing now.

Also, it always was kind of strange that Gagamaru ever had any wounds to be re-opened by Scar Dead in the first place, him always receiving them then pushing them away would make sense. It'd also make this scan more understandable.

The mental wounds part would still negate durability, of course.

I feel like Shibuki's profile would still need rewording, as it currently implies the wound re-opening negates durability. Also, shouldn't Gagamaru technically get something similar, as he's able to push away mental damage to others?

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I have more arguments to give to DT, however i have a test coming up (tomorrow). So i will not be able to reply in the next 14 or so hours.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Ma dude, they explain how Scar Dead can work on Gagamaru in that paragraph. They say that it works because it doesn't prevent the damage, but only pushes the away the effect.
So what's the effect here? Let's assume it would be effect in a causality manipulation kind of sense. In that case, after it was pushed away, it would have never happened. What this means is that Gagamaru would retroactively never have been hurt, like Kumagawa basically. But that goes against what they are saying. They say the wounds actually happened and hence Scar Dead can open them.
However, if we instead interpret effect in the not causality manipulation sense we don't have that problem. Interpreting it as the physical effect of damage, i.e. the wounds, the wounds being pushed away doesn't make it so that they never happened. As such there would be nothing strange about Scar Dead opening them up.

That's because you're assuming the mechanics for Scar Dead. Based on the text Scar Dead shouldn't work either way cus the damage is being "rejected" in other words "it's not happening/being removed", instead of being healed. So it doesn't make sense either way.

On the other hand the text says as long as the damage is taken, no matter what happens to the effect Scar Dead can recreate it. So the mechanics of scar dead seem to be "recreating the damage" instead of "recreating the wound". In this case, whether the effect is rejected, redirected or just straight up erased Scar Dead would still take effect (which is what we see in the manga pannel as iirc even Kumagawa got affected by scar dead).

So if we're going by the description of Scar Dead given in the scan, it still makes perfect sense for Encounter to redirect the effect Causality Manipulation style.

And no, still "pushing away the wound" would still not take your side of the argument as your argument isn't "pushing" but "healing+recreate damage".

It says redirect, because his ability doesn't just recreate the damage, but also makes it disappear from Gagamaru's body. Saying it recreates damage would be missing half of his ability. The total effect, regardless ofsuggested mechanism, can be summarized as "redirecting damage" or "pushing damage away". The explanation even says he "rejects damage", which is technically just the first half of the ability.

Absolutely wrong. It already explains earlier that he rejects the effects of the damage (explains the defensive part), saying "recreates the damage" would not be missing half of it, it would just be explaining the offensive part. We already get an explanation for half of the ability, we don't need a term that tries to combine both again.

On the other hand they could have easily said "he would heal and recreate the damage somewhere else", that would be your argument being correct, but they do not. The current description supports my side of the argument.

 

[Antvasima]

@Agnaa @DontTalkDT

So have you reached an agreement here now, or is there anything left to discuss?

 

[Firephoenixearl]

We are literally in the middle of the discussion rn.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Agnaa]

On the other hand the text says as long as the damage is taken, no matter what happens to the effect Scar Dead can recreate it. So the mechanics of scar dead seem to be "recreating the damage" instead of "recreating the wound". In this case, whether the effect is rejected, redirected or just straight up erased Scar Dead would still take effect (which is what we see in the manga pannel as iirc even Kumagawa got affected by scar dead).

This is wrong, but it does lead into some interesting things. While Kumagawa was affected by Scar Dead, it's explicitly said that wounds erased by All Fiction aren't replicated by Scar Dead, as they never happened. For how he got affected if that's the case, we know he didn't have All Fiction for his whole life, and he probably didn't bother erasing small wounds.

However, in finding that scan, I found this one, where it describes Scar Dead as:

• Forcefully reopening old wounds.
• The opposite of the healing process.
• Like an extreme version of your old wounds aching when it rains.

I feel like those last two descriptions sound more like something that would negate durability, while the first one could go either way.

Does this change your outlook on it, @DontTalkDT ?