When should creator entities gain all of their creations' abilities?

[Bobsican]

Mostly wording changes, adding links and expanding some areas, I think it's easier to just link this history page comparison for simplicity purposes.
I also shifted a bit the premise as Dread's original version acted as if this only extended to cases of characters gaining absolutely all abilities in a verse, when lesser cases of just inheriting from a group to a single another character aren't unheard of.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody write an explanation post with everything that our staff currently need to evaluate here please?

Just this

Okay, and what did you change there without it being previously accepted here?

Mostly wording changes, adding links and expanding some areas, I think it's easier to just link this history page comparison for simplicity purposes.
I also shifted a bit the premise as Dread's original version acted as if this only extended to cases of characters gaining absolutely all abilities in a verse, when lesser cases of just inheriting from a group to a single another character aren't unheard of.

Thank you.

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler

Are any of you willing to help out here please?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I already commented my main thoughts and still stand that simply being "The creator of everything" shouldn't automatically grant them every power and ability in the verse, especially if certain character(s) manage to surpass the creator. And the use of the word "Omnipotent" is a different can of worms prone to hyperbole as Agnaa listed.

But of course their could be specific examples such as being the literal embodiment of all powers or if a monotheistic like diety is the verse's UES. Or that everyone and everything or some sort of Artifact that supposedly grants "Every power in existence" and is merely a fraction of said deity's power, I could see them as exceptions. But said instances need an elaboration.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for helping out here.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I think the page looks ok.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you to you as well.

 

[Bobsican]

Okay, if there are no objections this may be good to go from the look of things at this point.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Okay, if there are no objections this may be good to go from the look of things at this point.

Then we should get to applying this policy.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I already commented my main thoughts and still stand that simply being "The creator of everything" shouldn't automatically grant them every power and ability in the verse, especially if certain character(s) manage to surpass the creator. And the use of the word "Omnipotent" is a different can of worms prone to hyperbole as Agnaa listed.

But of course their could be specific examples such as being the literal embodiment of all powers or if a monotheistic like diety is the verse's UES. Or that everyone and everything or some sort of Artifact that supposedly grants "Every power in existence" and is merely a fraction of said deity's power, I could see them as exceptions. But said instances need an elaboration.

Well our R>F transcendence page a couple examples of what does and doesn't count. Might be a good idea to do the same for this.

 

[Bobsican]

You mean like restructuring the page to go over the points in a similar format manner? I wouldn't mind, but I'd rather see another mod or two being also fine with that as it's a rather subjective change.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Agnaa]

Goddamnit. I already said that there were notable differences, Bob acknowledged their existence and asked for staff input on them, and now he's going back to "there's pretty much no difference"? If this was an accident, you have to be way more careful about this sort of thing, such as by trying to reread at least half a dozen messages back when explaining what still needs to be done.

@DarkDragonMedeus @LordGriffin1000 @IdiosyncraticLawyer

Bob added this text in bold to the draft, which was never mentioned in earlier discussions

The character in question is the embodiment of all existence, and its being is shown to include the other characters from the verse and their abilities. Note that depending on the context, this can be limited to the chunks that technically make up the character inheriting the capabilities from others accordingly, for example, a dog has Enhanced Senses regarding smelling, that trait would be limited to the part of the existencially-wide character that makes up the dog. Because of this, this shouldn't be confused with mere Omnipresence, and may not be worth indexing directly in such cases, especially if the other characters are portrayed as having free will in relation to it.

I don't really think this should be included.

While I'd agree with what Bob says for cases of, say, living multiverses and omnipresent characters, I don't think such characters should get every ability in the verse listed in their profile, so they shouldn't really be included in the page. I also believe that cases where someone's the embodiment of existence are sufficiently different from that; and would involve a separate entity which can merely manifest powers from other characters. In such a case, they clearly wouldn't be limited to certain parts of their body for these abilities, since they're a separate entity that can just bring those out at any other time, and likely wouldn't need to worry about free will either.

 

[Bobsican]

Oh, my bad, I thought that the whole discussion on that was sufficiently recent at the time to not have to highlight that change, especially with it being seemingy implied with the whole changes of wording and shifting premise stuff.

Wouldn't it be better to just move that part to the Unacceptable Cases section then?

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah perhaps.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Goddamnit. I already said that there were notable differences, Bob acknowledged their existence and asked for staff input on them, and now he's going back to "there's pretty much no difference"? If this was an accident, you have to be way more careful about this sort of thing, such as by trying to reread at least half a dozen messages back when explaining what still needs to be done.

@DarkDragonMedeus @LordGriffin1000 @IdiosyncraticLawyer

Bob added this text in bold to the draft, which was never mentioned in earlier discussions



I don't really think this should be included.

While I'd agree with what Bob says for cases of, say, living multiverses and omnipresent characters, I don't think such characters should get every ability in the verse listed in their profile, so they shouldn't really be included in the page. I also believe that cases where someone's the embodiment of existence are sufficiently different from that; and would involve a separate entity which can merely manifest powers from other characters. In such a case, they clearly wouldn't be limited to certain parts of their body for these abilities, since they're a separate entity that can just bring those out at any other time, and likely wouldn't need to worry about free will either.

Fair point. I don't mind removing it.

 

[Bobsican]

Fair point. I don't mind removing it.

Thoughts on just moving it to the unacceptable cases criteria as brought up a few days ago? Agnaa appears to be fine with that

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

Goddamnit. I already said that there were notable differences, Bob acknowledged their existence and asked for staff input on them, and now he's going back to "there's pretty much no difference"? If this was an accident, you have to be way more careful about this sort of thing, such as by trying to reread at least half a dozen messages back when explaining what still needs to be done.

@DarkDragonMedeus @LordGriffin1000 @IdiosyncraticLawyer

Bob added this text in bold to the draft, which was never mentioned in earlier discussions



I don't really think this should be included.

While I'd agree with what Bob says for cases of, say, living multiverses and omnipresent characters, I don't think such characters should get every ability in the verse listed in their profile, so they shouldn't really be included in the page. I also believe that cases where someone's the embodiment of existence are sufficiently different from that; and would involve a separate entity which can merely manifest powers from other characters. In such a case, they clearly wouldn't be limited to certain parts of their body for these abilities, since they're a separate entity that can just bring those out at any other time, and likely wouldn't need to worry about free will either.

Oh, my bad, I thought that the whole discussion on that was sufficiently recent at the time to not have to highlight that change, especially with it being seemingy implied with the whole changes of wording and shifting premise stuff.

Wouldn't it be better to just move that part to the Unacceptable Cases section then?

Yeah perhaps.

Fair point. I don't mind removing it.

Thoughts on just moving it to the unacceptable cases criteria as brought up a few days ago? Agnaa appears to be fine with that

@LordGriffin1000 @DarkDragonMedeus @Agnaa @Qawsedf234 @IdiosyncraticLawyer

We seem to require further help from you here.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I suppose it might be fine to remove.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I suppose it might be fine to remove.

I agree with this sentiment.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Bobsican

Move this to the unacceptable examples or remove it, so we can stick with the original draft.

 

[Bobsican]

Okay, updated it accordingly from a glance, did I miss something or are there other potential changes?

 

[ImmortalDread]

I will create the introduction section, I don't think this sentence is even clear to outsiders/visitors of what the page is even talking about or what exactly they are setting up the standards.

We always have simple but also detailed introductions, at least to be understandable enough for members and outsiders. Are you willing to do it, or should I?

 

[Bobsican]

I think that sort of stuff is better covered by you than me, I and others can then just corroborate later if anything could be improved on.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I fixed it, added the category and discussion templates, also a representative picture.

 

[Bobsican]

The image and caption seem inappropiate, remember, the proposal was on how to handle the inheritance of powers between characters (as lesser cases where just the ones of a group or less aren't unheard of), not how we specifically handle omnipotent characters, IMO this is one of those pages that don't need an image.

As such this summary change also seems inappropiate, as this isn't intended exclusively for characters inheriting all powers of a verse nor relying on "omnipotence" claims or similar as discussed before.

The other changes seem fine, however.

 

[ImmortalDread]

In fact, I contend that the central focus of this discussion pertains to whether an omnipotent entity acquires all conceivable abilities. However, I am open to the idea of removing the image. Yet, I suggest retaining the summary. If you're amenable, please review the OP and the entire discourse to explore whether we assign all abilities to these omnipotent or nearly omnipotent characters.

 

[Bobsican]

We changed the original title of the draft from "Omnipotent Guidelines" to "Power Inheritance Standards" for a reason to begin with, Dread.
Simply put, this does not only apply to absolute cases where characters gain all P&As in the verse as far lower cases also exist, and it'd be unecessarily misleading to have a summary that heavily leans on that.

 

[ImmortalDread]

The title has changed, the premise is still the same. So again, I don't see how the introduction is misleading. It perfectly matches of what OP was originally arguing for.

We can add “and other characters” but I find it very much nitpicky to argue over semantics really.
So I will move on and add this part.

 

[Bobsican]

I'd rather wait for other staff to avoid arguing back and forth uselessly again.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Of course, I had reservations about the idea of labeling the entire introduction as misleading, given that the OP's argument was focused exclusively on specific cases. Once again, I'm open to including the suggestion of "lower cases," although its significance is minimal since the acceptance of the case matters more than whether the character is all-powerful or not. This point is evident from the fact that we didn't enact this rule.

In my view, there isn't an unproductive debate; it's more a situation where you're scrutinizing a term excessively. Even if we hadn't included it, a careful read of the page would lead to the same interpretation. Characterizing it as “thoroughly deceptive” was inaccurate.

Therefore, my decision is to move forward and append the brief note.

@Antvasima I have added it and I suppose the draft is ready to be public. If you wish, we can, we ask for evaluations, but we already have done this.

 

[Qawsedf234]

This part

It is heavily suggested that before applying something like this, the user creates a Content Revision Thread in order for the evidence to be properly evaluated to avoid unnecessary issues.

Should not be "Heavily suggested" in my view. It should be "Such a ability requires a CRT in order to be added to any profile".

 

[Antvasima]

So can somebody please remind me regarding what is currently intended to be added based on this thread?

 

[Antvasima]

This part

Should not be "Heavily suggested" in my view. It should be "Such a ability requires a CRT in order to be added to any profile".

Including what this refers to.

 

[Agnaa]

Good lord, I already said multiple times that this page shouldn't be focused around omnipotence, and now you're sneaking it into the draft again (AND asking for it to be published without further review)?

No, the OP is not focused around claims of omnipotence. It's one example, out of three, all of which are subsets of the greater idea of creator entities gaining powers and abilities from their creations. The central theme is absolutely not omnipotence, and having the page's introduction focus on that is not acceptable.

Really I think the old introduction was fine, I think it covers everything it has to.

And after three cases in one thread I have to ask, do we have a rule that covers this sort of behaviour? I remember that Weekly doing something similar contributed to him getting demoted from Admin.

This part

Should not be "Heavily suggested" in my view. It should be "Such a ability requires a CRT in order to be added to any profile".

I disagree, I think some people are wise enough to be able to place that sort of thing on page creation.

 

[Antvasima]

Agnaa seems to make sense to me above, but to be fair, I do not think that Bobsican is deliberately manipulative. He just lacks common sense sometimes.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Antvasima

I need more staff member's opinions. I don't think the current introductions lacks anything, except now I added some corrections.

Likewise, I got inspired specifically from this page https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Reality-Fiction_Transcendence, and we similarly follow like this in other pages. We don't simply do some short introductions (I don't mind it being concise, but it is also should be comprehensive)

I am not in position to respond to Agnaa's needless frustrations. The introduction is not focusing on this central theme, but it is mostly this cases, which is why I added the last sentence after I conceded it. Although, I am surprised we are causally debating over this.

The first draft uses more technical language (which I was inspired in many other pages I created or worked on) and the second one uses simpler language and less technical.

To summarize: which one do you prefer?

First suggestion: (@LordGriffin1000)

It is not rare in fiction that creators or entities, particularly those of the highest power level, are often described as omnipotent or something similar in nature. Although this term implies their strength and supremacy over the verse, it also doesn't mean they possess every ability and power within their respective narratives directly.

This page outlines our criteria for comparing entities across a range of abilities within their contexts, including those they haven't explicitly demonstrated firsthand.

It's important to note that this isn't limited to omnipotent entities alone; it's also applicable to less potent cases (like creators of the verse) as long as they align with our established guidelines.

Second suggestion: (@LordGriffin1000)

This page covers our standards for scaling entities to a wide variety of abilities in their settings, extending beyond those they've directly shown feats of using themselves.

Third suggestion: (@Antvasima, @Agnaa, @LordGriffin1000, @DarkDragonMedeus, @Qawsedf234)

It is not rare in fiction that supreme beings exist which create the setting, or are otherwise the source of wide-spanning power systems.

This page outlines are criteria for deciding when such entities, and others like them, gain the abilities of a large number of characters in the setting, even without demonstrating those abilities themselves.

 

[Agnaa]

Omnipotence is absolutely not most of the cases. Most of them are just vague gods that created everything.

If you want a longer, more rambly introduction, that can be written without focusing on omnipotence.

It is not rare in fiction that supreme beings exist which create the setting, or are otherwise the source of wide-spanning power systems.

This page outlines are criteria for deciding when such entities, and others like them, gain the abilities of a large number of characters in the setting, even without demonstrating those abilities themselves.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Agnaa, could you kindly provide a list of "most of the cases"? So we can be transparent on which ones we are referring? Because frankly speaking, most of the cases if we give omnipotent beings all powers or not, or some creator/system that is source to all abilities.

And Gods that are not even stated to be creators or anything are not even in question, unless they are described as omnipotent.

I barely remember any of the cases you are mentioning.

“Vague Gods” that created everything

Eh? I already outlined this part as “creator of the verse” in my draft, but whatever.

In any case, I pretty sure edited the section to be significantly enough to convey the same message as your both short drafts, but in a comprehensive, technical language as we do in 99% of our cases.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, of the three alternatives listed above, I think that Agnaa's version seems like the best to use, but I do not remember the full context here well anymore.