- 32,359
- 20,298
Authorial intent is overrated.
-
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.
Why does Creation count as an AP feat? (Staff only)
- Thread starter RashFaustinho
- Start date
-
- Tags
- attack potency creation
- Status
- 14,195
- 2,574
@Matt well he's saying verse treatment rather than intent. I believe he's trying to seperate it from intent by suggesting its a commonly established in-verse rule (hence calling it verse treatment), but I have never seen that to be the case which is why I just called it intent before.
- 15,637
- 5,392
1. Dropping it.
2. Dropping it.
3. Yeah, but how is it an 'overgeneralization'?
4-6. The heck is "verse treatment"? How is 'bias' relevent to the debate?
I haven't given examples because there's no burden for me to. You want to claim verses consistently have creation feats indicating their raw damage for below-celestial feats? Give me a list of creation feats we've accepted that don't involve celestial bodies, universes, or dimensions. I'll imagine it'll be massively short or ALERT: NOT PART OF MY ARGUMENT consist of a list of PMMM calcs.
Just to poke at your agument; we've already established that how we rate the feats are arbitrary and have nothing to do with the science of creation because creation in the truest sense isn't science and we avoid using Mass-Energy, which would actually be somewhat accurate if the characters were using their own energy. We can just as easily arbitrarily say "no" to stuff below celestial bodies seeing how previous threads were resolved.
Like, I agree Authorial Intent is overrated. It's great none of that is what I'm talking about.
2. Dropping it.
3. Yeah, but how is it an 'overgeneralization'?
4-6. The heck is "verse treatment"? How is 'bias' relevent to the debate?
I haven't given examples because there's no burden for me to. You want to claim verses consistently have creation feats indicating their raw damage for below-celestial feats? Give me a list of creation feats we've accepted that don't involve celestial bodies, universes, or dimensions. I'll imagine it'll be massively short or ALERT: NOT PART OF MY ARGUMENT consist of a list of PMMM calcs.
Just to poke at your agument; we've already established that how we rate the feats are arbitrary and have nothing to do with the science of creation because creation in the truest sense isn't science and we avoid using Mass-Energy, which would actually be somewhat accurate if the characters were using their own energy. We can just as easily arbitrarily say "no" to stuff below celestial bodies seeing how previous threads were resolved.
I still have no clue what 'verse treatment' is. I'm not even calling it that.SomebodyData said:
Like, I agree Authorial Intent is overrated. It's great none of that is what I'm talking about.
- 14,195
- 2,574
3. Sarcasm can't be sensed on the internet, but in case you're not being sarcastic: Assuming most verses specifically treat pocket feats below celestial body level is nearly impossible to prove (fiction is impossibly large to document them all), so to you even remotely say that is absurd. Again you would have to remotely 'prove' (Like I said, nearly unprovable) it to be at least have several examples. I have only seen it a few times myself, and its usually because the character uses a specific item rather than it being part of their abilities.
4-6: Don't be nitpicky here, you yourself continiously refer to how verses treat the pocket realities, like I mentioned to Matt, its just how verses treat the feats by their own rules. It was to explain why you're making broad assumptions (specifcally that 'most verses' assumption) out of thin air, its not relevant to the overall discussion but it does show a pattern here. Not to mention, others would probably understand the esculation in the above posts a bit better.
7: Suprisingly, I haven't made any claims yet. You showed up and said that verses differentiate pocket below-creation feats from ap, I have not made any claim other than stating that you haven't actually shown that.
8: I counter using my trap card: Ice feats. Tecnically its a lack of joules that causes freezing, not AP, yet we still accept them. We still count them as AP as we should for creation feats despite lacking scientific basis. Furthermore, it could also be stated that celestial body feats also fall under everything you just stated, yet are accepted by you despite that.
4-6: Don't be nitpicky here, you yourself continiously refer to how verses treat the pocket realities, like I mentioned to Matt, its just how verses treat the feats by their own rules. It was to explain why you're making broad assumptions (specifcally that 'most verses' assumption) out of thin air, its not relevant to the overall discussion but it does show a pattern here. Not to mention, others would probably understand the esculation in the above posts a bit better.
7: Suprisingly, I haven't made any claims yet. You showed up and said that verses differentiate pocket below-creation feats from ap, I have not made any claim other than stating that you haven't actually shown that.
8: I counter using my trap card: Ice feats. Tecnically its a lack of joules that causes freezing, not AP, yet we still accept them. We still count them as AP as we should for creation feats despite lacking scientific basis. Furthermore, it could also be stated that celestial body feats also fall under everything you just stated, yet are accepted by you despite that.
- 15,637
- 5,392
3. I uh, wasn't being sarcastic, not sure how I came off sarcastic. Again though, I have no obligation to prove a negative.
4-6. Why should we disregard rules the verse itself provides regarding a feat? Like, if the verse gave reason for us to not accept a feat (let's use the example you gave me for fun, a seperate item), we souldn't accept the feat. It's different from authorial intent, which we actually tend to disprove with contexualization from the verse itself to counter stuff like Word-of-God. Of course we should use context from the writing itself; are you saying we should disregard the very material we analyze simply because we want our feats to be a certain level? How can we even call ourselves an 'indexing site' if we're tossing what we index in the bin when indexing it?
7. Unless you happen to be agreeing with my point, you're arguing against it. If my point is that there isn't sufficient proof for us to consider creation feats below that line as raw power feats, that means I'm asking you to provide evidence, I'm not making a claim myself. The fact that you're not making claims or giving evidence really tells, though. I'll wait on that list.
8. No need to pull out a 'trap card', you're actually making my point for me. My point was that we abitrarily decided with no scientific basis to rate feats a certain way. Seeing now that it's even more common on the wiki for us to just throw logic out the window in determining feats; why can't we simply disregard lower-level creation feats for the same lack of reasoning?
4-6. Why should we disregard rules the verse itself provides regarding a feat? Like, if the verse gave reason for us to not accept a feat (let's use the example you gave me for fun, a seperate item), we souldn't accept the feat. It's different from authorial intent, which we actually tend to disprove with contexualization from the verse itself to counter stuff like Word-of-God. Of course we should use context from the writing itself; are you saying we should disregard the very material we analyze simply because we want our feats to be a certain level? How can we even call ourselves an 'indexing site' if we're tossing what we index in the bin when indexing it?
7. Unless you happen to be agreeing with my point, you're arguing against it. If my point is that there isn't sufficient proof for us to consider creation feats below that line as raw power feats, that means I'm asking you to provide evidence, I'm not making a claim myself. The fact that you're not making claims or giving evidence really tells, though. I'll wait on that list.
8. No need to pull out a 'trap card', you're actually making my point for me. My point was that we abitrarily decided with no scientific basis to rate feats a certain way. Seeing now that it's even more common on the wiki for us to just throw logic out the window in determining feats; why can't we simply disregard lower-level creation feats for the same lack of reasoning?
- 63,529
- 8,506
Annnnd right back into it, well done guys.
- 32,359
- 20,298
I still agree 100% with Kep.
- 14,195
- 2,574
3. "where fiction far more often doesn't treat them as really much of a "feat" and more of just an exotic ability." isn't a negative, its an assertion. A negative would be: "Creation feats (including celestial) is not mentioned to be a feat in most verses" (Also ignoring the fact that its a massive assumption)
4-6: If it states to not scale, by all means go ahead. No one is arguing against that, so I'm not sure what's your angle here.
7: You were the one who came here with the claim, so you're the one who has to provide evidence that constellar pocket feats are treated as AP, non-constellar pocket ones are not for most verses.
8: Don't you mean simply disregard ice feats for the same lack of reasoning? And no, to say they aren't actually feats, is to throw out just as much logic if not more. There are obviously liberities we have to take with feats, fiction as a whole would be unindexable otherwise.
@Schnee it hasn't gotten that bad. EDIT: NVM, reread what Dargoo said.
4-6: If it states to not scale, by all means go ahead. No one is arguing against that, so I'm not sure what's your angle here.
7: You were the one who came here with the claim, so you're the one who has to provide evidence that constellar pocket feats are treated as AP, non-constellar pocket ones are not for most verses.
8: Don't you mean simply disregard ice feats for the same lack of reasoning? And no, to say they aren't actually feats, is to throw out just as much logic if not more. There are obviously liberities we have to take with feats, fiction as a whole would be unindexable otherwise.
@Schnee it hasn't gotten that bad. EDIT: NVM, reread what Dargoo said.
- 63,529
- 8,506
You replied without fully knowing everything he said?SomebodyData said:
- 14,195
- 2,574
"Reread"
I was mostly looking for his points rather than the extra fluff like "How can we even call ourselves an 'indexing site' if we're tossing what we index in the bin when indexing it?" and "The fact that you're not making claims or giving evidence really tells, though."
I was mostly looking for his points rather than the extra fluff like "How can we even call ourselves an 'indexing site' if we're tossing what we index in the bin when indexing it?" and "The fact that you're not making claims or giving evidence really tells, though."
- 63,529
- 8,506
I know you typed reread, but fair
- 15,637
- 5,392
3. I'm pointing out the lack of any affirmative claim, not making an affirmative claim. Sure, I'll say that it isn't treated that way generally speaking because until someone actually provides evidence for it; it really isn't, from a logical standpoint. The same logic is why we assume innocence until proven guilty.
4-6. I'm not sure what your angle was with saying my arguments were wrong because they were based on 'verse treatment' then. Which I'm still not entirely sure what you meant by.
7. My whole point is that the claim I made isn't even necessary for me to make. It's on the people who want to assert that it is, in fact, consistent for them to be raw destruction feats, not me.
8. I, uh, don't mean to disregard ice feats? And yeah, of course we take liberties with feats. Why isn't this just another liberty we can take, is my question.
@Schnee
Not sure what to say. I'm doing my best to make my points clear, perhaps it would be best for Somebody and I to take this off-thread?
4-6. I'm not sure what your angle was with saying my arguments were wrong because they were based on 'verse treatment' then. Which I'm still not entirely sure what you meant by.
7. My whole point is that the claim I made isn't even necessary for me to make. It's on the people who want to assert that it is, in fact, consistent for them to be raw destruction feats, not me.
8. I, uh, don't mean to disregard ice feats? And yeah, of course we take liberties with feats. Why isn't this just another liberty we can take, is my question.
@Schnee
Not sure what to say. I'm doing my best to make my points clear, perhaps it would be best for Somebody and I to take this off-thread?
- 63,529
- 8,506
Off thread, definitely.
- 15,637
- 5,392
Alright.
I'm pretty sure we could use some time to cool off, anyways, but drop a message on my wall, @Somebody, and I'll continue discussion.
I'm pretty sure we could use some time to cool off, anyways, but drop a message on my wall, @Somebody, and I'll continue discussion.
- 31,459
- 34,320
I'm still in agreement with DragonMaster, Kep, and Matt here.
- 10,758
- 6,491
What I'm really curious about is how one would even go about proving something like "most of fiction does this" or "most of fiction doesn't do this" I doubt anyone would be bothering to research things like this that actual statistical evidence would exist
This would probably be a problem whenever you are arguing prevalence of a fictional trend, what more can you exactly do than say what's more common based on what you've seen?
This would probably be a problem whenever you are arguing prevalence of a fictional trend, what more can you exactly do than say what's more common based on what you've seen?
- 31,459
- 34,320
Most of the staff strongly agree with Kepekley, but Dargoo still seems to have concerns. And it later seemed to turn into a PMMM thread. That being said, he did say he has more to say on the matter, but I believe we won't be changing our standards from what they are now anytime soon. As I too agree that creation feats are still generally valid.
- 167,857
- 76,474
I remember that Matthew mentioned that Castlevania has too high statistics due to creation feats. Should we add an instruction to the Creation page regarding that such feats have to be at least somewhat consistent with the scale of the rest of a verse in order to be considered?
- 10,786
- 1,635
Creation outliers are still outliers, add it.
- 10,786
- 1,635
Not me, as I'm against it being used for attack potency at all.
- 15,637
- 5,392
Honestly, it could be feasible for whatever verses we catalog here.Andytrenom said:
Which is still around 900, not including verses that don't have their own pages. I wouldn't mind going through them and making some charts, to actually put money where my mouth is, although that would obviously take a large amount of time.
As for the argument that "well we don't cover all of fiction and there's always going to be stuff you don't consider" the only conclusion that reaches is "we can't make general statements about fiction"; which would be a poor logical corner to back ourselves into considering we base much of our system on what we would call "general statements about fiction".
Of the 103 comments on this thread thusfar, I count less than 10 talking about PMMM, and 1 that isn't a back-and-forth about why we should stop discussing PMMM.DarkDragonMedeus said:
I think it's a poor summary of my discussions with Somebody and DragonMaster. You could have at least said "Dargoo and Somebody went off on minute details and decided to take it off-thread to keep things coherent" and keep the summary accurate.
That I at least agree with, although not with much optimism.DarkDragonMedeus said:
- 31,459
- 34,320
@Antvasma Matt only said that Low 2-C creation feats are inconsistent, he never said they're too high based on creation feats. Castlevania still have multiple creation feats ranging from 5-C to 4-A, with a few Tier 2 creation feats. But he did say At least 4-A, likely Low 2-C is perfectly fine for the main Castlevania cast.
@Dargoo, I see; it's just that was what it seemed to come out as after reading the posts. But it doesn't really change our main final point too much.
@Dargoo, I see; it's just that was what it seemed to come out as after reading the posts. But it doesn't really change our main final point too much.
- 10,786
- 1,635
As true creation violates conservation laws, it shouldn't be used as an attack potency feat any more that erasing something from existence.
- 2,171
- 308
Creation is about power, and it works both ways. Exerting power into destruction only requires you to hold enough of it while creating something requires enough power and the ability to create things.
Plus I don't see why people take this as a problem, Majority of fiction works completely fine with creation scaling feats
Plus I don't see why people take this as a problem, Majority of fiction works completely fine with creation scaling feats
- 10,786
- 1,635
@Antvasima Yes. @Konaguna Applying energy to destroy things is also an ability, one that a character could theoretically lack.
- 10,786
- 1,635
There's also the possibility of only being able to create particles (so, no energy attacks or physical boosts) at a fixed energy level (so no planck temperature hydrogen atoms).
- 167,857
- 76,474
Should a discussion rule or a Creation page note be added before we close this?
- 10,758
- 6,491
@Ant This was originally a Q&A thread (I think) so you should wait for the OP to respond before closing
- 10,758
- 6,491
Till the OP replies you can't really decide how satisfactory the answers have been in their place
- Status
