• 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.

Yeet type 5 Acausality or change it again

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can relate to that, but you still should try to reword your irritation so you do not use outright insults.
 
So does anyone oppose the thread being closed so the new type 5 evaluation thread can be made for who qualifies?
 
Theglassman12 said:
So does anyone oppose the thread being closed so the new type 5 evaluation thread can be made for who qualifies?
Click to expand...
Can the old thread be re-opened again? If yes, this thread can be closed! Unless someone has any questions
 
Wait, what exactly are we implementing here? Are we sticking with the current revised definition or going back to the old one
 
Tatsumi504 said:
Wait, what exactly are we implementing here? Are we sticking with the current revised definition or going back to the old one
Click to expand...
The old thread will be revised and will stick to current standards. We will revise once again all characters.
 
Dread said:
The old thread will be revised and will stick to current standards. We will revise once again all characters.
Click to expand...
That's a tall order isn't it? What exactly from the revised one is gonna be changed to allow others qualify?
 
Last edited:
Dread said:
Because Ultima disagreed with Everything12 judgement as he seems to misunderstood it.
Click to expand...
What did they disagree with? If it's Mythos and Elder Scrolls, I never got around to reviewing them, and I was already thinking that they were probably acceptable based of what I read in the revision thread.
 
Everything12 said:
What did they disagree with? If it's Mythos and Elder Scrolls, I never got around to reviewing them, and I was already thinking that they were probably acceptable based of what I read in the revision thread.
Click to expand...
You took “interaction statements are required and needed” way too far. No offense, I am not saying your judgement is bad or anything.
That's it. Again, I am open for other suggestions. But this is how I far understood it.
 
Dread said:
You took “interaction statements are required and needed” way too far. No offense, I am not saying your judgement is bad or anything.
That's it. Again, I am open for other suggestions. But this is how I far understood it.
Click to expand...
You only think that because I had a order of picking who I reviewed first. Those who had easy to understand justifications for the abilities, which generally led to them to be deemed unacceptable, it's why I left the Mythos and Elder Scrolls to later because they are a tad bit more complicated in their wording.

Also I probably have changed my opinion on Madoka again now that I have time to reread her evidence without people crying about how she has it and their favourite verse doesn't.
 
Everything12 said:
You only think that because I had a order of picking who I reviewed first. Those who had easy to understand justifications for the abilities, which generally led to them to be deemed unacceptable, it's why I left the Mythos and Elder Scrolls to later because they are a tad bit more complicated in their wording.

Also I probably have changed my opinion on Madoka again now that I have time to reread her evidence without people crying about how she has it and their favourite verse doesn't.
Click to expand...
How tho? Because if you accept her, then you need to accept Akuta as well since his justification is also similar to her (except him not becoming concept, rather he lost his physical form after being outside of causality)

There are many other characters as well. The being “untouchable or impossible to be interacted” should be outcome or result when they are outside of causality, which ability is that, kinda irrelevant. The outcome is significant.
 
Dread said:
How tho? Because if you accept her, then you need to accept Akuta as well since his justification is also similar to her (except him not becoming concept, rather he lost his physical form after being outside of causality)

There are many other characters as well. The being “untouchable or impossible to be interacted” should be outcome or result when they are outside of causality, which ability is that, kinda irrelevant. The outcome is significant.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to make any comments because context and what the scans specifically says is important.
 
Everything12 said:
I'm not going to make any comments because context and what the scans specifically says is important.
Click to expand...
I can share the context and scans for that. It is literally linked in the cosmology page made by DT but no one bother sharing it to you.
Also, what I said is true. Many characters, or perhaps all characters, should be revised once again.
 
Dread said:
I can share the context and scans for that. It is literally linked in the cosmology page made by DT but no one bother sharing it to you.
Also, what I said is true. Many characters, or perhaps all characters, should be revised once again.
Click to expand...
I don't I ever reviewed Akuto, that was Bobsican's opinion.
 
Theglassman12 said:
We'd need a bit more staff input from the updated standards thread so anyone can fact check which qualifies or not.

@Everything12 Here's Ultima's comment on TES and Mythos. Given he disagrees that the statement of being uninteractable is not necessary at all that can actually make the process of getting through which one sticks much easier.
Click to expand...
In your proposal would someone with 4D causality manipulation be able to affect a Type 5 acausal being whose only Type 5 on a 3rd dimensional scale?

Also, if a character can interact with a Type 4 Acausal whom has 4D Type 4 Acausality would they be able to interact with a Type 5 acausal whose only Type 5 on a 3rd dimensional scale?
 
Last edited:
Theglassman12 said:
We'd need a bit more staff input from the updated standards thread so anyone can fact check which qualifies or not.

@Everything12 Here's Ultima's comment on TES and Mythos. Given he disagrees that the statement of being uninteractable is not necessary at all that can actually make the process of getting through which one sticks much easier.
Click to expand...
Being unchanging was always something I considering as valid as uninteractable. Especially as acausal characters are generally uninteractable because they are unchanging, acausality isn't quite Intangibility. I just wasn't presented anyone who, I evaluated, met those standards with such conditions either.

But yeah, both TES and Mythos fit my standards for Acausality Type 5. I just didn't touch them because TES didn't need any change unlike all the other character's so wasn't at the top of my list, and Mythos needed someone knowledgeable enough to craft an explanation for their Power and Ability section that they completely lacked.

But yeah, part of the problem was that I was kinda doing it on my own, so progress was slow, which led to only character's who didn't meet the standards being dealt with.

TheUnshakableOne said:
Also, if a character can NPI a Type 4 whom has 4D Type 4 Acausality would they be able to NPI a Type 5 acausal whose only Type 5 on a 3rd dimensional scale?
Click to expand...
As mentioned, Acausality Type 4 doesn't give NPI. So no.
 
Even reworded the logic stays the same, Acausality Type 4 doesn't need any special interaction so it alone doesn't matter with allowing Acausality Type 5 interaction.
 
Everything12 said:
Being unchanging was always something I considering as valid as uninteractable. Especially as acausal characters are generally uninteractable because they are unchanging, acausality isn't quite Intangibility. I just wasn't presented anyone who, I evaluated, met those standards with such conditions either.
Click to expand...
Being unchanging means? Seems, you are using your own definition here, Modaka is also unchanging then because she became concept and lost her physical form? Heck, she became abstract and can't interact with the world due to that.

You are missing the point, you were also dealing with the fact, that they need to be unchanging + this “unchanging” should be related to causality directly.
The fact, Wokung would lose his acausality type 5 because of that unneeded strict standard. He is unchanging because he is void, and void and his lack of causality is always together treated in verse. I can mention other characters. I am sorry Everything12, but we need to re-open the old channel and redo everything from the start.
 
Which staff members support which solutions here?
 
In 5 pages, many people here shared their opinion, toxicity was involved but dealt with, and many misunderstandings occurred.

I need this thread to be re-opened and @Theglassman12, @Everything12, and I will evaluate every character once again

Also, I assume adding this note will clear confusion
Type 5: Causality Transcendence: Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing outside causality. Characters of this nature require evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality, meaning that interacting with them normally is impossible.

While true acausality being unbounded completely and independently by cause and effect in the philosophical sense is impossible to prove, lesser forms of the idea often appear in fiction. Though the character is completely Independent of causality to the point of being unaffected by any outside change, this only extends to as far as evidence shows and not to things beyond its feats.

Note: Being completely independent of time or laws; or similar forces, does not make you completely independent of causality without the relationship between these forces and causality being clarified, with it only being considered as evidence for an irregular relationship with causality otherwise.
Click to expand...
Also, side note: An interaction statement is not needed as @Ultima_Reality stated above. The context matters more.
 
Ultima said that there is a misunderstanding while handing the evaluation and so the standards should not be changed.
DT is neutral on this topic.

I suggested a note (harmless note) that should be added.
 
Okay. It is largely up to them to evaluate it though.
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. It is largely up to them to evaluate it though.
Click to expand...
I doubt, and I can assure that DT and neither Ultima will evaulate over 20-30 characters, hence I suggested
myself, @Theglassman12 and @Everything12 to evaluate it once again after the misunderstanding cleared up

Also, I still suggested a note that should be added to the standards. Nothing added, nothing removed, it is only a harmless note that will clear the confusion.
 
Antvasima said:
I was referring to your note.
Click to expand...
Oh, mind pinging them then?

Here is the suggested note:
Type 5: Causality Transcendence: Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing outside causality. Characters of this nature require evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality, meaning that interacting with them normally is impossible.

While true acausality being unbounded completely and independently by cause and effect in the philosophical sense is impossible to prove, lesser forms of the idea often appear in fiction. Though the character is completely Independent of causality to the point of being unaffected by any outside change, this only extends to as far as evidence shows and not to things beyond its feats.

Note: Being completely independent of time or laws; or similar forces, does not make you completely independent of causality without the relationship between these forces and causality being clarified, with it only being considered as evidence for an irregular relationship with causality otherwise.
Click to expand...
I apologize for misunderstanding you, Ant.
 
I don’t mind having the extra text above since that is how we do things here where not everything is on the same level, as for evaluating all of the type 5 Acausal Characters that’s gonna take some time given midterms is around the corner.
 
Theglassman12 said:
I don’t mind having the extra text above since that is how we do things here where not everything is on the same level, as for evaluating all of the type 5 Acausal Characters that’s gonna take some time given midterms is around the corner.
Click to expand...
Yap, I will assume, you will be free next week. Sure, I will remind you to open the thread next week.
It is better to be closed until you are free, so we don't get derailed till then.
 
Yes, DontTalk and Ultima will both be busy during the coming months, which likely places our more advanced revisions on hiatus for the time being, as I am unwilling to let go of our quality control. My apologies.
 
Antvasima said:
Yes, DontTalk and Ultima will both be busy during the coming months, which likely places our more advanced revisions on hiatus for the time being, as I am unwilling to let go of our quality control. My apologies.
Click to expand...
Ahm, alright. This makes the most sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Deagonx
  • Locked
Type 4 Acausality: Too Much For Too Little (2)
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Eseseso
  • Locked
Revisions for Acausality Types 1 & 4
Replies
29
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Elyartaker
Acausality Type 5
Replies
8
Views
2K
Grabbing_dragon
Grabbing_dragon
Grabbing_dragon
Acausality type 5 question
Replies
6
Views
1K
Grabbing_dragon
Grabbing_dragon
IdiosyncraticLawyer
  • Locked
Acausality (Type 1) Clarification
Replies
5
Views
1K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Back
Top