- 3,611
- 882
Are we really going to sit around and pretend the entire point of the creation of this thread wasn't because Anos lost his Acausality type 5?
-
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
- Thread starter ImmortalDread
- Start date
-
- Tags
- acausality
- Status
Sniper670
He/Him- 6,409
- 1,365
Not necessarily . We discussed this earlier in another thread whereby the admin responsible for overseeing it was overly strict with the standards
This CRT is meant to address that. Basically set new and reasonable standards for it. Not just Anos, but all type 5 Acausals.
I don't blame you tho. A sizable chunk of this thread was talking about Anos Acausality Type 5.
This CRT is meant to address that. Basically set new and reasonable standards for it. Not just Anos, but all type 5 Acausals.
I don't blame you tho. A sizable chunk of this thread was talking about Anos Acausality Type 5.
- 8,805
- 2,864
Originally it was because no one fit the new standards but Anus stans were the angriest of them all so... Yeah.
FoxySonicMaster108
He/Him- 2,073
- 738
wait, is Type 5 gonna require having a non physical form of sorts? Or is that sort of thing used as evidence depending on context?
EldemadeDityjon
He/Him- 16,917
- 12,598
You again with your hate for Anos supporters. Dude really? Don't think we forgot what you said in previous threads. Just keep your hate for yourself.
Yeah great another guy with nothing better to do. If you read the OP completely you would know why this thread is even made.
- 3,611
- 882
Pointing out the obvious, that this thread was made with alterior motives=/=hate. If Anos stans where reasonable at all they would be talking about his Acausality type 5 in a completely separate CRT after the indicated changes are made but the moment anyone suggests anything we get 3-5 comments about how Acausality would apply to Anos again. Do it in a different thread.
- 42,760
- 37,002
sigh
1: Anos debaters and supporters on this site have VERY good reason to have a god-awful reputation, whether ya'll deny it or not doesn't matter, as someone who's personally had to debate the man multiple times the reputation is 100% deserved.
2: Whether the thread was made with alterior motives or not, the point stands that Everything12 was enforcing insane standards not even on the Acasual 5 description, causing Acasual 5 to barely have any characters who remotely qualified
3: Please for the love of whatever you find holy don't turn this into a pissing contest, those are the kinda thoughts you complain about off-site, not here where folks will actually take offense, whether I suspect the same thing or not doesn't matter, it poisons the well in a special way.
1: Anos debaters and supporters on this site have VERY good reason to have a god-awful reputation, whether ya'll deny it or not doesn't matter, as someone who's personally had to debate the man multiple times the reputation is 100% deserved.
2: Whether the thread was made with alterior motives or not, the point stands that Everything12 was enforcing insane standards not even on the Acasual 5 description, causing Acasual 5 to barely have any characters who remotely qualified
3: Please for the love of whatever you find holy don't turn this into a pissing contest, those are the kinda thoughts you complain about off-site, not here where folks will actually take offense, whether I suspect the same thing or not doesn't matter, it poisons the well in a special way.
- 3,611
- 882
This thread is to see if the definition of Acausality type 5 needs to be changed or not. Who it applies to and who it previously applied too and who it will apply too in the future should not be discussed here.
EldemadeDityjon
He/Him- 16,917
- 12,598
Go report the thread in RVR if you think it's something wrong. Why are you complaining here. Also there are other verses brought up in here. Even Ultima was confused about new Acausality typ 5. Don't try to defend your wrong doings with your fantasies. When other staffs has no problem and working their ass off while you are here blabbering something which is not contributing a single thing to the CRT.
Also you keep calling Anos Stans this and that. I will report you in RVR to ban you from Anos threads. Its really irritating to deal with people like you who just has negative opinion on verse supporters.
You are acting like you own the wiki and we are wasting your time when this thread main purpose is clearing things out which are confusing to even staffs. Well not expecting much from you who only sees this thread based on your hate for Anos supporters. Again if you think the thread is not suitable for wiki standard go report the thread in RVR don't waste others time
- 42,760
- 37,002
- 4,981
- 1,742
Yeah nah, this thread was made 100% in bad faith even if the outcome is beneficial. Such an outcome would have come sooner if this thread wasn't being repeatedly derailed.
- 31,459
- 34,319
I suppose this is fine.
FoxySonicMaster108
He/Him- 2,073
- 738
Oh my lord… This thread is not about if your character should keep their Type 5 or not, that was an entirely different thread. This is about revising the standard so Type 5 is actually usable. (Or gets deleted but that doesn’t seem to be happening.) Because at this current time NO ONE qualifies, for it. (at least from the looks of it.)
No wonder why this was made a staff thread. (sorry for commenting again btw, I needed to get that out, just bugs me when stuff like this happens, there shouldn’t be any derailing beyond this point.)
No wonder why this was made a staff thread. (sorry for commenting again btw, I needed to get that out, just bugs me when stuff like this happens, there shouldn’t be any derailing beyond this point.)
- 42,760
- 37,002
I think that could be fine
This is why ya'll haven't heard me bring up Warhammer again besides a literal note, it'd be ****** derailing
Vietthai96
He/Him- 10,248
- 14,614
Lack a physical true form can be multiple things: AE, NEP, Incorporeal. If we using it as standard then people could just isolating context and go sematic argument to get the power by slap only two scans with one scan stated the character transcended the cause and effect and the other scan stating about having no form whatsoever. While the current one is too strict i agree, but it still need to be somewhat strict
- 4,981
- 1,742
Yeah I agree with Vietthai. I agree with Everything12's sentiments that we should have a stricter standard but we should slowly slide from his example rather than immediately reversing it to something lenient because a few people are angry that their character doesn't get it. A solid standard that's accommodating enough for reliable scans and evidence.
- 20,084
- 10,871
All of you stop derailing the thread with Anos stuff, I swear to god if I see more derailment one more time I will be deleting comments and report if it gets out of hand again, stay on topic FFS.
@Vietthai96 Not really when in this context you'd need evidence that transcending cause and effect is what lets you lack a physical form to begin with, hence that extra evidence required for type 5 acausality being accepted onto the pages.
Anyways I'm going to keep a vote tally for the redraft on the type 5 I have, any and all comments would be appreciated for any rewording or tinkering.
Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing beyond/transcending causality to the point that they lack a true physical form, meaning that interacting with them normally is impossible.
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 it's feats. 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 appear often in fiction.
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, same applies to characters who aren't elaborated to lack a physical form as a result of existing beyond causality, as it would at best be evidence for an irregular relationship with causality otherwise.
Agree: 4 (DarkDragonMedeus, DaReaperMan, Catpija, Pain to12)
Disagree: 1 (Ultima Reality)
Neutral: 1 (DontTalk)
@Vietthai96 Not really when in this context you'd need evidence that transcending cause and effect is what lets you lack a physical form to begin with, hence that extra evidence required for type 5 acausality being accepted onto the pages.
Anyways I'm going to keep a vote tally for the redraft on the type 5 I have, any and all comments would be appreciated for any rewording or tinkering.
Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing beyond/transcending causality to the point that they lack a true physical form, meaning that interacting with them normally is impossible.
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 it's feats. 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 appear often in fiction.
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, same applies to characters who aren't elaborated to lack a physical form as a result of existing beyond causality, as it would at best be evidence for an irregular relationship with causality otherwise.
Agree: 4 (DarkDragonMedeus, DaReaperMan, Catpija, Pain to12)
Disagree: 1 (Ultima Reality)
Neutral: 1 (DontTalk)
Last edited:
- 4,981
- 1,742
So just so we're clear, would this require direct and explicit statements stating such? Or is being sufficiently implied through scans more or less enough?
- 3,611
- 882
Could you include the wording of the redraft please.
- 20,084
- 10,871
@Naitodesu if you have a statement of transcending cause and effect, and the process of you transcending cause and effect results in you lacking a physical form, rendering you difficult to interact with, it should qualify. Imagine if a verse has characters reach godhood, and they're stated to transcend cause and effect thanks to reaching godhood, and if reaching godhood also is elaborated to where you lack a physical form as a result, then it should qualify for type 5. If it only has beyond cause and effect with nothing to elaborate on then at best it would just be type 4 acausality.
@Blackcurrant91 sure.
@Blackcurrant91 sure.
- 4,981
- 1,742
Alright, that makes sense. Thank you for the explanation.
- 2,083
- 1,143
Count me as agree
- 18,393
- 14,323
- Thread starter
- #303
I really love how yall want to derail in my beautiful thread 
. Best wiki community I got.
. Best wiki community I got.
- 20,084
- 10,871
bump
- 3,611
- 882
We need more staff to agree on the new definition I guess.
- 18,393
- 14,323
- Thread starter
- #307
- 167,857
- 76,474
@DontTalkDT
What do you think that we should do here? Would a new continuation staff forum thread that explains the discussion so far here in its first post be appropriate?
- 6,452
- 1,667
Quoting my summary from before.
"Inconclusion;
If im wrong under any assumptions here please correct me.
Agnaa is suggesting the new standard (The Current Standard) is proving a character is invulnerable because they transcends a single layer, or more, of causality. This does tie in just slightly with what TheGlassman suggested with his suggestion of a change in state of being to a state that "lacks a form" as a result of transcending Causality. Invulnerability can be shown in many ways such as something like intangibility with lacking a form, or simply no damage is taken because of an unchanging nature. However it must be stated that said invulnerability/intangibility/state of being/lack of form/ is because of transcending Causality.
However, this runs into an issue with the current definition in what is now becoming a debate of Type 4 vs Type 5. Agnaa said that Type 5 is still bound by higher forms of Causality. Which is the same definition as Type 4. The only true difference now between Type 4 and Type 5 is only Invulnerability for Type 5's. Above baseline Type 4 Acausality would then be greater than baseline Type 5, and if character can fate hax an above baseline Type 4 Acuasal character they can also fate hax a baseline Type 5 Acausal due to higher order Causality being manipulated.
Aside from that; the current standard was more fleshed out and described for us here. perhaps I'm oversimplifying it, or maybe I'm still misunderstanding it but what I gathered here from what was said is that the current standard is apparently something like this;
Current standards is; any character being proposed for Type 5 must have no anti-feats to their invulnerability/intangibility/state of being/lack of form/etc/, and they must be stated to transcends (even/only) 1 layer of Causality at minimum as the explanation for their invulnerability/intangibility/state of being/lack of form/etc/.
This is how I understood what was said on this thread so far.
If such a standard (the now current standard we have) is to stay then a rewording definitely needs to be done to make this more clear and less confusing to prevent any further misunderstandings from happening in the future
I believe @Theglassman12 suggestion is different from Agnaas in the sense that a character that who transcends causality is unaffected by all levels of causality, and all higher forms."
If im wrong under any assumptions here please correct me.
Agnaa is suggesting the new standard (The Current Standard) is proving a character is invulnerable because they transcends a single layer, or more, of causality. This does tie in just slightly with what TheGlassman suggested with his suggestion of a change in state of being to a state that "lacks a form" as a result of transcending Causality. Invulnerability can be shown in many ways such as something like intangibility with lacking a form, or simply no damage is taken because of an unchanging nature. However it must be stated that said invulnerability/intangibility/state of being/lack of form/ is because of transcending Causality.
However, this runs into an issue with the current definition in what is now becoming a debate of Type 4 vs Type 5. Agnaa said that Type 5 is still bound by higher forms of Causality. Which is the same definition as Type 4. The only true difference now between Type 4 and Type 5 is only Invulnerability for Type 5's. Above baseline Type 4 Acausality would then be greater than baseline Type 5, and if character can fate hax an above baseline Type 4 Acuasal character they can also fate hax a baseline Type 5 Acausal due to higher order Causality being manipulated.
Aside from that; the current standard was more fleshed out and described for us here. perhaps I'm oversimplifying it, or maybe I'm still misunderstanding it but what I gathered here from what was said is that the current standard is apparently something like this;
Current standards is; any character being proposed for Type 5 must have no anti-feats to their invulnerability/intangibility/state of being/lack of form/etc/, and they must be stated to transcends (even/only) 1 layer of Causality at minimum as the explanation for their invulnerability/intangibility/state of being/lack of form/etc/.
This is how I understood what was said on this thread so far.
If such a standard (the now current standard we have) is to stay then a rewording definitely needs to be done to make this more clear and less confusing to prevent any further misunderstandings from happening in the future
I believe @Theglassman12 suggestion is different from Agnaas in the sense that a character that who transcends causality is unaffected by all levels of causality, and all higher forms."
Staff that has appeared on this thread were
@Agnaa
@Ultima_Reality
@Theglassman12
@DarkDragonMedeus
@Elizhaa
@Dereck03
@DontTalkDT
@Sir_Ovens
- 167,857
- 76,474
Okay.
@Agnaa @Ultima_Reality @Theglassman12 @DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa @Dereck03 @DontTalkDT @Sir_Ovens
What do you think about this?
- 18,393
- 14,323
- Thread starter
- #311
Alright, I want to mention something and I hope DT and Glass should understand this (I am much involved in this concept that I somehow transcend it)
Regardless of what Glassman/Agnaa (out of all respect and no offense) suggested for the new rewording, something is wrong and missing here.
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.
This necessitates that a character should be unbounded/independent/outside of causality, which we call cause and effect.
So if a character even “thinks” or “does something”, this is completely anti-feat. There is no cause and effect at this level. Synonymous to the omnipotence conception, a character needs to do something to continue the plot of the story. There is no character that meets this impossibility. And here is it comes the role of “being impossible to be interacted with”. Since cause and effect do not apply to them, this makes them impossible to interact with.
This website somehow establishes what I am saying about what happens if there is no cause and effect (this is somehow like NEP, in the philosophical sense is impossible to prove such a being). There could be no life or ideas or motives or even a sense of linear time. There would be no space because space is where objects move through time.
@Agnaa and @Theglassman12 suggest the current standards reworded as this concept is still bound by causality (simply a higher degree of acausality type 4 but with layers)
The current definition of type 4 vs suggested type 5 rewording is causing an issuance with this. This suggestion is a literal definition of our current standards for acausality type 4.
The only true difference between those two types (suggested standards) is only Invulnerability for Type 5's. This makes absolutely no sense because this is literally a requirement for being an acausality type 5 user: being unaffected by cause and effect, therefore you lack everything, for example, a physical form.
This does not solve anything actually, adding it or not, the requirement was already there.
Honestly, this is just a new state being for “Abstract Existence/NEP” which no characters who can affect AE/NEP characters can harm. So either way, this suggestion won't work at all.
I want to clarify this, anti-feats will be found in our current standards. If you talk, create, destroy, eat, drink…etc --> these all are anti feats.
This is related to omnipotence: you can't be perfect in the story since this is first illogical and, second of all, you will find anti-feats for that.
Anti-feat-wise, even knowing a character exists is simply an anti-feat to Type 5 Acausality.
If a verse gives no explanation as to why some attack harmed a character supposedly outside of causality, that can be considered an anti-feat.
For advisable standards by @Agnaa and by @Theglassman12 will also cause anti-feats since this line exists in their suggestion:
The wiki was doing one thing at the beginning, but now it's impossible because of the direction that everything12 is going:
Above baseline Type 4 Acausality would then be greater than baseline Type 5 due to dimensional difference. Even a 1-A character that has no acausality type can interact with a lower dimensional character with acausality type 5 simply because of dimensionality. As far as Transduality and Acasaulity beings are bounded by dimensions and HD (higher dimensional being) can interact with them (I don't know how are you going to interact with them if cause and effect are not applied unless it is r>f interaction). NEP 2 is the only exception in this wiki.
HD (higher-dimensional characters) bypassing LD (lower-dimensional characters) can essentially be seen as a Cause and effect relationship, so they don't transfer causality entirely. The fact that a higher-dimensional character being can interact with them means that there is a higher system of causality, and this can be generalized to any x+1 where x is the dimensionality of the character.
@Antvasima I wanted to also mention that your staff @Everything12 was simply editing to nigh-achievable nature and rejecting everyone because he simply misunderstood that this true form of this concept is impossible to achieve in fiction. In simple terms, he was trying to apply standards of the true pureness of this concept. And no character will ever qualify for this. Also, I need to mention one note, he never ever visited this thread after rejecting everything in that thread. Which I want to refer to that he basically runs away after this huge responsibility without leaving us further notice.
This idea of “being impossible to be interacted with” is nigh-achievable in fiction and in the wiki. It is similar to omnipotence, perfection can't exist in the plot. In the philosophical sense, it is illogical for a such character exists without any anti feats involved.
I recommend these standards be replaced instead:
If you want to argue and keep the true form of acausality type 5, the removal is portentous then. There is no character in fiction that presents such a nigh-achievable nature form that is similar to omnipotence. It is like asking for a perfect design in fiction. In fact, it is the biggest NLF in history to assume there is a fictional character that is unbound by every system of causality.
“The unnecessary restrict requirement” only refers to the true acausality type 5 which is unbounded by all cause and effect. This should be completely removed.
Yes, it took me a good 2 hours typing all of this. I appreciate your kindness and respect if you read it all.
Introduction
Regardless of what Glassman/Agnaa (out of all respect and no offense) suggested for the new rewording, something is wrong and missing here.
This needs a whole rewording. And I want to start it sentence by sentence and want to show you that it is similar to the omnipotence concept.
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.
This necessitates that a character should be unbounded/independent/outside of causality, which we call cause and effect.
So if a character even “thinks” or “does something”, this is completely anti-feat. There is no cause and effect at this level. Synonymous to the omnipotence conception, a character needs to do something to continue the plot of the story. There is no character that meets this impossibility. And here is it comes the role of “being impossible to be interacted with”. Since cause and effect do not apply to them, this makes them impossible to interact with.
This website somehow establishes what I am saying about what happens if there is no cause and effect (this is somehow like NEP, in the philosophical sense is impossible to prove such a being). There could be no life or ideas or motives or even a sense of linear time. There would be no space because space is where objects move through time.
@Agnaa and @Theglassman12 suggest the current standards reworded as this concept is still bound by causality (simply a higher degree of acausality type 4 but with layers)
The current definition of type 4 vs suggested type 5 rewording is causing an issuance with this. This suggestion is a literal definition of our current standards for acausality type 4.
The only true difference between those two types (suggested standards) is only Invulnerability for Type 5's. This makes absolutely no sense because this is literally a requirement for being an acausality type 5 user: being unaffected by cause and effect, therefore you lack everything, for example, a physical form.
This does not solve anything actually, adding it or not, the requirement was already there.
Honestly, this is just a new state being for “Abstract Existence/NEP” which no characters who can affect AE/NEP characters can harm. So either way, this suggestion won't work at all.
Let's go deeper for a significant factor of wiki: Anti-feats
I want to clarify this, anti-feats will be found in our current standards. If you talk, create, destroy, eat, drink…etc --> these all are anti feats.
This is related to omnipotence: you can't be perfect in the story since this is first illogical and, second of all, you will find anti-feats for that.
Anti-feat-wise, even knowing a character exists is simply an anti-feat to Type 5 Acausality.
If a verse gives no explanation as to why some attack harmed a character supposedly outside of causality, that can be considered an anti-feat.
For advisable standards by @Agnaa and by @Theglassman12 will also cause anti-feats since this line exists in their suggestion:
This causes anti-feat because two characters (acausal type 5 users) in the same existence plane can't interact with each other regardless if they have NPI (non-physical interaction) or not. Also, this will stimulate another issue if we remove this line as it won't be longer acausality type 5.
The wiki was doing one thing at the beginning, but now it's impossible because of the direction that everything12 is going:
Another factor of wiki: Matches / dimensional difference
Above baseline Type 4 Acausality would then be greater than baseline Type 5 due to dimensional difference. Even a 1-A character that has no acausality type can interact with a lower dimensional character with acausality type 5 simply because of dimensionality. As far as Transduality and Acasaulity beings are bounded by dimensions and HD (higher dimensional being) can interact with them (I don't know how are you going to interact with them if cause and effect are not applied unless it is r>f interaction). NEP 2 is the only exception in this wiki.
HD (higher-dimensional characters) bypassing LD (lower-dimensional characters) can essentially be seen as a Cause and effect relationship, so they don't transfer causality entirely. The fact that a higher-dimensional character being can interact with them means that there is a higher system of causality, and this can be generalized to any x+1 where x is the dimensionality of the character.
@Antvasima I wanted to also mention that your staff @Everything12 was simply editing to nigh-achievable nature and rejecting everyone because he simply misunderstood that this true form of this concept is impossible to achieve in fiction. In simple terms, he was trying to apply standards of the true pureness of this concept. And no character will ever qualify for this. Also, I need to mention one note, he never ever visited this thread after rejecting everything in that thread. Which I want to refer to that he basically runs away after this huge responsibility without leaving us further notice.
In conclusion
This idea of “being impossible to be interacted with” is nigh-achievable in fiction and in the wiki. It is similar to omnipotence, perfection can't exist in the plot. In the philosophical sense, it is illogical for a such character exists without any anti feats involved.
I recommend these standards be replaced instead:
In this significance, we will be doing the same as non-existent physiology since, in the humanistic discipline sense, this type of nature is impossible to prove, but fewer forms of the concept frequently materialize in fiction.
If you want to argue and keep the true form of acausality type 5, the removal is portentous then. There is no character in fiction that presents such a nigh-achievable nature form that is similar to omnipotence. It is like asking for a perfect design in fiction. In fact, it is the biggest NLF in history to assume there is a fictional character that is unbound by every system of causality.
“The unnecessary restrict requirement” only refers to the true acausality type 5 which is unbounded by all cause and effect. This should be completely removed.
Yes, it took me a good 2 hours typing all of this. I appreciate your kindness and respect if you read it all.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,073
- 6,000
Your rewording is simply glorified type 4 and actually still no different from type 4.
The other rewording is okay to me and there are characters who actually qualify for it with no anti-feat.
I mean God (unsong) is a perfect example.
And yes all abilities are bound by your level of reality. So it is not that you can't be affected by a higher D or a being with ontological difference, as you seem to think that's what happens with type 5.
The other rewording is okay to me and there are characters who actually qualify for it with no anti-feat.
I mean God (unsong) is a perfect example.
And yes all abilities are bound by your level of reality. So it is not that you can't be affected by a higher D or a being with ontological difference, as you seem to think that's what happens with type 5.
- 18,393
- 14,323
- Thread starter
- #313
Define anti-feats. Infact my rewording may sound as acc type 4 but their rewording is no different of mines. I have mentioned in my text for like 10 times, true acc type 5 is impossible to prove. Their rewording is not even acc type 5, it's still like acc type 4 but the difference is interaction. That's it. Better nuke it and replace it with higher degree acc type 4. At least this makes more sense
And how can you interact them? In simple terms? The staff rewording is simple Acausality + Abstract Existence/NEP. And dats it. More like acc type 4 to me but higher degree since you are still bound by causality but with layers.
I will reply later but second paragraph of my rewording is significant to be added since this will clear most of confusion.
Thanks Pain for reading my whole text!
- 5,084
- 2,917
Like I already told @Dread in DM's, any new definition you try to come up with here is nigh unachievable similar to true omnipotence in fiction. I suggest we go back to the old standards but attached these to the definition
Any new requirements added are just the same stupidly high handed stuff made a little less subtle but still impossible.
If we can't go back to the old standards while attaching the new note to it, then its better to just nuke type 5 as a whole and stick with varying degrees of type 4.
Edit: after all, the whole reason the definition had to be reworded was because characters had it based on seriously shaky reasoning like "being beyond time, laws" without the relationship between those laws, time and causality being clear.
Including restricting it to causality only on its plane of reality.
Any new requirements added are just the same stupidly high handed stuff made a little less subtle but still impossible.
If we can't go back to the old standards while attaching the new note to it, then its better to just nuke type 5 as a whole and stick with varying degrees of type 4.
Edit: after all, the whole reason the definition had to be reworded was because characters had it based on seriously shaky reasoning like "being beyond time, laws" without the relationship between those laws, time and causality being clear.
Last edited:
- 31,459
- 34,319
Based on the text I was pinged for, I still think redefining Type 5 seems like the likely conclusion; though not sure how it should be revised.
- 20,084
- 10,871
@TheUnshakableOne I never once said that my proposal is making a type 5 immune to literally all levels of causality, including all higher forms, my proposal is still keeping what the verse has shown since that leads into NLF territory. The main difference between my version and the new one is that I'm arguing they should lack a physical form as a result of transcending cause and effect, while the latter wants specific statements
@Dread that's not really what an anti-feat is though, saying a character talking is an anti-feat on it being beyond cause and effect is never how we do things at all, by that logic nonexistent and abstract beings literally cannot happen on the wiki if they remotely have any form of dialogue, which is ludicrous beyond all reasoning and just devolves into cherry picking.
How is that an anti feat if both characters are type 5? Like seriously explain how both characters being type 5 and interacting with one another is an anti feat for them being type 5 in the first place, because nothing you said remotely explains how it's an anti feat in the first place.
That's not really what we're arguing in the type 5 acausality, there's a difference between "impossible to interact with" and "interacting with them normally can be impossible"
Also I'm legit lost on what you're trying to argue in this post, are you trying to argue for a proposal change with the quote? Because it looks exactly like what we currently have. If you have a proposal change or any suggestions on how my revision should be, I'd love to see it.
@DarkDragonMedeus I literally have a revised version right here.
@Antvasima call more staff please, we need more staff evaluation.
@Dread that's not really what an anti-feat is though, saying a character talking is an anti-feat on it being beyond cause and effect is never how we do things at all, by that logic nonexistent and abstract beings literally cannot happen on the wiki if they remotely have any form of dialogue, which is ludicrous beyond all reasoning and just devolves into cherry picking.
How is that an anti feat if both characters are type 5? Like seriously explain how both characters being type 5 and interacting with one another is an anti feat for them being type 5 in the first place, because nothing you said remotely explains how it's an anti feat in the first place.
That's not really what we're arguing in the type 5 acausality, there's a difference between "impossible to interact with" and "interacting with them normally can be impossible"
Also I'm legit lost on what you're trying to argue in this post, are you trying to argue for a proposal change with the quote? Because it looks exactly like what we currently have. If you have a proposal change or any suggestions on how my revision should be, I'd love to see it.
@DarkDragonMedeus I literally have a revised version right here.
@Antvasima call more staff please, we need more staff evaluation.
- 18,393
- 14,323
- Thread starter
- #318
I am talking about anti-feats for a true acausality type 5 user, which is our current standard right now. Which is, logically, two characters with no cause and effect can't meet each other. Simple? Also, I was summarizing everything, so I included everything in this thread that has been discussed.
Also, your rewording is acausality type 4 but with Invulnerability? Pardon me.
At least my rewording (adding the second paragraph) would clear most of the confusion.
Do you know why we denied the old standards? Not because of anti-feats, merely because the characters had it based on earnestly unstable reasoning like “being beyond time, laws” without the relationship between those laws, time and causality being clear.
Simply add the note (the last paragraph on old standards) and make it clear that people don't confuse it with the real true form of acausality type 5.
Again, your rewording doesn't solve anything, it is literally acausality type 4 but with the cause of lacking physical form.
This suggestion is the same as Agnaa (I re-worded a little) since you and I know that true acausality type 5 does not exist in fiction.
This is better, yours is just a higher degree of acausality type 4. And trust me, it did not even solve anything here.
Actually, with this rewording, you would find more characters that fit the latter.
- 5,084
- 2,917
This is just bringing another impossibly strict requirement. What happens to characters who don't have a physical form in the first place? Why does becoming free of cause and effect have to mean lacking a physical form?
Just do what is suggested here but also add the restriction of HD beings are capable of bypassing it because, the only reason the first definition has to be reworded is as stated by dread already
- 6,452
- 1,667
For clarities sake, in your suggest it holds that Type 5 Acausals are still bound by higher forms of causality? For example, 1 layer of transcendence over 3D Causality but not all layers of 3D Causality?
- Status
