- 18,393
- 14,323
- Thread starter
- #401
No need to be rude to members, DaReaperMan.40K has needed revisions for YEARS, SMT took like 4-5 years or having shit files till it was fixed, grow a brain and be patient
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No need to be rude to members, DaReaperMan.40K has needed revisions for YEARS, SMT took like 4-5 years or having shit files till it was fixed, grow a brain and be patient
UnderstandableI've just woken up into a bad mood and the fact people who definitely aren't new to the wiki are STILL being impatient on things like this definitely isn't helping that.
Can the old thread be re-opened again? If yes, this thread can be closed! Unless someone has any questionsSo does anyone oppose the thread being closed so the new type 5 evaluation thread can be made for who qualifies?
The old thread will be revised and will stick to current standards. We will revise once again all characters.Wait, what exactly are we implementing here? Are we sticking with the current revised definition or going back to the old one
That's a tall order isn't it? What exactly from the revised one is gonna be changed to allow others qualify?The old thread will be revised and will stick to current standards. We will revise once again all characters.
Because Ultima disagreed with Everything12 judgement as he seems to misunderstood it.That's a tall order isn't it? Why exactly from the revised one is gonna be changed to allow others qualify?
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.Because Ultima disagreed with Everything12 judgement as he seems to misunderstood it.
You took “interaction statements are required and needed” way too far. No offense, I am not saying your judgement is bad or anything.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.
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.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.
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)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.
I'm not going to make any comments because context and what the scans specifically says is important.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.
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.I'm not going to make any comments because context and what the scans specifically says is important.
I don't I ever reviewed Akuto, that was Bobsican's opinion.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.
Hence, why I am suggesting to re-open the old thread and revise all characters once again, Everything12.I don't I ever reviewed Akuto, that was Bobsican's opinion.
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?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.
You don't need NPI to touch type 4Also, if a character can NPI a Type 4 whom has 4D Type 4 Acausality
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.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.
As mentioned, Acausality Type 4 doesn't give NPI. So no.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?
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.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.
Also, side note: An interaction statement is not needed as @Ultima_Reality stated above. The context matters more.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.
Which staff members support which solutions here?
I doubt, and I can assure that DT and neither Ultima will evaulate over 20-30 characters, hence I suggestedOkay. It is largely up to them to evaluate it though.
Oh, mind pinging them then?I was referring to your note.
I apologize for misunderstanding you, Ant.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.
Yap, I will assume, you will be free next week. Sure, I will remind you to open the thread next week.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.
Ahm, alright. This makes the most sense.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.
Would it disturb you if I bumped this thread next month?Thank you for being reasonable.