Law manipulation compared to its cousins CM and IM

[Impartial_Euler]

A thing I've noticed is the varying differences in what the is considered law manipulation. Of course not calling them into question.
Nothing as complicated as why is logic manipulation equated to law manipulation.
What bothers me though is, Conceptual manipulation and Information manipulation, have types, while Law manipulation does not.
The former two have at least types, that can be simplified as such, if not too simplified. (Not put any specific order)

1st. Local/personal/non fundamental, something that doesn't have universal significance. (Info type 1/type 3 concepts.)

2nd. Universal/fundamental, have a significance to reality as a whole. (Info type 2/type 1 and 2 concepts.)

Why doesn't Law manipulation have this? From what I see from some profiles there are definite qualifiers to use as distinction or reference.

For instance, demons can create contracts with rules, that bind themselves and contractors. Of course these aren't just words on paper but something that imposes on reality, thus meeting the requirement/s if I'm not mistaken.
Making it non fundamental law manipulation.

While there's manipulation of the laws of physics, which would count as fundamental law manipulation.

So why isn't there a distinction of types for law manipulation?

 

[AlipheeseXIV]

If I'm not mistaken Donttalk made a point about not wanting to make too many types for various hax pages because it encourages people to find an ability that fits the description instead of actually formerly arguing about why x ability fits the description, or something along those lines? Eh, personally I disagree with that but I can see where they are coming from I suppose.

 

[Impartial_Euler]

If I'm not mistaken Donttalk made a point about not wanting to make too many types for various hax pages because it encourages people to find an ability that fits the description instead of actually formerly arguing about why x ability fits the description, or something along those lines? Eh, personally I disagree with that but I can see where they are coming from I suppose.

I think I get it, but I believe law manipulation is something that deserves types.
It would also help with cross verse fights, instead of having people argue how effective one law manipulation is over another, everytime there's a cross verse battle.

 

[AlipheeseXIV]

I think I get it, but I believe law manipulation is something that deserves types.
It would also help with cross verse fights, instead of having people argue how effective one law manipulation is over another, everytime there's a cross verse battle.

That's precisely the reason why donttalk and some other staff don't advocate for types, which is what I just said. I don't agree with it, but at the same time I don't care enough to argue against it and make a staff thread or something.

 

[Vietthai96]

Because aside from what DontTalk said, which i don't remember what it is. Some ability is pointless to separate into types cause they are fundamentally the same, such as law hax which is simply the abiity to manipulate certain rule that actually affect thing. Both of your example are all rule , fundamentally they are the same, being somewhat locallized or fundamental across the entire reality is simply its scales and potency. It is like we trying to separate EE into type with one type only EE physical while other types erase targets down to deeper non-physical aspects which is just......pointless, since fundamentally they are all the same EE.

Abilities that was separated into types because while they have similar effects, fundamentally they are different. Such as Info 1 and 2 are fundamentally different, with type 1 is a non-reality-impacting info while type 2 is a building block of reality that can define it in a similar vein to concept hax

Concept hax also need to be separate into type because it is one of the most complex ability with many different "mechanism" that you are forced to separate it into type, a philosophical-based power that varies between medium, if you don't separate it into type it will be very hard to evaluate and index it

 

[Impartial_Euler]

Because aside from what DontTalk said, which i don't remember what it is. Some ability is pointless to separate into types cause they are fundamentally the same, such as law hax which is simply the abiity to manipulate certain rule that actually affect thing. Both of your example are all rule , fundamentally they are the same, being somewhat locallized or fundamental across the entire reality is simply its scales and potency. It is like we trying to separate EE into type with one type only EE physical while other types erase targets down to deeper non-physical aspects which is just......pointless, since fundamentally they are all the same EE.

Abilities that was separated into types because while they have similar effects, fundamentally they are different. Such as Info 1 and 2 are fundamentally different, with type 1 is a non-reality-impacting info while type 2 is a building block of reality that can define it in a similar vein to concept hax

Concept hax also need to be separate into type because it is one of the most complex ability with many different "mechanism" that you are forced to separate it into type, a philosophical-based power that varies between medium, if you don't separate it into type it will be very hard to evaluate and index it

I don't think the difference I mentioned has relation to potency, but I understand what you mean and it definitely makes sense.

 

[BeTheWay1rst]

I agree, i don't really like the priviledge that conceptual manipulation get on the wiki, this needs to stop.

 

[Impartial_Euler]

I agree, i don't really like the priviledge that conceptual manipulation get on the wiki, this needs to stop.

Not sure what you mean by agree, this is a Q and A thread.
It doesn't propose anything, just asking why law manipulation seems too broad when it can be simplified by making types.
Either way glad someone shares this discomfort when looking at these abilities.

 

[Impartial_Euler]

Does this need to be closed, cause it's more or less answered.

 

[AlipheeseXIV]

If a staff cares enough to do so, honestly QnA threads are kinda whatever breh, got plenty that are left open for years

 

[Impartial_Euler]

If a staff cares enough to do so,

Kinda thought so. But as they say, better safe than sorry.

 

[Vesxpura]

Does this need to be closed, cause it's more or less answered.

no