• 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.

Order is aspect Plot

Messages
73
Reaction score
14
Today, I'll be remaking the thread arguing that Order = Aspect Plot, while also adding a new piece of evidence.

First, Order is described as the script of the world, according to which everything operates:

«"Everything is according to the script of the world. Delzogade and Everast Anzetta. You may have thought that by merging the two castles, you could get it back, but it's the same for me."

— Chapter 446»

Second, the author further confirms that Order is associated with the flow of the story (plot).

Question:

«I see, I see.

Eques is a machine-made god—in other words, a Deus ex Machina, isn't that right? Originally, while creating the overall flow, Eques could not appear openly and, as someone behind the scenes, was unknown even to the actors on the stage. After being brought onto the stage by the Misfit Graham, he became able to directly interfere with both the stage and its actors, and is trying to restore the flow of the story that had been altered by the Misfit. Is that correct?»

Author:

«Thank you for your comment!

Eques is the will of the world. He is the world! Didn't you understand from this story that he is by no means homo nor kifujin?!

(Laugh)

Eques does seem like something akin to a Deus ex Machina.

He manipulated various kinds of Order with gears.

As you said, there is a high possibility that he came to properly restore the original Order that had been altered by the Misfit.»

Source Translation:

Q&A Page 707

Furthermore, the author once again implicitly equates Order with plot or script, since Order is described in those exact terms.

Question:

«It is said that a showman who judges comedy and tragedy according to his own preferences is foolish. Would it be fair to say that Misfits such as Anos and Graham are, so to speak, scriptwriters who shape their own ideals (Anos = love and kindness, Graham = hatred and ugliness) into first-class works upon the canvas or manuscript called the world?»

Author:

«That is a remarkably apt way of putting it.

Certainly, from the gods' perspective, Anos and Graham are beings much like scriptwriters.

Moreover, these guys do not merely refuse to follow what the showman says—they are the type who would go so far as to write a script that places the showman himself onto the stage.»

From this, we can see that the author portrays changing Order as rewriting the script, even to the extent of bringing the showman (Eques) onto the stage of the very script (Order) they created.

Source Translation:

Q&A Page 743

Agree:

Neutral:

Disagree:

Given all of the evidence above, I believe it is sufficient to conclude that Order = Aspect Plot.

Are we perhaps being overly strict in refusing to accept that Order = Aspect Plot? The author's intent has consistently portrayed Order as the world's script or plot, and this theme has remained remarkably consistent throughout both the novel and the Q&A responses.
 
You already made a thread about the same thing before using the same statements, so:

Disagree in 10 different languages
FrenchJe ne suis pas d'accord
SpanishNo estoy de acuerdo
Arabicاختلف
ItalianNon sono d'accordo
Korean동의하지 않습니다
Japanese同意しません
PortugueseNão concordo
RussianНе согласен (male) / Не согласна (female)
GermanIch bin nicht einverstanden
TurkishKatılmıyorum
 
You already made a thread about the same thing before using the same statements, so:

Disagree in 10 different languages
FrenchJe ne suis pas d'accord
SpanishNo estoy de acuerdo
Arabicاختلف
ItalianNon sono d'accordo
Korean동의하지 않습니다
Japanese同意しません
PortugueseNão concordo
RussianНе согласен (male) / Не согласна (female)
GermanIch bin nicht einverstanden
TurkishKatılmıyorum
Haha, here's another new piece of evidence, and it's not exactly the same as the previous one
 
A discussion rule should be in place for this, this is like the 4th attempt or 3rd
especially when some admins and mods already commented on it on the previous CRT
The previous thread could be said to have lacked supporting scans, so I'm adding them this time.
 
  • When creating content revisions, it is essential to ensure that the topic has not been addressed previously. Rejected content revisions cannot be resubmitted within a short period of time (typically defined as within 3 to 4 months), except in cases where a staff member has a good reason to do so (e.g. important unconsidered information, violation of site standards, or flaws in a calculation). This only applies to threads that have received extensive debate or have been rejected due to a clear conflict with the wiki's rules or standards. If a thread passes or is rejected without significant opposition, then opposition should not be restricted from making a point.
You are not allowed to recreate a rejected thread in such a short time, so I disagree.
 
The previous thread could be said to have lacked supporting scans, so I'm adding them this time.
Your supporting scans are literally drawing from the same metaphor, using different interview material.
This is not new evidence.

Your evidence doesn't address nor answer the original contentions of the previous threads
 
Your supporting scans are literally drawing from the same metaphor, using different interview material.
This is not new evidence.

Your evidence doesn't address nor answer the original contentions of the previous threads
Do you know the difference between a metaphor and an assertion or confirmation? I think you're misunderstanding this distinction.
 
  • When creating content revisions, it is essential to ensure that the topic has not been addressed previously. Rejected content revisions cannot be resubmitted within a short period of time (typically defined as within 3 to 4 months), except in cases where a staff member has a good reason to do so (e.g. important unconsidered information, violation of site standards, or flaws in a calculation). This only applies to threads that have received extensive debate or have been rejected due to a clear conflict with the wiki's rules or standards. If a thread passes or is rejected without significant opposition, then opposition should not be restricted from making a point.
You are not allowed to recreate a rejected thread in such a short time, so I disagree.
So does that mean I can't make this thread anymore?
 
I fully support if someone wants to make discussion rule about it. Same argument same thing, nothing changed.
 
Back
Top