Character Statements

[Faisal_Shourov]

Yes, Lazy hunter's description is fine.

 

[Non-Bias]

Interesting. I always thought that author statements should be treated with caution unless it goes hand and hand with said statement so I agree that the author's words aren't always good enough.

 

[LordAizenSama]

Antvasima You could add the terms 'outlier' and/or 'inconsistency' to the definition (example: the narrator claims the protagonist could destroy the universe, even though the strongest character in the story is only say, country level. so obvious hyperbole and inconsistent as it doesn't match the power level of verse and feats). Also perhaps joke/gag statements about power, and rhetoric

it's not so much outliers, it is mainly just hyperbole and inconsistencies.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

what lazyhunter says makes sense

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Unless we are planning to use something like the Saint Seiya image that Matthew posted to illustrate how not to take statements at face value, I think the page is fine. Maybe we could do like you suggested and link to the Hyperbole page.

I agree with either decision.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Also, I think that the Outlier Black Panther picture was a good illustration.

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

I came late, sorry (even tho i commented first earlier). Yeah what Lazyhunter said is what about the same thing i was thinking it could be described so it makes sense and i agree.

 

[Antvasima]

I have added links to the Hyperbole, Outlier, and Inconsistency pages in a "See also" section at the bottom.

 

[Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer]

I like this idea.

Do we have example's people will be familiar with?

 

[Shanks_of_the_red_haired_pirates]

The less credible statements are those used for shock value tbh

 

[KamiYasha]

I added the Fallacy page in '''See Also'''

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Tivanenk]

I personally think that we always need to look at how it was written in the first place. There are several types of character statements that can be plausible.

1) Repeated statements. These are statements that are basically repeated more than once in a paragraph to put an emphasis on them. e.g. "He swung at the speed of light. This light speed slash barely grazed the character while he dodged at speeds that seemed faster than light." Since light in this context is repeated more than once, then it would be safe to assume that the swing is actually light speed.

2) Attack descriptions. This one is a bit tricky, but it depends on the context it's in. Usually, the more trustworthy ones are narrator description (e.g. "And the character flew and used his 'AttackMove'. This move was a quick one, a slash that exceeded the speed of light"), since they are neutral. Sometimes, outside characters describing the abilities of others are also trustworthy depending on how much they know about the source of the attack, or how scared/intimadated they were by it. However, descriptions given by the character using it should be taking with a grain of salt unless there is a specific good reason as to why it needs to be taken seriously.

However, other instances of statements, such as "I swung at lightning speeds." shouldn't be taken too seriously because usually they're used as a figure of speech.

 

[Alakabamm]

So I think we should maybe also list common examples of what types of author statements tend to be inconsistent, usually due to English idioms. For example, sometimes a character is described as "fast as lightning" or "fast as a comet" or "traveling at lightspeed" even though it is clear that this type of speed does not fit the character in mention. It may be useful to note some of these common idioms. From the top of my head:

- Anything to have to do with lightning, meteors, lightspeed, etc in question should be taken with a grain of salt if the object/form of energy is not present in the scene itself.

- Stars and black holes are also popular topics to compare to, especially in relation to how something was created/how strong it is/what type of damage it can do. This needs to be treated with a grain of salt especially if the character is not interstellar.

- Comparisons to God/biblical figures/mythological figures are also a possible area where confusion may arise from author statements, especially on characters that may or may not be universal. Furthermore, there are certain mythological feats which may warrant a calc if a comparison seems true, but it is important to check if the author really meant to compare them in that way and with full knowledge of what that mythological figure. For example, on a telekinetic character:

"His power was akin to Moses" and "He had enough power to split the sea just as Moses did" are two entirely different things.

 

[Antvasima]

@Alakabamm I think that this may turn the page too messy, as I rather like the concise current form, but am open to suggestions for specific written improvements for the current text.

 

[FanofRPGs]

I was wondering

Lets say there is an author who knows about versus debates, he sees his series has x speed/AP due to a calc

If he goes out do blatantly say that calc is inconsistent and then say his character is as strong/fast as he said before, would his statement be taken?

 

[Antvasima]

I don't know. It would probably depend on whether or not the calculation and feat seem more reliable than the statement.

It is impossible to evaluate an entirely hypothetical scenario thst could look very different from case to case.

In addition, although we technically did have 260000 visitors and 2.5 million page views last month, I find it extremely unlikely that authors would be interested in what we do/that this would happen.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

I don't know. It would probably depend on whether or not the calculation and feat seem more reliable than the statement.
It is impossible to evaluate an entirely hypothetical scenario thst could look very different from case to case.

In addition, although we technically did have 260000 visitors and 2.5 million page views last month, I find it extremely unlikely that authors would be interested in what we do/that this would happen.

tbh i wont be surprised if toriyama sent his assistants as visitors in vs forums in general

that wud explain the massive rise in stats

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I asked Al Ewing about if he downgraded Marvel's Omniverse definition to troll the battleboard communities, and he said that he had never visited a battleboard in his life.

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

If someone as notable as Toriyama himself sent his assistants as vistors to see how his characters are rated. Hmm...

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

Well, I asked Al Ewing about if he downgraded Marvel's Omniverse definition to troll the battleboard communities, and he said that he had never visited a battleboard in his life.

i see

but it would be comical to see that stuff actually happen

anyway

are we done with the overall discussions on character statements and WOG?

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

Well, I asked Al Ewing about if he downgraded Marvel's Omniverse definition to troll the battleboard communities, and he said that he had never visited a battleboard in his life.

Whose Al Ewing?

 

[Antvasima]

The Marvel writer of Mighty Avengers and The Ultimates, which downgraded Marvel's definition of an omniverse, and per extension The-One-Above-All.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

The Marvel writer of Mighty Avengers and The Ultimates, which downgraded Marvel's definition of an omniverse, and per extension The-One-Above-All.

I know a few people who would probably hate him for doing that

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we still had to adjust the OAA tier and omniverse definition because of it. We have to at least try to strive for unbiased accuracy when we have proper information after all.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

I know about that

but what i meant is that i know a bunch of people who hated the notion of the downgrade of the definition by the author

 

[Antvasima]

Yeah, I know. I am just saying that I hope that they are not mad at us about it.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

nah, im pretty sure a mjority of them understood the real reason and directed their anger online at the writters

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.