Conversation as the main argument to invalidate a feat

[Leloutchis134]

@Mr. Bambu allowed me to do this.

Hi, I'm new here and I didn't want to waste anyone's time, but since I use VSBW as a source for my powerscaling discussions, including its rules and information about characters that I don't know, I feel I have to try to ensure the integrity of the Wiki.

I noticed that there is no rule on this wiki that prevents the use of arguments that ignore some narrative devices, such as Voice being FTL, FTL characters are not invisible or Talking is a free action. But If we use this kind of argument we would not have characters above sound speed because they communicate during the fight, we wouldn't have FTL characters because the author doesn't make the characters at that speed invisible to the human eye. I know most here abstain from using this kinda of argument, but as there is no rule that prevents it it can be used and accepted without consequences.


I'm here specifically to talk about the "Talking is a free action". In a thread, a staff member uses the characters' conversation and contemplation as the main argument against a feat, but we have this in practically all fiction, as well as the other two narrative devices, and it's common sense to ignore these points in order to preserve the narrative and the powerscaling.


I believe this is the case for a few reasons: we know that the author doesn't create his story for powerscaling purposes, because using conversation as a measure of time can destroy the narrative, or because we have no way of inventing a universal way of measuring the time of a conversation, for example: if we go by the number of words, there will be the problem of the difference between the original language and English, when translating there will be a reduction or addition of words, even in cases where the number of words is the same there will still be problems, people don't speak at the same speed even when speaking the same language, let alone when speaking different languages. We would have to guess the speed of the character's speech and in my opinion that is very arbitrary. I believe Powerscaling will be fine without this.

It would be extremely unfair if we use this for just one verse and that would reduce the credibility of the information we get from the Wiki. I may not agree with everything that happens here, but what I like is that everything has rules that must be followed, What makes me use this Wiki as a source of information is precisely that, but I would not use if the arguments were so arbitrary as "I don't think that this conversation is happening in X times, so that feat can't be in Y speed".


I believe that there is a need for rules in relation to this, this type of argument is arbitrary and can lead to a big difference between verses only because in a verse staff members chose to use conversations to invalidate feats. I read the rules and it says: "It is important to remember that all staff members, regardless of their rank, have a responsibility to act in the best interests of each verse by prioritizing accuracy and quality above personal preferences or biases. Staff members should strive to approach the evaluation of content revision threads with an open mind and a willingness to consider the perspectives of others." But we know that it is impossible for human beings to be completely impartial, much less in a situation of self-interest, I believe that everyone here knows what is confirmation bias. Hence the need for limiting rules.

 

[Samlex1234]

This is beautifully written. I was planning to bring up the same issue, but honestly, I couldn’t have expressed it better myself. Thank you!

 

[Demon_Lord18]

This is beautifully written. I was planning to bring up the same issue, but honestly, I couldn’t have expressed it better myself. Thank you!

This is a staff thread. Only staff members can comment.

 

[DontTalkDT]

This is a very case-by-case thing IMO.
Generally, a conversation taking place during a feat doesn't exactly support it. Talking can be a free action, but one should check against the time-measuring method used in the feat to see how it compares in reliability.

It also depends on the nature of the conversation.
On one hand, you have things like 3 characters going "wow, he's doing it!" in the middle of a sword swing.
On the other hand, you have things like characters having a lengthy debate about history while walking through a park and then arguing that "talking is a free action and they could be moving at super speed as these are Mach 200 characters".
I think there is a nuance to be had here.

 

[Damage3245]

I noticed that there is no rule on this wiki that prevents the use of arguments that ignore some narrative devices, such as Voice being FTL, FTL characters are not invisible or Talking is a free action. But If we use this kind of argument we would not have characters above sound speed because they communicate during the fight, we wouldn't have FTL characters because the author doesn't make the characters at that speed invisible to the human eye. I know most here abstain from using this kinda of argument, but as there is no rule that prevents it it can be used and accepted without consequences.

While those are common narrative conventions that we sometimes have to employ in order for some scenes to make any sense at all, they're not really something that can be proven to exist for all scenes. We only really use them when there's no other choice, and I don't think it makes sense to assert through the use of a rule that there is never any ambiguity in these cases.

I'm here specifically to talk about the "Talking is a free action". In a thread, a staff member uses the characters' conversation and contemplation as the main argument against a feat, but we have this in practically all fiction, as well as the other two narrative devices, and it's common sense to ignore these points in order to preserve the narrative and the powerscaling.

For the record, the scene in question being reference is in Chapter 613 of the Naruto manga. Where a projectile is fired across country-spanning distances, and in the time that it takes to reach its target destination the characters are able to react to it, contemplate the situation, discuss it, strategize, etc.

The problem arises in that naturally for such a situation to occur, the events taking place for the characters to have these multiple discussions and be shown in contemplation must be a longer than a few seconds - and yet if through powerscaling we assume the speed of the projectile to be travelling at Faster Than Light velocities then we end up with the timespan actually being a fraction of a millisecond long.

Which then leads to conflict between A) The narrative presented by the author, which is that the projectile is slow enough for the events to take place simultaneously to its travel time, and B) Our powerscaling assumptions that the velocity of the projectile must be FTL speeds.

We end up putting our own assumption over the narrative supplied to us by the author of the work.

I believe this is the case for a few reasons: we know that the author doesn't create his story for powerscaling purposes, because using conversation as a measure of time can destroy the narrative, or because we have no way of inventing a universal way of measuring the time of a conversation, for example: if we go by the number of words, there will be the problem of the difference between the original language and English, when translating there will be a reduction or addition of words, even in cases where the number of words is the same there will still be problems, people don't speak at the same speed even when speaking the same language, let alone when speaking different languages. We would have to guess the speed of the character's speech and in my opinion that is very arbitrary. I believe Powerscaling will be fine without this.

If we know the author doesn't create the story in mind for powerscaling, then why we do we take some statements from authors at their word when they arbitrarily declare an attack to be "lightspeed" without showing any indication of awareness of just how exceptionally fast the speed of light is? It seems to me that if it is convenient for our powerscaling then we take whatever the author gives us as unquestionable evidence.

It would be extremely unfair if we use this for just one verse and that would reduce the credibility of the information we get from the Wiki. I may not agree with everything that happens here, but what I like is that everything has rules that must be followed, What makes me use this Wiki as a source of information is precisely that, but I would not use if the arguments were so arbitrary as "I don't think that this conversation is happening in X times, so that feat can't be in Y speed".

I agree that it shouldn't be selectively employed just for a singular verse.

This is a very case-by-case thing IMO.
Generally, a conversation taking place during a feat doesn't exactly support it. Talking can be a free action, but one should check against the time-measuring method used in the feat to see how it compares in reliability.

It also depends on the nature of the conversation.
On one hand, you have things like 3 characters going "wow, he's doing it!" in the middle of a sword swing.
On the other hand, you have things like characters having a lengthy debate about history while walking through a park and then arguing that "talking is a free action and they could be moving at super speed as these are Mach 200 characters".
I think there is a nuance to be had here.

I agree with this too.

Not all "Talking is a Free Action" type scenes are exactly the same.

For example, DIO from Jojo's Bizarre Adventure, is able to take a number of actions and speak a lot in a timespan that is canonically only 5 seconds long, so it would be folly to try and use his actions to argue that his timestop is longer than it is stated to be. But in this scenario DIO is a superhuman vampire capable of moving and acting much faster than humans, and more importantly there is an explicit mention of time that would overrule it. Something that isn't present in the Naruto example where there is no exactly stated measurement of time.

 

[Leloutchis134]

This is a very case-by-case thing IMO.
Generally, a conversation taking place during a feat doesn't exactly support it. Talking can be a free action, but one should check against the time-measuring method used in the feat to see how it compares in reliability.

It also depends on the nature of the conversation.
On one hand, you have things like 3 characters going "wow, he's doing it!" in the middle of a sword swing.
On the other hand, you have things like characters having a lengthy debate about history while walking through a park and then arguing that "talking is a free action and they could be moving at super speed as these are Mach 200 characters".
I think there is a nuance to be had here.

But this is not the case here, I'm talking talking about situations when if chose to use conversation as a measure of time destroys the whole narrative, if in the situation it is said and shown that they are walking through the park in FTL you shouldn't use conversation as a measure of time to invalidate it just because you don't think that the conversation happened too fast, like Superman and Flash having a conversation while they are running in high speed, you can't just use the conversation argument to say that they aren't in high speed. Especially when we have the entire narrative saying that they are in that speed.

 

[Damage3245]

But this is not the case here, I'm talking talking about situations when if chose to use conversation as a measure of time destroys the whole narrative, if in the situation it is said and shown that they are walking through the park in FTL you shouldn't use conversation as a measure of time to invalidate it just because you don't think that the conversation happened too fast, like Superman and Flash having a conversation while they are running in high speed, you can't just use the conversation argument to say that they aren't in high speed. Especially when we have the entire narrative saying that they are in that speed.

Another example: Madara says that Guy is so fast that he is distorting space, we have proof that other characters are much faster than lightning and Guy is faster than him, But in the middle of the fight between Guy and Madara there is a conversation between Minato, Gaara and Kakashi, a conversation that should be long but the fight between Guy and Madara that should be happening in this meantime It does not seem to have any kind of advancement of time if we use the conversation as a measure of time then Guy would be below the lightning speed, which would break the whole narrative.

Just for the record, it'd be useful if you supplied scans of both examples used in your argument. Just in case some users or staff may not be familiar with the scenes in question.

For the Might Guy example, I think that's a bit misleading as when Might Guy is amped up to perform the "space-bending feat" in Chapter 672, there is no other conversation going on at the same time.

 

[Leloutchis134]

While those are common narrative conventions that we sometimes have to employ in order for some scenes to make any sense at all, they're not really something that can be proven to exist for all scenes. We only really use them when there's no other choice, and I don't think it makes sense to assert through the use of a rule that there is never any ambiguity in these cases.

I'm saying that these specific arguments should not be the Main argument to invalidate a feat, if the narrative implies that a character is FTL you cannot use "FTL are invisible" to say that it's not FTL.

The problem arises in that naturally for such a situation to occur, the events taking place for the characters to have these multiple discussions and be shown in contemplation must be a longer than a few seconds - and yet if through powerscaling we assume the speed of the projectile to be travelling at Faster Than Light velocities then we end up with the timespan actually being a fraction of a millisecond long.

Which then leads to conflict between A) The narrative presented by the author, which is that the projectile is slow enough for the events to take place simultaneously to its travel time, and B) Our powerscaling assumptions that the velocity of the projectile must be FTL speeds.

We end up putting our own assumption over the narrative supplied to us by the author of the work

The author is not thinking that adding a conversation or speech will indicate that the projectile is going slower, which is why we choose to ignore this most of the time In cases where the narrative would be destroyed, it doesn't matter if we have the impression that spoken words would take more than a few seconds to happen, we know that this is a common inconsistency in fiction. Or should we put all real logic above narrative? We return to the problem of Voices being faster than sound and characters being able to reach the speed of light and not becoming invisible.

Even though I'm new here I know that this wiki has rules on hyperbolic speeches and the need for evidence and, at no time did I argue that they speak should be considered as correct, you are bringing another discussion to this thread. And I want to remember that I never argue that Issen is SOL, my problem is with your argument to justify TBB not being ftl.

 

[Leloutchis134]

Just for the record, it'd be useful if you supplied scans of both examples used in your argument. Just in case some users or staff may not be familiar with the scenes in question.

For the Might Guy example, I think that's a bit misleading as when Might Guy is amped up to perform the "space-bending feat" in Chapter 672, there is no other conversation going on at the same time.

I used Madara's speech to emphasize the speed of Guy, something that indicates that it is at high speed, which is proof that the narrative is indicating that it is at a speed above common in that verse, while we have evidence that it is common for characters to reach speeds above what would be calculated if the Minato conversation were used as a measure of time. But we don't have the time of the conversation, just as you don't have the time of the Shikaku conversation. We can only make arbitrary assumptions in both cases.

 

[Damage3245]

I used Madara's speech to emphasize the speed of Guy, something that indicates that it is at high speed, which is proof that the narrative is indicating that it is at a speed above common in that verse, while we have evidence that it is common for characters to reach speeds above what would be calculated if the Minato conversation were used as a measure of time. But we don't have the time of the conversation, just as you don't have the time of the Shikaku conversation. We can only make arbitrary assumptions in both cases.

But there is no Minato conversation going on that would contradict it in that scene.

If you're referring to a different, earlier scene in Chapter 669, then I don't see there being any specific contradiction as there is no implication that a character's speed would be made any faster or slower during that scene.

 

[Leloutchis134]

But there is no Minato conversation going on that would contradict it in that scene.

If you're referring to a different, earlier scene in Chapter 669, then I don't see there being any specific contradiction as there is no implication that a character's speed would be made any faster or slower during that scene.

This is missing the point, Madara speech is just an emphasis on Guy's speed, it has absolutely nothing to do with my main point and you know it. Madara alone is extremely fast, Guy marking him already makes it above the common speed on the verse, the narrative saying that he is at a speed above what would be found if a calculation were made using the time of the conversation. I would like you to focus on the main argument.

 

[Damage3245]

This is missing the point, Madara speech is just an emphasis on Guy's speed, it has absolutely nothing to do with my main point and you know it. Madara alone is extremely fast, Guy marking him already makes it above the common speed on the verse, the narrative saying that he is at a speed above what would be found if a calculation were made using the time of the conversation. I would like you to focus on the main argument.

I was responding to this point:

Another example: Madara says that Guy is so fast that he is distorting space, we have proof that other characters are much faster than lightning and Guy is faster than him, But in the middle of the fight between Guy and Madara there is a conversation between Minato, Gaara and Kakashi, a conversation that should be long but the fight between Guy and Madara that should be happening in this meantime It does not seem to have any kind of advancement of time if we use the conversation as a measure of time then Guy would be below the lightning speed, which would break the whole narrative.

As I said, there is no contradiction that arises in this scene. Might Guy is shown to be circling Madara at high speed, looking for an opening to take advantage of. Might Guy isn't portrayed as moving super-slowly to be relative to a conversation that is going on elsewhere.

By no means would it make Might Guy be sub-lightning speed.

 

[Leloutchis134]

I was responding to this point:


As I said, there is no contradiction that arises in this scene. Might Guy is shown to be circling Madara at high speed, looking for an opening to take advantage of. Might Guy isn't portrayed as moving super-slowly to be relative to a conversation that is going on elsewhere.

By no means would it make Might Guy be sub-lightning speed.

So a Guy who is every second closer to death was waiting for Minato to finish the conversation he didn't even know that was happening? Just one question, would you accept if I used a conversation happening to extend someone's time into a time -limited transformation, even if it was against the narrative? If so, I will make a point of erasing this example. May this be more proof that Guy can stay longer in the eighth gate.

 

[Damage3245]

So a Guy who is every second closer to death was waiting for Minato to finish the conversation he didn't even know that was happening? Just one question, would you accept if I used a conversation happening to extend someone's time into a time -limited transformation, even if it was against the narrative? If so, I will make a point of erasing this example. May this be more proof that Guy can stay longer in the eighth gate.

No. There is no indication that Guy was waiting for Minato's conversation to finish, even if we did accept that the conversation was taking place at super-speed anyway. They're two separate unconnected things in this instance, which is different than the other example with Shikaku.

 

[Leloutchis134]

No. There is no indication that Guy was waiting for Minato's conversation to finish, even if we did accept that the conversation was taking place at super-speed anyway. They're two separate unconnected things in this instance, which is different than the other example with Shikaku.

They are not separated, the conversation happens because of Guy's fight, just as the conversation happens because of TBB. And in both cases the only measure of time is the conversation.

Even so, I'm going to delete this example, the main point is to use a conversation as a measure of time even if would destroy the narrative.

 

[Damage3245]

They are not separated, the conversation happens because of Guy's fight, just as the conversation happens because of TBB. And in both cases the only measure of time is the conversation.

Even so, I'm going to delete this example, the main point is to use a conversation as a measure of time even if would destroy the narrative.

Okay. I don't believe your example is a valid one but since you're removing it anyway then it doesn't matter and I'll drop it.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Talking should never be an anti-feat for high speed feats, yes

 

[Leloutchis134]

I would like to remind you a that all I am proposing is that this Wiki should not be based on arbitrary decisions by Staff members to invalidate an feat. This wiki has rigid rules regarding the acceptance of a feat, and I believe we should have the same requirement for an anti-feat. I don't think that no one here would accept if I argue that a character is faster based on my impression of a conversation speed if the whole narrative says that is not true.

I think it's a big problem that this wiki accepts this type of argument as an anti-feat, we shouldn't allow anyone to use "they are talking to each other so it's not FTL" or "I don't think that conversation is happening in high speed" as a main argument to invalidate a feat. I know it is common sense to ignore this argument and staff members would usually not make this kind of argument and if they do other staff members would supervise, but as there is no such rule, what could the other staff member do?

"Another member of the Staff would point this out and so the CRT would not be approved" We have proof that this is not true, this arbitrary argument was used and the CRT was approved.

I am a new member on the Wiki but I follow the discussions a few months ago, only this event made me create an account and give my opinion about something, this is not a matter of opinion or point of view, it is about the Staff members limit and the integrity of the information provided by this wiki. I may be being alarmist, but I consider it extremely important for this wiki.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

But this is not the case here, I'm talking talking about situations when if chose to use conversation as a measure of time destroys the whole narrative, if in the situation it is said and shown that they are walking through the park in FTL you shouldn't use conversation as a measure of time to invalidate it just because you don't think that the conversation happened too fast, like Superman and Flash having a conversation while they are running in high speed, you can't just use the conversation argument to say that they aren't in high speed. Especially when we have the entire narrative saying that they are in that speed.

This isn't an issue because you just admitted the FTL characters in question are the ones doing the talking.The problem would lie in lesser characters taking action and having full on conversations while said FTL characters are fighting at said speed in sequence with their movements. In my opinion, I'd simply argue the characters aren't using their maximum speed all the time, and at times the writers don't care but eventually it becomes a problem in scaling if it happens too often in my opinion. Below are some examples I think were it's valid/invalid...

1. A good example of the "talking action" not being a valid argument would be like in the Goku and Frieza fight in Resurrection of F Saga where Bulma was with everyone watching and she was speaking while Goku and Frieza were fighting. This isn't an issue because she can't comprehend what's going on and their landing multiple blows in rapid succession in their perspective but to her, they're gone. It's obvious in moments like these, a lesser character speaking cannot be used to argue characters aren't that fast.

2. Another example where the "talking action" is not a valid argument would be like in Danny Phantom when he was fighting Vortex and the random news reporter was not only commentating while Danny was in mid flight but they were actively recording said fight with normal news cameras and watching the event. However this isn't an anti-feat because it's directly stated and shown he can fly faster casually, he himself actively states he holds back and the writers know this. This just means Danny at that point in the fight wasn't actually moving at top speed or anywhere close. Most characters in fiction aren't always moving at top speed, so in moments like this aren't anti feats.

3. However, an example where the "talking action" is a valid argument, is when a character who is either incapable of slowing down or has no reason to go slow (a character with a set speed or a character who is mindless and goes for fast attacks) is moving yet other characters that can't move that fast are taking actions. Like a character who by default can only move at light speed and his target is a human who's on the other side of the planet and as that person takes off, the human in question gets a call and is told that he's being targeted by the light speed man and only after that conversation happened the light speed character arrived. This is a literal anti-feat that would invalidate that character being that fast.

Now, this doesn't mean it's an immediate downgrade as other feats and statements can easily beat out moments like the 3rd example I mentioned. It is however something that's worth looking into and if supported should be a valid example that can be used as an anti feat that can cause narrative and scaling issues.

 

[Damage3245]

Now, this doesn't mean it's an immediate downgrade as other feats and statements can easily beat out moments like the 3rd example I mentioned. It is however something that's worth looking into and if supported should be a valid example that can be used as an anti feat that can cause narrative and scaling issues.

I agree with this; it's not meant to be an automatic debunk. It's meant to be a piece of evidence that is taken into consideration and judged alongside other pieces of evidence. If it is convincing, then it is convincing. If it is too inconsistent or outweighed by other evidence, then it is less convincing.

What this proposed rule would accomplish is just forbidding certain forms of evidence from consideration.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I agree with this; it's not meant to be an automatic debunk. It's meant to be a piece of evidence that is taken into consideration and judged alongside other pieces of evidence. If it is convincing, then it is convincing. If it is too inconsistent or outweighed by other evidence, then it is less convincing.

What this proposed rule would accomplish is just forbidding certain forms of evidence from consideration.

I think the issue is that this isn't a worthwhile piece of evidence to me. It's just authors not knowing what they're doing when they have full-blown conversations like this. If it's so inconsistent, surely you can find that inconsistency elsewhere as opposed to this?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Discussion during a feat before the feat ends should be used in considering how long the feat actually takes. If characters are having full blown discussions while an attack is ongoing, provided there is no other context to the feat, that feat should not be taken to be one of our arbitrary timespans we assign to such things. Talking can be a "free action" but it is far from the absolute truth.

Thus it falls to evaluating staff to determine if the context makes the "free action" argument make sense. We have that benefit from our structure, that human eyes can oversee things and determine how our rulings ought to be plied. We should not deny ourselves that ability, it makes no sense. So, my opinion on the matter more or less aligns with Damage's.

 

[Testarossa002]

Got permission from @Mr. Bambu
I believe evaluations should be handled on a case-by-case basis rather than applying a universal rule. Enforcing a one-size-fits-all standard could allow room for some individuals to exploit these rules.

In these case-by-case scenarios, however, evaluators should take into account the narrative intent behind the dialogue and assess whether the storytelling importance justifies compromising speed feats.

For example, in the CW Flash series, characters like Barry or Wally are consistently shown to achieve hypersonic speeds. However, their human-level teammates, such as Joe, Iris, or Felicity, are often depicted delivering lengthy explanations or reading entire dissertations about their opponents while the speedsters are running to their destination. This is not a one-off occurrence; it happens almost every episode. It would be absurd to measure the speed of the Flash based on the two-minute timeframe it takes for Iris to research and convey information about Metahuman #99846. The series itself, despite its powerscaling inconsistencies, establishes these characters as capable of moving at Mach 20+.

In Naruto (which sparked this CRT), there’s a canonically light-speed teleportation jutsu. Yet, during its use— to transport characters cross-country—other characters are shown having full conversations within the timeframe it takes for the jutsu to complete. If dialogue weren’t considered in context, a light-speed technique would be inaccurately downgraded to something like Mach 400+.
To reiterate my argument in that thread:

In Chapter 613, the Juubi fired 4 bombs. The first 3 reached their "targets" rather quickly. These targets were just as far, if not farther than the Allied headquarters. Allied HQ notes that even nations as far away as Suna/Konoha were within its range. This assertion was made after observing the first three bombs.
In all of these instances, the bombs took, at most, 2 panels to get to its target.
It would be highly inaccurate to base the overall speed of the bomb on the one instance where narrative focus was placed on the conversations between Shikaku and the Allied Forces, disregarding the bomb's actual speed in favor of its narrative importance. Especially when we've seen it cover farther distances instantly
In addition, if we're utilizing the actions taken during the bomb's flight to AHQ, over a minute would have passed. That will give us around High Hypersonic speed. A value less than a feat done by Kid Gaara. That is as much an outlier as the Deva Path cooldown timeframe. We can't take an outlier and use it as anti-feat against higher end feats. Unless the OP is proposing that everybody from KCM 2 to V2 Ay should be downgraded to High Hypersonic, this (anti)feat should be dismissed.

Tl;dr
Nuance should be applied when judging these things

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Fiction is just inconsistent; and there's also the fact that sound waves do travel faster in hotter climates; of course still impossible for them to travel any faster than light if relativity is taken into account. But naturally, characters generating Massively FTL+ or even Immeasurable speed sound waves are surprisingly more common than one would expect. But it's case by case as DontTalkDT laid out above.

 

[Leloutchis134]

This isn't an issue because you just admitted the FTL characters in question are the ones doing the talking.The problem would lie in lesser characters taking action and having full on conversations while said FTL characters are fighting at said speed in sequence with their movements. In my opinion, I'd simply argue the characters aren't using their maximum speed all the time, and at times the writers don't care but eventually it becomes a problem in scaling if it happens too often in my opinion. Below are some examples I think were it's valid/invalid...

1. A good example of the "talking action" not being a valid argument would be like in the Goku and Frieza fight in Resurrection of F Saga where Bulma was with everyone watching and she was speaking while Goku and Frieza were fighting. This isn't an issue because she can't comprehend what's going on and their landing multiple blows in rapid succession in their perspective but to her, they're gone. It's obvious in moments like these, a lesser character speaking cannot be used to argue characters aren't that fast.

2. Another example where the "talking action" is not a valid argument would be like in Danny Phantom when he was fighting Vortex and the random news reporter was not only commentating while Danny was in mid flight but they were actively recording said fight with normal news cameras and watching the event. However this isn't an anti-feat because it's directly stated and shown he can fly faster casually, he himself actively states he holds back and the writers know this. This just means Danny at that point in the fight wasn't actually moving at top speed or anywhere close. Most characters in fiction aren't always moving at top speed, so in moments like this aren't anti feats.

3. However, an example where the "talking action" is a valid argument, is when a character who is either incapable of slowing down or has no reason to go slow (a character with a set speed or a character who is mindless and goes for fast attacks) is moving yet other characters that can't move that fast are taking actions. Like a character who by default can only move at light speed and his target is a human who's on the other side of the planet and as that person takes off, the human in question gets a call and is told that he's being targeted by the light speed man and only after that conversation happened the light speed character arrived. This is a literal anti-feat that would invalidate that character being that fast.

Now, this doesn't mean it's an immediate downgrade as other feats and statements can easily beat out moments like the 3rd example I mentioned. It is however something that's worth looking into and if supported should be a valid example that can be used as an anti feat that can cause narrative and scaling issues.

You keep ignoring the main point and I believe it's because of my difficulty in expressing myself in English, I'll be as specific as possible.

I have repeated several times that the problem is not using the conversation as a measure of time itself, the problem is using it as the main argument to invalidate a feat by ignoring all the evidence of the feat (narrative). In the first two of these examples, there is evidence that makes it impossible to use the conversation as anti-feat, but as a staff member you can simply ignore this evidence and choose to use the conversation to invalidate the feat and that is the problem. And in the second, there is something beyond the speech happening, the call, if it is a normal call then an analysis should be made if this anti-feat would be an outlier, but if it is something supernatural, which ignores the laws of physics and that has no evidence that it need time to happen, so it's not a anti-feat.

I agree, but your way of acting was completely different from what you just said. What I'm talking about is about a situation that has nothing that supports the use of conversation as a measure of time, and you approved a CRT like that. This was the main argument and the support was a misinterpretation of Madara's speech.

Now let's talk about the situation of the destruction of the Shinobi alliance HQ: The Juubi, a character who is above LS by all possible metrics, launched 4 attacks in a row in front of the Shinobi alliance, which has characters above LS who had the ability to stop that attack if that attack was too far below LS. We have a character with great eye power seeing the destroyed a "far off city" and saying that happened in "an instant". Context: they intended to stop this attack, even putting their own lives at risk, but they stood by and watched the Juubi attack 4 times, killing innocent people in the rear, which the alliance would do its best to avoid, and then destroying the headquarters, which the Shinobi alliance would do its best to avoid.
That's evidence that TBB at least above LS. All evidence that I can find in the Manga.

Now let's be arbitrary and choose the time we think the conversation took: knowing that we don't have the conversation of Shikaku talking the plan to Inoichi and knowing that he would have to repeat Shikaku's plan to the Shinobi alliance, My impression is that it would take a long time, but I'm going to choose a low number: 30 sec.

700Km in 30sec= Mach 68. The conversation is the only evidence for TBB being so slow, there is absolutely nothing to support this conclusion but the conversation. Now let's remember how I got to this evidence, I got that because I decided the time the conversation happened, and how I decided? I thought this time was fair and cool. Even though I know that an attack on Mach 68 should not go through the shinobi alliance and they would definitely not be waiting for Juubi firing atomic bombs if they were able to avoid it, even if it makes no sense that Juubi attacks so slowly, even though he is aware that Mach 68 is nothing in that verse, even if I know that a Mach 68 TBB would not make a Byakugan user think it happened in "a instant" when it reached a "far-off city". This doesn't matter, my evidence, based on my opinion, is above the evidence of the manga.

 

[Damage3245]

Now let's talk about the situation of the destruction of the Shinobi alliance HQ: The Juubi, a character who is above LS by all possible metrics, launched 4 attacks in a row in front of the Shinobi alliance, which has characters above LS who had the ability to stop that attack if that attack was too far below LS. We have a character with great eye power seeing the destroyed a "far off city" and saying that happened in "an instant". Context: they intended to stop this attack, even putting their own lives at risk, but they stood by and watched the Juubi attack 4 times, killing innocent people in the rear, which the alliance would do its best to avoid, and then destroying the headquarters, which the Shinobi alliance would do its best to avoid.
That's evidence that TBB at least above LS. All evidence that I can find in the Manga.

That's what I'd consider to be very far off rock-solid evidence and more like your interpretation. Actual evidence would be a statement on the speed of the jutsu in question saying "That attack was at the speed of light," or a character who can shoot laser beams saying "That attack was faster than mine," etc. What you've got instead is "I powerscaled several characters to lightspeed and they didn't do anything to stop the attack"; ignoring that in the context of this scenario everyone on the battlefield was destabilized by the shaking ground and unable to effectively take any actions to stop the Juubi. Nor did any person there actually have the power to halt one of those Biju Bombs anyway.

700Km in 30sec= Mach 68. The conversation is the only evidence for TBB being so slow, there is absolutely nothing to support this conclusion but the conversation. Now let's remember how I got to this evidence, I got that because I decided the time the conversation happened, and how I decided? I thought this time was fair and cool. Even though I know that an attack on Mach 68 should not go through the shinobi alliance and they would definitely not be waiting for Juubi firing atomic bombs if they were able to avoid it, even if it makes no sense that Juubi attacks so slowly, even though he is aware that Mach 68 is nothing in that verse, even if I know that a Mach 68 TBB would not make a Byakugan user think it happened in "a instant" when it reached a "far-off city". This doesn't matter, my evidence, based on my opinion, is above the evidence of the manga.

The "instant" in question here is the city being destroyed in an instant, which it was, since it was wiped out in a singular massive explosion. That's not necessarily a comment about the projectile speed of the Biju Bomb but rather a comment on the instaneous destruction.

 

[Leloutchis134]

Got permission from @Mr. Bambu
I believe evaluations should be handled on a case-by-case basis rather than applying a universal rule. Enforcing a one-size-fits-all standard could allow room for some individuals to exploit these rules.

In these case-by-case scenarios, however, evaluators should take into account the narrative intent behind the dialogue and assess whether the storytelling importance justifies compromising speed feats.

For example, in the CW Flash series, characters like Barry or Wally are consistently shown to achieve hypersonic speeds. However, their human-level teammates, such as Joe, Iris, or Felicity, are often depicted delivering lengthy explanations or reading entire dissertations about their opponents while the speedsters are running to their destination. This is not a one-off occurrence; it happens almost every episode. It would be absurd to measure the speed of the Flash based on the two-minute timeframe it takes for Iris to research and convey information about Metahuman #99846. The series itself, despite its powerscaling inconsistencies, establishes these characters as capable of moving at Mach 20+.

In Naruto (which sparked this CRT), there’s a canonically light-speed teleportation jutsu. Yet, during its use— to transport characters cross-country—other characters are shown having full conversations within the timeframe it takes for the jutsu to complete. If dialogue weren’t considered in context, a light-speed technique would be inaccurately downgraded to something like Mach 400+.
To reiterate my argument in that thread:


Tl;dr
Nuance should be applied when judging these things

Case-by-case it is precisely what I am proposing from the beginning, but there seems to be a great misunderstanding here. If you want to use a conversation as a measure of time, then this has to consider the the context, the narrative. Staff members should not be allowed to disregard other evidence while using the conversation as the only thing that matters, your opinion should not precede the original material. That is exactly what happened.

 

[Damage3245]

Case-by-case it is precisely what I am proposing from the beginning, but there seems to be a great misunderstanding here. If you want to use a conversation as a measure of time, then this has to consider the the context, the narrative. Staff members should not be allowed to disregard other evidence while using the conversation as the only thing that matters, your opinion should not precede the original material. That is exactly what happened.

There is nothing in your OP about it being case-by-case or having any nuance. You just say:

I believe Powerscaling will be fine without this.

 

[Leloutchis134]

That's what I'd consider to be very far off rock-solid evidence and more like your interpretation. Actual evidence would be a statement on the speed of the jutsu in question saying "That attack was at the speed of light," or a character who can shoot laser beams saying "That attack was faster than mine," etc. What you've got instead is "I powerscaled several characters to lightspeed and they didn't do anything to stop the attack"; ignoring that in the context of this scenario everyone on the battlefield was destabilized by the shaking ground and unable to effectively take any actions to stop the Juubi. Nor did any person there actually have the power to halt one of those Biju Bombs anyway.

If only statements can be considered a actual evidence, then what's the point of us being here? As far as I know we rely on interpretation to do the powerscaling: character A attacked character B, who is said and shown to be SOL and character B couldn't react, so that's evidence that character A is FTL. There's no context here, it's one character being faster than another. That's evidence enough.

You seem to have understood that I don't know how to post scans and you are abusing that, there is only one moment of destabilisation, when the Juubi rises, right after that the Shinobi alliance stabilises again, and then the 4 attacks occur, Kakashi even asks a Ninja to use Doton to try to destabilising the Juubi and he succeeds, but then the Juubi launches 3 other attacks at high speed. With Kakashi unable to react to the launch of these attacks.

The Hyuuga talks about the distance from the city and then talks about how it happened in an instant, if he was talking about how a city disappeared in an instant he wouldn't have any reason to talk about the distance, all he had to do was saying that "a city was destroyed in an instant", but he said: "Such far-off" city was destroyed in a instant.

 

[Nierre]

With this specific example, even with MHS+ speeds (which is the next best speed feat we currently have accepted within the verse), it would only take a few minutes for the Bijuu Bomb to travel around the world, the Bijuu Bomb would've reached the HQ in just a blink of an eye at that speed, so while I do agree with taking things "case-by-case", this thread exists because the OP in the other CRT (which this thread sprouted from), ignores the fact that even in lower speeds that we have accepted there's no way they should've been able to have that whole conversation. It's why I disagreed with the OP in the first place, because regardless of what speed you choose, it's going to be inconsistent because the authors do not have all this in mind when writing and drawing a weekly manga.

There are many examples across fiction, like Dragon Ball where far slower characters can have conversation and react to fights that are far, far above their league, like in the Tournament of Destroyers. Or the Flash and Superman examples brought up earlier here and in that other thread. But we don't use those as "counter-evidence" for speed feats within a verse.

Yes, we take it as "case-by-case", but using a conversation to remove a speed rating is in very poor taste in my opinion, especially when considering we have other speed calcs within the verse that vary from HHS+ to Sub-Rel, and with those speed feats, the Bomb would've traversed the distance it did before the conversation would've even been initiated, let alone done and completed.

 

[Damage3245]

You seem to have understood that I don't know how to post scans and you are abusing that

This is a weird accusation; I have no reason to think you don't know how to post scans and I'm not "abusing" it at all.

 

[Leloutchis134]

There is nothing in your OP about it being case-by-case or having any nuance. You just say:

I'm in doubt if I'm talking English, I repeat several times that Conversation as a measure of time should not be used if you go against the narrative, how do I know if this goes against the narrative? Analyzing! For me this is obvious that if in the CASES this is not against the narrative, then it has no problem with the use and in CASES that it destroys the narrative this should't be accepted .

Stop taking it from context, I was obviously talking about the arbitrariness of guessing the time of the conversation, and I repeat, Powerscaling doesn't need people arbitrarily deciding how long a conversation happened.

 

[Leloutchis134]

This is a weird accusation; I have no reason to think you don't know how to post scans and I'm not "abusing" it at all.

I said this in my first comment on the other thread that I made to you, like a newbie, I still don't know basic things like this.

 

[Leloutchis134]

Thus it falls to evaluating staff to determine if the context makes the "free action" argument make sense. We have that benefit from our structure, that human eyes can oversee things and determine how our rulings ought to be plied. We should not deny ourselves that ability, it makes no sense. So, my opinion on the matter more or less aligns with Damage's.

Another proof that I am being misunderstood, I never said that staff members should not have the right to evaluate the context, the problem is precisely when the context is not evaluated. If all you need to invalidate a feat is "I don't think the conversation happened at that time" so there's no need for normal members to be in this forum, You (Staff members) can simply decide between you as you think the story happened and decide alone. The least we expect is that it need evidence to be accepted, or should we simply accept your opinion about a feat as evidence?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Another proof that I am being misunderstood, I never said that staff members should not have the right to evaluate the context, the problem is precisely when the context is not evaluated. If all you need to invalidate a feat is "I don't think the conversation happened at that time" so there's no need for normal members to be in this forum, You (Staff members) can simply decide between you as you think the story happened and decide alone. The least we expect is that it need evidence to be accepted, or should we simply accept your opinion about a feat as evidence?

Staff members are necessary to evaluate things. Even if you disagree with them. They are elevated to the position because the majority of other standing staff feel they can be trusted with this task. It seems the crux of your issue is less with this specific thing, and more with the policy of entrusting evaluation to staff, and that policy's effects on this issue. I don't really know what to tell you other than that the system has worked like this more or less forever, and is unlikely to change.

 

[Leloutchis134]

Staff members are necessary to evaluate things. Even if you disagree with them. They are elevated to the position because the majority of other standing staff feel they can be trusted with this task. It seems the crux of your issue is less with this specific thing, and more with the policy of entrusting evaluation to staff, and that policy's effects on this issue. I don't really know what to tell you other than that the system has worked like this more or less forever, and is unlikely to change.

And you continue to ignore the main point and choose to interpret my statements as you see fit, I have said absolutely nothing about the need for the existence of Staff members or their functions, I am fully aware of how important you are to this Wiki and I know very well how the promotion of each staff member works.

I've said several times that I think it's a problem how easy it is for Staff members to invalidate a feat, all it takes is for them to use an argument that totally disregards the narrative/context, and that has the support of other Staff members or that those members trust them so much that they believe they wouldn't use that kind of argument. Another member of Staff or an ordinary member like me, we can only accept this and bow our heads, because there is no rule that prevents this kind of thing, but from what you are saying, I am disagreeing with someone's argument and wanting to create a rule against it, when what I disagree with is the lack of evidence to support these arguments and the acceptance of this wiki.

The amazing thing is that whenever a discussion starts about what really should be discussed, there is always a change of subject, you should read what I said instead of implying that I am using this thread to solve a personal problem. I've said several times what I'm proposing and what I believe is a problem, but so far we haven't discussed what the OP is discussing, Damage started it, but then simply chose to discuss about an example and ignored the discussion about the OP and then went into self-contradiction. LordGriffin was the only one who despite "disagreeing" still talked about what is being discussed, even though he doesn't understand that I never said that all cases of "Talking is a Free action" should be judged in the same way, but I am defending the existence of a rule that prohibits the use of "I don't think that this conversation happened this fast" as the main argument to invalidate a feat when this feat was supported by evidences, and about you, it doesn't even look like you read what I said.

I see this as something that affects the credibility of the Wiki, but if you think differently or have simply decided to ignore what I've been saying all along, just disagree. I'm only here to try to solve what I believe is a problem with this wiki and if I can change it, it'll be good, if I can't, it'll be good too, I have no personal problem with anyone here. I have no problem accepting defeat, I use powerscaling as a fun hobby, but what I like most is debate, It's just not cool when the opponents use the straw man fallacy.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

You literally have. You contend that staff members interpret things regardless of evidence (or only in favor of a single piece of evidence, at least), I contend that their function is to interpret things and are entrusted to do so reliably. I don't really know what to tell you, you aren't communicating constructively, one feels.

The role of a staff member, in practice, is to assess feats and arguments given. It does not fall to a staff member to necessarily provide rebuttal, but rather to see if arguments provided pass within our policies. You aren't debating the staff, you're making a case to them. One feels this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the system, that you see them as another individual to argue against- they aren't, not unless they choose to be.

We've all been discussing what the OP is saying. You then say that we aren't, and bring up tangents. Even in your last post you're talking about things broadly unrelated to the OP. I'm not sure how to satisfy what you want here when your goals are so obfuscated.

To speak on the OP again, and the one bit of the last comment that relates to it... I would disagree with a rule that discredits conversation as a means of measuring time. As you put it, "I don't think that this conversation happened this fast". We have no reason to disallow such a position from our staff, that is a valid means of assessing a given feat.

Nobody here is straw manning you, nor is this really about debate. We're discussing. This is not done for sport, we are arguing legitimate policy that will affect how we judge things moving forward. Debate can be found in the versus threads, if you're so inclined.

 

[Duedate8898]

Not sure I fully get the OP, but if there are desires for us to have standards for when something qualifies as "Talking is a Free Action" then I consider that a fair request. While case by case is a very real thing, I don't think it'd hurt for us to establish some kinda of baseline so its clear for both non-staff and other staff the logic that goes into when we ignore talking as it relates to feats and when we don't.

I will of course ask, does OP already have a proposed means for ascertaining this?

 

[Leloutchis134]

You literally have. You contend that staff members interpret things regardless of evidence (or only in favor of a single piece of evidence, at least), I contend that their function is to interpret things and are entrusted to do so reliably

What I did was very different from questioning the need for staff members to exist and very different from saying that you shouldn't do your job or trying to change your role, at no point did I say that your role isn't that or that it should be changed. Yes, your job is to interpret things and do it reliably, with the emphasis on 'do it reliably'. "I don't think that this conversation happened this fast" is definitely not a reliable argument, if you believe it is, fine, I have no way of arguing against it.

I don't really know what to tell you, you aren't communicating constructively.

I'm proposing the creation of a specific rule to limit staff members and prevent you from approving CRTs whose only argument is "I don't think that this conversation happened too fast". The current rule that should limit you from doing this is almost impossible to follow, which makes it exceptionally lax, since hardly anyone follows it, so there's no punishment. What human being can be totally impartial? What human being can keep an open mind at all times?

I believe that a large part of the credibility of any information is due to the impartiality of the person responsible for transmitting the information, but human beings cannot be totally impartial, there is a need for rules that reduce the risk of information being corrupted by human beings, I saw that there is a problem with the ambiguity of the rule responsible for guaranteeing the integrity of the information and I came to propose a specific rule. I believe I'm being constructive.

The role of a staff member, in practice, is to assess feats and arguments given. It does not fall to a staff member to necessarily provide rebuttal, but rather to see if arguments provided pass within our policies. You aren't debating the staff, you're making a case to them. One feels this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the system, that you see them as another individual to argue against- they aren't, not unless they choose to be.

In every CRT arguments are put forward for it to be approved, even those of the staff members, if I believe that these arguments are not supported by evidence or are not consistent with the narrative I can argue against it, of course the Staff Member can ignore me, but any member of this forum can do the same, everyone is only debating if they want to, no one is obliged to anything. So what's the point? There's no misunderstanding, the Staff members are the ones who decide, that's quite clear, and I've never said anything against it and there's no attempt to change that going on here.

We've all been discussing what the OP is saying. You then say that we aren't, and bring up tangents.

.

No, you are absolutely not arguing what the OP is saying, I did not say at any point that "Talking is a free action" should be used in all circumstances, and that's how you interpreted it. Being treated case by case is what I'm proposing from the beginning, in cases where using this argument completely destroys with the narrative the argument should not be considered, but if it is supported by the narrative, then there is no problem in using the argument because it is not arbitrary, the argument will be grounded in the narrative, the person responsible for the calculation will not be guessing the time of the conversation, but using evidence found in the narrative to calculate the time of the conversation, it is completely different, you are not simply choosing a number that suits you and putting it as evidence. And it's written in the OP that common sense has always been to ignore this argument when it DESTROYS the narrative. Unlike what happened, the argument was accepted even though it destroys the entire narrative of Naruto's verse.

Even in your last post you're talking about things broadly unrelated to the OP.

This post was made to defend myself after you ignored what I said, blamed me for things I didn't say and made unfounded assumptions about me. My comments on the OP are responding to comments that address the OP. But it's my fault, I should have ignored you making wrong assumptions about me, insinuating that I'm proposing to change the system when what I'm proposing is just to increase the accuracy of the system by decreasing the likelihood of human failure.

I'm not sure how to satisfy what you want here when your goals are so obfuscated.

So you believe that I'm not being clear about what I'm proposing, but instead of seeking clarification you've chosen to make unfounded assumptions about my objective? What should I say?

To speak on the OP again, and the onebit of the last comment that relates to it... I would disagree with a rule that discredits conversation as a means of measuring time. As you put it, "I don't think that this conversation happened this fast". We have no reason to disallow such a position from our staff, that is a valid means of assessing a given feat.

That's the only time you've addressed the OP exactly as it is. Your point is that this is a valid argument. Good. We agree to disagree.

Nobody here is straw manning you, nor is this really about debate. We're discussing. This is not done for sport, we are arguing legitimate policy that will affect how we judge things moving forward. Debate can be found in the versus threads, if you're so inclined.

If there's been any impression that I'm not taking the subject seriously, then I apologise to everyone here. I believe that something can be fun and serious at the same time, I even take my work very seriously, but I find it fun. I just want to make it clear that I'm not joking, I made a point of using the word 'debate', instead of 'discuss' believing that it would not be misunderstood as a joke what is my mistake.

And it's good to remember that whenever someone misinterpreted what I meant I replied and made it clear what I was talking about, including my first comment replying to DontTalkDT was made to correct this misunderstanding, my comment to you was also to correct this, it was you who put yourself in the position of debater and it was you who totally derailed the thread with your personal assumptions about me and what I'm talking about.

 

[Leloutchis134]

Not sure I fully get the OP, but if there are desires for us to have standards for when something qualifies as "Talking is a Free Action" then I consider that a fair request. While case by case is a very real thing, I don't think it'd hurt for us to establish some kinda of baseline so its clear for both non-staff and other staff the logic that goes into when we ignore talking as it relates to feats and when we don't.

I will of course ask, does OP already have a proposed means for ascertaining this?

You understand this, I'm glad my English is not so disastrous that it made impossible to anyone understand what I was talking about.

Yes, I am proposing that there is a rule that prevents staff members from using "talking is not a free action" even when it would eventually destroy with all the logic of the story, TBB being extremely slow is blatantly destroying the narrative and this has been approved. It's quite simple, the staff member will analyze if using the conversation as a measure of time will be proposing a break in logic in the story, if it is, so the conversation should be ignored. As we always did, but as there is no rule, staff members can simply choose to ignore the logic of the verse and use and approve that argument in any situation.