Cooling and Cloud Calculations

[RatherClueless]

Pretty sure nobody wants to read three entire pages of back-and-forth from 2 years ago and would rather summaries be made to condense the arguments much better, not to mention we're still languishing because of DDM not posting his rebuttal to form a summary.

As DT said, it'd be best to summarize all the arguments for and against, put it in a staff-only thread plus calc members and let it move on from there. Because this thread is simply far too old and too cluttered at this point for that to be done here.

Well, I can repost what I said at an earlier point. I can go through the opponent's points as well, tho I'm not sure if I should be the one to do so, since no matter how thorough I am, I can not imagine not getting called out for being biased.

Anyways, on the actual thing that was being discussed:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, I feel like I should summarize some of my main points and clarify a bit, since people tend to get the wrong ideas.

Although the calculation not making any sense is one of my issues, it isn't even necessarily my main issue or at least not anymore. I made the "science section" as long as it is and gave as many sources as I did so people won't even bother debating the legitimacy of the calc itself like it was done in several previous threads. So instead what I received were several baseless assumptions on how to possibly make these calculations legit. I'll go over them a bit further below.

Another issue I talked about is not just how we calculate cooling feats, but also how we end up using the calculated values, which is honestly a far bigger issue that I have. Since I don't think anyone even bothered to debate me on this topic as of yet, I assume I simply did a pss poor job at making this clear in the op, so I'll use this opportunity to make the points more clear.

So, what, what exactly are the previously mentioned assumptions? Well, there are many one can make, so I'll just go through them all. Currently, the justification for cooling feats is that we treat the simple displacement of energy as AP. Not a big fan of that, but fair enough. This isn't really a topic I want to get into. The real issue comes from the assumptions on how it is done. From several discussions, on and off the site, as well as previous threads, some of the possible assumptions on "how it might work" are:

• Energy Manipulation
• Matter Manipulation
• Telekinesis
• Energy Erasing
• Energy Absorption

and two I thought of myself, in case anyone wants to bring them up later

• Probability Manipulation
• Light Manipulation

Now what exactly are the issues with this besides them being outlandish, baseless assumptions, just for the sake of making a cooling feat legit?

There are several "Issue Topics" I'd like to cover. Those being: "Scaling to oneself", "Scaling to others" and "Usability as a whole"



I'll start with Energy Manipulation and "scaling to oneself" or how others may refer to it as "having the same energy source"

So, as an example, take character V, who uses their magic/power (which is just Energy Manipulation) to move X amount of energy from point A to point B. Now this character, as by the current system, would scale to X amount of energy, but that's not all. All of their other spells would now also scale to the dislocated amount of energy. Why is that an issue? Because this implies that moving X energy required no energy at all. Why is that an issue? Because other abilities would need to scale to what the character output, not X. What exactly would be the energy needed to move X amount of energy using a supernatural ability not based on any kind of science? Would that also be X? The answer is "we don't know". Quite frankly, there is not even a semi-decent guess we can make here. Another issue with assuming Energy Manipulation is that there is no reason why a character would only be able to cool things down and not heat things up. This issue also applies to all other assumptions except Energy Erasing and Energy Absorption.

Next up is Matter Manipulation. This simply assumes that Character V can mess with the matter itself down to the atomic level and cool it down this way. The obvious issue out of the way, this is hax. The second most obvious one out of the way as well, this is an absurd assumption, since this would allow characters to do way more than just cool/heat things. Even if for some odd reasons limited to cooling or heating (which wouldn't make much sense, but whatever), this assumption is way out there.

For the third one, we have Telekinesis. Quite frankly, this one might be even more out there than Matter Manipulation, since there is really no way one can argue that a character that can precisely manipulate septillions, octillions or even nonillions of atoms can't use that for anything else. Thinking that anyone who can cool something down has super-precise atomic telekinesis is a crazy, baseless assumption.

Energy Erasing and Absorption. I put these two into the same category since they'll end up basically the same. If we assume it gets absorbed, we have two options. Option No.1 is that the character actually gets to use that energy and basically has infinite energy for as long as they freeze stuff, which makes no sense. Option No.2 is that they can't actually use that energy since it is different from the power source they are using, making it completely useless to the point where it might have simply been erased and the character has no reason to scale. I suppose there is a third option where the character absorbs energy that they can use, as well as their ability requiring energy to use, but that would bring us back to the same issue as with Energy Manipulation, which is "we have no clue to figure that one out", as well as the assumption that a character can absorb the energy, to begin with being quite out there. Oh and obviously erasing energy is simply hax.

Now to Probability Manipulation. For anyone who doesn't know how this one would work, I recommend looking up "Maxwell's Demon". Issues here clearly are once again that this is straight-up hax, meaning it wouldn't scale to anything. There is also yet again the issue that there would be no reason as to why this can't be used for different things.

Last but not least, is laser cooling. This would have so many other uses that it'd be insane. That's really all I'll say about this. I don't think anyone here would have been desperate enough to actually bring up Light Manipulation as a valid option anyways.

Just a quick note before I continue. Characters that qualify for one of these assumptions and I mean actually qualify for them, would obviously be exempt from all of the "that's a crazy assumption" talk. So any assumption where that's my only argument against them (at least as of now) would most likely be fine to use.



The next big topic is "scaling to others". Since we have already established that a character scaling to the feat themselves rarely makes any sense, what about other characters getting hit? To make a long story short, breaking (out of) ice isn't equal to the thermal energy difference needed to create the ice, resisting being frozen isn't equal to the thermal energy difference needed to create the ice and getting hit in the face by a chunk of ice obviously isn't equal to the thermal energy difference needed to create the ice either. TLDR, it doesn't scale no matter how you want to look at it.



The last issue to tackle is the "usability" of the number we get from the calc. What do I mean by that? Well, let’s take a character like Karim from fire force. He actually gives a pretty detailed description of how his powers work. He uses his ability to manipulate heat to remove energy from the air. So, what's the issue? Well, the issue is related to the first and second ones. When he freezes someone, it doesn't scale, if someone breaks his ice, it doesn't scale and him throwing his ice doesn't scale either. Now one might say "but why can't he use the same amount of energy he can manipulate to throw the ice?" and the answer to that is in the explanation as to why we can't simply assume "Energy Manipulation" to scale across abilities.



Now there is just one more point I want to mention. What if we assume a character actually uses a legit method of transferring heat? Well, first of all, there would be some kind of basis for this, like it being stated or straight up being shown. Simply making ice pop up into reality would obviously not qualify. However, if a character does qualify there is still the issue that it would be nigh impossible to calculate unless the author is very specific about it. If the character has an ability that either acts like a heat pump or a heat sink, we can't really calculate it, nor can we use our calculation even as an approximation, since they might very well be vastly below our results. Then what about the assumption of using some kind of "refrigerant" (this might even be air)? Well in that case we could in fact use our calculation as a lowball. However, a character would very clearly need to demonstrate such an ability.

------

Just to be clear, these aren't my only issues. I for example also take issue with cloud creation feats, since those don’t even make the tiniest bit of sense. This was simply to clear up some things and go into more detail where I felt it was absolutely necessary.

 

[KLOL506]

I can go through the opponent's points as well, tho I'm not sure if I should be the one to do so, since no matter how thorough I am, I can not imagine not getting called out for being biased.

They can speak for themselves, so yeah, best to just let them do it on their side.

Anyways, on the actual thing that was being discussed:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, I feel like I should summarize some of my main points and clarify a bit, since people tend to get the wrong ideas.

Although the calculation not making any sense is one of my issues, it isn't even necessarily my main issue or at least not anymore. I made the "science section" as long as it is and gave as many sources as I did so people won't even bother debating the legitimacy of the calc itself like it was done in several previous threads. So instead what I received were several baseless assumptions on how to possibly make these calculations legit. I'll go over them a bit further below.

Another issue I talked about is not just how we calculate cooling feats, but also how we end up using the calculated values, which is honestly a far bigger issue that I have. Since I don't think anyone even bothered to debate me on this topic as of yet, I assume I simply did a pss poor job at making this clear in the op, so I'll use this opportunity to make the points more clear.

So, what, what exactly are the previously mentioned assumptions? Well, there are many one can make, so I'll just go through them all. Currently, the justification for cooling feats is that we treat the simple displacement of energy as AP. Not a big fan of that, but fair enough. This isn't really a topic I want to get into. The real issue comes from the assumptions on how it is done. From several discussions, on and off the site, as well as previous threads, some of the possible assumptions on "how it might work" are:

• Energy Manipulation
• Matter Manipulation
• Telekinesis
• Energy Erasing
• Energy Absorption

and two I thought of myself, in case anyone wants to bring them up later

• Probability Manipulation
• Light Manipulation

Now what exactly are the issues with this besides them being outlandish, baseless assumptions, just for the sake of making a cooling feat legit?

There are several "Issue Topics" I'd like to cover. Those being: "Scaling to oneself", "Scaling to others" and "Usability as a whole"



I'll start with Energy Manipulation and "scaling to oneself" or how others may refer to it as "having the same energy source"

So, as an example, take character V, who uses their magic/power (which is just Energy Manipulation) to move X amount of energy from point A to point B. Now this character, as by the current system, would scale to X amount of energy, but that's not all. All of their other spells would now also scale to the dislocated amount of energy. Why is that an issue? Because this implies that moving X energy required no energy at all. Why is that an issue? Because other abilities would need to scale to what the character output, not X. What exactly would be the energy needed to move X amount of energy using a supernatural ability not based on any kind of science? Would that also be X? The answer is "we don't know". Quite frankly, there is not even a semi-decent guess we can make here. Another issue with assuming Energy Manipulation is that there is no reason why a character would only be able to cool things down and not heat things up. This issue also applies to all other assumptions except Energy Erasing and Energy Absorption.

Next up is Matter Manipulation. This simply assumes that Character V can mess with the matter itself down to the atomic level and cool it down this way. The obvious issue out of the way, this is hax. The second most obvious one out of the way as well, this is an absurd assumption, since this would allow characters to do way more than just cool/heat things. Even if for some odd reasons limited to cooling or heating (which wouldn't make much sense, but whatever), this assumption is way out there.

For the third one, we have Telekinesis. Quite frankly, this one might be even more out there than Matter Manipulation, since there is really no way one can argue that a character that can precisely manipulate septillions, octillions or even nonillions of atoms can't use that for anything else. Thinking that anyone who can cool something down has super-precise atomic telekinesis is a crazy, baseless assumption.

Energy Erasing and Absorption. I put these two into the same category since they'll end up basically the same. If we assume it gets absorbed, we have two options. Option No.1 is that the character actually gets to use that energy and basically has infinite energy for as long as they freeze stuff, which makes no sense. Option No.2 is that they can't actually use that energy since it is different from the power source they are using, making it completely useless to the point where it might have simply been erased and the character has no reason to scale. I suppose there is a third option where the character absorbs energy that they can use, as well as their ability requiring energy to use, but that would bring us back to the same issue as with Energy Manipulation, which is "we have no clue to figure that one out", as well as the assumption that a character can absorb the energy, to begin with being quite out there. Oh and obviously erasing energy is simply hax.

Now to Probability Manipulation. For anyone who doesn't know how this one would work, I recommend looking up "Maxwell's Demon". Issues here clearly are once again that this is straight-up hax, meaning it wouldn't scale to anything. There is also yet again the issue that there would be no reason as to why this can't be used for different things.

Last but not least, is laser cooling. This would have so many other uses that it'd be insane. That's really all I'll say about this. I don't think anyone here would have been desperate enough to actually bring up Light Manipulation as a valid option anyways.

Just a quick note before I continue. Characters that qualify for one of these assumptions and I mean actually qualify for them, would obviously be exempt from all of the "that's a crazy assumption" talk. So any assumption where that's my only argument against them (at least as of now) would most likely be fine to use.



The next big topic is "scaling to others". Since we have already established that a character scaling to the feat themselves rarely makes any sense, what about other characters getting hit? To make a long story short, breaking (out of) ice isn't equal to the thermal energy difference needed to create the ice, resisting being frozen isn't equal to the thermal energy difference needed to create the ice and getting hit in the face by a chunk of ice obviously isn't equal to the thermal energy difference needed to create the ice either. TLDR, it doesn't scale no matter how you want to look at it.



The last issue to tackle is the "usability" of the number we get from the calc. What do I mean by that? Well, let’s take a character like Karim from fire force. He actually gives a pretty detailed description of how his powers work. He uses his ability to manipulate heat to remove energy from the air. So, what's the issue? Well, the issue is related to the first and second ones. When he freezes someone, it doesn't scale, if someone breaks his ice, it doesn't scale and him throwing his ice doesn't scale either. Now one might say "but why can't he use the same amount of energy he can manipulate to throw the ice?" and the answer to that is in the explanation as to why we can't simply assume "Energy Manipulation" to scale across abilities.



Now there is just one more point I want to mention. What if we assume a character actually uses a legit method of transferring heat? Well, first of all, there would be some kind of basis for this, like it being stated or straight up being shown. Simply making ice pop up into reality would obviously not qualify. However, if a character does qualify there is still the issue that it would be nigh impossible to calculate unless the author is very specific about it. If the character has an ability that either acts like a heat pump or a heat sink, we can't really calculate it, nor can we use our calculation even as an approximation, since they might very well be vastly below our results. Then what about the assumption of using some kind of "refrigerant" (this might even be air)? Well in that case we could in fact use our calculation as a lowball. However, a character would very clearly need to demonstrate such an ability.

------

Just to be clear, these aren't my only issues. I for example also take issue with cloud creation feats, since those don’t even make the tiniest bit of sense. This was simply to clear up some things and go into more detail where I felt it was absolutely necessary.

@DarkDragonMedeus @DontTalkDT @Mr._Bambu @Agnaa @Wokistan @Executor_N0 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Migue79

 

[Agnaa]

Warning: I only read Rather's recent big post.

I disagree with some of Rather's points; that assuming certain methods for doing something implies that a character should be able to use those methods towards other effects. This isn't really how we treat stuff on the wiki, we're generally fairly strict about generalising like that.

I agree with some of Rather's points; moving energy does not require utilising the entire energy of the object that you're moving. We recognise this in other places, since when someone moves the Earth slightly, they only scale to KE for the movement they made, not the KE of the Earth rotating around the sun, or the heat energy of the entire planet.

But I disagree with Rather's conclusion, since it requires both of those points being true. I can just argue that cooling feats are caused by fine control over particles, giving them velocity in opposite directions (which involves an exertion of energy, but ultimately cools it), and that doing so is only applicable for cooling.

While there is the potential counterargument of there being other ways that feat could've been done, that's true for pretty much everything. We either have to resign ourselves to not quantifying anything unless every possible counterargument is ruled out, or going to a quantifiable default until information indicates otherwise.

I know a character who creates rocks by telepathically communicating with large meteoroids, asking them to teleport parts of themselves to him. They can teleport these high up in the atmosphere to have them come down with a bunch of energy. This possibility not being ruled out doesn't mean that we have to assume every meteor-related feat should be done this way, unless they exhaustively prove otherwise.

You can create a consistent system where you are that careful about feats, but I'd rather not have that.

I think the best way to convince me out of this position would be to find other things that I consider unquantifiable, but I'm pretty sure these are all either physically impossible (FTL KE, and things deriving from it, GPE for planets so large their gravity would make them black holes), are too complicated for us to put a number on it, are typically inconsistent if done (deriving speed from KE, giving a character a higher speed rating when not wearing armour since using the same force to move would give them a higher acceleration), or are multiple of the above (speed from catching on fire).

 

[Livinmeme]

But I disagree with Rather's conclusion, since it requires both of those points being true. I can just argue that cooling feats are caused by fine control over particles, giving them velocity in opposite directions (which involves an exertion of energy, but ultimately cools it), and that doing so is only applicable for cooling.

Massive headcanon. It is like most verse weren't supposed to make sense in their bordeline magical powers, and trying to calculate it using maths when the author barely knows highschool maths was a bad idea...

 

[Agnaa]

Massive headcanon. It is like most verse weren't supposed to make sense in their bordeline magical powers, and trying to calculate it using maths when the author barely knows highschool maths was a bad idea...

The idea you express here isn't unreasonable, but it isn't compatible with any approach to battleboarding remotely like ours.

 

[Livinmeme]

The idea you express here isn't unreasonable, but it isn't compatible with any approach to battleboarding remotely like ours.

There is a difference between "Using basic logics and maths" to "Well you see X can work if we go by "insane russian theorist" theory of cold (or whatever)". T

 

[Agnaa]

There is a difference between "Using basic logics and maths" to "Well you see X can work if we go by "insane russian theorist" theory of cold (or whatever)". T

The math's really simple. Energy = temperature change * mass * specific heat.

So then I guess your issue is that what I described sounds like an unlikely way for it to occur, and you think there's another more likely way. But what would it be?

The environment's almost never heated in these sorts of feats, so it's not moving the energy somewhere else.

Manipulating each individual particle so that its energy gets erased from existence is almost the same, but even less plausible.

Needing to add in an amount of energy to counteract it makes sense with how these sorts of feats are usually presented. Larger things tend to be more difficult to cool, and it tends to be more difficult to get objects to even colder temperatures.

 

[Livinmeme]

The math's really simple. Energy = temperature change * mass * specific heat.

So then I guess your issue is that what I described sounds like an unlikely way for it to occur, and you think there's another more likely way. But what would it be?

The environment's almost never heated in these sorts of feats, so it's not moving the energy somewhere else.

Manipulating each individual particle so that its energy gets erased from existence is almost the same, but even less plausible.

Needing to add in an amount of energy to counteract it makes sense with how these sorts of feats are usually presented. Larger things tend to be more difficult to cool, and it tends to be more difficult to get objects to even colder temperatures.

No, a piece of fiction need to imply that the reason they are being freezed is by that absurdly convoluted reasoning, not even taking into consideration that where the **** does the energy goes? And how doesn't the characters notice a massive ammount of heat moving requiered for the thing to actualy heat

 

[Agnaa]

No, a piece of fiction need to imply that the reason they are being freezed is by that absurdly convoluted reasoning

So the issue isn't that there's other better possibilities, it's that all possibilities are wack?

I can kinda see that, but I just don't reason that way. If there's only 3 ways that something can happen, I'm going to take the most likely one, even if it's wacky.

not even taking into consideration that where the **** does the energy goes?

It goes into moving the particles the other way.

Temperature is based on the average speed of particles in an area. If all of those particles are slowed down, the temperature would definitionally decrease. The energy goes the same place it goes when you push a ball to make it move.

And how doesn't the characters notice a massive ammount of heat moving requiered for the thing to actualy heat

That wouldn't be happening with the mechanism I describe, and is why I don't like assuming other mechanisms.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

It goes into moving the particles the other way.

Temperature is based on the average speed of particles in an area. If all of those particles are slowed down, the temperature would definitionally decrease. The energy goes the same place it goes when you push a ball to make it move.

What exactly do you mean by this, by the by? Pushing an object doesn't seem like a comparable example, since when you do that, you're just transfering energy... into that object, thereby putting it in motion. Pushing a ball to make it move means the energy went into the ball. A decrease in temperature results from particles being slowed down, which is to say energy is being taken out of the system, not added to it, as would happen to the ball.

Like, when we use Q = m.c.ΔT to calculate freezing processes, we're pretty much talking about the amount of heat energy that a system releases when cooling down, since, after all, that energy has to go somewhere (This "somewhere" in most cases being the surrounding environment). Saying "It goes into moving the particles the other way" makes it sound like you're saying that very energy is what's being used to slow down the particles, which seems contradictory to me.

---

Warning: I read this entire thing (Please send help)

One thing I feel the need to point out is how no one really addressed the "cloud" part of this thread. The bit about cooling feats received all of the spotlight here, it seems. From the looks of it, some of the points made in the OP weren't addressed, either, like the one about the practical applicability of ice-creating feats, for instance. I assume this is what Rather meant when he said there are points in his post that went ignored.

Anyway: Honestly this thread makes my head spin. The idea that the opposition's arguments don't actually fit in with each other has been brought up a lot here (Since people kept pointing to the previous thread as a place where Rather's points were all addressed already) and from an outsider perspective it's as if people aren't even bothering to argue in a way where their points actually have any kind of cohesion and instead only debate from whatever basis allows them to reach the conclusion they want to. In fact, the opposition itself has acknowledged this at certain points, too, to quote DontTalk and DDM here:

In general, I speak for myself and different people can have varying opinions, but ultimately reach the same conclusion.

Also, I actually have multiple grounds from multiple sources that conflict, not just one. Also, people do not have to agree with the methods or reasons to agree with the outcome, especially if my outcome is actually going to come from a multitude of interpretations

I find this absolutely unconscionable, to be frank. At one point, we need to ask ourselves: "Why are we even allowing this?". If this question is one that ends up having several different answers (Multiple of which are contradicting ones), then something is clearly wrong with the way we do things. If you say "It doesn't matter what the reasoning is, as long as we have a consensus," then that's even worse: At that point we may as well say that whatever goes as long as people all agree to it. No debating needed. A position that quite clearly no one here is upholding, given their insistence on giving a logical basis to the current methods.

So, kindly settle on one point or another, thank you. At least say "We allow this because of this guy's reasoning," not "We allow this because of this guy's reasoning, and also because of these other guys' arguments that contradict the previous guy's." This is to say that any and all comments based on "This was discussed before" are very much not valid. And, since he was the first and most prominent opposer of these revisions, I'll just look over DontTalk's posts for the remainder of this message. Everyone save Agnaa seems to be deferring to him, and DDM is still charging his attack, so, I'll label his points "the opposition's" points, for convenience's sake.

Getting into the meat of the issue... Honestly I think the huge fault with DontTalk's replies in the first page of this thread has largely to do with how he pretty much just tried to set up a justification for why/how our current method for cooling calculations would work, without particularly concerning himself with whether that's even a feasible thing to apply to 99% of said feats. The crux of his argument is basically that any freezing feat is actually an application of very limited Telekinesis that can override the total KE of all the particles in a system (Which is equal to the thermal energy released by it), thus being a feat that exerts an actual force, thus AP.

To put it bluntly: I think we're concerning ourselves far, far too much with trying to assign an underlying mechanism to an ability, instead of accepting that said ability may just be its own thing, even if, logically, it would have to be one of a set of pre-existing powers. This happens decently (Read: extremely) often in fiction, I would say. For example in works focused around superpowered people, like, say, X-Men or something, you'll almost always see the character with Telekinesis and the character with Ice Manipulation being treated by the narrative as having different powers entirely, instead of the latter just having a way narrower version of the former's power. In those cases, as in all others, we'd ultimately need to be faithful to what the verse says, even if doesn't appeal to our sensibilities very much.

But, wait, I may have spoken out of turn! DontTalk also says, and I quote: "However, if you can magically manipulate the particle, via telekinesis or whatever, you can slow it down without affecting the other particles." Which seems to imply that the opposition's stance doesn't consider the exact mechanism to be relevant for whether or not cooling feats are AP.

...Yeah, I don't think this works for their side at all because not all possibilities for how cooling feats work will result in AP, and, perhaps more importantly, at least one of those other possibilities isn't inherently more logical or reasonable of an assumption than Limited Telekinesis is. More specifically, it'd be just as logical to say it is very limited Matter Manipulation, in which case it... wouldn't be an AP feat at all, since by then it's not like those particles are being slowed down by some invisible force (Like an unseen grip, for instance, which is how the ability is often portrayed), just commanded by whatever supernatural influence the character holds over bits of substance (Unless we say all Matterhax does work by the application of invisible forces pushing and pulling stuff around, which I think isn't very realistic?)

So, unless one such specific mechanism for Ice Manipulation is provided by the verse, I'd say treat it as just... Ice Manipulation. Nothing more. Nothing less. Let unexplained magic be unexplained magic.

 

[KLOL506]

I find this absolutely unconscionable, to be frank. At one point, we need to ask ourselves: "Why are we even allowing this?". If this question is one that ends up having several different answers (Multiple of which are contradicting ones), then something is clearly wrong with the way we do things. If you say "It doesn't matter what the reasoning is, as long as we have a consensus," then that's even worse: At that point we may as well say that whatever goes as long as people all agree to it. No debating needed. A position that quite clearly no one here is upholding, given their insistence on giving a logical basis to the current methods.

So, kindly settle on one point or another, thank you. At least say "We allow this because of this guy's reasoning," not "We allow this because of this guy's reasoning, and also because of these other guys' arguments that contradict the previous guy's." This is to say that any and all comments based on "This was discussed before" are very much not valid. And, since he was the first and most prominent opposer of these revisions, I'll just look over DontTalk's posts for the remainder of this message. Everyone save Agnaa seems to be deferring to him, and DDM is still charging his attack, so, I'll label his points "the opposition's" points, for convenience's sake.

Can we just not? I have already asked not to derail this post with "Why are we doing this" or "Why is staff doing this" kind of stuff, it derails from the main OP and the actual constructive arguments at hand. Just focus on the main topic at hand.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Can we just not? I have already asked not to derail this post with "Why are we doing this" or "Why is staff doing this" kind of stuff, it derails from the main OP and the actual constructive arguments at hand. Just focus on the main topic at hand.

If we're considering this thread to have had a vote reset (Which is understandable. It's older than my cat at this point), or somesuch, then by all means. I said what I said due to the early kerfuffle where all the previous votes were being counted as actual contributions, which they shouldn't be.

 

[KLOL506]

Also I personally think lumping cloud stuff with the ice stuff is a particularly bad idea, they should be dealt with in separate threads IMHO.

 

[KLOL506]

If we're considering this thread to have had a vote reset (Which is understandable. It's older than my cat at this point), or somesuch, then by all means. I said what I said due to the early kerfuffle where all the previous votes were being counted as actual contributions, which they shouldn't be.

Ultimately it's not even going to matter because none of it will be settled here, it will be settled in a staff-only thread after both sides have summarized their arguments into a condensed package, as per DT's decree.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Ultimately it's not even going to matter because none of it will be settled here, it will be settled in a staff-only thread after both sides have summarized their arguments into a condensed package, as per DT's decree.

Somehow I feel letting this be settled by democracy is not the most prudent road to take, but, if that's what everyone is fine with, then it's how it be. (Although your use of the word "decree" makes me laugh a bit)

 

[KLOL506]

Somehow I feel letting this be settled by democracy is not the most prudent road to take, but, if that's what everyone ie fine with, then it's how it be. (Although your use of the word "decree" makes me laugh a bit)

Sorry I couldn't use any better words, I use it for pretty much everything else, force of habit.

 

[Agnaa]

What exactly do you mean by this, by the by? Pushing an object doesn't seem like a comparable example, since when you do that, you're just transfering energy... into that object, thereby putting it in motion. Pushing a ball to make it move means the energy went into the ball. A decrease in temperature results from particles being slowed down, which is to say energy is being taken out of the system, not added to it, as would happen to the ball.

Like, when we use Q = m.c.ΔT to calculate freezing processes, we're pretty much talking about the amount of heat energy that a system releases when cooling down, since, after all, that energy has to go somewhere (This "somewhere" in most cases being the surrounding environment). Saying "It goes into moving the particles the other way" makes it sound like you're saying that very energy is what's being used to slow down the particles, which seems contradictory to me.

Hmm yeah there would be something weird going on there, but I'm not actually sure that is.

It doesn't seem like you're really grappling with what I'm saying, if you're only talking about objects being sped up, not slowed down. Where does the energy go when someone pushes against a ball to slow it down, without stopping it completely?

I'm pretty sure this depends on perspective, but it'd probably either be into the process that slowed it down, or the individual particles themselves. From a perspective that sees all of the different particles as an average temperature, it'd probably be best to say it goes into "the environment".

I guess all of these different processes are really identical. It seems like the main difference between these isn't any physical part of the process, but whether it's scaleable to the person who did it. Whether they're directly slowing it down, or hijacking another process to do that work.

Welp, if literally every method has the sucky issue of heating up something in the environment, we can't really disqualify feats based on the presence/absence of that.

Then we've just got whether it should be taken as a demonstration of power, or as just them using hax (i.e. teleporting water to Antarctica and back).

Some of those could probably be resolved by looking at the context of the feat and the entity that performed it. But for cases that can't be resolved by that, what do we do?

I guess I lean towards not using cooling feats by default. If every explanation sucks, we should require verses to do extra legwork to get the higher tiers.

Anyway: Honestly this thread makes my head spin. The idea that the opposition's arguments don't actually fit in with each other has been brought up a lot here (Since people kept pointing to the previous thread as a place where Rather's points were all addressed already) and from an outsider perspective it's as if people aren't even bothering to argue in a way where their points actually have any kind of cohesion and instead only debate from whatever basis allows them to reach the conclusion they want to. In fact, the opposition itself has acknowledged this at certain points, too, to quote DontTalk and DDM here:

I find this absolutely unconscionable, to be frank. At one point, we need to ask ourselves: "Why are we even allowing this?". If this question is one that ends up having several different answers (Multiple of which are contradicting ones), then something is clearly wrong with the way we do things. If you say "It doesn't matter what the reasoning is, as long as we have a consensus," then that's even worse: At that point we may as well say that whatever goes as long as people all agree to it. No debating needed. A position that quite clearly no one here is upholding, given their insistence on giving a logical basis to the current methods.

So, kindly settle on one point or another, thank you. At least say "We allow this because of this guy's reasoning," not "We allow this because of this guy's reasoning, and also because of these other guys' arguments that contradict the previous guy's." This is to say that any and all comments based on "This was discussed before" are very much not valid. And, since he was the first and most prominent opposer of these revisions, I'll just look over DontTalk's posts for the remainder of this message. Everyone save Agnaa seems to be deferring to him, and DDM is still charging his attack, so, I'll label his points "the opposition's" points, for convenience's sake.

I strongly disagree with this. Different people having different reasoning isn't people pulling arguments out of their arse as long as they vaguely reach the same conclusion.

If 10 people thought a feat shouldn't count because it's an outlier, 10 people thought it shouldn't count because it uses an invalid method, and 10 people thought it shouldn't count because the context of it is being misinterpreted, but 11 people think it's fine to use, I don't think we should defer to the 11 just because they have a cohesive view. But it seems like you just disagree with this way of tallying votes. You'd see 31 people saying it's not an outlier, 31 people saying the method's valid, and 31 people saying it's a fine reading of the context, and take it as good to go. I don't like splitting things up that way.

Getting into the meat of the issue... Honestly I think the huge fault with DontTalk's replies in the first page of this thread has largely to do with how he pretty much just tried to set up a justification for why/how our current method for cooling calculations would work, without particularly concerning himself with whether that's even a feasible thing to apply to 99% of said feats. The crux of his argument is basically that any freezing feat is actually an application of very limited Telekinesis that can override the total KE of all the particles in a system (Which is equal to the thermal energy released by it), thus being a feat that exerts an actual force, thus AP.

To put it bluntly: I think we're concerning ourselves far, far too much with trying to assign an underlying mechanism to an ability, instead of accepting that said ability may just be its own thing, even if, logically, it would have to be one of a set of pre-existing powers. This happens decently (Read: extremely) often in fiction, I would say. For example in works focused around superpowered people, like, say, X-Men or something, you'll almost always see the character with Telekinesis and the character with Ice Manipulation being treated by the narrative as having different powers entirely, instead of the latter just having a way narrower version of the former's power. In those cases, as in all others, we'd ultimately need to be faithful to what the verse says, even if doesn't appeal to our sensibilities very much.

I think in those cases, being faithful to what the verse says means stuff like treating those resistances as different, recognising their different applications in battles, realising that statements about one might not apply to the other, and stuff like that. It doesn't mean changing our standards on ways we calculate them.

Light manipulation's also usually treated differently from radiation manipulation, in most media. That doesn't mean that we should toss out physics for one of them.

So, unless one such specific mechanism for Ice Manipulation is provided by the verse, I'd say treat it as just... Ice Manipulation. Nothing more. Nothing less. Let unexplained magic be unexplained magic.

I'd rather work off implications and context to point us towards which way is more likely.

 

[Agnaa]

Uhh KLOL and DDM, since you liked my post, does that mean you agree with my overall position (that we should look for context to decide whether it's manipulation of energy, or energy-agnostic hax, and in the absence of context, default to not being quantifiable) or just some of the points I brought up?

 

[KLOL506]

Uhh KLOL and DDM, since you liked my post, does that mean you agree with my overall position (that we should look for context to decide whether it's manipulation of energy, or energy-agnostic hax, and in the absence of context, default to not being quantifiable) or just some of the points I brought up?

Just some of the points you brought up.

The rest, I await further explanation from DT and DDM.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Only some of the points, still working on my draft yes (Funny I actually noticed a 150000 character limit that can be added for a single post which means I have to resort to multi-posting when I release my rebuttal).

And actually, those are parts of my draft, trying to cover as many interpretations of those feats as possible with case by case in mind. But I still am going to say for now that the absolute worst case scenarios is to link specific examples that can't be explained or "Come off as seemingly quantifiable" are more like our environmental destruction feats. Separating heat/electricity related feats from physical attacks and durability outside of UES was a different can of worms that was going to be addressed after this. I actually found more detailed methods as another thing is people brought up how refrigerants work. Some people on other threads and who are in favor of the OP said things like "Air conditioners and refrigerators use refrigerant that eats the thermal energy" but kind of left out how refrigerants are even formed/produced/created in the first place and what makes them. Calculation method really depends on the method of freezing; the slowing down molecules similar to what FMA Alchemists or Avatar waterbenders do more or less won't be changed, but using more realistic methods such as high pressure winds or quantum entangled laser cooling (Something the OP conceded as an exception earlier but not sure if he still does as I so far am focused on earlier half of the thread which is full of posts much lengthier then the later ones) might actually just lead to moderate to major upgrades depending on the numerals or gaps.

Also, I wanted to respond much sooner, but was at work. And yes, by "PC issues" that KLOL brought up in the deleted posts, I do mean my almost 10 year old laptop often likes to constantly freeze crash and do forced restarts. Sometimes 20 times a day. But couple of family members have plans to get new computers next month; hope this suffering doesn't last forever. And still working on it and trying to get it done even before that though. And I do need to get some sleep soon, but Monday and Tuesday I should find more free time to work faster.

 

[KLOL506]

UES isn't necessarily the issue here anymore. The main crux of the argument now is about whether ice feats in general should be considered calculable AP feats or not.

 

[RatherClueless]

And still working on it and trying to get it done even before that though.

Well, that sure sounds promising

However

"Air conditioners and refrigerators use refrigerant that eats the thermal energy" but kind of left out how refrigerants are even formed/produced/created in the first place and what makes them.

but using more realistic methods such as high pressure winds or quantum entangled laser cooling (Something the OP conceded as an exception earlier but not sure if he still does as I so far am focused on earlier half of the thread which is full of posts much lengthier then the later ones) might actually just lead to moderate to major upgrades depending on the numerals or gaps.

These two statements have me tremendously scared for what is to come, I won't lie.

 

[KLOL506]

It doesn't matter what you fear or what anyone else fears, but this back-and-forth has to stop at some point.

 

[Livinmeme]

Temperature is based on the average speed of particles in an area. If all of those particles are slowed down, the temperature would definitionally decrease. The energy goes the same place it goes when you push a ball to make it move.

Try holding a particle from moving, that definetly won't create problems (if you ignore presion and stuff)

 

[KLOL506]

Please do not comment any further and wait.

 

[Antvasima]

What are the conclusions here so far, what does DontTalk think, and should I send a notification to all of our calc group members to take a look here?

 

[KLOL506]

AFAIK DT already disagreed at large with the thread, as did I, DDM, DemonGodMittch and Bambu, and DDM was making a big-ass rebuttal to it but has been constantly facing PC problems for the last two years.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I hope that no relevant posts by us here were accidentally deleted by Ultima earlier in that case.

Anyway, has this suggestion technically been rejected already then?

 

[KLOL506]

Maybe, but DT also said that once DDM makes his rebuttal, a staff-only thread be preferably made with the "For" and "Against" arguments placed where they'd be evaluated.

But as it stands, yeah, the proposal doesn't seem to be in the best of odds for itself. DT also said that if this were to be rejected, a rule ought to be made for it.

 

[Antvasima]

AFAIK DT already disagreed at large with the thread, as did I, DDM, DemonGodMittch and Bambu, and DDM was making a big-ass rebuttal to it but has been constantly facing PC problems for the last two years.

Okay. I hope that no relevant posts by us here were accidentally deleted by Ultima earlier in that case.

Anyway, has this suggestion technically been rejected already then?

Maybe, but DT also said that once DDM makes his rebuttal, a staff-only thread be preferably made with the "For" and "Against" arguments placed where they'd be evaluated.

But as it stands, yeah, the proposal doesn't seem to be in the best of odds for itself. DT also said that if this were to be rejected, a rule ought to be made for it.

Okay. Thank you for the information.

@DarkDragonMedeus

Are you able and willing to create such a thread in our staff forum?

 

[KLOL506]

Okay. I hope that no relevant posts by us here were accidentally deleted by Ultima earlier in that case.

Don't think he deleted anything AFAIK

 

[Antvasima]

He deleted lots of posts here for derailing roughly 10 days ago.

 

[KLOL506]

He deleted lots of posts here for derailing roughly 10 days ago.

Oh, I see.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Okay. Thank you for the information.

@DarkDragonMedeus

Are you able and willing to create such a thread in our staff forum?

We'll see who makes it once my rebuttal is posted, and will consist of multiple posts due to character limit. Which I prefer to post here since it's focused.

It is a slow, painful process, but I'm still trying to get it done ASAP. But I am pretty much almost done save for some possible proof reading once finished; I countered pretty much all uber long posts in my draft and more than halfway through page 2. Then going to write a not as long finally tally (Or list of final tally's). Also, as mentioned above, I prefer being DM'd whether in Discord or on internal forum. "KLOL usually chats with me on the former." Because I mentioned that bumping the thread potentially increases even more work for me since it may add another list of posts to counter. And the drafts I sent Abstractions and KLOL last year is heavily outdated at this point.

I may tell KLOL what days I am off work so I can at least remember to double check my draft each day. Or at least twice a week. And I can hopefully try to get this down even before getting my new Desktop next month (And if not, the new desktop once I get used to all the various set ups can have everything done by the following month).

 

[Agnaa]

AFAIK DT already disagreed at large with the thread, as did I, DDM, DemonGodMittch and Bambu, and DDM was making a big-ass rebuttal to it but has been constantly facing PC problems for the last two years.

I think it's kinda sucky that you left out me largely agreeing with the thread ("largely" since, from discussions off-site, I see I have a lower bar for verses qualifying for these feats being usable than Rather does).

 

[KLOL506]

I think it's kinda sucky that you left out me largely agreeing with the thread ("largely" since, from discussions off-site, I see I have a lower bar for verses qualifying for these feats being usable than Rather does).

Well, Ant was asking with regards to what DT primarily thought, so I responded accordingly, since Ant values DT's opinion above all else.

 

[InfiniteSped]

So . . .

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Agnaa

 

[KLOL506]

@DarkDragonMedeus

 

[Agnaa]

The limiting factor seems to be creating a new thread, which has been waiting on DDM's draft for well over 6 months.