• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Tinky downgrade

Eficiente

He/Him
VS Battles
Thread Moderator
15,408
4,996

"He was stated numerous times to have absolute control over the space-time. One who can control the power of Tinky is said to be able to control time and space itself"

Controlling something=/=Being able to one-shot it.

"It’s ambiguous whether his space-time control encompasses all the Hatchetfield Timelines after the fracture or not"

It it was and if controlling them was the same as destroying them then that would still not be 2-C in the same sense that destroying 2 building via controlling them individually isn't the same as some bomb blowing up 1, reaching the space between both buildings and reaching and and blowing up the second one too. Even if it was 2-C for this case this bad made profile is pretty much saying just "maybe the character deserves to be at this tier".
 
Idk, I just saw a profile with bad stats and made this.
 
Mind citing a definition of "absolute" that would for whatever reason exclude destruction
 
Sage Emperor is Low 2-C for having complete control over Space-Time tho
If that's really the only reason, then two wrongs don't make a right. Having complete control over space time doesn't warrant Low 2C, or any tier for that matter without further context or feats to support it.

IIRC, we have characters who have control over the galaxy or universe, but we give them ratings far below that.

If it wasn't already obvious, I completely agree with this crt.
 
Mind citing a definition of "absolute" that would for whatever reason exclude destruction
Having the best control possible over those things that one could have in the verse, and not just no control at all or, if others can control time and space, a control in their lower scale like them. This absolute control is the peak of what you can do, but this peak doesn't inherently mean being able to one-shot all of it. If a character has absolute control over a theme park and can manipulate it at will then their absolute control doesn't mean they can one-shot the place because logic, if a character has absolute control over a city, can manipulate it at will and there exist other characters in the their verse who can also control the city the same then the first character's "absolute control" just means they can do the same at a better scale, not that they can one-shot the city. No offense but against dogmatic things like this I have no idea what I'm supposed to say. And even if if Tinky could one-shot time and space, which he can't, we have no idea if time goes as in "all present time" or "all time that there has ever been or will be", the former being the more likely and the latter being Low 2-C if we also assume he can one-shot it at the same time he one-shots all space, it's just dumb.
 
I have no idea what am I supposed to say there too, that toy can send people into other points in time and use Causality Manip to alter the past from the present I guess, if that's what I'm seeing there, but what about it? What the heck do you even try to imply by its ability to do so? I put the hypothetical meaning that his control over space and time let's his one-shot it, it is not related how he can do the things you show him do. If a character can speed up time and they can speed up time in the past then this doesn't mean they can speed up time on all points in time in the timeline at once, if a character can remove gravity from random parts of the planet and other planets then this doesn't mean they can remove all gravity from the universe, etc.
 
If a character has absolute control over a theme park and can manipulate it at will then their absolute control doesn't mean they can one-shot the place because logic

Well this is just not an argument. I've asked how you're construing absolute to not include destruction, and you've basically said you're using the version that means everything except destruction. Your own definition of absolute contradicts this, even.

Having the best control possible over those things that one could have in the verse,

Firstly, this is relative to the verse and as such really useless to use, but even if we are to use that, things get destroyed in verse so it's clearly possible to destroy things. How would having the best control possible exclude such a prominent possibility?

No offense but against dogmatic things like this I have no idea what I'm supposed to say.

You post some definition that actually works for your argument and then argue why it should apply. The word absolute just means something that hampers your argument.
 
Well this is just not an argument. I've asked how you're construing absolute to not include destruction, and you've basically said you're using the version that means everything except destruction. Your own definition of absolute contradicts this, even.
What you mean by "using the version that means everything except destruction"? I used the word in a way that doesn't mean one-shotting a thing in which it's been used, the same applies to time and space here. It doesn't contradict anything.
Having the best control possible over those things that one could have in the verse,

Firstly, this is relative to the verse and as such really useless to use, but even if we are to use that, things get destroyed in verse so it's clearly possible to destroy things. How would having the best control possible exclude such a prominent possibility?
It firstly isn't relative to the verse but just the context of a claim like that. You don't say why it's useless. What things get destroyed in verse? By having as much as 1 space/time-based superpower others don't then the control that gives the character that power can be said to be better than some hypothetical character that may also have a space/time-based powers w/o the superpower said before, therefore the character with said superpower has a control over space/time that stands above others, superior, total, top, perfect, and a certain synonym to it we're talking about, all because the standards were not having that superpower or having it while still in both cases having space/time-based powers.
You post some definition that actually works for your argument and then argue why it should apply. The word absolute just means something that hampers your argument.
  • "not qualified or diminished in any way; total."
    • "absolute secrecy"
  • "viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative."
    • "absolute moral standards"
  • "a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
    • "good and evil are presented as absolutes"
That was all quote from google translator, the examples too, and yet "absolute secrecy" has no set standards and would have less power of what you would imagine, "absolute moral standards" aren't as high as it can go in practice and possibility and "good and evil are presented as absolutes" just means that they're true. They are no standards for how powerful and up there something absolute is, it's just a world like great or powerful, it doesn't mean anything on its own.
 
Back
Top