• 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.

Type 3 Concept based HGR revision.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean, if you wanna revise CM 3 and its explanation, go for it. Just wait for what DT has to say and then we can carry on from that.
 
How is this an accusation? He literally posted, argued and talked about it in a MG downgrade thread, now let's be clear, how is this not effecting other thread?

I don't want Fuji to think that we people are creating this thread, so we can just pass it after 48 hours and get her thread closed. A staff thread has other policies than a normal content revision.
No offense BTW, but I'm just curious as to what relevance MGK has to this thread, if any at all.
Really? Sure, go to Fuji's thread (preferabbly last page), and see how it is not only relevant, it is connected.
 
Uhhhhh... what?
Dread is concerned that this thread ppl may will interpret as alteration of standard.
No offense BTW, but I'm just curious as to what relevance MGK has to this thread, if any at all.
Nothing much, A problem arises while evaluating a HGR thread related to Maou which highlights that how awkward standards for Type 3 are, even among staff, nothing much.
I only see it as the MG stuff just outlining how flawed the current explanation for CM 3 is.
^ Yeah this.
 
I had a feeling that this was started due to the recent MGK revisions, but that's not particularly important or relevant. Starting CRTs for P&A pages due to confusions in CRTs for verses isn't anything unusual; often, it's just because these threads highlight issues with the P&A pages rather than any active attempt to wank/downplay a verse.

And besides, this is not an MGK thread. We don't need to discuss the particular verse that instigated this thread here, nor should we. Let's not derail any further.
 
How is this an accusation? He literally posted, argued and talked about it in a MG downgrade thread, now let's be clear, how is this not effecting other thread?

I don't want Fuji to think that we people are creating this thread, so we can just pass it after 48 hours and get her thread closed. A staff thread has other policies than a normal content revision.
I'm just curious as to why you would immediately jump to the assumption that this favors MGK. That's all.

Really? Sure, go to Fuji's thread (preferabbly last page), and see how it is not only relevant, it is connected.
Can you kindly point out these connections for me?
 
Leave Maou Gakuin out of this people. Heck, even assuming it was made as a response, so what? That doesn't in itself invalidate the contents of the revision.
This was indirectly coming from MG discussion, and the only verse that will get effected by this is MG, and the only reason this thread is created is from that thread.

Should I bring more clearness in the table?
 
Exactly, and I am saying this as MG supporter who is in disagreement with her thread. Yes, I am saying that as opposing party.
Exactly, and I'm pretty sure Reiner did this thread in regards of that matter.

I'm sure most people here know why this thread was done in the first place. I'm pretty sure of that.
 
Alright, this is explicit derailing at this point. What's being discussed has no relevance to the validity/invalidity of the conclusions in this thread.

If you want to talk more about it or clarify concerns, talk on message walls. I'll be deleting further derailing messages from this point onwards.
 
Type 3 is a catch-all term and as such making rules that don't boil down to case-by-case is difficult.

As I argued in the original thread it was added saying "more fundamental" is so vague that you could argue pretty much anything qualifies.
My general measuring stick is that someone mid-godly definitely can't regenerate from it. So regenerating only slightly differently doesn't work and regeneration also would not restore the concept or anything. Of course, to begin with, the thing in question may not be capable of existing without a concept, so that concept erasure is erasure in body, mind and soul at least.
Probably some more edge cases I can't think of right now as well...
 
This was indirectly coming from MG discussion, and the only verse that will get effected by this is MG, and the only reason this thread is created is from that thread.

Should I bring more clearness in the table?
Aite then. Does that make this thread wrong or invalid?

It doesn't matter why a thread is made, so long as the contents are sound. You're welcome to agree or disagree for your own reasons but I will clear up that where a thread comes from is largely irrelevant so long as it doesn't break any rules.
 
Sure thing, I just want to clear up the disadvantage from Fuji's side. A content revision can be applied after 48 hours with only 3 staff members, staff thread however not.

Sure thing, KLoL but maybe in private messages? Don't want to derail this further.
Since DT has responded, I don't think we need to continue this any further. The other guys above seem to have cleared it up for me.
 
Type 3 is a catch-all term and as such making rules that don't boil down to case-by-case is difficult.

As I argued in the original thread it was added saying "more fundamental" is so vague that you could argue pretty much anything qualifies.
My general measuring stick is that someone mid-godly definitely can't regenerate from it. So regenerating only slightly differently doesn't work and regeneration also would not restore the concept or anything. Of course, to begin with, the thing in question may not be capable of existing without a concept, so that concept erasure is erasure in body, mind and soul at least.
Probably some more edge cases I can't think of right now as well...
Hey DT, what do you think of Grath's proposal?

I will read through the thread to verify that, but assuming that your statement is true, your proposal sums it up well.

I would think an ideal description for High-Godly Regeneration would specify that the "extra element" being destroyed and regenerated from is:

- 1: Separate from their mind, body, and soul

- 2: In some form, a necessary part of their existence (i.e.: if it was removed in an ordinary person, they would cease to exist)

In regards to your proposal, I don't think "and being deeper than them" would be a necessary addition to the ending of the quote; it's not only wordy, but also redundant (as it can be inferred from the rest of the phase), and it's not clear what exactly "deeper" means in this context.

Again, I will read through the old thread to verify this, but assuming we have the intentions outlined clearly, the quote should be something along the lines of:

"Type 1, 2, or sometimes 3, if there is strong evidence of the concept being a fundamental aspect of one's existence separate from mind, body, and soul"

Does this sound good?
 
Since this has been concluded, and as per standards of content revision, we can wait for further input from staff members or members till 48 hours are passed.
 
Definitely agree.

Always found it strange that the requirements for High-Godly dictates you need to regenerate from all three of your existences (body, soul and mind) and a fundamental aspect about your existence, and not having Type 3 work in similar ways to Type 2 or 1 in this instance despite the fact Type 3 Concepts, by definition, are usually concepts which are personally fundamental to one's existence. The burden to prove that Type 3 Concepts would need to work similarly to Type 2 or 1 Concepts in terms of difficulty to regenerate from never made sense to me since the previous explanation never implies "scope" or more "abstractness" are required for High-Godly, just that you need to regenerate from the destruction of a fundamental (usually ontological) aspect about yourself, alongside the three baseline existences of body, soul and mind.

I personally agree with Garth's interpretation as well.
 
My general measuring stick is that someone mid-godly definitely can't regenerate from it.
Definitely agree with this. This makes more sense.
I will read through the thread to verify that, but assuming that your statement is true, your proposal sums it up well.

I would think an ideal description for High-Godly Regeneration would specify that the "extra element" being destroyed and regenerated from is:

- 1: Separate from their mind, body, and soul

- 2: In some form, a necessary part of their existence (i.e.: if it was removed in an ordinary person, they would cease to exist)

In regards to your proposal, I don't think "and being deeper than them" would be a necessary addition to the ending of the quote; it's not only wordy, but also redundant (as it can be inferred from the rest of the phase), and it's not clear what exactly "deeper" means in this context.

Again, I will read through the old thread to verify this, but assuming we have the intentions outlined clearly, the quote should be something along the lines of:

"Type 1, 2, or sometimes 3, if there is strong evidence of the concept being a fundamental aspect of one's existence separate from mind, body, and soul"

Does this sound good?
Dark has good explanation. I agree with this.
 
My understanding of why it's this way is because of type 3 concepts whose nature isn't elaborated upon. What i mean by this is type 3 concepts that are affected by the alteration of their object an example being destruction of the object destroying the concept too or objects that can't be altered by the alteration of it's concept, in other words the object defining the concept an example being concepts based on perception.

Personal concept or not, if it's a fundamental aspect of existence and regenerating it is more difficult than regenerating the body, mind, soul then it should more than qualify
 
Hey DT, what do you think of Grath's proposal?
I think "fundamental aspect separate from body, mind and soul" is still too vague. Something being a fundamental aspect doesn't necessarily mean that you can't continue to fight without it. (Like in some verses characters can fight without a soul) It also doesn't cover the case of concepts that come into existence when something that participates in them starts existing, which should also be excluded.

Edit: We should also mention how vague concepts are disqualified, as they could have problems like that.
 
I think "fundamental aspect separate from body, mind and soul" is still too vague. Something being a fundamental aspect doesn't necessarily mean that you can't continue to fight without it. (Like in some verses characters can fight without a soul) It also doesn't cover the case of concepts that come into existence when something that participates in them starts existing, which should also be excluded.
What about a "most fundamental aspects of one's existence than body, mind and soul without which a existence cannot be sustained"?

But in anycase a fiction may have a exception even to this for few particular characters as "contradictions" but as long as above definition is fulfilled.
 
I think "fundamental aspect separate from body, mind and soul" is still too vague. Something being a fundamental aspect doesn't necessarily mean that you can't continue to fight without it. (Like in some verses characters can fight without a soul) It also doesn't cover the case of concepts that come into existence when something that participates in them starts existing, which should also be excluded.

Edit: We should also mention how vague concepts are disqualified, as they could have problems like that.
Do you have any suggestions for an amendment to the phrase? It'd be best not to make it too wordy, but rephrasing it as to incorporate those concerns shouldn't be impossible.
 
It's probably better to just create a separate note , similar how we do with defining the specific "type" of High-Godly one possesses, rather then finding less wordy ways to explain all of these concerns away within the Parentheses.

It would allow us to explain in more-depth about what's considered allowed or unallowed without compromising the visual integrity of the section.

Something like (Type 1, 2, or sometimes 3 within specific instances (check "notes" for further context) could work, or at least something in spirit to this.
 
I think "fundamental aspect separate from body, mind and soul" is still too vague. Something being a fundamental aspect doesn't necessarily mean that you can't continue to fight without it. (Like in some verses characters can fight without a soul) It also doesn't cover the case of concepts that come into existence when something that participates in them starts existing, which should also be excluded.

Edit: We should also mention how vague concepts are disqualified, as they could have problems like that.
So something like this

High-Godly: The ability to regenerate after the erasure of body, mind, and soul, along with at least one more fundamental aspect of a character's existence[1]
Note: For the rating a fundamental aspect is considered something that if removed would result in the character themselves being removed or destroyed, such as underlying information, their temporal existence or the conceptual idea of their being. Indirect or vague mentions of just concepts or information wouldn't qualify as a fundamental aspect unless it directly impacts the character's existence.
 
So something like this
That loses some minor details of the original (which type of information? Narrative isn't mentioned anymore? Why temporal existence instead of history?). I think there is also no need to split it into a note. I would suggest something like this instead:
High-Godly: The ability to regenerate after the erasure of body, mind, and soul, along with at least one more fundamental aspect of a character's existence. Such an aspect could be the character's place in their narrative, their entire history, their information (type 2), their concept or something else. However, in order for those to qualify destruction of that fundamental aspect has to equate to erasure of the character, meaning that something existing without such an aspect should usually be impossible. Additionally, the aspect shouldn't be something that would be restored by regenerating body, mind or soul in a regular fashion, so that a character with just mid-godly regeneration would indeed by incapable of regenerating from it. Aspects which are not sufficiently extended upon to make conclusive judgement will be assumed not to qualify. As such, type 3 concepts in particular need to be evaluated with great care.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top