- 5,683
- 3,210
If CM gets downgraded, this will help them keep their HGR I supposeNo offense BTW, but I'm just curious as to what relevance MGK has to this thread, if any at all.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If CM gets downgraded, this will help them keep their HGR I supposeNo 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.No offense BTW, but I'm just curious as to what relevance MGK has to this thread, if any at all.
Dread is concerned that this thread ppl may will interpret as alteration of standard.Uhhhhh... what?
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.No offense BTW, but I'm just curious as to what relevance MGK has to this thread, if any at all.
^ Yeah this.I only see it as the MG stuff just outlining how flawed the current explanation for CM 3 is.
Exactly, and I am saying this as MG supporter who is in disagreement with her thread. Yes, I am saying that as opposing party.If CM gets downgraded, this will help them keep their HGR I suppose
I'm just curious as to why you would immediately jump to the assumption that this favors MGK. That's all.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.
Can you kindly point out these connections for me?Really? Sure, go to Fuji's thread (preferabbly last page), and see how it is not only relevant, it is connected.
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.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.
Exactly, and I'm pretty sure Reiner did this thread in regards of that matter.Exactly, and I am saying this as MG supporter who is in disagreement with her thread. Yes, I am saying that as opposing party.
I agree, Maou doesn't have to be discussed everywhere, this thread should stay on topic.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.
Well MGK about to lose their HGR due to it being type 3 concept was what prompted the thread creation, but either way the reasons do not matter since the concerns are validNo offense BTW, but I'm just curious as to what relevance MGK has to this thread, if any at all.
Aite then. Does that make this thread wrong or invalid?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?
this looks good to add, although it should be rephrased, but it should be addedMy general measuring stick is that someone mid-godly definitely can't regenerate from it
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.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.
Hey DT, what do you think of Grath's proposal?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...
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?
Yap, seems concluded. However, my stance should be clear that I was first who is in agreement of this thread, I only differ how it was made. That's allSince 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.
Yeah, seems alright.My general measuring stick is that someone mid-godly definitely can't regenerate from it
'Kay.Yap, seems concluded. However, my stance should be clear that I was first who is in agreement of this thread, I only differ how it was made. That's all
Definitely agree with this. This makes more sense.My general measuring stick is that someone mid-godly definitely can't regenerate from it.
Dark has good explanation. I agree with this.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?
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.Hey DT, what do you think of Grath's proposal?
What about a "most fundamental aspects of one's existence than body, mind and soul without which a existence cannot be sustained"?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.
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.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.
Why don't we use thisMy general measuring stick is that someone mid-godly definitely can't regenerate from it.
So something like thisI 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.
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.
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: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. 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.