For any inquires on backlink exchange or partnerships please contact thecodex@gmail.com
The Wiki Forums are up! Check them here!
There is an official chat room on the wiki! I'm always AFK here so pull by to say hi!
Statements
From The Codex
Explaination
This article is regarding how to properly assess the reliability of statements.
In regards to how you would do so, the answer is dependent on who is stating.
Let's make a hypothetical example.
“Domingo was stated to be invulnerable. In every instance he has been approached in an attempt to be harmed, he gets up without any notable damage taken to him or the techniques do not phase him in the slightest. However, Domingo exhibits these traits in a universe with rather low levels of Attack Potency. Is he truly an invulnerable force?”
- Option 1: The person who made this claim was an underling; bragging to a group of people about how it was him who defeated his master, Domingo. The instance he declared him being invulnerable was a bullet breaking from coming into contact with the master. This can be assumed to be a Hasty Generalization, therefore, inapplicable because there is no other context given for why the master would be invulnerable. It could just be used to amplify the extremity, subsequently being classified as Hyperbole and a bloated exaggeration of events.
- Option 2: The person was capable of projecting energy attacks and has made observations about Domingo through potentially use his energy attacks against him. In this scenario, the person who made the statement can be seen as more reliable, but they are still not necessarily true. The person states that Domingo is invulnerable, however, the truth would be that Domingo would be invulnerable to what he can dish out. In this case, say Town level attacks for example.
- Option 3: A Universal or higher deity says Domingo is invulnerable. If someone with infinite power and the ability to tear this person's reality apart says they can't kill Domingo, he has invulnerability higher than his durability to this degree. At least against all conventional forms of damage. However, he could possibly still be subdued throw other abilities such as Durability Negation or Erasure to name a few.
- Option 4: The narrative itself calls Domingo invulnerable. This statement could be interpreted similarly to Option 2 in that it should be examined in the context of the story. They could be invulnerable in the context of their own universe or the situation at hand, but they would likely be susceptible to weaponry and physical force to a higher caliber of what's present in the verse.
- Option 5: The author is the one calling Domingo invulnerable outside of the story. Like the previous option, this should be examined in the context of the story. A character described as being invulnerable, invincible, or all-powerful in one setting might not be in the same position when compared to characters from other settings. See Note 2 as well as there might be cases where this is invalidated on the spot as well.
It should be noted that word of mouth can be used to upgrade a character, though, the statement should meet the following requirements for it to be utilized:
- If the source of the statement is reliable?
- If the statement conflicts with the story or feats of the character?
- If the statement is only valid in the context of its setting, or if it holds up in comparison with other settings?
Note
- Please remember that character and narrative statements tend to use flowery language and exaggerate to certain degrees. Without any further context to clarify, statements such as characters having “infinite power” or especially omnipotent statements are not enough to suggest upgrades. When reviewing a statement for potential upgrades, be sure to keep this in mind.
- It should be noted that if an author is supplying an interpretation for something ambiguous or not implied by the context of the original work, then discussion must be had over whether it's a retcon or something that would go against the work in question or if the work proceeds to follow it. It has been shown with authors like Butch Hartman that they do not usually recognize the feats a character and will usually go by an "I never thought of it like that" ideology.
- Author statements from Twitter and other social media outlets should be under scrutiny on whether or not they should be used. Simple questions such as if Rick can destroy the multiverse, coming from credible sources, and something that isn't contradicted by the canon material is fine to use. In this case, Rick destroying the multiverse isn't out of the realm of possibility given he has made devices to eradicate timelines very casually as well, it comes from a notable writer of the show, and the question is simple in what it asks. Another example would be when one of the writers for Dragon Ball Super later went on to state that Goku couldn't destroy the universe unless he was a God of Destruction. Afterward, Toshio explicitly stated that he believes only Zeno can destroy the universe. These both showcase how often the writers of the show go against a commonly believed strength value from fans. There's another example with a statement from DJW of Alien X being able to destroy the multiverse in six thoughts. Statements that go against these three prerequisites shouldn't be added in most cases.
Asking complicated questions that general knowledge wouldn't let you answer without confusion can be a big factor in dismissing these statements. Authors can sometimes take statements under a different meaning then what the person is asking. Additionally, material that outright goes against the intent of the series shouldn't be added. Lastly, coming from credible sources of input is fairly important. People who preferably should be used are the general authors along with others such as writers. Someone like a stunt double, voice actor or an artist shouldn't have priority over someone else's narrative under most circumstances.
