General & Others Next Straw Hat Crew Members and the Grand Fleet

[Logiko]

a simple checkbox to predict if your “FAV” would be the last Nakama in the SHP. the check box would be seperated into 3 phase ,in order for your “FAV” to have a chance in joining, all checkbox in Phase 1 bellow need to be filled. “FAV” that not past the first phase are not eligible to move to the next phase. while phase 2&3 will be percentage base.

Interesting. Let's see

[ ] Your “FAV” still alive and active

Ok for the first, what do you mean by "active" tho ? Because 95% of the characters are not in the story anymore so, by active, do you mean that they are still breathing and can go back to the story ?

You need to clarify that.

[ ] your “FAV” is a MAJOR charachter in the ARC they appeared in.

Why is this an important parameters of charaterization ? Where does this impact the characterization of the protagonist ? Remember, we are talking about a character becoming a strawhat. Its therefore an act of characterization. ALL your check boxes must therefore be something that the character must absolutely be or something related to a characterization.

[ ] your “FAV” is a still MAJOR charachter in the SAGA where their ARC appeared in.

Same thing, why not. But why is this important for the storytelling in term of characterization ?

You need to clarify that or remove those checkbox.

[ ] your “FAV” know and capable to defend themself

Seems logical for a character to survive so ok.

[ ] your “FAV” past the “V4N Evility Scale™”

“V4N Evility Scale™ is a multilayered scale to determine what scale of evility you “FAV” have done, in the end of the day one piece is not Seinen, so edgy, evulz and charachter with no good moral are a big no-no”

*notes: bad deed and casuality must be SHOWN or TOLD ON PANEL to be count as one.

your “FAV” have done:
1. no bad dees
2. bad deed but not have live casuality
3. bad deed and almost have casuality
4. bad deed and have casuality
5. bad deed and have massive casuality

123 can check the box and move to “phase 2”, while 45 need to check second layer.

the reason is:
1. they dont know or accidentally
2. being forced against their will
3. have to do for survival
4. following order
5. cause feel they like it or enjoying it

123 can check the box and move to “phase 2”, 4 mean your “FAV” have no moral to stand while 5 mean your “FAV” is beyond tolerable for shonen main protagonist and mean 45 doesnt past the V4N Evility Scale™.

This is over complicated for no reasons. Plus your are linking reason to 1 2 3 4 and 5 that could be linked to others numbers as well.

In storytelling, there are already term for character that become ally: falseantagonist/adversary.Which means that there is no reason to over complicate this principle. The only thing you must add indeed is the fact that a murderer can't join the crew for moral reason (and you need to explain why)

The fact of searching an ally character and morally good one is important tho.

I think this section needs some rework but I agree with the essence of it.

FIRST PHASE : AVAILABILITY

Conclusion, this ressemble three of my 5 golden rules:

- Be alive
- Be a ally or a false adversary/antagonist
- Be relevant to the story.

But I like the term "availabity"

[ ] your “FAV” have sad background story
and require atleast ONE or MORE people they care about end up being INJURED or DEAD.

Multiple questions here:

- Do you, for example, consider something that is happening in real time, a "background" story ? And if not, why must the story be "background" ?Why is this important in term of narration and characterization ?

You must clarify that.

- Why must one or more people be injured or dead ? Why is this important in term of characterization and narration ?

I agree with the premisse of point two, but even if I understand why myself, you must explain why those are important both in term of narration and characterization in your development.

Overall, this ressemble one of my pillars : "the tragedy".

[ ] when your “FAV” sad background story happen and people they care about end up being INJURED or DEAD. there must be NO ONE or MORE SHP crew presence to involved,interrupt or witness it.

Why ? Why is this important in term of narration and characterization ? Why would the presence of a strawhat impact the story of the potential strawhat ? You must absolutely clarify that as this point seems pretty much arbitrary.

a. only can be fulfilled by FOLLOWING Luffy

Why ? Do you have proof that the dreams of the strawhats can only be fulfilled by following Luffy ?

b. fullfilled AFTER luffy achieved his goal

Again, same question. Do you have proof that all the strawhats dream must be fullfiled AFTER Luffy's dream ? Why is this important in term of narration and characterization ?

c. TIED or SIMILLAR to Luffy (example: meet laboon again)

Ok, this one is actually interesting. Its called milking in storytelling (I explains that tool in my blog) but you must clarify why is this important. This needs clarification.

Overall I agree with the "dream" point even tho the term "dream" is innapropriate in term of narration (I call this in my blog one of the pillar, the 2 driving forces), and should be called "desire" but the points themself need more work.

Also here you are actually forgetting the need of the character. Indeed in narration a need goes along with the desire/dream. A character or the strawhats in One Piece will not necessaraly fullfill there dream, but what they need in term of narration is to work on their need and fulfill them.

Ex: The dream of Chopper might be to find a way to heal everyone. But this might be completely unaitanable. His need however (to learn that not everyone can be saved), must be fullfilled at the end

[ ] your “FAV” has been saved by Luffy in LIVE OR DEATH situation (either your “FAV”. or someone or thing your “FAV” care about)

I agree with that one (my pillar, the rescue) but you need to explain why its important in term of characterization (in fact I think I forgot to explain it too in my blog, I'll rewrite that)

[ ] Luffy either:
a. ACTIVELY inviting your “FAV”
b. goes to GREAT LENGTH for inviting your “FAV”
c. CLEARLY ACCEPTING your “FAV” in panel

I agree with this one. I will actually add those three point to my pillar named "double nakama link"

[ ] your “FAV” have “CLEAR” and “UNIQUE” combat style.
*notes:
CLEAR mean they have combat style and weapon of choice that they keep using regularly.

Ok why not. This ties up to my golden rule named "Be unique or have a unique capacity"

UNIQUE in this part mean they are either:
a. the only one in one piece world that using that FIGHT STYLE or WEAPON TYPE
b. the first one in one piece world that appear and show using that FIGHT STYLE or WEAPON TYPE
c. if the FIGHT STYLE is the one that learned by multiple people or some type of group, theys must be the most prominent in one piece world that MASTERING or PRODIGY with that FIGHT STYLE

Clear, I agree with that.

BUT You also must explain why this is important in term of characterization and not just say random rules that could seems arbitrary at first.

] your “FAV” power and abilities must NOT CLASHED with current SHP member.
*notes: i believe this obvious but i list it just in case:
-no hand to hand brawler or stretching related abilities or white and curly/fluffy form
-no katana user or wind related abilities
-no staff user or elec related abilities
-no slingshot user or plant related abiilities
-no kick specialist or fire(anycolor) related abilities
-no multiple form related ability
-no ability that related on growing something
-no cyborg or steel related ability
-no canesword/fencer/fencing user or ice related ability
-no fishman karate or water related ability

I completely agree with that but again, explains why this is important.

[ ] your “FAV” must be introduced in a fashion that not represent or based on the area they currently appear.
*notes : one piece is travelling manga where the protag change their costume according area they visited, charachter that use cloth based on area they appear either gonna be bond to it or lose half their charachterization the moment they change it.

Fair. But this is again related to uniqueness, those three previous point should be reunited under one specific point with sub parameters.

[ ] your “FAV” must be the original and not based on or similar to charachter that already appear in the story before your “FAV” debut.

Why is this important in term of characterization ? SOmetime the repetition of a design may be actually helpfull and not detrimental to the character's characterization. For example, the design of Yamato helps us understand her dream and characterization more in relation to Oden. This is therefore a very good design. So this point seems problematic.

but yeah you get what i mean.

No, not really no. Can you clarify this point a bit more please ? The presence of randomness is actually helpfull to surprise the reader, not the opposite.

congratulation your reach the conclusion
so you can emulate the point and find out the result :
<50 or 50pt = join on two piece
60 = wont join
70 = small chance and probably wont join
80 = medium chance, maybe better at somewhere else
90 = big chance and wait for approvall
100pt = already join or rejoin in future

with this amazing V4N Nakama Checkbox™ you can find out easily are your “FAV” will join or not, feel free to used it on your [someone you doesnt like] “FAV” too. happy Checking~<3

Now all you need is to explain in detail your point system as it seems a little bit arbitrary.

Now :

- You didn't take into account the overall characterization of the character and didn't dive into the way their character were constructed. For example, at no time do you mention the symbolism behind the character's creations.

- In your narrative section you don't even mention the fact that a character must have a strong character arc. as this is something very important for all the strawhats. You only quote the fan creation "the dream". This is not enough and need more precision.

- In no way are you talking about the post of the potential candidate

- You are also forgetting a lot of things all the strawhat have in common but we are not even there yet.

--------

Overall, there is a project that mostly ressemble mine (lol) but without any clarification and link to what makes those points important for the narration and the characterization of the character in light of them becoming new strawhat.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

@Logiko your posts are nearly as long as @Vivi4Nakama's but if you try harder you can beat them

 

[Logiko]

@Logiko your posts are nearly as long as @Vivi4Nakama's but if you try harder you can beat them

:cheers:

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

:cheers:

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[Albino 👑]

Honestly if we do get pirate apprentices lunarian would be the perfect especially the seraphim
Due to them being lunarians it isn’t like the other strawhats will always have to keep an eye on them to stop them from getting hurt. They even got to experience it first hand when they tried to take them out but couldn’t due to them keeping their flame on. They’d still technically be at risk of getting captured but in general they’re gonna be fine.

The seraphim being even tougher than your average lunarian even when the flame is off. The might have robotic bodies like the rest of the pacifista and potentially part buccaneer

 

[Rambles]

Nice, you tricked me. There is indeed no "statistic". its just basic sceptical reasonning mate.

I never tricked you and didn't even try. I only corrected you. But it seemingly was for naught as you made the same mistake in this sentence again.

Ok, I - as a writer and analyst myself - give you a tip: Never use a supposed general fact, you cannot prove as an argument in a discussion. Always write: "I think, [...]" at the beginning of your statement. In this case you would write "I think, its just basic sceptical reasoning mate." Otherwise you make it look like a fact that has been scientificly proven.

No, the problem is that you prefer complotism mindset over rationnal reasonning.

And here is exactly, what your mistake is: You think that you are using a way, that does not allow bias and subjectivity to enter into the process of using your system. And that is simply wrong. Your way comes also with a `subjectivity-trap´ - two even. 😉 And I will show you down below, what they are.

That's the thing you don't understand. EVEN if it would come to the right conclusion, it would STILL be a bad reasonning. Simply because its not based on rationnal logic but on confirmation bias.

First it maybe is a good idea to tag a few people, before I comment on your comment here. Simply because I actually read your `pillars´ and have noticed something that other users might find interesting to know for future discussions with you, without having to read your `10 Pillar-system´: @Warback @Admiral Maynard @Mr. Reloaded @Monkey D Al I hope I didn't forget someone, who used to argue with Logiko.
Than I have to tell you something you will not like to hear: Your 10 pillars are subjected to the same subjectivity you say is bad for our way of approaching the matter. The only difference between our way and your way is the point of when this subjectivity comes shining through.

I know that you think that my way is biased due to the subjectivity of mine. Because subjectivity is natural and has always an influence in what we write.
Now, I have earlier commented on why I think your way of finding out, who the next SHP will be, is prone to mistakes, if you remember. I talked about the fact that, if your rules are not correct or not exactly worded, you could come, if you were to use them, to the wrong conclusion.
And there is one major subjective factor playing into this: The person, who writed down these rules/`pillars´.

Take for example your five golden rules:
Number 4 "The character must be a friend or a false adversary" requires for a candidate to ""Redemption can always happen" Hm, yes it can. But there are rules to make a good redemption arc arc work in a story:"

And further "Suffering. In some cases, suffering can be seen as something even more serious than death. Suffering makes people cry, suffering - in One Piece - can be traumatizing. That is why a character who willingly made a lot of people suffer can't have a complete redemption arc"

The problem I have with your rule here (and not this rule in particular, but other rules - or your `pillars´ in general - as well) is, that the reader - the one, who wants to apply those rules - cannot do so in many cases, because you have not described your rules/`pillars´ in a way, that one can easily differenciate between redeemable and not redeemable (or in case of the other rules/`pillars´: worthy to pass the rule/`pillar´ or not). How much suffering is too much for a character to be redeemable? Where exactly are you drawing that line? Where would we find Kaku in this, or King or Brulee?

This is extremely important. Because, if I cannot clearly differenciate between passing this rule or not, I have to subjectively weight my decision. And this is exactly the point, when you did get into the many arguments with the people here. While others may think that their candidate passes a rule, you might think otherwise and this is due to not having described each of your rules/`pillars´ throughoutly. It is flawed all the way through, if you want to make your system rational.

There is even more potential for subjectivity to seep into your system:
While you are trying to find arguments, that can refute your `pillars´ and rules, you need to consider each time, if the new argument is disproving that part of your system or not. And here your insufficiant distinction and the more than vague wording you are using in your rules comes into play again. Because, this now allows you to subjectively put that argument into either "This argument refutes the part of my system." or "This argument does not refute the part of my system.". You subjectively decide that in this moment - and you only can do so, because of your vague wording. I actually also can say that you as an analyst can subjectively put that argument in a range from "Yes - refutes." to "No - doesn't refute". But to make your system rational, there should actually be a clear distinction for "Yes" or "No" and nothing in between. If it were rational, people should be able to clearly see for themselves where to put a character, without you having to `correct´ them.

This actually makes your whole system vulnerable to subjectivity/bias as much as our way is. If you wanto to make us use your system and circumvent this, you first have to word your rules/`pillars´ in a way that makes them a much more clearer distinction-tool.

As they are currently written there, they cannot be used to predict the next SHP without applying subjectivity.

I'm sorry if I have to repeat it in a way that makes me look cocky here:
The proof that a reader cannot use your rules/`pillars´ will be, when Lucci joins as the 11th SHP. Because, according to what you told me a few days ago, he is not fit to join the crew, becasue he made people like Robin suffer and therefore does not pass the `5 golden rules´. In this case, you used your subjectivity and categorized Lucci into "not a future redeemed Straw hat".
I remind you of this - you put him there, not I, and you also did within the subjective range, your rule allowed you to have here.

And the proof that you are subjectively dismissing our arguments, that refute parts of your system, will also be when Lucci joins, because as I have told you: My system of analysing heavily centers around the fact that Oda uses the Gorowase and that all future 5 DF-users on the Sunny need to each refer to 2 numbers from 1 to 10. And again, you have dismissed the Gorowase as something not important and did not want to make it one of your `pillars´. If Lucci joins, he will complete the Goroware very nicely and therefore will prove that it was a major requiery of bevoming a SHP.

Sure

Good. 😊

Hehe nah. No one on this forum has seen me angry.
I can be a little triggered at time but it only happens on very rare occasions.

Oh, good, if it's nothing, than well. ✌️

I don't need to look into your head, reading the theory is enough to understand that it is only based on confirmation biases.

I do not understand what you mean with "theory", but I am curious what you find especially "biased" in my analysis. I am sitting here with popcorn already.

Indeed, I'm neutral on the question. I'm open to all possibilities.

I do not think that you are neutral - but I will let it slide for now.

Then might I suggest for you to look at real theories and not just the one that confirm your preexisting suppositions ?

No thank you, I will pass, because I am an analyst, not a theoretician. I do not like to theorize and scarcely do so, as those of mine are prone to be partly wrong. If I theorize, I do it with utmost care and warn my readers beforehand.

But you can look at those theories of yours, maybe youo can find a few things or two. 😉[/QUOTE]

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

I never tricked you and didn't even try. I only corrected you. But it seemingly was for naught as you made the same mistake in this sentence again.

Ok, I - as a writer and analyst myself - give you a tip: Never use a supposed general fact, you cannot prove as an argument in a discussion. Always write: "I think, [...]" at the beginning of your statement. In this case you would write "I think, its just basic sceptical reasoning mate." Otherwise you make it look like a fact that has been scientificly proven.



And here is exactly, what your mistake is: You think that you are using a way, that does not allow bias and subjectivity to enter into the process of using your system. And that is simply wrong. Your way comes also with a `subjectivity-trap´ - two even. 😉 And I will show you down below, what they are.



First it maybe is a good idea to tag a few people, before I comment on your comment here. Simply because I actually read your `pillars´ and have noticed something that other users might find interesting to know for future discussions with you, without having to read your `10 Pillar-system´: @Warback @Admiral Maynard @Mr. Reloaded @Monkey D Al I hope I didn't forget someone, who used to argue with Logiko.
Than I have to tell you something you will not like to hear: Your 10 pillars are subjected to the same subjectivity you say is bad for our way of approaching the matter. The only difference between our way and your way is the point of when this subjectivity comes shining through.

I know that you think that my way is biased due to the subjectivity of mine. Because subjectivity is natural and has always an influence in what we write.
Now, I have earlier commented on why I think your way of finding out, who the next SHP will be, is prone to mistakes, if you remember. I talked about the fact that, if your rules are not correct or not exactly worded, you could come, if you were to use them, to the wrong conclusion.
And there is one major subjective factor playing into this: The person, who writed down these rules/`pillars´.

Take for example your five golden rules:
Number 4 "The character must be a friend or a false adversary" requires for a candidate to ""Redemption can always happen" Hm, yes it can. But there are rules to make a good redemption arc arc work in a story:"

And further "Suffering. In some cases, suffering can be seen as something even more serious than death. Suffering makes people cry, suffering - in One Piece - can be traumatizing. That is why a character who willingly made a lot of people suffer can't have a complete redemption arc"

The problem I have with your rule here (and not this rule in particular, but other rules - or your `pillars´ in general - as well) is, that the reader - the one, who wants to apply those rules - cannot do so in many cases, because you have not described your rules/`pillars´ in a way, that one can easily differenciate between redeemable and not redeemable (or in case of the other rules/`pillars´: worthy to pass the rule/`pillar´ or not). How much suffering is too much for a character to be redeemable? Where exactly are you drawing that line? Where would we find Kaku in this, or King or Brulee?

This is extremely important. Because, if I cannot clearly differenciate between passing this rule or not, I have to subjectively weight my decision. And this is exactly the point, when you did get into the many arguments with the people here. While others may think that their candidate passes a rule, you might think otherwise and this is due to not having described each of your rules/`pillars´ throughoutly. It is flawed all the way through, if you want to make your system rational.

There is even more potential for subjectivity to seep into your system:
While you are trying to find arguments, that can refute your `pillars´ and rules, you need to consider each time, if the new argument is disproving that part of your system or not. And here your insufficiant distinction and the more than vague wording you are using in your rules comes into play again. Because, this now allows you to subjectively put that argument into either "This argument refutes the part of my system." or "This argument does not refute the part of my system.". You subjectively decide that in this moment - and you only can do so, because of your vague wording. I actually also can say that you as an analyst can subjectively put that argument in a range from "Yes - refutes." to "No - doesn't refute". But to make your system rational, there should actually be a clear distinction for "Yes" or "No" and nothing in between. If it were rational, people should be able to clearly see for themselves where to put a character, without you having to `correct´ them.

This actually makes your whole system vulnerable to subjectivity/bias as much as our way is. If you wanto to make us use your system and circumvent this, you first have to word your rules/`pillars´ in a way that makes them a much more clearer distinction-tool.

As they are currently written there, they cannot be used to predict the next SHP without applying subjectivity.

I'm sorry if I have to repeat it in a way that makes me look cocky here:
The proof that a reader cannot use your rules/`pillars´ will be, when Lucci joins as the 11th SHP. Because, according to what you told me a few days ago, he is not fit to join the crew, becasue he made people like Robin suffer and therefore does not pass the `5 golden rules´. In this case, you used your subjectivity and categorized Lucci into "not a future redeemed Straw hat".
I remind you of this - you put him there, not I, and you also did within the subjective range, your rule allowed you to have here.

And the proof that you are subjectively dismissing our arguments, that refute parts of your system, will also be when Lucci joins, because as I have told you: My system of analysing heavily centers around the fact that Oda uses the Gorowase and that all future 5 DF-users on the Sunny need to each refer to 2 numbers from 1 to 10. And again, you have dismissed the Gorowase as something not important and did not want to make it one of your `pillars´. If Lucci joins, he will complete the Goroware very nicely and therefore will prove that it was a major requiery of bevoming a SHP.



Good. 😊



Oh, good, if it's nothing, than well. ✌️



I do not understand what you mean with "theory", but I am curious what you find especially "biased" in my analysis. I am sitting here with popcorn already.


I do not think that you are neutral - but I will let it slide for now.


No thank you, I will pass, because I am an analyst, not a theoretician. I do not like to theorize and scarcely do so, as those of mine are prone to be partly wrong. If I theorize, I do it with utmost care and warn my readers beforehand.

But you can look at those theories of yours, maybe youo can find a few things or two. 😉

yes, the pillars are many but what about the roofs? Can you build a building without a roof and doors? What are uncovered pillars even good for?
Do you reject the concept of roofs @Logiko? Are they too oppressive, obscuring the shining and glowing stars on the night sky, the shooting stars in action, performing activities and practices?
Please elaborate and expan on the ideology behind your refusal to incorporate roofs in your story telling concept.

 

[Logiko]

yes, the pillars are many but what about the roofs? Can you build a building without a roof and doors? What are uncovered pillars even good for?
Do you reject the concept of roofs @Logiko? Are they too oppressive, obscuring the shining and glowing stars on the night sky, the shooting stars in action, performing activities and practices?
Please elaborate and expan on the ideology behind your refusal to incorporate roofs in your story telling concept.

uhm... yeah sure, of course. Hm.. yeah. hm what ?

Ok, I - as a writer and analyst myself - give you a tip: Never use a supposed general fact, you cannot prove as an argument in a discussion. Always write: "I think, [...]" at the beginning of your statement. In this case you would write "I think, its just basic sceptical reasoning mate." Otherwise you make it look like a fact that has been scientificly proven.

About what ?

You think that you are using a way, that does not allow bias and subjectivity

Never said that. Only you think this. There is no reasonning without bias. But there are reasonning with less bias than others ;)

Your 10 pillars are subjected to the same subjectivity you say is bad for our way of approaching the matter.

No really no. But developp

I know that you think that my way is biased due to the subjectivity of mine.

No, its not about your subjectivity. Your subjectivity is not the problem here. The method is. The method is problematic simply because its a method that search for confirmation and not a method that uses evidences to predict. Hence why there is a confirmation bias involved.

is, that the reader - the one, who wants to apply those rules - cannot do so in many cases, because you have not described your rules/`pillars´ in a way, that one can easily differenciate between redeemable and not redeemable

That's wrong. With this rule its very easy to differenciate character who applies and those who doesn't as I explained, tis the character who killed and made people suffer to a point of no return. For example: Enel and Crocodile have made people suffer. And Lucci has killed innocent people. Those thing are no redeemable in the world of One Piece as explained contrary to the world of Dragon ball.

Here its not that my rule is not clear, its you who didn't read with the intention of understanding it, but in the intention to prove it wrong. Which would be ok, if you were understanding it first.

On paper, Vegeta and Lucci could be the same. But only on paper, in reality, One Piece and Dragon ball are different. Meaning that in Dragon ball, murderers can be redeemed because the worlds allows ressurections, but not in One Piece.

How much suffering is too much for a character to be redeemable? Where exactly are you drawing that line? Where would we find Kaku in this, or King or Brulee?

Like explained in the rule and here, suffering that has no return point. For example, Franky made Usopp suffer, BUT he could redeemed himself by helping him. On the contrary, Arlong made Nami suffer but there is no way for him to get a pardon from her.

Do you understand ?

This is extremely important. Because, if I cannot clearly differenciate between passing this rule or not,

SOrry but its very well explained in the rule, reread it.

And here its not a question of subjectivity, what I'm telling you here are things that can be mesured.

And here your insufficiant distinction

Again, its you who just don't understand the rule. The rule is very clear:

A false adversary or an ally. And the false adversary must have NOT done something that is not redeemable.

Simple.

Murder is not something you can see as "subjective". If you are a murdering psychopath in One Piece, you can hope for an alliance with Luffy, but you will never be on his crew.

nd nothing in between

Storytelling is not a science. There will always be a part of interepretation. That's why this prediction model is not and will never be perfect.

Its just:

The best one that exist to this day.

If it were rational, people should be able to clearly see for themselves where to put a character

And you can do that for all five rules and all 10 pillars. The five rules are clear so are the 10 pillars. You are just very slow at understanding them, that's all. But i'm thinking about rephrasing some of the text to make it more clear for people with very huge bias like yourself.

This actually makes your whole system vulnerable to subjectivity/bias as much as our way is.

Indeed. In the case that my rules are unclear. They are. I explained them in detail and there is no room for error.

What I'm thinking is that you are absolutely trying to make a character fits one of those rules and you don't want to accept that they don't. hence why you are confuse about the said set of rules. But I'm sorry, Lucci just doesn't fit one of the most important rule. He is a murdering psychopath and in One Piece, those guys don't get a moral pass. Simply because if it was the case, it would send a very bad message to the audience.

The proof that a reader cannot use your rules/`pillars´ will be, when Lucci joins as the 11th SHP.

And here it is. You see, you are trying to make a cube fit into a circle hole. It doesn't work like that. Never did.

Because, according to what you told me a few days ago, he is not fit to join the crew

Exactly, he is not.

becasue he made people like Robin

Not only Robin, actually Robin is just a part of the problem with Lucci, the real issue with him is that he is a murdering psychopath. But it seems that the Robin case wasn't enough to make you understand that, so I will add the murdering psychopath thing to my rule to make it more sence.

will also be when Lucci joins

Good luck with that lol

that all future 5 DF-users on the Sunny need to each refer to 2 numbers from 1 to 10

No they don't, that's a very bad fan theory.

And again, you have dismissed the Gorowase as something not important and did not want to make it one of your `pillars´.

Yes, its a very bad fan theory.

If Lucci joins, he will complete the Goroware very nicely and therefore will prove that it was a major requiery of bevoming a SHP.

It would still be a very bad fan theory.

I do not understand what you mean with "theory", but I am curious what you find especially "biased" in my analysis. I am sitting here with popcorn already.

Your theory is partially based on a very bad theory. Its has therefore very bad "pillars" lol

I do not think that you are neutral - but I will let it slide for now.

I proved many time that only the story was my go to. If I have indeed preferences on what the story should be, differents options happening wouldn't interfer in my enjoyement of the story or my emotions.

Because when we talk about surprise, for me..

because I am an analyst, not a theoretician

Oh. Well that's a surprise..

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

uhm... yeah sure, of course. Hm.. yeah. hm what ?

It's not okay that you refuse to elaborate on your points! How are we supposed to understand you? Your elaborations may be what we need to finally come to the realisation that you are indeed the great theorist and storytelling expert that you claim to be.
But you're not even giving us a chance!

 

[Logiko]

that you are indeed the great theorist and storytelling expert that you claim to be.

Bro...
I'm not the one claiming that. YOU GUYS ARE. xD
I said once I think that this was my expertise, but I'm not what you should call "a great storytelling expert", there are people far better than me

 

[CoC: Color of Clowns]

Waiting for spit-up

Tell em @Pot Goblin

I was waiting for April Fools to make the Carrot x Caribou = Carrotbou fanclub, but, I might just say fuck it and start it up after the Dolphins are sent to jail.

Wow, that sentence got way crazier than I thought it was going to.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

Bro...
I'm not the one claiming that. YOU GUYS ARE. xD

 

[ShiShiShi]

Bro...
I'm not the one claiming that. YOU GUYS ARE. xD
I said once I think that this was my expertise, but I'm not what you should call "a great storytelling expert", there are people far better than me

 

[Warback]

Bro...
I'm not the one claiming that. YOU GUYS ARE. xD
I said once I think that this was my expertise, but I'm not what you should call "a great storytelling expert", there are people far better than me

Don't be modest

 

[Logiko]

Don't be modest

ok

 

[Pot Goblin]

I was waiting for April Fools to make the Carrot x Caribou = Carrotbou fanclub, but, I might just say fuck it and start it up after the Dolphins are sent to jail.

Wow, that sentence got way crazier than I thought it was going to.

My reaction to that information

Spoiler

 

[Rambles]

Never said that. Only you think this. There is no reasonning without bias. But there are reasonning with less bias than others ;)

No, the problem is that you prefer complotism mindset over rationnal reasonning.

No really no. But developp



No, its not about your subjectivity. Your subjectivity is not the problem here. The method is. The method is problematic simply because its a method that search for confirmation and not a method that uses evidences to predict. Hence why there is a confirmation bias involved.



That's wrong. With this rule its very easy to differenciate character who applies and those who doesn't as I explained, tis the character who killed and made people suffer to a point of no return. For example: Enel and Crocodile have made people suffer. And Lucci has killed innocent people. Those thing are no redeemable in the world of One Piece as explained contrary to the world of Dragon ball.

Here its not that my rule is not clear, its you who didn't read with the intention of understanding it, but in the intention to prove it wrong. Which would be ok, if you were understanding it first.

On paper, Vegeta and Lucci could be the same. But only on paper, in reality, One Piece and Dragon ball are different. Meaning that in Dragon ball, murderers can be redeemed because the worlds allows ressurections, but not in One Piece.


Like explained in the rule and here, suffering that has no return point. For example, Franky made Usopp suffer, BUT he could redeemed himself by helping him. On the contrary, Arlong made Nami suffer but there is no way for him to get a pardon from her.

Do you understand ?



SOrry but its very well explained in the rule, reread it.

And here its not a question of subjectivity, what I'm telling you here are things that can be mesured.


Again, its you who just don't understand the rule. The rule is very clear:

A false adversary or an ally. And the false adversary must have NOT done something that is not redeemable.

Simple.

Murder is not something you can see as "subjective". If you are a murdering psychopath in One Piece, you can hope for an alliance with Luffy, but you will never be on his crew.



Storytelling is not a science. There will always be a part of interepretation. That's why this prediction model is not and will never be perfect.

Its just:

The best one that exist to this day.


And you can do that for all five rules and all 10 pillars. The five rules are clear so are the 10 pillars. You are just very slow at understanding them, that's all. But i'm thinking about rephrasing some of the text to make it more clear for people with very huge bias like yourself.



Indeed. In the case that my rules are unclear. They are. I explained them in detail and there is no room for error.

What I'm thinking is that you are absolutely trying to make a character fits one of those rules and you don't want to accept that they don't. hence why you are confuse about the said set of rules. But I'm sorry, Lucci just doesn't fit one of the most important rule. He is a murdering psychopath and in One Piece, those guys don't get a moral pass. Simply because if it was the case, it would send a very bad message to the audience.



And here it is. You see, you are trying to make a cube fit into a circle hole. It doesn't work like that. Never did.



Exactly, he is not.



Not only Robin, actually Robin is just a part of the problem with Lucci, the real issue with him is that he is a murdering psychopath. But it seems that the Robin case wasn't enough to make you understand that, so I will add the murdering psychopath thing to my rule to make it more sence.


Good luck with that lol



No they don't, that's a very bad fan theory.



Yes, its a very bad fan theory.



It would still be a very bad fan theory.



Your theory is partially based on a very bad theory. Its has therefore very bad "pillars" lol



I proved many time that only the story was my go to. If I have indeed preferences on what the story should be, differents options happening wouldn't interfer in my enjoyement of the story or my emotions.

Because when we talk about surprise, for me..

You realize that with you saying that Lucci will never join and such, you are currently only playing into my cards, right?

All I see here, is that you are already trying to wriggle out of the situation you have brought yourself in, with all that rambling.

Fact is: I have asked you if Lucci is - according to your theory - a candidate to become the last crew member. You said "No". If he will become the 11th member of the SHPs, than you will stand in front of the unavoidable fact that your system is flawed. Because, with me asking you, if Lucci fits the rules, you went with the character through the whole process of your `10-Pillar-system´ and checked for yourself, if he fit. Him joining nontheless simply will show that there is indeed a lack of clear distinction within your "5-Golden-rules" and "10-Pillars". If I take for example the suffering Robin received through Lucci: You will need to categorized her suffering, as not that great and Lucci actually `redeemable´ to become a SHP, even if you say that your system shows otherwise. It will show that your system is not fit to clearly categorize and predict a SH.

Then I asked you, if the Gorowase should be made into a `pillar´, because it fit for all the DF-users on the Sunny until now. Again, you dismissed it as an unimportant fan theory. However, when Lucci joins and completes the Gorowase, your own biased decision of not making it a `pillar´ will show, that this decision was subjective and therefore lead to you not making the rational decision of adding it. Therefore it will show us that your subjectivity in choosing your `pillars´ is what actually prevents you from choosing the right ones and using refutability as a tool for your way of predicting the last SH is also heavily subjected to your own subjectivity.

And no - your rules/`pillars´ are not clearly described. You couldn't even tell me where the line of `too much suffering´ is. Again, your answer stays vague. Either you cannot rewrite it in a way that the reader can clearly recognize it as being too much and put each character correctly into the option of "Yes" or "No", or the rules/`pillars´ cannot clearly described, which would be a defeat for your general theory, since: What is the point of having a system, which is not able to clearly give me a correct answer?

By the way:
After I told you that "If it were rational, people should be able to clearly see for themselves where to put a character"
You answered with "And you can do that for all five rules and all 10 pillars."
If I, as a reader can clearly put each character into "Yes" or "No", than there should also only be two available answers, if I go by your answer, here. - Why is it than that you have given certain characters half the points, if they only fit half the rule/`pillar´? You shouldn't be ablte to do that, if your system was a clear "Yes-or-No-system". Again, here we see that there is a range of possible answers, and not only two.

Oh. Well that's a surprise..

What? - You realized that not before? 😉

 

[Kurozumi D. Trussop]

Indeed. That's because I don't care about the words of an author about his story, only what is in the sotry matter. A lot of Author often do things without knowing it, instinctively.

Bro actually said that he understands One Piece better than Oda.

If this ain’t peak delusion, I don’t know what is.

 

[ShiShiShi]

Bro actually said that he understands One Piece better than Oda.

If this ain’t peak delusion, I don’t know what is.

Yes, Oda writes everything “instinctively”. Only Logiko understands the mind behind the best-selling manga of all time.

 

[Rambles]

Yes, Oda writes everything “instinctively”. Only Logiko understands the mind behind the best-selling manga of all time.

It's not that Oda took off one month last year to plan out the final stage of One Piece with his team - no, he does everything instinctively - always.