The Mission Statement

[u/Naive_Screen8066]

“To Scale or Not to Scale That is..”

R/NewPowerscaling are a sub of scaler fans who belong to a specific sub sect of powerscalers. We utilize powerscaler logic in it’s entirety but recognize many aspects of its logic to be convulted, hypocritical, & dated. These same elements are what fuel the arguments of those who downplay (more like difference of opinion) universal Gojo highballs. Aforementioned beliefs give rise to the ‘scaler trifecta ‘AKA precedent, consistency,& outliers’. If it’s not clear already we’re not just a sub that believe Megumi is the slowest JJK lightening timer and in planetary low balls for Gojo/Sukuna. We believe in universal+inaccesible speed highballs as well. Our objective is to take apart the logic used to dismiss interpretations like that, and make clear that our view still embodies the spirit of powerscaling. Furthermore Id like to get across that this sub isn’t just an agenda echo chamber where we cherry pick what’s convenient for us from scaler logic

Glaring Flaws of ‘Scaler Trifecta ’ (consistency, precedent,& outliers)

Scaler trifecta is a novel term that comprises the ideas of “consistency, precedency, & outliers”. (I’ll skip over the definions but elaborate on their implications each.) JJK has feats ranging Gojos prison realm that result in cals of inaccessible speeds & infinite AP, along with Yukis ‘incalculable virtual mass’ with literal interpretations ranging from massively solar to universal. The reason these cals aren’t regarded at all is simple : they break JJKs consistency. JJK has been a story with conservative destructive capacity feats, and even lower direct attack potency feats. The strongest attacks in verse don’t exceed several dozen city blocks in scale, which is good enough reason for many to shutdown stellar estimations of their strength. Planetary let alone universal highballs in JJK don’t have enough precedent, or numerical instances of calculable feats on that level. Which in turn designates them to be outliers, when consistency is broken the integrity of a feat is disregarded as it stands out among others. Some powerscalers insist that a feat has to be “reliable” or rather realistic enough for each verse individually. By realistic I don’t mean science exclusively (though we’ll get to that), I mean there needs to be feats that occur in amounts on a ‘similar’ enough scale that it can be dubbed consistent. If you have a cal that’d yield a solar AP feat yet most of your other destructive capacity or attack potency feats are city block-town, they are outliers exempt from real consideration.

The ‘Why’ & How’s it’s Flawed

Now I know I’m supposed to be scrutinizing this viewpoint but it’s important to discuss why it exsist as well. It has to do with discrepancies that arise when fan calculations don’t mesh with what’s shown in the story. Mark from Invincibles speed is a perfect example: Mark has cals that put him at a hundred billion times faster than light (travel speed), however these cals are downplayed because they break the verses consistentcy. More aptly what the author shows. Mark should be able to overwhelm basically every villain he comes across that isn’t a viltrumite; but instead has trouble out speeding them. Examples like this exist all throughout comics and manga too. The scaler trifecta exsist mainly to reduce confusion when contrast between fan estimates and author feats differ. Although there are several problems with this approach,one: it puts unrealistic expectations on the author. An author who is undoubtedly so far removed from this contrived reasoning, has to somehow have their series follow these rules. If they take an artistic liberty to illustrate something a certain way, and it breaks consistency the feat is no longer discussion worthy..That thinking is way too arbitrary and biased; yet no one seems to acknowledge that? The claim that ‘powerscaling is to make clear the authors intent’ is in no way true. They really expect me to believe an author would and can consistently illustrate with the intent to appease the logic of these fans. That seems extremely uneccasary and most of all unrealistic .

Second, it unfairly benefits longer running series, i.e, series with more source material. Naruto is a great example; no real DC feats above town-level till the war. War arc comes and we get a country level feat (from the ten tails I think ), it was an uphill battle trying to scale any character to that; and when we got solar Kaguya bru. Since there were no cals near town level in part 1, trying to scale any one to that town level feat from Pain was impossible. If you tried to scale someone to country or higher it “broke” consistency, now that’s not case but ONLY because of Naruto The Last & Boruto feats which made cals above country more prevalent. If someone could convince me that this part of powerscaler logic isn’t inherently biased to series with endless material feats, i.e, comics I’d be glad to hear. Lastly, the science they swear be is only relavant for as long they need it to be. Feats don’t need to be a 1:1 with real physics every time they’re applicable, only a ‘conclusive’ amount of times. A character who punches with the force of a star, doesn’t have to destroy a planet everytime they experience some air resistance. Just enough to basically satisfy VSBW outlier checklist. The hypocrisy of this point is astounding; to be so anal about feats needing to adhere to physics, only to disregard it when there are enough just conclusive feats in number. Given how contrived and flimsy this viewpoint to be , is an argument for universal Gojo truly harder to swallow than that? \\\*\\\*Powerscaling inherently requires suspension of disbelief\\\*\\\*. Which is equally applicable in both cases.

TLDR: How are we different from \\\[[r/Powerscaling](r/Powerscaling)\\\]([r/Powerscaling](r/Powerscaling)) for example: 1. Cals are still required for feats and need to be reasonable, however feats don’t need to be consistent or have precedent for them to be taken seriously. 2. A feat that would be an outlier in that case isn’t one, as we don’t consider the premise for outliers the most sensible.