Anti scrying device

[callen]

@Cuchulainshound

@callen

You do realize I pointed out this spell is available in canon, and the entire argument against me is that it is not canon.

You are demonstrating amply that you are either an idiot (doubtful, but possible) or pretending to be oblivious to the truth of the matter (more likely - but there is room for both).

The question haws never been that the spell exists

I didn't say that it "exists," I said that it is "canon." And yes, it most certainly has been. Shall we take a look? (Quotes shortened for brevity.)

I was originally suggesting one might choose "scrying" as a specific type of effect based on "shapechanging" being allowed in canon. That was, and still is, my only point.

@callen

The Invisible Eye Revealed, or something similar, running constantly.
A PeVi spell to destroy scrying magic, linked to the above spell.

@callen

Specific types of magic does not imply choosing a specific Form. This is more than my opinion based on the guidelines, it is a canonical interpretation of the guidelines.

Tellus then argued against this being canon, that it is not limited enough, arguing against the spell being canonical.

@Tellus

Fairly certain it needs to be more limited...
I would always require 2 identfiers: tradition and type

To that I replied that "shapechanging" is very specifically a canon example:

@callen

Shapechanging is an example in canon, which is why I said the interpretation that allows it is not just my opinion.

To that you replied to support Tellus's statement, made specifically against my stand that "shapechanging" is valid in canon.

@Cuchulainshound

@Tellus

I would always require 2 identfiers: tradition and type (type being equivalent to a Hermetic Form).
That's certainly how PeVi reads

@Cuchulainshound

• if you were not so busy playing shell games with your position, you'd remember I admitted so early on. The crux of that matter lies in the PeVi Guidelines, and the fact that your so-called "canon" spell (which has been dismissed here in this thread by several other than me) does not fit canon.

But you were aware that the spell exists, so you decided to show it is not canon in a different way. (See, I do remember, and quite specifically. Thus why I said "canon," not "exists.") You provided two arguments as to why it is not canon despite being in the books.

@Cuchulainshound

Yep, it's there all right.

The only counter-argument (other than, as you say, simply houseruling it out as aberrant and contrary to the PeVi Guidelines at face value) is to assume that since...

As for the PeVi Guidelines, you have been unable to show

@callen

how "shapechanging spell or Supernatural Ability" contradicts "effects of a specific type." That's the guideline: "Dispel effects of a specific type [and numerical stuff]."

You instead decided that it does not follow the guideline because it is not similar enough to two illustrative examples. Supernatural effects in the game are an infinite (limitless in size) set since more keep getting published and any storyguide could design more and no sort of to them has been made. So I showed you how believing illustrative examples of an infinite set is folly by providing another example of an infinite set along with six illustrative examples, followed by a seventh item that would be ruled invalid by such a method but I'm pretty sure we are all aware is valid. Pi is roughly 3.14159, between 1 and 5.

@callen

Let x be real such that 1<=x<=5. For example, x could be 3, 4, 1/2, 5/4, sqrt(5), or cube-rt(4). Have I chosen good examples? I've given prime and non-prime integers. I've given proper and improper non-integer rational numbers. I've given different kinds of roots of primes and non-primes which are irrational. As far as the numbers we've come across, I've given some pretty good examples to represent what x could be. Yet if we use the "reasoning" by examples we see that pi is not an integer, not rational, and not a perfect root. So pi should not be a possibility for x.

You still have not shown how this is incorrect. But you had put forth another argument, too, based on fourth points around the spell.

@Cuchulainshound

Any one or two of those could individually be easily dismissed - but all four combined, as a totality of evidence, are convincing.

I have shown that the four points, taken as a whole, support both viewpoints equally well. To this you have provided no counter-evidence. But finally you try one more argument, one which I have already shown to be false.

@Cuchulainshound

You seem to think that one spell (in a supplement known for non-canon material) dictates canon over the PeVi Guidelines - you are in a distinct minority.

Yet I already mentioned "cursing," which is in the same section and so is a lesser case. But I also already wrote about another effect in a different book:

@Cuchulainshound

according to you Parma Magica should also be disallowed since it doesn't follow a specific tradition (anyone with the Gift can learn it regardless of their tradition - there's no tradition+form) nor is it of a Form of the tradition that invented it, but it is allowed as a choice in canon.

So I have quite clearly referenced three effects (two different books) that disagree with your interpretation, not one spell from one book, as you stated above.

So where are we now? I have shown your use of illustrative examples to limit an infinite set is not logically valid. You have not countered this. I have shown your four items support both options perfectly well. You have not countered this (except to deny I made the statement, while I clearly did). I have shown there is more than one such effect that disagrees with your interpretation of the guidelines. You have not countered this (except to say there's only one, which we know to be false by reading the books). You also have not shown how "shapechanging" is not a specification on an effect. And somehow I'm supposed to believe your argument at all???

Chris