​

Oh yeah I am back, couldn't stay away and so I've decided to keep this as my hobby. I'll be here for a while.

Now that King's Game Phase 1 is over, a 140 chapter war for resources to use in the next phase, which character's maneuver surprised you? You can also form a top 5 schemes/mini arcs.

I'll summarise the mini arcs and the schemes present for ease of use

1. Exploration, Rescue and Diversion { Chapters 822 to 829}

Yue Guanshan uses Zhu Yiting as bait to capture Han Fei with Chu Yinian.

Then a game that happens here is a gamble between Yue Guanshan and Chen Ran. I've summarised it below:

Chen Ran gave Lin Xuan a way to differentiate Reality from Mental Pollution (Having Lin Xuan use Reverse Future but not give him Return to Simplicity {which was also the invite for Yue Guanshan to participate in this gamble} ), while Yue Guanshan obscured that method in Lin Xuan's memory, making it a flawed memory.

Yue Guanshan gambles that either Lin Xuan doesn't deduce the flawed memory where he would use Qi Yanqing, or he does and shows sign of it in the Mental Pollution world, thus resulting in him withdrawing Qi Yanqing.

Acc to Yue Guanshan, Chen Ran gambles that not only will Lin Xuan succeed in deducing the flawed memory, but also hide it from Yue Guanshan and use a specific order of skills, that will not only help deal w Yue Guanshan but also with Qi Yanqing.

But Chen Ran goes multiple steps above

{Do note that Yue Guanshan's knowledge of the future isn't accurate due to Ego Extreme Chen Ran}.

He uses this gamble as a misdirection, while having Jiang Zhe execute his 3 shots strategy(Using 1 skill usage to mask other 2 and deceive Yue Guanshan) to rescue Han Fei. Yue Guanshan tries countering with Li Hailong but it's too late, allowing Chen Ran to learn of Li Hailong's existence. Han Fei in turn rescues Jiang Zhe who is trapped with Li Hailong and both return safe, while Li Hailong dismantled the time difference advantage Chen Ran's team got.

{This battle ends w a slight Yue Guanshan loss since Chen Ran got essential information}

Lin Xuan deduces a way, of using Han Fei's earlier marking of time to differentiate reality and Mental Pollution, not knowing Yue Guanshan foresaw it, and changed the time marking with Zhu Yiting to trick Lin Xuan into acting in the Mental Pollution world, thus having Yue Guanshan retrieve Qi Yanqing.

Yue Guanshan also uses Zhu Yiting into manipulating Lin Xuan, causing Lin Cuan to fail to deduce Chen Ran's contingency plan (Which Yue Guanshan has deduced in advance), to use Wheel of time to monopolise with time difference.

{This battle ends with Chen Ran's loss of a sure win advantage}

2. Han Fei vs Li Hailong - Test Battle (Chapters 840 to 845)

Han Fei uses the skills Jiang Zhe on the outside copied to make several traps, which Li Hailong countertraps with his skills, which Han Fei counters with his. Mainly a skill battle.

Han Fei is able to win the skill information of Li Hailong. Li Hailong in turn erases all the copied skills Han Fei holds.

Li Hailong deliberately leaks Yue Guanshan's skill abilities(the ability to time travel) to Han Fei(just to aura farm and to create cards against Yue Guanshan). But since Han Fei matches Li Hailong, Li agrees to a cooperation with Yue Guanshan on the surface.

3. Spear and Shield (Chapters 846 to 857)

Yue Guanshan uses First Jiang Zhe from the future for a series of schemes

By Yue Guanshan's arrangements, First Jiang Zhe

a. Clears Instance Boss's thought imprint on JZ and provids a way to do the same for other to increase trust

b. Diverts Jiang Zhe's thinking towards Murder Formulas and its decryption, which would eventually divert Chen Ran's attention too

c. Uses Superego Player club to appear like a superego player, which he wasn't. Uses Mental contamination to further make them believe he is a superego player (leading to others lowering their guard cuz superego players can't interfere, while also making the info he shares seem important)

d. Uses this future 1st Jiang zhe to manipulate our Jiang Zhe into infecting other teammates along with him, with a karmic mental pollution

e. Also Jiang Zhe, being granted the Di Ting skill by 1st Jiang Zhe wouldn't suspect of Mental Pollution due to the nature of the skill itself.

f. Foresees Jiang Zhe uncovering partly the invalidity of 1st Jiang Zhe's words and still goes with it. This would lead to Jiang Zhe sharing his doubts about 1st Jiang Zhe of Future to Chen Ran and others, distracting their thoughts while Yue can target Qiu Yinong.

Chen Ran is able to deduce that others are Mentally Polluted, with a really strong pollution that has Jiang Zhe as the origin.

We have seen Yue Guanshan predict the Extreme Ego answers of Chen Ran. Thus he has manipulated the events to have Chen Ran produce a wrong answer in his Extreme Ego state, mainly, making Chen Ran deduce an incorrect Murder Formula of his and make him think Han Fei's is targeted. While Qiu Yinong is the one actually targetted.

Yue Guanshan knows Qiu Yinong would have created a time difference, thus his use of 1st Jiang Zhe to give the skill Di Ting re-eshtablishes causality with Qiu Yinong, thus granting him a chance to attack Qiu Yinong while Chen Ran will be too late to intervene due to the 25 min time difference Qiu Yinomg created.

But Chen Ran deduces the danger on time and Qiu Yinong tapes her mouth to bide for time.

Yue Guanshan meanwhile has had Li Hailong and Chu Yinian hide in Bronze Coffin at the Eighteenth Floor. He intends to control the fight at Eighteenth Floor and find Main body Jiang Zhe. He also intends to bring out Chen Ran's trump cards through replicas. He suceeds in his second objective while failing to capture Jiang Zhe.

{This is a massive Yue Guanshan win. He forces Chen Ran's Eternal Kingdom, forces Chen Ran to reveal his Omniscient Perspective and Three Ghost God cultivations and the effect of Eternal Kingdom spam, while incapacitating Qiu Yinong, while making moves that will help his main overall scheme in the future}

Note that Yue Guanshan achieved a lot of objectives just by actually helping Chen Ran's Team with Di Ting. This starts as a base for multiple future schemes of his in the next mini arc.

Out of the first half's schemes, my favourites are

1. Yue Guanshan's Spear and Shield strategy

2. Chen Ran's Gamble misdirection

3. Chen Ran's 3 shot strategy

4. Yue Guanshan manipulating Lin Xuan along with Zhu Yiting

I'll do the second half, the better half later. Do note this is just a summary, and thus the areas of multilayered scheming are simplified.

Why this picture? No specific reason. It's akira from the mansion murder series by yukito ayatsuji and he is one of my favourite japanese novel writer and i love his books.

So iam a huge fan of mystery thrillers. Especially those with detectives and i started with the popular ones like novels of conan doyle,agatha christie, Horowitz, Leblanc etc.

I love detective trope so much. I love how characters either socially active or not comes to a room, uses their reasoning and applying logic through the knowledge they have and reading the people around the room and finding the culprit.

I have heard that detectives are bad at outsmarting many times from different people and it's totally wrong. Yeah it's true that some detectives lacks in categories like manipulation but saying that all detectives are bad is pretty much a bad take.

My love for Japanese novel started way after i read works and watched works that were popular. I used to think that the characters i know were the best detectives and slowly i started reading Japanese novels.

I have to say that Japanese novels really don't hold back and sometimes there are disturbing scenes. I always loved mystery thrillers from japan not just novels, i loved manga, drama, light novels and movies too.

What i love about japanese mystery novels is how logically explained they are. The characters apply great logic and everything would be perfectly explained in a way that the reader can understand itself but at the same time it doesn't sold off stuffs.

I would not lie, my knowledge on Japanese mystery novels is very less because i don't know Japanese as iam a non Japanese and i am someone who yearns so much for such novels to get translations.

I have heard a lot about many novels which are still not translated and just from reading documents or analysis i can understand how much i would enjoy it if i could read it myself.

i have missed a lot of works just because of the language boundary i have and i am really happy whenever someone in this sub talks about japanese mystery novels and it's characters.

Due to works not being translated or not being available, i sometimes go for their alternative options like manga or live action adaptations based on them and i often get disappointed but what can i do? There is nothing i can do

Also i have to say this that Japanese novels focus on the progress and actual methods rather than just focusing on narrative and since everyone is into scaling logical characters along with feats that are explained, iam sure how many characters would be high tiers.

There are many Japanese characters who are high tiers just from a few works and some characters only get a single book and it's often hard to have feats on several categories just from a single book.

Overall, iam too obsessed on detective fiction and because of that, i love Japanese mystery novels.

Also it's fine if you don't like detective trope. Iam just talking about my obsession with detective fiction.

My friend told me to read some translated works instead of crying about non translated works and i already have a lot in my read list which already have translations, so i should probably try it.

Currently iam reading a manga of an untranslated light novel and the protagonist from what i have heard has even better reasoning than the likes of sherlock, poirot etc but the manga is kind of not that good and it's generally considered as a bad adaptation

But i will still read it just because of my love to detectives and iam not going to reveal the name because i don't really think it would be worth the time

Found it on insta a while ago. Can someone tell if it's accurate?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but I think Moriarty should have higher % than Light.

I still don't get why this is so difficult to understand. How are people still arguing over this when it's been debunked over and over and over again? If your point is "intelligence scaling is subjective therefore scaling systems are also subjective," sure I agree with you, but if you think that "normal scaling" or "narrative scaling" or "true intelligence scaling without using systems to restrict characters" (call it whatever you want, doesn't even matter anyways) is objective meanwhile something like methodology scaling is subjective, you are simply incorrect.

You either don't know how objectivity works or you don't know how different scalings (like methodology) work, because they can even be more objective (less subject to our first person interpretations, viewpoints, and opinions)!

Firstly, what is the definition of objectivity?

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

Wikipedia: Something is subjective if it represents first-person subjective experience (such as perception, emotions, opinions, imaginary objects, or conscious experiences). If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective. Something is objective if it can be confirmed through observation, experimentation and intersubjective dialogue. The two are usually regarded as opposites; beyond that sources differ: both ideas have been given various ambiguous definitions.

Wikipedia is usually the better source for questions like this rather than basic dictionary definitions which are usually made for colloquial rather than philosophical usage, although both work in this context.

After reading both definitions, you should have come to the very obvious conclusion that intelligencescaling is subjective. Light being smarter than L or L being smarter than Light is only true/false through the viewpoint of a sentient being, since the diegetic/narrative intellect of the character is an imaginary object that results from our opinion of how "intelligence" is defined and of how our imagination produces the fictional world (i.e. our first person subjective experience of the story through the words on the page).

This applies even to manga, not just novels. How we interpret something like "sweating," ambiguous in-story occurrences like "L turning $1 million into $20 billion within 2 years at a young age," the cosmological implications of a particular character being the smartest in their imaginary verse, these are subjective! It doesn't matter what definition you try to use, the more philosophically rigorous your definition, the more subjective intelligence scaling becomes!

Obviously there are different levels of objectivity. Some stay true over time (1 + 1 = 2), some may be true only geographically (the value of the gravitational constant), some are fairly objective but produced using subjective sensibilities (the physical laws), some are fairly subjective (would Akane Kurashiki be able to outsmart Friend?), and some are even more subjective (does vanilla ice cream taste better than chocolate ice cream?)

How much does the stock market feat contribute to L's intellect? Subjective! How much luck played a part? Subjective! Does Mello's statement about L's intellectual growth which produces the transitive relationship (L_Adult >>>> L_Child >= Stock Market Feat's Cognitive Requirement) upscale his adult self or downscale the stock market feat by its ambiguity? To what extent exactly does it do so? Subjective! If there is an inconsistency, with what interpretation do you rectify it? Subjective! Intelligence scaling is SUBJECTIVE.

These ambiguities are ever present by the way.

You mentioned the following list of subjective aspects of intelligence scaling:

All scaling systems, All categories, Labels such as "realistic", "semi-realistic" and "unrealistic", The distinction between on-screen and off-screen, The distinction between "feats" and "statements", Tiering (As in Low/Mid/High tier), etc.

For example, you said that while categories are a useful metric, "they can't ever be used to truly determine who outsmarts who."

You see, truly determining who outsmarts who is also subjective. You deciding that intelligence should be defined as outsmarting ability is also subjective. You deciding the term "intelligence scaling" when applied to fictional characters should be focused on the diegetic implications as opposed to all the other definitions that intelligence comes under (like a non-diegetic display of intellectuality) is also subjective. Deciding how you scale will always be subjective. Relying on shared common senses by saying something like "I just scale" does not free you from the underlying subjectivity.

With all that being said, the bigger problem compared to the oversight of not realizing how subjective intelligence scaling is, would be the misunderstanding that scaling systems automatically decrease the subjectivity, even though they do not. This is true regardless of which perspective you use to view them.

I already made a post on it, with three example valid viewpoints towards scaling systems, and one of the examples was that the scaling systems can be treated as a premise for the matchup or evaluation framework.

Let me make it easier by giving an analogy to understand how "premise" and "objectivity" work together, using an actually objective example:

Statement 1 (which may be true OR false) states the following: "X + 5 = 15."

Now suppose X is equal to 3. Would statement 1 be true? Nope. Because statement 1 would become 8 = 15 which is a mathematically incorrect statement. An objectively false equation.

Next, suppose X is equal to 10. Would statement 1 be true? Yes! Because statement 1 would become 15 = 15 which is an identity. Objectively true by necessity if we (subjectively) interpret the mathematical symbols by their default usage (subjectivity always plays a part but the statement is internally objective given the premises and constraints and definitions).

As you can see, statement 1 may be true, or it may be false. But it is either OBJECTIVELY TRUE or OBJECTIVELY FALSE given the value of X. Our subjective feelings do not play a part once the premise (the value of X) has been determined.

Now suppose we have another statement. Notice how it's slightly different from statement 1?

Statement 2 states the following: "If X is equal to 10, then X + 5 = 15."

Let's say X is equal to 3, is statement 2 true?

The correct answer is yes! The value of X doesn't matter because statement 2 has the implicit assumption that the claim it is making "X + 5 = 15" is dependent on the premise that X is equal to 10 as opposed to anything external to the statement. It is objectively true! What matters is its internal consistency because it does not rely on additional values the way statement one did, due to its premise. This is why statement 2 is objectively true.

Whether X is 10, 1000, 5, 99, or undefined, statement 2 is true because it depends on its premise (X is equal to 10) rather than the actual value of X in real life whatever it may be.

This is how premises work. This is how scaling systems work when they are treated as the premise for the scaling matchup. "Just scale the words on the page" is an oversimplification of how a system is treated, it's like choosing to ignore the IF conditional in statement 2 and saying "just determine whether X + 5 = 15 is true!" which would be stupid.

This is one of the viewpoints for scaling systems, and under this viewpoint it can actually make scaling systems more objective then not using scaling systems, just as the premise "if X is 10" collapsed the true/false possibility of statement one into absolute truth by making it internally reliant rather than externally reliant.

A second viewpoint is that the scaling (like methodology scaling) can be considered as a separate independent scaling of its own such as power scaling, writing scaling, looks scaling, morality scaling, in which case it again is not more subjective because it has to be viewed independently from intelligence scaling. Given the rigid constraints that do not rely on imaginary interpretations and personal opinions to the same extent as intelligence scaling (which under this interpretation is different to methodology scaling), it is again more objective!

A third viewpoint is the subjective interpretation of the term "Intelligence Scaling" which you yourself use in line with "Diegetically determining which character outsmarts who." (although you don't put it into words, you call it "just scaling" or whatever). However, given the broad meaning of the word intelligence and the ambiguity of its focal point (which does not even need to be on the smartness of the characters themselves within the story), whether you define it one way or another way is equally subjective. Even with this third viewpoint, the objectivity of scaling a particular way (non-diegetically like Methodology Scaling) is not detracted from and the only thing that matters is their internal objectivity.

Under all three example viewpoints I gave, scaling systems are not automatically rendered unobjective or less objective. If you think that under any of these viewpoints, you are distorting facts by using "personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations," you have still not understood the usage of premises. For a statement to include "If X is equal to 10," such as statement 2 in the previous analogy I gave, the conditional does not detract from the objectivity of the statement regardless of how the conditional itself may have been formulated (subjectively or otherwise).

A framework or system or scaling definition can be treated as a set of premises, the way the conditional "If X is equal to 10" can be treated as a single premise for the statement that ends up making it less subjective.

I'll also address another argument he brought up: "performing at a lower level does not literally erase the previous statements/narrative off the page entirely and if you think so, you're being subjective."

I can't tell if he's talking about me since I brought up a similar (but different) argument, so I'll clarify that yes, it does not magically erase it off the page, but what it does do is bring the quality into question. For example if the entire feat is a statement by a random character, then it may be the case that the character is simply retarded or a liar. Why assume they are all reliable and never lie? If your entire way of scaling is dependent on the premise "characters never lie when they're glazing my goat as long as there isn't a direct contradiction," you're also being subjective, because even in real life, humans tend to be massive liars.

OR giving another example, if the statement is confirmed to be true, but highly ambiguous, then a consistently lower performance when the character is said to be at an exponentially higher cognitive state would indicate the ambiguity is more logically interpreted lower, especially if the cognitively higher state is unambiguous. To scale the ambiguous feat in isolation rather than as something dependent on the surrounding context, just so you can upscale a character, is subjective.

Let me give you an example:

1: Person A wins 10 consecutive matches against the best AI computer chess bot in the world. The content of the matches are only known to person A in secret.

2: A magical device says that person A will become exponentially smarter over time until he dies. This magical device is right 100% of the time.

3: Person A after 20 years when he is at his cognitive peak plays a match against multiple grandmasters. Unlike the chess bots, these matches are all entirely detailed and unambiguous, with the plays being determined at around 2000 ELO level if we calculate by real life standards.

If you say "maybe they were playing on a nigh-omniscience level so our real life technology cannot account for their subtle farsighted level of play and thus determined them as only 2000 ELO," thus reinterpretating the later specific matches using the growth statement, you are scaling idiotically and making a massive abductive leap.

The more logical reinterpretation to keep the intermediate growth statement consistent is to reinterpret the ambiguous feat, downscaling it based on the specific display of intellect. It would make more sense to assume the global smartest bots he went up against 20 years ago (point 1) were retarded and the verse is simply technologically lacking in this domain for those flawed designs to be at the peak. This is a lesser abductive leap than upscaling the specific detailed feats 20 years later based on the ambiguous feats 20 years earlier.

This is in conventional intelligence scaling by the way (normal scaling / narrative scaling / diegetic outsmarting ability determination / just scale the character bruh scaling / I'm not using a subjective arbitrary system to restrict the characters ahh scaling / etc., they all mean the same thing but people like to call it whatever makes them seem less arbitrary or subjective via reliance on shared common sense). Even if you're using normal scaling, you cannot be making horrible leaps like this.

Intelligence scaling is subjective overall, but there is still some level of objectivity within it, otherwise everyone would have entirely random opinions. Objectivity is not about how close you get to "who outsmarts who" which every scaler who makes this horrible argument assumes, objectivity is about how precise, consistent, and free from subjective interpretations/opinions/feelings you are when determining something.

The main misunderstanding of methodology comes from people who think something like "methodology scaling" scales which character would outsmart who if they were both in the same verse. Nobody is saying Akiyama would be able to outsmart a nigh omniscient character just because he objectively outscales him in extradiegetic (non-diegetic) methodology scaling.

I've made many posts debunking this terrible subjectivity/objectivity argument over and over again ever since I started SCD about a year ago and yet people still don't get it. They never raised any objection against the arguments, they just skipped every post and woke up the next day to repeat the same thing over and over again. Why??

Is it because of the formatting of my arguments? Please comment if you don't understand anything because I don't want to go inactive from posting, only to see another guy pop up who thinks scalings like methodology "arbitrarily restrict characters" or pretend they are sophisticated elitists who scale more objectively when they simply don't understand how objectivity or premises work.

Maybe some people skip these debunks since they think it is a pseudointellectual rant, just because they can't understand it? I really tried to make it as simple and comprehensible as possible, I even gave basic math examples like 10 + 5 = 15 rather than going too abstract into it which would have made it even more philosophically rigorous and obvious how stupid the argument of subjectivity is. I didn't even go into the deeper arguments like causality systems, and those ones make it even more obvious how subjective intelligence scaling truly is.

It's better for me to clarify anything you find questionable rather than letting it build up in your mind over time, so if you think something sounds stupid or you don't understand, just ask and I can try to clarify.

Conclusion:

Intelligence scaling is subjective overall. (there is some level of objectivity within it though)

If we assume objectivity exists on a spectrum, then scalings like methodology are not automatically more subjective and may even be less subjective (more objective) than what is commonly known as "normal scaling" depending on the internal design or definition of the scaling.

Intuition scaling goes brrr, this post is for entertainment.

This are lowball iq

Also, the IQ is scales based on performance not by raw/natural intelligence, otherwise Lynch and Fang Yuan won't be that high

The images are in my own scaling(strict scaling)

This ones below are for Proven Ability

Light Yagami: 130 IQ

Lynch: 143 IQ

Akiyama Shinichi: 150 IQ

Ukai Zero: 155 IQ

Lin Sizhi: 155 IQ(Solving complex counter-intuitive games, game theory stuff, side characters aren't actually dumb and doesn't always follow the script😱)

Senku: 160 IQ(Time machine feat isn't included because there's no explanations, besides that there's enough evidences for an IQ of 160 or probably a bit lower. He can do maths that I don't understand so quickly in his head, also he isn't just a knowledge merchant since learning all that and the ideas he has as a child at least makes him a genius. He also counted how many seconds??? While petrified)

Fang Yuan(no wisdom attainments): 180 IQ

(Imagine being able to chunk information so much that you can recall various events and information within 500 years of memory, where mostly each year would greatly surpass the average person's 10 years of life in terms of sheer amount of significant information)

Ayanokouji Kiyotaka: 180 IQ

Baku Madarame: 200+ IQ

(Let's be real. Playing Air Poker alone is such an unrealistic feat that you are guaranteed to at least have 200 IQ with this)

Zhuge Liang: 250+ IQ

Lin Ou: 290+ IQ

(Insane pattern recognition)

Ang Xiao: 400 IQ(Inhumane level planning which requires extremely sophisticated CPI, Cognitive Resources Allocation and FRI, )

Chen Ran 600 IQ+

(imagine being able to unravel extremely counter-intuitive problems in seconds and having such an insane pattern recognition. Also being able to visualize complex 3d objects up to micro-level to the point that you can manifest them into reality according to the rules behind No Distance)

Won't include Nobody and The Doctor because it's pointless to try and guess or estimate theirs because you know...

Kiyotaka Ayanokoji has been one of the poster boys of overall SCD and edits. Whenever a new mid- or high-tier character comes onto the scene or gets introduced, bet there’s going to be an edit or a question like “X vs. Ayanokoji.”

His character is pretty good in both normal and “meth” SCD. Likewise, he can be used in various XYZ situations because of how versatile his kit is and how few weaknesses he has, while still not completely making every matchup one-sided.

However, I’ve seen people saying that beating Ayanokoji is impossible, while others claim that beating him is easy. Neither side really provides a good explanation to support their statements that gives idea of what's difficulty of beating ayanokoji in first place and win condition etc.

So I’m gonna explain five win cons / ways to counter & beat Ayanokoji, since I have re-scaled his eval in my roster.

going good to best also it's moreso about non categorical.

1. Seeing through the mask

While Ayanokoji’s ability to construct & fabricate a layered persona is crazy, it’s not completely immune to being perceived, as the series has shown multiple times where a few classmates, mainly Hirata, are able to sense that there’s something odd or wrong about Ayanokoji that they can’t quite put their finger on.

The series tells us about “darkness.” Before you call it “corny” or whatever, it’s a storytelling thing. Basically, it’s about the repressed self / scared self / shadow.

The first time the “darkness” term was used was in V3, where Ayanokoji was “masked” and we saw the self that he hides from everyone, including the reader. That is also a storytelling thing.

The second thing is in V4, when the story shows that he and Kei are similar in terms of having traumatic pasts & concealing their true selves, with the “scar” being mentioned as well.

Later in the series, we see Hirata also noticing Ayanokoji’s “shadow,” and then the story showcases Hirata's backstory. It also follows the same pattern of the scar(not literally this time), repressed self, shadow, etc.

Basically, the “darkness” in people in the story is what happens when something highly traumatic happens to a person and disturbs their normalcy forever after surviving it. And those who have had their normalcy disturbed can sense other people whose normalcy has also been disturbed.

So, a smart character with calibre comparable to Ayanokoji, especially someone with a highly disturbed past themselves, can sense Ayanokoji’s oddness and come up with measures to counter & beat him. However, they must be careful since they could fall into the pitfall of thinking they understand his dark nature underneath, like Ryuen and others.

A character who can pull this off and counter & beat Ayanokoji: Patrick Jane. (Dead wife + good kit which specializes in STP.)

2. Behind the curtain

A smart character who utilizes proxies, red herrings, and ploys in their schemes can counter Ayanokoji’s kit.

Ayanokoji’s approach is essentially: “I’m trying to understand my past, or should I say this person’s past, by thoroughly analyzing and breaking down people.”

This is how Ayanokoji’s ToM and psychoanalysis work. We saw this with Hirata, Ryuen, Ichinose, Nagumo, Arisu, Ichika, and Takuya.

A non-confrontational or indirect style counters Ayanokoji. However, it requires really good acting skills if it’s face-to-face, or strong concealment if the character is operating indirectly.

Example: Johan in the Nameless Monster case situation.

3. INFO advantage

A character whose kit revolves around an information network and spying would counter Koji’s outsmarting, as gaining information is the weakness of any character, and having established spying against him is especially bad.

Basically, the goal is to stay one step ahead at all times, since Ayanokoji is actually reliant & great on knowledge acquisition and application. However, the SC must not reveal or leak their hand during this approach.

Character: Izaya Orihara from Durarara!!

4. Theory of the mind & Psychoanalysis

"Ayanokoji is the most defective student in class D"

One thing Chabashira got right about Ayanokoji is this. However, she doesn’t know the flaw, while as readers, we are repeatedly given hints about it: his self-centeredness.

Ayanokoji Kiyotaka’s self-centeredness is the prime driving force behind everything he does. It’s his maze and castle. Many of his actions and counteractions are taken because of his self-interest in things—his curiosity, self-centeredness, and contradictions.

Your methods don’t matter. I don’t care what I have to sacrifice. As long as I have my victory in the end, I’ll be fine.

If an SC has great ToM / psychoanalysis, they could figure out how Ayanokoji works and thinks, how he exploits people, and how his operations target them. From there, they could completely counter and beat him.

However, the SC needs to build a really accurate model of Ayanokoji’s mind without Ayanokoji realizing that he is being studied.

Example: FY (Vol. 1 & 2).

5. Quick Disposition, Anticipation, and Participation

One of the main factors that makes Ayanokoji a formidable opponent is his adaptability and thinking combination.

So, an SC who has strong anticipation, participation skills, and quick offensive skills is one of the best counters to beating Ayanokoji completely without giving him any time to adapt.

The SC should be able to construct schemes on the fly against Ayanokoji and improve them if Ayanokoji notices them.

Examples: Chen ran (Inception instance) & Aki.

Verdict

These are five ways/counters to Kiyotaka Ayanokoji. However, these counters do not mean that Ayanokoji is weaker.

Notice the examples I gave and ask yourself: if Kiyotaka were to go against these characters, would that make him weaker, or would it simply show that he is capable of going against characters who possess these specific advantages?

Therefore “Kiyotaka is impossible to beat” is an exaggeration, but so is “Kiyotaka is easy to beat.” The actual difficulty depends on the opponent’s ability to exploit one of these win conditions without allowing Ayanokoji enough time or information to adapt to them.

And yes ofc obv answer - make just great at scheming with insane layering & foresight 🥀🥀

I am currently on Ch 97 of 18Loh and its the Lonely Revenge Arc I think? Anyways its the instance where Chen Ran faces off against the inheritors.

So far I am liking Chen Ran a lot, he's very smart, especially in his deductions. But since the 2nd Masked Man from the Novice Instance he hasn’t faced any good opponents, even the 2nd Masked Man was mid diffed by him tbh.

So I was wondering when does he face opponents that actually challenge him and seem to be on par with him?

I don't even know what SCD is at this point.

Every certain amount of time a new account made few days ago starts beefing with me randomly.

This has been going on for like several months now and I just kept ignoring it. But this kid and probably along with other people are stalking me and my other social media.

The person behind this account made several accounts to befriend me but I kept ignoring him. Why? Because first of all I'm not interested, secondly he is likely a kid based on his language and behaviors, even if I am a minor myself I'd like to get out of trouble and I find it inappropriate to interact with much younger people if you know what I mean...

(The person behind these accounts tend to claim that I am arrogant or something along with repetitive behaviors so I know it's the same person over and over again, well... You can believe what you want to believe)

For some reason this kid is now doing Ayanokouji level manipulation feats to get others to disagree with me or whatever.

No hate but this is dissapointing.

Anyways since I'm at it unlike what the person behind these accounts claim, I don't hate nor purposely slander Standard Delicious.

I look up to Standard and even interacted with him and his brother on our discord group since they were major parts of the said group.

I am forever grateful to people like: Standard Delicious, Phoenix, SecretIsDead, Morningz and Jarionn but what I am saying is that Standard did some wrong too. He misled others in purpose and misled people about the Inaccessible characters which is a big disappointment.

I'm not the only one who thinks the same either.

"Some people want to have something that others don't, and in this case it's the smartest characters that they lie about. They do this for ego." --Morningz

"Standard lied, I had already asked experts."

(Remember when I posted about a member of our group talking to a Wuxiaworld expert guy, and said the claim was very insane?)

--The VD guy(forgot his name I'm sorry bro😭🥀)

Et al.

Anyways, if you had seen my previous posts months ago or previous comments you'll know that I defended the possibility and my gang went around internet searching for the Inaccessibles.

We even went to the Dark Web to search for The Inaccessibles!

At last, it was revealed to us by SecretIsDead that they have indeed been OCs all along and apparently Standard was building hype for these OCs so that people would read them 10++++ years later.

I do believe that my gang has every right to be mad. But it's not a reason for me to hate the person who introduced me to my biggest entertainment.

(Also if ya guys have seen in Reddit a post of Standard saying he was back. That's an alt account of someone and Standard told me it wasn't really him)

Yep novel characters are so under analysed in this sub.

The only few novel characters that got enough appreciation were characters like hannibal and sherlock. But i have to say that even sherlock is not that analysed in this scd comparing characters like hannibal.

Iam not saying that novel characters who are great at planning, manipulation etc are analyzed properly. To scale a character like sherlock, you have to read many works and i have seen many scaling sherlock in the term" canon sherlock " while only reading the works by conan doyle

I have always found it weird seeing how rarely poirot is mentioned in this sub even while poirot is on the same level of sherlock.

There are several high tier characters from novels and no, iam not talking about japanese novels that's literally on a different level and i can understand how some don't scale some JP novel characters mainly because some works not having translation but many of the classic novels has translations and is pretty much available.

I remember someone making posts about ellery queen and dupin some weeks ago and i highly appreciate such efforts

Nowadays i don't really see manga characters, popular manga characters like baku, aki etc being unexplained or analyzed less.

Biased or not, there are actually many posts about characters like baku and aki and saying that they are underrated and not analyzed enough is not really a true statement.

I can understand people saying novel characters are often overrated by others just because they are novel characters. I myself had made a post way before on how certain people larp novels in order to make them view really knowledgeable and how some people agree novel characters scaling high without even reading the materials.

This post is not about novel characters being underrated or overrated. It's about novel characters being analyzed less.

In my opinion, characters like lupin, poirot,edmond dantes etc needs to be talked more in this sub

For fun, guess the character he's up against, for context, this is manga aki-47, mainly because I am rereading liars game and usogui and going to finish ROT also for ROT do I need to watch a video on the three kingdoms? Just a question anyway here we go

FSIQ-

???

EQ-

Composition, behavioural inference, thought modelling, understanding, intrapersonal, autonomy, narrative (construction and portrayal of feats when statemens are taken into account.)-

???

Interpersonal, self-regulation, cold reading,

Aki-47

SQ-

Aki-47>=

Manipulation-

Direct, indirect, emotional, tactics, brainwashing, deconstruction

???

Logical, situational-

Aki-47

Deception-

Akiyama

Scheming will be fully dissected and broken down

Tactics, approach to reason, logical factor, quality, strategy -

Aki-47

Use of advantages, composition, contingency, execution, formulation -

???

Planning

???

Fluid intelligence -

Aki-47>=

Knowledge, crystisllised intelligence, statements, and narrative -

???

Reasoning -

Aki-47

Thinking -

Divergent, creative -

???

Rest -

Aki-47

Countering -

Aki-47

Counteraction -

Honestly, I don't know. Both are really good in scheming and manip+deception

Matchup-

Toss up ??? Specialises in warfare and manipulation combining it with long-term aggressive strategy and planning while akiyama is brilliant on both defence and offence in scheming, so it depends on who you argue takes OFFENCE here. As ???'s main defensive tactics utilise influence and his ability to dissect the psychological landscape of his opponents.

Fixed situation

Obviously Aki-47

Non fixed

???

RLS

???

Cat and mouse

???

Gambling

Aki-47

Overall ??? Very high diffs (+) yes, I actually do have Aki-47 above my favourite character PJ, but it's close imo. Probably will drop down when I finish liars game, but akiyama is a goat. I have him above Ayanokoji and canon death note imo. Or maybe same as koji, as I scale koji high.

Anyway if you guess who it is I'll give you a personal scaling of the character and my thoughts on him

What's your personal ranking

Old joke, I know, but I don't think anyone has done it here, lol.

The three at locked in a room, and for them to get out, they have one simple task to do which will test their self management. All three have their own 1.5 litre water bottle, and it’s filled with boiling, stinky, sloppy shit that’s a tiny bit chunky; mixed with piss and some dog vomit. It’ll be warm, and they’ll taste every bit and feel it all going down their throat and into their body. They have to drink it ALL in order to escape the room. Who’ll do it first? Fuck it, throw some bin juice in their water bottle as well.

Souichi Kiruma
Kiyotaka Ayanokoji
William Afton

I feel like something a lot of people get mixed up on especially when criticizing meth scaling as they say we should take into accept narrative statements like L's stock market feat no matter what but I find the arguments around that dumb and here's why. The reason why we don't take those type of feats seriously isn't solely because there's no explanation around it, it's because there is no proper way to actually EVALUATE the feat.

Debates and arguments revolve heavily around proper context, evidence, and facts. The more ambiguous and vague something is, the weaker the actual argument is. Any claim that it's objective scaling when you accept everything no matter how evidentiary lacking something is just shows you don't understand what objectivity is.

Please read the actual accepted definition of the word:  expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

By definition, you cannot objectively evaluate L's stock market feat or his feat of preventing WW3 because you DO NOT know anything about the facts or conditions that played in it and anything around it would really be your own personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

You don't know whether he had to really push himself to a new cognitive level, you don't know whether the statement itself was exaggerated in some shape or form, you don't know whether or not it was only accomplished because of sheer luck, you don't know whether or not it was accomplished because he had a lot of help, was this WW3 even a serious problem that would've warranted nuclear destruction, was he dealing with one guy or an entire group, how powerful was this one guy or entire group, were they even going to directly cause WW3 or just exploit the current geopolitical environment which was extremely tense at that time for whatever reason, etc.

You can say ANYTHING about these statements and feats, which is literally subjective reasoning. You look at L stopping WW3 and you make the interpretation that "Oh, he must be super intelligent then" but then how does that make him super intelligent? Explain it to me.

Oh wait, you can't because you have no evidence to back up your claims. You have no evidence to imply that he had to make deep calculations, solve puzzles nobody else could, manipulate various people to create a certain event, deduce the overall truth while having nothing but a small hint....why must we assume this is enough to make deem him "smarter" than another character? For all we know, the culprit could've just gotten bored and gave up and let L take a free win.

The the argument I hear a lot which is "Well, I mean based on what is necessary to achieve the feat we can determine it required high cognition therefore we can co...." is faulty. Once again, you don't have no evidence to support anything you said. Based on what is necessary? You have no idea what the feat. required and therefore no idea what was necessary and what wasn't for him to achieve said result and anything else is just your own interpretation, not an actual objective statement that could be supported.

At least when we scaling something that was actually EXPLAINED, we can see for ourselves how sophisticated and impressive it was to achieve something because we can break it down with proper logic and reasoning. We can attempt to shatter and debunk the accomplishment as much as possible and then see how resilient it truly is depending on how much actually ends up breaking and how much ends up surviving. We can apply actual scientific thinking to it.

We don't have to rely on making a bunch of weird interpretations or random assumptions because most if not all the facts and conditions have already been provided to us. We can say with a lot of confidence that this character has truly displayed a high level of intelligence because we aren't relying on our "feelings" we are relying on empirical evidence. This type of reasoning is way closer to being objective than any other.

To me, it's not really about whether it's on screen or off screen or whatever. Who cares about any of that. What matters is whether we are aware of the context or have some evidence to back it up in any claim in some shape or form.

"An author contradicting himself bears no relevance on the narrative" bro..what?

If an author has repeatedly contradicted himself, then the narrative doesn't make sense and if nothing makes sense then it cannot be properly evaluated and judged because you can't rate or measure something that is inherently illogical especially not in an objective manner. Facts cannot be both true or false at the same time. If the author can't be bothered to take his work seriously, then I can't be bothered to take it seriously either.

Sure, one can say "Well, you just don't understand it and therefore have to cope", that's true. Except they themselves do not understand anything and are intentionally choosing to not even bother. If your scaling consists of using vague statements, nonsensical claims, and contradictory evidence then you aren't trying to argue in good faith at all.

subjectivity_normal scaling is

if i agree with it, it’s objectively true

if i disagree with it, it’s objectively false