It has come to my attention due to this rule discussion ongoing currently that the D7 BK Skip may be controversial to the rules in that standing on raised blocks has two different possibilities.
Either standing on raised blocks is a universal rule, or it is a situational rule. There is definitely merit to both sides of the argument.
On the Universal side; You are able to fall onto raised blocks, and you are able to stand on them, and raise them with a switch in where you are still standing on them raised and can walk on them; so it IS intended that you can walk on certain raised block.
But on the situational side; you have to consider that SOME raised blocks were not intended to be walked on; these are where there is no way for the play to normally fall onto them from a higher floor, and there is no switch near those blocks in order for you to be able to raise them under you; therefore you could never actually get onto those blocks without a super jump.
There is generally no issue with this rule with which ever side you stand on because there is walkable tiles within 1 space of them; but when it comes to the D7 BK skip, you are leaving the room while NOT on a normal walkable tile, which goes against the current definition. Also for mab's proposed ruleset; if you are on the situational side, it is an unnatural way of leaving the room because you could not naturally get on those blocks while they are raised.
Here is the situation in question: 
Due to this affecting both possible rulesets, it seems like the best solution is to discuss this seperately just to see where people stand on how they see these blocks.
I personally on on the side that they are situational just because it makes logical sense to me that you could not get on those blocks without the super jumps, but apparently there are others who are on the universal side; so it's best if we get a consensus of peoples opinions on this.
This is not against the rules. Unnatural screen transitions are screen transitions for DIRECTIONS the game does not intend for you to take, regardless of tile. The game intends for you to transition East here, the direction of transition is not unnatural.
If this is against the rules, Villa skip is against the rules. The game intends for you to transition South there, just not on that tile.
If this is against the rules, we have to hit the switch in D8, since all of the blocks above the chest with the fire rod are "out of bounds" since you can not access that section of the screen with the blocks in that configuration.
One could even go as far as to say: if this is against the rules, then diagonal block pushing should be against the rules since it allows you to get to parts of dungeons that you can not normally access with the room in its current configuration.
Then what I said about D8 still holds true then. You can not access the area with the firerod chest without the blocks raised, thus that would be considered "OoB." I doubt anyone would consider that area out of bounds. Thus walking on raised blocks in this instance (or any) is not OoB.
From the situational side; Rapid, looking in that room, there's no way to fall on those blocks because it's the highest floor, there's no switch in that room, so you couldn't get on top of those blocks without SJ. Therefore it's not naturally accessible. It's quite easy to disagree with that logic from the situational stand point. It's the same thing in D8; but you're not screen transitioning while on those rising blocks, and there is walkable area next to it, so it breaks no rules from that stand point; you can just walk off them since they're within 1 block of a normally accessible tile.
I really like that BK skip, but to me it's just illogical against the ruleset.
As for the Villa Skip comparison; I consider pits as tiles you can naturally access because you can move to them without glitches, even though you fall in them as well, so transitioning down on them is no issue, and you land on a walkable space, so I see no reason to compare them.
Zorlax, it has nothing to do with accessing a room or area you couldn't get to at that point in the run. It has to do with accessing that area by transitioning when you're on a block you couldn't get onto without SJ..According to the ruleset we decided on, you cannot transition unless you're transitioning from a tile you can naturally access. The discussion is whether we consider getting on top of those blocks natural or not based on universal access or situational access to that block.
Disclude says, "Zorlax, it has nothing to do with accessing a room or area you couldn't get to at that point in the run. It has to do with accessing that area by transitioning when you're on a block you couldn't get onto without SJ"
Rapid said that it had to do more with the fact you couldn't stand on that tile (I think that post is edited now.) My question is, "which is it?"
If it's standing atop the blocks, then my D8 argument holds. If you call that one tile (by the screen transition) in D7 OoB BECAUSE you're standing on a square over 1 tile away from a standard tile that can be walked on (ie making the Seabass ruleset apply to block configurations), by extension, D8 fire rod chest can ONLY be accessed when the blocks are lowered. Anything else is not a tile that can be walked on with the block configuration in the "up" position.
If it's regarding the actual transition. The original definition was screen transitions in directions that could not normally be done. (Riddler brought up this idea before. You can do a "Villa Skip" type thing in TTH to get to D8 faster). By extension, as Disclude is saying the rule is said to state "you cannot transition unless you're transitioning from a tile you can naturally access." You can not access the lowest pixel of the Villa Skip screen without doing a glitch. Therefore, Villa Skip would need to be banned.
However, the idea of the issue lying with the transition still sounds more like it's an idea of where you are legally able to stand, which is the first issue I present a counterargument to. While I have, in essence, just repeated myself, I feel that the sequelae of changing the rules still pose more logical errors than not changing the rules at all.
At this point in LADX, since everything is giant clusterfuck, reducing the amount logical errors is the best right now, as opposed to trying to eliminate them all.
It should also go without saying, but I am going to say it anyways: Transitioning from walls, closed doors, and other solid objects is banned and has always been banned.
Zorlax, you're wrong again on the Seabass definition. I don't think you quite understand what it entails in way way of the D8 raised blocks. You're ALLOWED to be ON blocks that are 1 tile adjacent to a naturally accessible tile. So if Those raised blocks in D8 aren't natrually accessible due to the situational side; then you're allowed to SJ on them, and then walk off them onto the natural accessible tiles above them and walk up to the magic rod.
BUT when you're ON those blocks that aren't naturally accessible, that ARE adjacent to a tile that is naturally accessible, you're NOT allowed to transition. You can only transition screens while on a tile that IS naturally accessible.
The discussion here is whether being on top of those raised blocks count as naturally accessible because you can get on other ones in the game in certain ways, but you can't get on THOSE ones without super jump.
And again, as for your villa skip comparison, pits are accessible tiles. You can walk into them, or jump on them without SJ's The "lowest pixel" is not a tile..We're working in terms of tiles in this definition.
But either way, people seem to be on the universal side from what I've seen
