2-C and 2-B Tier merge

[KLOL506]

I think such cases would be better labeled as "2-B, likely higher", as you'd be compromising otherwise an accepted argument in the page (namely the AP section, for example) that mentions how the respective character is on the level of even more universes.

I think just "2-B" is fine since "higher" would indicate the tier being greater than that. Same reason we don't put "At least 3-A" unless there is a possibility that it can stretch out to High 3-A or Low 2-C.

 

[Reiner04]

I think such cases would be better labeled as "2-B, likely higher", as you'd be compromising otherwise an accepted argument in the page (namely the AP section, for example) that mentions how the respective character is on the level of even more universes.

No, he will be just 2B

 

[StrymULTRA]

Pretty much all of this can be done by a bot. The only issue would arise if some characters have an "At least 2-C, likely 2-B" kind of rating, which would pretty much be edited to "2-B" flat out. I'm also pretty sure such examples would be quite rare.

The pages with both 2-C and 2-B in the tier are only 28. So a single user can definitely handle these manually.

 

[KingTempest]

2-C Universal
2-B Multiversal
2-A Infinite Multiversal

Kinda simple

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

I think such cases would be better labeled as "2-B, likely higher", as you'd be compromising otherwise an accepted argument in the page (namely the AP section, for example) that mentions how the respective character is on the level of even more universes.

I think just "2-B" is fine since "higher" would indicate the tier being greater than that. Same reason we don't put "At least 3-A" unless there is a possibility that it can stretch out to High 3-A or Low 2-C.

I agree to that.

I suggested it much earlier, but we can just do what Dragonball Super does with its speed tiers. Like say:

Multiverse level (100 universes, likely 10,000 universes)

 

[Arceus0x]

that is so confusing bro

Found the grade school dropout

 

[Planck69]

that is so confusing bro

2-C: 1 universe
2-B: 2 and above universes
2-A: Infinite universes

It's not that hard.

 

[KLOL506]

that is so confusing bro

Bruh

2-C: 1 Space-Time Continuum

2-B: 2 Space-Time Continuums or more

2-A: Infinite number of Space-Time Continuums

How is this confusing, please tell me

 

[Reiner04]

Also, Profiles will go under revision for addition of number of universes a character can destroy anyway, so it being alot(which it is not) or less work is not a problem anymore anyway.....
It can be done while doing that as well.

 

[KLOL506]

Man what I would give to wake @Wokistan from his slumber right now

 

[Mr. Bambu]

My concerns haven't been addressed, and I still feel this is a laughably small issue to argue over, so in case it is necessary I will reiterate that I remain opposed, having read the more recent posts. There's no good reason to stir up the wiki's tiering system purely to satisfy some people's need for more organization. It is organized, and it is no more arbitrary than countless other tiers. What matters is that people understand it, which they do. That is sufficient for me.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Got permission from Emirp to reply to Tanin and give my input

There is no such thing as near infinity, there is only infinite and not infinite which is called finite.

Except this term is widely used in fiction to express something countless. whether you want to think of it as something that doesn't exist verses who doesn't dwell too much on power levels and math to elaborate on such term to express something large uses it. How would you index if such cases were proven multiple times in fiction? Simple. Index it as countless as they said and leave it to people's interpretation as that is the most accurate description given by the verse.

As we can from above we can't be certain about anything as to what countless truly signifies, and if countless is just finite in the context, then someone with just 1 extra uni above countless can stomp it.

I mean yea. But this is the issue with battleboarding. Not with indexing. vswiki is a Indexing wiki and battle boarding is only secondary to that. Hampering the convenience and easier understanding of indexed profile for the sake of battleboarding convenience is something i do not agree with.

I. For countless, the very basic question is what is countless without any context. It can be sometimes equated to infinite in some languages or specific contexts but it can also just basically mean a big number, that's it. No specific about how big, just BIG. So, in this context how do we deal with these kind of questions-

• countless > 1000 or < 1000
• countless > billion or < billion
• countless > googol or < googol
• countless > googolplex or < googolplex
• countless > graham number or < graham number
• countless > Rayo's number or < Rayo's number
• generally, countless > any finite big/higher number or < any finite big number

And to make matters worse, let there be say a verse A where the usual feats are busting 1 to 2 universes and the verse has statements of countless universes, while there is another verse B which has characters busting trillions of unis and the verse also has statements of countless universes. Now, should we take their countless statements as equal or as different categories of power?

Then bring it up to debate when these verses meets in battleboarding match up. There is no issue with this in the wiki as it can be indexed as "capable of busting 2 universe" likely/possibly Higher "stated by this to be capable of destroying countless universe".
As long as both scenario do not contradict each other i do not see a reason as to not accept the other. Likely and possibly exist for a reason and versus match up can be given rules to assume only using the key that is countless or not.
Beside some fiction have a purpose of saying trillions or countless. Some for making an impact while others to simply describe the scale of their cosmology. Not every verses looks through the perspective of a battleboarder


In conclusion i agree with the merge for 2-C and 2-B. And old 2-C being the new Low 2-C.

And looking as how much Staff is willing to put out effort to make this work should be considered. Passing up a chance like this is only inviting more CRT like this happening in the future. Specially when AKM said about suggesting it before years before.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

What are your concerns? Let us know so that we can address it.

That this change only serves to confuse those with an understanding of the tiers, and does not actually serve to improve the wiki in any way barring satisfying someone's OCD.

If it is such a a small issue that doesn't need any arguing over, then why are u arguing?

Because we are a small clan of troglodytes that unfortunately only argue, harhar.

Joke aside, because I was called here to give my opinion and so I have done so. Comes with the admin title.

U didn' t elaborate on why u disagree. Could u at least elaborate so we can address ur concerns.

In fact, I did.

So u agree it leads to more organization.
And ur argument is there is no good reason to improve it? I am sorry what? Why is there no good reason to improve it?
I cannot comprehend ur philosophy. Why is there no good in doing good? I always thought improving something is doing good. I just learned now that improving is pointless, a bad argument and we should discard any such ideas. So we shouldn't strive to improve anything henceforth, correct?

Alright, first, could you possibly tone down the needless aggression? As I've previously mentioned, this shit is a miniscule issue. Calm down, lad.

Secondly, it isn't an improvement. You mistake the word "organization" for "improvement". I believe what we have now works, and thus it is better to keep it than to change it for no marked gain simply because people are familiar with it. It doesn't matter if it's "arbitrary" or not. All of it is arbitrary. The term may as well have lost its meaning. This change isn't "good".

So aye, take a few steps back. Breathe a bit before you continue. For your sake and mine.

I am sorry but in the previous statement u said it will impro - oh wait we shouldn't improve. So can't argue with that. So we shouldn't strive to make the other tiers less arbitrary either? And just because the other tiers are arbitrary we should strive to prevent them from improving and becoming less arbitrary, correct?

Yeah I just don't have the energy to deal with this. You wanna be a child, there's places to do it outside of my Bullshit Zone. Stop.

People will still understand after the changes so shouldn't u be indifferent and neutral to it?

Oh wait, we should be against any such changes that improves and organizes and makes stuff less arbitrary.

The amount of times I've heard this dogass take is shocking. "Oh, trust me, people will definitely understand". My brother in Christ, I have been here since 2016. Nobody understands shit. Everyone's faking it. Miss me with all of that.

I repeat, take a ******' moment to read what someone said before you go off on your presumptions. It makes you look unintelligent.

 

[Eficiente]

Neutral, but at least call 2-B Finite Multiverse level and 2-A Infinite Multiverse level. That would be one hell of a benefit by making things more intuitive and even less redundant.

 

[Antvasima]

Words cannot express just how distastefully dishonest this accusation is but I'm not gonna go through the effort of dissecting this because this is gonna lead to nowhere.

Well, it isn't like I was being deliberately dishonest. That is genuinely how I perceived dealing with the situation, but I apologise again if I was being rude.

By the Gods man, how is this any different between comparing our current 2-B characters with other higher "countless" 2-B characters? AP isn't the end-all, be-all of a match or powerscaling you know.

Like I have said earlier, I perceive much of the entire point of our wiki as accurately indexing, classifying, quantifying, and distinctively separating characters into different power levels, and do not at all like when we mash together very differently powerful characters any more than necessary.

This looks like an even worse end to take than whatever Qawsedf proposed NGL, really tempts me to choose that end.

Well, at least I offered to be willing to compromise as well as I am able in this case.

Destructive against who LOL

Destructive against the intended purpose of this wiki, as I tried to explain above.

Ant, this is literally just a name change and a tier merge that wouldn't affect the actual feats. This is in no way related to the conditions required for Tier 2 as that's its own beast completely unrelated to naming schemes at hand. This is literally as simple as the Tier Categorization CRT that took months ago.

No, that thread improved on the number of available distinctions in our wiki's organisation, whereas what you suggested would lessen them.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, I think this is a good statement to live by. "There is no need to put in so much time, or energy just to try to fix something that was never broken in the first place."

Exactly.

 

[Antvasima]

My concerns haven't been addressed, and I still feel this is a laughably small issue to argue over, so in case it is necessary I will reiterate that I remain opposed, having read the more recent posts. There's no good reason to stir up the wiki's tiering system purely to satisfy some people's need for more organization. It is organized, and it is no more arbitrary than countless other tiers. What matters is that people understand it, which they do. That is sufficient for me.

Thank you very much for being a voice of reason as usual. Also, as I have tried to explain above, this change would lessen the distinctions in our organisation, not improve on them.

 

[Antvasima]

Btw: I tried to improve a bit on the organisation in the voting tally section of the first post in this thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, regarding the problems with my impatience and irritability when I get sufficiently tired, stressed out, distracted, and mentally overexerted at the same time, that KLOL506 mentioned earlier:

I do actually try to work on my personal self-development via regular meditation lessons, but it isn't like I can remotely just reach immediate significant results in this regard, and I do legitimately have a combined diagnosed autism-ADHD-latent psychosis combo platter to deal with.

In addition, although I am not diagnosed with it, I would be very surprised if I do not have remaining PTSD from when I was constantly mentally tortured into extreme hysteria, paranoid psychosis, suicidal depression, and ongoing hallucinations for several years via extremely ill-considered heavy overmedication from quack psychiatrists.

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

No, that thread improved on the number of available distinctions in our wiki's organisation, whereas what you suggested would lessen them.

Then may I suggest we take the time to split up Multiversal into 1 tier for every single possible number of Universes in a Multiverse? Since you perceive this wiki to be about "accurately indexing, classifying, quantifying, and distinctively separating characters into different power levels, and do not at all like when we mash together very differently powerful characters any more than necessary.", seeing as each character who has destroyed a different number of universes would instantly have a massive power gap between one another, that would warrant as much a difference in tier as the 1001 split, yes? And while we're at it, we should do the same for any other tier that delves into these sorts of number's where being a single layer above in the tier would default to a massive power gap?

If you can't tell, this is sarcasm. And I'm not trying to come off as rude, if it seems so, I give my sincerest apologies. This is me attempting to make you see, what me and many other people perceive as, a rather disagreeable position that you are taking, one that seems to be over complicating a system rather than accurately smoothing it out. And while I am challenging your thoughts on this matter, I do not do so out of desire to antagonize you- Clearly, you are a knowledgeable, experienced and helpful member of this community, beyond what my words can describe. However, if one simply bends their back to match what other's say without challenging it, then what does that say about their character? I suppose that is getting off track, but my point remains.

Think about a job, for instance- People don't have Job's for every singular task- People have Job's that cover multiple Tasks most often. Why should Tiering be any different? The gap within the Tier 2 system's in question is so vast that not assigning a single "Job", or "Tier" to the gap is just needlessly cluttering up space, rather than making accurate and clear distinctions. There is a fine balance to it all, and the more one can smooth out the tiering system without actually compromising the important distinctions between character's, the better- And out of all distinctions on the wiki, this really has to be one of, if not the least important.

Again, this is not meant to antagonize- If this message does upset you, I apologize. I simply desire to, as a member of this wiki, provide productive Debate and Change to the wiki. I doubt you will change your mind on this matter- You seem very firm in the belief of keeping this number. But as a member of the community, no matter how small a role I play, it is my responsibility to challenge belief's I disagree with, within a reasonable manner. I sincerely believe that this belief in responsibility is held by all who took part in this thread, from both sides, and is hence why they all reached out to try and get their voices across.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Avoiding confusion isn't about avoiding change- It's about communicating change. If your concerns lay in how new commers will react, I assure you, so long as people work together to clearly and concisely inform people, there will be no more confusion than we already have from Newcomers.

This isn't accurate though. Again, we can see from example that people can be told something en masse and a good amount of people will simply... not know it.

So this doesn't clear my concerns, no. It's just stating an opposite to what I said, which is also not the same. I strongly doubt newcomers will be any less confused by the current tiering system, it's just an organization of numbers and frankly there are so many better things to be confused about.

So no. My vote remains the same.

 

[Reiner04]

Actually to avoid strawmaning of opposition arguements, I'll clear one thing,

There is no such thing as @Mr._Bambu or any other person in here who prefer current tiering system and distinction have to debunk this thread in order to say "I disagree". As it's merely a matter of preference, having arbitrary distinction doesn't mean it's wrong, It can still be seen as bigger multiverse > small multiverse, there won't be a exactly a fiction with accurate 999 universes within their multiverse just to point out that our tier 2 distinction is something to be concerned of, either they'll have handful of universes or way greater amount of them, which is fine to be placed in seprate tiers. So I don't see any reason to say @Mr._Bambu or @Celestial_Pegasus is wrong in anyway or they have to prove someone else wrong or debunk anything, their points and opinions are as much valid as of any other opposition here.

 

[Antvasima]

Then may I suggest we take the time to split up Multiversal into 1 tier for every single possible number of Universes in a Multiverse? Since you perceive this wiki to be about "accurately indexing, classifying, quantifying, and distinctively separating characters into different power levels, and do not at all like when we mash together very differently powerful characters any more than necessary.", seeing as each character who has destroyed a different number of universes would instantly have a massive power gap between one another, that would warrant as much a difference in tier as the 1001 split, yes? And while we're at it, we should do the same for any other tier that delves into these sorts of number's where being a single layer above in the tier would default to a massive power gap?

If you can't tell, this is sarcasm. And I'm not trying to come off as rude, if it seems so, I give my sincerest apologies. This is me attempting to make you see, what me and many other people perceive as, a rather disagreeable position that you are taking, one that seems to be over complicating a system rather than accurately smoothing it out. And while I am challenging your thoughts on this matter, I do not do so out of desire to antagonize you- Clearly, you are a knowledgeable, experienced and helpful member of this community, beyond what my words can describe. However, if one simply bends their back to match what other's say without challenging it, then what does that say about their character? I suppose that is getting off track, but my point remains.

Think about a job, for instance- People don't have Job's for every singular task- People have Job's that cover multiple Tasks most often. Why should Tiering be any different? The gap within the Tier 2 system's in question is so vast that not assigning a single "Job", or "Tier" to the gap is just needlessly cluttering up space, rather than making accurate and clear distinctions. There is a fine balance to it all, and the more one can smooth out the tiering system without actually compromising the important distinctions between character's, the better- And out of all distinctions on the wiki, this really has to be one of, if not the least important.

Again, this is not meant to antagonize- If this message does upset you, I apologize. I simply desire to, as a member of this wiki, provide productive Debate and Change to the wiki. I doubt you will change your mind on this matter- You seem very firm in the belief of keeping this number. But as a member of the community, no matter how small a role I play, it is my responsibility to challenge belief's I disagree with, within a reasonable manner. I sincerely believe that this belief in responsibility is held by all who took part in this thread, from both sides, and is hence why they all reached out to try and get their voices across.

No problem at all, but as I have stated previously: I want as many distinctive tiers for significantly different power levels as is practically possible for us to insert, and would technically prefer if we add another sub-tier to tier 2, whereas making our system even less precise than currently does not at all sit well with me.

My apologies, but that is my fundamental viewpoint, and I am sticking to it.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Read the arguments, conceding on the 1 and 2 distinction
Universal and multiversal, my brain did not think of that.
Anyway still neutral I am fine either way

 

[Reiner04]

After thinking a while, I'll prefer the current one, as there is still distinction btw 2C and 2B regardless if it's just a gap of one universe it's still enough to set a boundary btw small and big multiverse. Even Tier 1C sub tiers distinction just vary by 1 dimensions and so the tier 2 but just elements has changed, in one case its dimensions and in other it's universes. If tier 1 is fine, so the Tier 2.

 

[Reiner04]

And u are using wrong equivalences like the Complex Multiversal Tiers(Low 1-C, 1-C, High 1-C) since they at least have some basis like M-Theory for 11 Dimensions in totality.

What theories has anything to do with tier distinction that is actually related to power scaling? The gap is still has same validity as of tier 2 sub tiers. Regardless one is based of theory and other is not it'll not change the fact that gap is still equally valid in both.

 

[Reiner04]

I wouldn't have mind it if rather than 11d, it had been 16d or what not as gap would have been still same.

 

[Reiner04]

@Celestial_Pegasus is neutral, and he is fine with the old tiering because of Aesthetic reasons which is subjective.
I debunked @Mr._Bambu here.

As it's merely a matter of preference,

 

[Reiner04]

Well let me say it directly and clearly.
We are fine with tier 1C to have distinction just because it looks good as it is based of irl theories when they don't mean anything in the power scaling at all, we can still merge all of them and it's not like theories won't be contradicted in doing so. We just know that "yeah it looks good because of theories suggesting these numbers" there is no other reason than that.

I argue Same for tier 2B, 1001 looks good it has been chosen arbitrarily in the past but now I am used to it as tier 2B makes me think of this number, so it looks good.

Reasoning of distinction is just that they was meant to be divided because of fiction reason. We don't want to put someone capable of destroying thousands universes in the same tier as someone capable of dozens or hundreds.

 

[Reiner04]

Or better yet why not have another redundant Tier like Low 1-B between High 1-C and 1-B that comprises of 12-D to 26D based on Bosonic String theory.

As no one cares, they are fine with the distinction there is.

 

[Reiner04]

Arguement from Belief and Subjective

What am I against to or debunking to do a fallacy in the first place? We have distinctions based of preferences, distinction of tier 1C doesn't contribute to the power scaling at all.

 

[Reiner04]

If we can have sub tiers in 1-C and Tier 2, we can also have Low 1-B. Dismissing it is hypocritical

As I said, no one cares about Low 1B, we are fine as the way they are. We don't gonna merge all f tier 1C sub tiers into one just because someone else think they should.

 

[Reiner04]

What I am saying is that the same can be argued for any amount of redundant tiers without any basis. I can ask for a sub tier at 10000, at million at billion, or anywhere. I can ask for sub tiers in 1-A or High 1-A or 0 as well, with just the argument of personal preference. And u can't logically deny me as it would be hypocritical in the first place

I don't have to deny you actually? Did I not made it clear yet that "1000" is a distinction btw small and bigger multiverse, it wasn't mean for anything else, if there is more bigger multiverse than thousands than it'll be treated as higher level within bigger multiverse not as another tier.

So just keep making bigger multiverse and more bigger multiverse tier is not needed that much as big multiverse tier already exist.

 

[Antvasima]

We already have three lower-dimensional buffer tiers, Low 1-C, 1-C, and High 1-C, before tier 1-B, whereas for tier 2-B (a merger of all finite numbers of universes beyond a certain point) we only have one, tier 2-C, which incorporates quite a lot of characters.

In the second case, I would technically prefer another buffer tier before that point, but this will have to make do in lack of better options, and it catches/incorporates most specific lower-ordered cases anyway.

Also, as a very new member, please stop spamming our staff forum any further and accept that this issue isn't up to you to decide in the slightest.

 

[Antvasima]

Because most more specific cases do not tend to go beyond that point without using "uncountable" or "infinite" descriptions, and it seemed like a number that was neither excessively high or low when DarkLK suggested it.

Your argumentation here is pointless. Lots of our tiering borders are not based on any official real world numbers. They are just there for purposes of convenient hierarchical distinction, and that is it.

 

[KLOL506]

We already have three lower-dimensional buffer tiers, Low 1-C, 1-C, and High 1-C, before tier 1-B,

Which are supported by the M-Theory, String Theory and the Brane Theory.

whereas for tier 2-B (a merger of all finite numbers of universes beyond a certain point) we only have one, tier 2-C, which incorporates quite a lot of characters.

I have questions about this.

If 3 universes is already infinitely higher than 2, then shouldn't every number of universes have a tier?

Bear in mind that this makes things a lot messier and is borderline stat padding.

Like, 3 vs 2 universes is already a massive difference based on your logic and yet it's within 2-C and 4-D. How do you account for this without the above?

In the second case, I would technically prefer another buffer tier before that point, but this will have to make do in lack of better options, and it catches/incorporates most specific lower-ordered cases anyway.

If you want a buffer, I'd go with Qawsedf's proposal in lack of better options. While "Countless" is for the most part arbitrary without evidence and context, it is all the more reason to set up even tighter restrictions for it to qualify.

Also, as a very new member, please stop spamming our staff forum any further and accept that this issue isn't up to you to decide in the slightest.

Ant, he was one of the first people I and Emirp discussed about this topic before Emirp made this CRT, and we both gave him permission to do so, he has for the most part contributed constructively in detail and has stuck to the topic.

Because most more specific cases do not tend to go beyond that point without using "uncountable" or "infinite" descriptions,

"infinite" descriptions with enough context are 2-A. This CRT isn't about 2-A, only 2-C and 2-B.

and it seemed like a number that was neither excessively high or low when DarkLK suggested it.

He isn't around anymore so...

Lots of our tiering borders are not based on any official real world numbers.

But they have IRL objects to rely on for said numbers.

They are just there for purposes of convenient hierarchical distinction, and that is it.

That hierarchial distinction would not exist if the actual reference objects did not exist.

 

[Antvasima]

Which are supported by the M-Theory, String Theory and the Brane Theory.

Yes, but it is still a buffer, and a large part of our job is to try to be precise.

I have questions about this.

If 3 universes is already infinitely higher than 2, then shouldn't every number of universes have a tier?

Bear in mind that this makes things a lot messier and is borderline stat padding.

Like, 3 vs 2 universes is already a massive difference based on your logic and yet it's within 2-C and 4-D. How do you account for this without the above?

3 universes are not infinitely higher than 2. We simply do not know the distance between the universes. There is likely a very high, but still unquantifiable, difference between 1 universal spacetime continuum and 2 of them though.

I personally think that there might usually only be a 500x difference between the lower and upper borders of 2-C, but that is just my personal interpretation.

If you want a buffer, I'd go with Qawsedf's proposal in lack of better options. While "Countless" is for the most part arbitrary without evidence and context, it is all the more reason to set up even tighter restrictions for it to qualify.

We could technically Qawsedf234's suggestion as an extra sub-tier in-between our current tiers 2-B and 2-A instead, without getting rid of our current tier 2-C, you know. We would have to to an awful lot of renaming edits for most of our tier 2 pages though.

Ant, he was one of the first people I and Emirp discussed about this topic before Emirp made this CRT, and we both gave him permission to do so, he has for the most part contributed constructively in detail and has stuck to the topic.

He is spamming way too much more a non-staff member in a staff forum thread. Our usual convention is that non-staff members are given permission to post only one or two times if they have something genuinely important to say, but here the non-staff seem to largely have hijacked our entire discussion here.

"infinite" descriptions with enough context are 2-A. This CRT isn't about 2-A, only 2-C and 2-B.

Yes, but my intended point was that based on our experiences back then, DarkLK and I though that most cases where the exact lower-order of universes were mentioned would end up in tier 2-C, which seems to have been largely correct.

He isn't around anymore so...

He still built the original revision to our tiering system and is hIghly knowledgeable in general, but regardless, I still agree with the concept of at least one buffer tier.

But they have IRL objects to rely on for said numbers.

No, they are largely just named after real world objects, as Polar-kun just gave them random multiples originally, and since there recurrently aren't any fixed sizes or methods of destructions for those types of objects, and massive amounts of revision work would be required, we have not adjusted nearly all of our finite lower tier borders yet.

That hierarchial distinction would not exist if the actual reference objects did not exist.

In lack of any available official distinctions that I know about, I much prefer to use something that catches most lower-ordered cases without being excessively high, and I do not understand why you consider this issue such a big deal in the first place. Me, I am motivated by our wiki being as specific and well-organised as possible, which is much of the entire point of our greater work focus here, but in your case you seem to want us to only use something officially accepted within real world physics even in case where there are no true official titles available as far as I am aware.

 

[KLOL506]

Yes, but it is still a buffer, and a large part of our job is to try to be precise.

3 universes are not infinitely higher than 2. We simply do not know the distance between the universes. There is likely a very high, but still unquantifiable, difference between 1 universal spacetime continuum and 2 of them though.

The difference between 1 and 2 is not the main discussion here tho. The main talk is the difference between 2 and any higher finite number.

I personally think that there might usually only be a 500x difference between the lower and upper borders of 2-C, but that is just my personal interpretation.

If you have any logical basis to support your claim, feel free to share it.

We could technically Qawsedf234's suggestion as an extra sub-tier in-between our current tiers 2-B and 2-A instead, without getting rid of our current tier 2-C, you know. We would have to to an awful lot of renaming edits for most of our tier 2 pages though.

Pretty sure Qawsedf's suggestion was to make 2-C for 2 to higher countably finite numbers, and 2-B to uncountably finite numbers (Where countless is). Could be misremembering, but it did involve giving the "countless" portion its own tier as a buffer.

He is spamming way too much more a non-staff member in a staff forum thread. Our usual convention is that non-staff members are given permission to post only one or two times if they have something genuinely important to say, but here the non-staff seem to largely have hijacked our entire discussion here.

Some of them got through without permission from either me or Emirp.

Yes, but my intended point was that based on our experiences back then, DarkLK and I though that most cases where the exact lower-order of universes were mentioned would end up in tier 2-C, which seems to have been largely correct.

He still built the original revision to our tiering system and is hIghly knowledgeable in general, but regardless, I still agree with the concept of at least one buffer tier.

Most of us don't and it'd also screw with the naming schemes further and make things considerably more complicated than it already is.

No, they are largely just named after real world objects, as Polar-kun just gave them random multiples originally, and since there recurrently aren't any fixed sizes or methods of destructions for those types of objects, and massive amounts of revision work would be required, we have not adjusted nearly all of our finite lower tier borders yet.

End of the day, point is the same, even those names have some sort of basis.

In lack of any available official distinctions that I know about, I much prefer to use something that catches most lower-ordered cases without being excessively high, and I do not understand why you consider this issue such a big deal in the first place. Me, I am motivated by our wiki being as specific and well-organised as possible, which is much of the entire point of our greater work focus here, but in your case you seem to want us to only use something officially accepted within real world physics even in case where there are no true official titles available as far as I am aware.

Same as last time, to reduce redundancy and arbitration as much as possible and make the distinction much easier to understand, and make indexing within the tier less of a nightmare than it already is. None of this was ever about making certain characters look strong, I mean, how the hell are you going to do that without any actual upgrades to the number of universes they blew up, which you already agreed has to now be noted down regardless of whether any changes take place to the naming schemes or not?

 

[Just a Random Butler]

I am leaning towards neutral, with a slight preference for the current procedure.

The amount of universes being affected would have to be specified on the profiles.

Regardless of what happens in this thread, I think that this practice should at least be encouraged.

 

[KLOL506]

Regardless of what happens in this thread, I think that this practice should at least be encouraged.

This practice should be mandatory and enforced, as has been agreed upon by most of the other staff members. Listing the number of universes destroyed that is.