DC Cosmology up

[Tiktime]

The sheer level of intricacy in DC and Marvel is unparalleled, and we just haven't gotten to Marvel yet.

What does the level of intricacy mean? How did you measure it? Well, in the sense of other inter-author cycles?
In any case, will the same principle be accepted in relation to other inter-author cycles?

I wasn't asking you, and the "literal explicit mention of dimensions" is nowhere near enough for such an upgrade.

Why? There's or in other topics no such things about it

 

[Firestorm808]

Kind of unfair to DC. Since in other universes, which also have many authors, there is no such rule, and in the same Marvel(In a track that used literally unrelated stories. )

The purpose of the new rules is to examine what are the most consistent depictions across the many writers over the years.

We don't want one-off statements that are never referenced ever again to be our foundation of the cosmology structures.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

What does the level of intricacy mean? How did you measure it? Well, in the sense of other inter-author cycles?
In any case, will the same principle be accepted in relation to other inter-author cycles?




Why? There's or in other topics no such things about it

Please stop. Your CRT has not proven this panel to scale to any particular cosmology, so I will get it closed unless you can do so right now.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Disagree.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

That's what, 4 staff disagrees now?

This thread needs to be closed.

 

[GarrixianXD]

I can be excluded since I don’t have evaluation rights

 

[Tiktime]

The purpose of the new rules is to examine what are the most consistent depictions across the many writers over the years.

We don't want one-off statements that are never referenced ever again to be our foundation of the cosmology structures.

There must be some reason for it, that's what if there's nothing to contradict it, are you just as likely to ignore it?

 

[Tiktime]

Please stop. Your CRT has not proven this panel to scale to any particular cosmology, so I will get it closed unless you can do so right now.

I don't understand your claims, disclose why, cite some site rules so I can at least understand the reason for your claims about this.

It is impossible to argue or have any contact with you when you just say "it is not enough" or "it doesn't work" and do not explain why

 

[Deagonx]

There must be some reason for it, that's what if there's nothing to contradict it, are you just as likely to ignore it?

I don't understand the argument that you're trying to make.

 

[Tiktime]

I don't understand the argument that you're trying to make.

What I'm trying to say is that firstly, where are these rules written (the scaling rules only talk about scaling some characters over others, not cosmological structures)

Secondly why does it only work with Marvel and DC (in the cosmology case mostly with DC) but not with other inter-author cycles?

 

[Deagonx]

What I'm trying to say is that firstly, where are these rules written (the scaling rules only talk about scaling some characters over others, not cosmological structures)

It's in the link I provided.

For the purposes of tiering, these categories are the "rule of thumb," but cross-scaling into other material can occur when there is a clear evidentiary basis or narrative relevance.

Secondly why does it only work with Marvel and DC (in the cosmology case mostly with DC) but not with other inter-author cycles?

Because it's particularly and notably egregious in these two verses.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I don't understand your claims, disclose why, cite some site rules so I can at least understand the reason for your claims about this.

It is impossible to argue or have any contact with you when you just say "it is not enough" or "it doesn't work" and do not explain why

I have not claimed anything, just expressed to you quite clearly that this panel has no proof of scaling to any cosmology. You, not me, have the burden of proof here.

 

[Tiktime]

It's in the link I provided.

For the purposes of tiering, these categories are the "rule of thumb," but cross-scaling into other material can occur when there is a clear evidentiary basis or narrative relevance.

Here they are talking about the materials of the 4 main authors and their cosmologies. And it is even noted that these are not inflexible rules.

The division of DC's cosmology into these four categories is not exhaustive nor unbending, they are representative of "lines in the sand" based on approximations of the most prominent characterizations of the cosmology. For the purposes of tiering, these categories are the "rule of thumb," but cross-scaling into other material can occur when there is a clear evidentiary basis or narrative relevance.

Because it's particularly and notably egregious in these two verses.

And how was it measured? In my experience, the other universes are no different. Star Wars and Warhammer, sometimes there are even plot contradictory things going on. And the same with Warcraft, no universe is immune to that, even if there's only one author.

 

[Tiktime]

I have not claimed anything, just expressed to you quite clearly that this panel has no proof of scaling to any cosmology. You, not me, have the burden of proof here.

It's the same thing, you say "it's not enough" but let me ask you why it's not enough? Why doesn't it prove it? I see a direct scaling for cosmology where any structure that is qualitatively superior to the multiverse (the same sphere of gods) will have Low 1-A at least. So that I can provide you with the missing evidence in case you need it.

 

[Gasper]

It's the same thing, you say "it's not enough" but let me ask you why it's not enough? Why doesn't it prove it? I see a direct scaling for cosmology where any structure that is qualitatively superior to the multiverse (the same sphere of gods) will have Low 1-A at least. So that I can provide you with the missing evidence in case you need it.

No that's not how that works, no.
Being above the Multiverse=/=low 1-A.

And how was it measured? In my experience, the other universes are no different. Star Wars and Warhammer, sometimes there are even plot contradictory things going on. And the same with Warcraft, no universe is immune to that, even if there's only one author.

Please stop comparing different verses with DC. They all work differently and with different rules.

 

[Tiktime]

No that's not how that works, no.
Being above the Multiverse=/=low 1-A.

Depends on the multiverse

Please stop comparing different verses with DC. They all work differently and with different rules.

Well, the question is why is it so

 

[Firestorm808]

There must be some reason for it, that's what if there's nothing to contradict it, are you just as likely to ignore it?

Again, you need to show that there is consistency to the unique statement. Some examples include either being by the same writer or referencing another writer or the same event.

 

[Gasper]

Depends on the multiverse

DC Multiverse is 2-A.

Well, the question is why is it so

Because Marvel for example works differently that DC does, story and cosmology wise.

One reboots every decade and one never does.
Marvel cosmology is MOSTLY the same from different writers while DC writers always try to bring something new to the cosmology and sometimes it simply contradicts itself. Not saying Marvel dosen't (it absolutely does) but objectively speaking DC does it more.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

It's the same thing, you say "it's not enough" but let me ask you why it's not enough? Why doesn't it prove it? I see a direct scaling for cosmology where any structure that is qualitatively superior to the multiverse (the same sphere of gods) will have Low 1-A at least. So that I can provide you with the missing evidence in case you need it.

Stop it. We have a discussion rule for this, you know.

• Do not try to upgrade the Sphere of the Gods to Tier 1, especially to Low 1-A or 1-A, without new, canonical information. Multiple discussion threads like this one firmly rejected the idea of a Low 1-A or 1-A rank for the Sphere of the Gods, which would be inconsistent and contradictory; the cosmology split further rejected any Tier 1 rating for it due to insufficient evidence for qualitative superiority.

 

[Deagonx]

And it is even noted that these are not inflexible rules.

You're right. That's what my part in bold is meant to communicate. They aren't inflexible, but you need a clear evidentiary basis for connecting material to one of these cosmologies, so what is yours?

 

[Tiktime]

Again, you need to show that there is consistency to the unique statement. Some examples include either being by the same writer or referencing another writer or the same event.

The problem is that it's not written in the rules, if it was, this thread wouldn't be accepted, and it's made by staff

 

[Tiktime]

DC Multiverse is 2-A.

My scan says otherwise

DC Multiverse is 2-A.

Because Marvel for example works differently that DC does, story and cosmology wise.

One reboots every decade and one never does.
Marvel cosmology is MOSTLY the same from different writers while DC writers always try to bring something new to the cosmology and sometimes it simply contradicts itself. Not saying Marvel dosen't (it absolutely does) but objectively speaking DC does it more.

This all sounds great of course, but it's not, Marvel's cosmology is just as contradictory, though explained by the multiverse of reality. Especially since there are no such rules

 

[Tiktime]

Stop it. We have a discussion rule for this, you know.

I'd still like you to explain your point of view, like why it's not enough, if you're not going to why waste your time on this track?

Do not try to upgrade the Sphere of the Gods to Tier 1, especially to Low 1-A or 1-A, without new, canonical information. Multiple discussion threads like this one firmly rejected the idea of a Low 1-A or 1-A rank for the Sphere of the Gods, which would be inconsistent and contradictory; the cosmology split further rejected any Tier 1 rating for it due to insufficient evidence for qualitative superiority.

Well this quote doesn't tell me anything except that the evidence for Low 1-A was not available until now, and now it is now available. Well this tred doesn't even in my opinion prove Low 1-A. But mine in turn is fundamentally different

 

[Tiktime]

You're right. That's what my part in bold is meant to communicate. They aren't inflexible, but you need a clear evidentiary basis for connecting material to one of these cosmologies, so what is yours?

Did you miss the part that says it falls into four categories? Four cosmologies? My scan is from a totally left-wing author. This was divided because of the contradiction of these four cosmologies, and what is outside of them should not be persecuted

 

[Firestorm808]

Did you miss the part that says it falls into four categories? Four cosmologies? My scan is from a totally left-wing author. This was divided because of the contradiction of these four cosmologies, and what is outside of them should not be persecuted

Are you suggesting that these one-off statement be applied to all the main cosmology structures?

 

[Firestorm808]

The problem is that it's not written in the rules, if it was, this thread wouldn't be accepted, and it's made by staff

Regardless of the Marvel thread, our rules in general asks for what is consistent for the scaling. With that in mind, what consistency is your OP trying to propose?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

The problem is that it's not written in the rules, if it was, this thread wouldn't be accepted, and it's made by staff

That thread has overwhelming consistency to bypass this rule, which yours doesn't. Antvasima was also strongly opposed to it at first due to exactly the type of concerns we're leveling here about consistency, and Ultima took a lot of back-and-forth discussion to satisfy him.

My scan says otherwise

Your one scan is nowhere near enough evidence to change the overwhelming support for a 2-A DC multiverse.

This all sounds great of course, but it's not, Marvel's cosmology is just as contradictory, though explained by the multiverse of reality. Especially since there are no such rules

Marvel's cosmology is literally defined as a variable thing the One Above All can adjust from the House of Ideas, so unlike DC, it actually has a canonical explanation for those contradictions.

I'd still like you to explain your point of view, like why it's not enough, if you're not going to why waste your time on this track?

My point of view is simple; no evidence would scale this scan to any particular cosmology, so we shouldn't use it. Also, accusing a staff member of "wasting their time" when evaluating a thread is frowned upon.

Well this quote doesn't tell me anything except that the evidence for Low 1-A was not available until now, and now it is now available. Well this tred doesn't even in my opinion prove Low 1-A. But mine in turn is fundamentally different

Saying your thread is "fundamentally different" is a display of arrogance. Why are you so confident that your idea is any better than the ones we rejected previously when we're also opposing yours just as hard?

Did you miss the part that says it falls into four categories? Four cosmologies? My scan is from a totally left-wing author. This was divided because of the contradiction of these four cosmologies, and what is outside of them should not be persecuted

If you're saying this scan is an entirely separate cosmology, we have no evidence of it being notable enough to include. If you're saying this scan is somehow connected to all three cosmologies we're using despite the overwhelming contradictions that make them irreconcilable, I think the absurdity of that more or less speaks for itself.
All in all, since you've failed to make any substantive case for using this scan, I will have this thread closed right now.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

All in all, since you've failed to make any substantive case for using this scan, I will have this thread closed right now.

Please tone it down a notch in the future. This is unnecessarily antagonistic. Thanks.

Regardless, I will be closing this since it's been rejected.