Would this qualify as 2-A?

[LordGriffin1000]

If there is an infinite sized space-time continuum that contains an infinite number of dimensions, and several other universes (space-time continuum) inside it, would that make infinite space-time continuum a 2-A sized structure or no?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

2-A sounds like a minimum, but based on how it's worded, I might potentially argue for it being Tier 1 depending on more details.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

2-A sounds like a minimum, but based on how it's worded, I might potentially argue for it being Tier 1 depending on more details.

Tier 1 would need statements of 5D or infinitesimal difference right?

 

[AKUTO123]

If it goes into the subject of nested universes enough or has good definitions, this will be low 1C. but at least 2A. If you can send me the relevant panels I can be more clear.

 

[Georredannea15]

If there is an infinite sized space-time continuum that contains an infinite number of dimensions, and several other universes (space-time continuum) inside it, would that make infinite space-time continuum a 2-A sized structure or no?

I guess even if it doesn't have infinite number of space-time continuums for 2-A, if the structure is large enough to contains infinite number of space-time continuums and there is a reference or context for it, it can be 2-A, but what i see here is "possibly" or "likely" 2-A.(I guess)


As for Tier 1, unfortunately it is not enough. For this, qualitative superiority is absolutely necessary. You also need some extra concrete statements and contexts are required to refer to qualitative superiority.

 

[Fixxed]

If there is an infinite sized space-time continuum that contains an infinite number of dimensions, and several other universes (space-time continuum) inside it, would that make infinite space-time continuum a 2-A sized structure or no?

Yeah it is 2A for the very save rating. It can be low 1C for sure

Tier 1 would need statements of 5D or infinitesimal difference right?

Being infinitely bigger than universe is just same as see the universe as infinitely small or infinitesimall

 

[Vietthai96]

2-A, simple

Low 1-C, potentially, if it have back-up context

 

[Georredannea15]

Yeah it is 2A for the very save rating. It can be low 1C for sure

For it to be completely 2-A, it needs the context that it can contains infinite number universes( As said here) but still okay. Other than that, that's not even tier 1

Being infinitely bigger than universe is just same as see the universe as infinitely small or infinitesimall

Yeah no, this is not it either. Here, being infinitely larger than any infinite 4-D structure(Low 2-C or 2-A) or seeing it as a small piece does not give you Tier 1.(Not enough)

You also need concrete statements or contexts referring to qualitative superiority for tier 1.

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

If there is an infinite sized space-time continuum that contains an infinite number of dimensions, and several other universes (space-time continuum) inside it, would that make infinite space-time continuum a 2-A sized structure or no?

Sounds like Maou Gakuin universe.

Rimuru has 2A rating for Similar reason I guess it works.

 

[Georredannea15]

Sounds like Maou Gakuin universe.

Rimuru has 2A rating for Similar reason I guess it works.

I guess tensura had an extra statement like "no matter how much it is filled, it never ends or fills" (or some similar bullshit)

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

I guess tensura had an extra statement like "no matter how much it is filled, it never ends or fills" (or some similar bullshit)

I don't remember that can you check the upgrade thread send the quotes? Because I am pretty sure there was no arguments made like that. I might be wrong though so let's just be sure

 

[Fixxed]

For it to be completely 2-A, it needs the context that it can contains infinite number universes( As said here) but still okay. Other than that, that's not even tier 1

Bruh if a structure is infinite in size and can contain a universes, it mean it still have a infinite size that can fill with infinite universes

Yeah no, this is not it either. Here, being infinitely larger than any infinite 4-D structure(Low 2-C or 2-A) or seeing it as a small piece does not give you Tier 1.(Not enough)

You also need concrete statements or contexts referring to qualitative superiority for tier 1.

Yeah no, DT missunderstand whats the discussion mean, it not about add infinite size to the 4D as like he mention infinite×4D. Is about being infinitely bigger than the fully structure of 4D, so we cannot add the infinite size inside the 4D structure

Infinitesimall is qualitative superiority in size context, dont you think qualitative superiority just for power or ontological context

 

[Georredannea15]

Bruh if a structure is infinite in size and can contain a universes, it mean it still have a infinite size that can fill with infinite universes

This still doesn't mean that, just as doesn't mean that an infinite space-time continuum can hold an infinite number of universes, it doesn't mean 2-A either. It's still Low 2-C.

For this, you will need the context that the structure is large enough to contain infinite universes.

Yeah no, DT missunderstand whats the discussion mean, it not about add infinite size to the 4D as like he mention infinite×4D. Is about being infinitely bigger than the fully structure of 4D, so we cannot add the infinite size inside the 4D structure

No, DT was definitely talking about being infinitely larger than 2-A or Low 2-C structure and treating them as small pieces, and yes that's not tier 1.

Let me also quote a new addition to the page which says that being infinitely larger than an infinite structures still does not mean extra axis

As far as being larger than infinitely-sized objects or spaces goes, one must analyze the context of the feat in question to determine if it truly qualifies for Higher-Dimensional Existence. In terms of volume (Or, more generally, measure), the only way to be truly bigger than an object of infinite size is to have a non-zero size in a space of more dimensions than the object in question. However, portrayals of more expansive realms containing infinitely large things within themselves are not necessarily indicative of such.

A good construction to exemplify this is the topological space known as the long line. In essence, it is a space obtained by taking an uncountably infinite number of line segments and “gluing” them together end-to-end, and so it is in some sense much longer than the real line, which is comprised of only a countably infinite number of such line segments. Nevertheless, they are both 1-dimensional spaces.

The long line itself can also be generalized into 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional analogues, and as such the same principle holds for higher dimensions as well.

In short, you can be infinitely larger than an infinite 4-D structure and still be 4-D.

It's just like an infinite 1-dimensional line and another infinitely larger line are still 1-dimensional and still have the same axis.

Being infinitely large doesn't give it any extra axis and doesn't make it a 2-dimensional line.

If you call this situation 5-dimensional, it's like claiming that a line that is infinitely larger than an infinite line is 2-dimensional, and that's absolutely wrong

Infinitesimall is qualitative superiority in size context, dont you think qualitative superiority just for power or ontological context

Also, being infinitely large in the sense of "size" does not give you an extra axis. It's like saying that anything you draw on paper that is 2-dimensional and visible to the eye has more axes than the invisible atom.

But the fact of the matter is that the atom is 3-dimensional but anything you draw on paper that has a larger "size" is still 2-dimensional.

Other than that, seeing it as an infinitesimal piece means being too small to be measured mathematically, which means some kind of subset.

But being infinitely larger does not mean that, the two are different.

In normal English, infinitesimal means “something that is extremely small”, but in mathematics it has an even stronger meaning. It is a quantity that is infinitely small; so small as to be non-measurable.

In mathematics, a non-measurable set is a set which cannot be assigned a meaningful "volume". The mathematical existence of such sets is construed to provide information about the notions of length, area and volume in formal set theory. In Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, the axiom of choice entails that non-measurable subsets of �

exist.

So infinitesimal have so far different context than being infinitely large(I apologize to the person I stole these from.)

 

[Georredannea15]

I don't remember that can you check the upgrade thread send the quotes? Because I am pretty sure there was no arguments made like that. I might be wrong though so let's just be sure

Look at the threads in the links I quoted above. You will see both DT's answers and the contexts (and that's where I learned the context, Lmao)

 

[ImmortalDread]

If there is an infinite sized space-time continuum that contains an infinite number of dimensions, and several other universes (space-time continuum) inside it, would that make infinite space-time continuum a 2-A sized structure or no?

Seems odd.

• There is a space-time continuum. (Low 2-C)
• It is infinite-sized. (Low 2-C)
• Contains infinite number of dimensions* and several other universes (somehow you made it as equalivant to space-time continuum)

So I have questions before determining the tier:

What is the difference between main space-time continuums and others that are inside of the main one?

*What is the in-verse terminology for dimension? Since if it refers to spatial ones, seems likely high 1-B (although this would be a weird structured collection).

Or if it refers to special universes type/structure this is 2-A.

 

[Georredannea15]

Seems odd.

• There is a space-time continuum. (Low 2-C)
• It is infinite-sized. (Low 2-C)
• Contains infinite number of dimensions* and several other universes (somehow you made it as equalivant to space-time continuum)

So I have questions before determining the tier:

What is the difference between main space-time continuums and others that are inside of the main one?

*What is the in-verse terminology for dimension? Since if it refers to spatial ones, seems likely high 1-B. Since it refers to special universes type/structure this is 2-A.

Hmmmm... Are you talking about infinite dimensions? Shouldn't a spatially infinite dimensions also be qualitatively superior to each other?

Even if it is used in a spatial sense, they not directly provide H1-B because it talks about "infinite dimensions"( so number of dimensions), not infinite dimensionality(geometrical). (Well, I guess)

 

[ImmortalDread]

Georr, I asked OP not you.

 

[Georredannea15]

Georr I asked OP not you.

Btw I didn't answer you, I asked a question

 

[Fixxed]

This still doesn't mean that, just as doesn't mean that an infinite space-time continuum can hold an infinite number of universes, it doesn't mean 2-A either. It's still Low 2-C.

Can hold an infinite number of universes it doesnt mean 2A???

No, you still not debunk any of my argument of it. Infinite size that can hold universes it mean it can hold infinitely many of universes

In short, you can be infinitely larger than an infinite 4-D structure and still be 4-D.

It's just like an infinite 1-dimensional line and another infinitely larger line are still 1-dimensional and still have the same axis.

Being infinitely large doesn't give it any extra axis and doesn't make it a 2-dimensional line.

If you call this situation 5-dimensional, it's like claiming that a line that is infinitely larger than an infinite line is 2-dimensional, and that's absolutely wrong

Bruh the quote you brough is not say infinitely bigger than infinite size, it just say bigger than infinitely size. Where it say infinitelt bigger???

And from the tiering FaQ it literally say "infinitely bigger"

"In terms of points, one can say that everything from 1-dimensional space to (countably) infinite-dimensional space falls under it, as all of these spaces have the same number of elements (coordinates, in this case), in spite of each being infinitely larger than the preceding one by the intuitive notions of size that we regularly utilize (Area, Volume, etc)"

Other than that, seeing it as an infinitesimal piece means being too small to be measured mathematically, which means some kind of subset.

But being infinitely larger does not mean that, the two are different.

So infinitesimal have so far different context than being infinitely large(I apologize to the person I stole these from.)

Yeah where the source of that argument?? Bruh infinitesimall or infinitely small means infinitely divided, of being divided again and again to infinity, it also being use for the integral and zeno paradox. So if A is infinitely small in perpective of B, then B is infinitely bigger in the perpective of A. Because if you reverse the infinitely divided it mean you need united the small piece that being smaller infinitely that will give you a piece that being bigger infinitely or yeah infinitely bigger

"The English mathematician John Wallis introduced the expression 1/∞ in his 1655 book Treatise on the Conic Sections. The symbol, which denotes the reciprocal, or inverse, of ∞, is the symbolic representation of the mathematical concept of an infinitesimal. In his Treatise on the Conic Sections, Wallis also discusses the concept of a relationship between the symbolic representation of infinitesimal 1/∞ that he introduced and the concept of infinity for which he introduced the symbol ∞. The concept suggests a thought experiment of adding an infinite number of parallelograms of infinitesimal width to form a finite area. This concept was the predecessor to the modern method of integration used in integral calculus. The conceptual origins of the concept of the infinitesimal 1/∞ can be traced as far back as the Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea, whose Zeno's dichotomy paradox was the first mathematical concept to consider the relationship between a finite interval and an interval approaching that of an infinitesimal-sized interval."

 

[Robo432343]

i dont like how normal members like me answer controversial topics like this coz it just creates more arguing

its better if we get more staff members

 

[Fixxed]

In short, you can be infinitely larger than an infinite 4-D structure and still be 4-D.

And yeah infinitely larger than infinite is mean larger infinite cardinal, higher infinity that will give you more dimensional axis

 

[Georredannea15]

Can hold an infinite number of universes it doesnt mean 2A???

No, you still not debunk any of my argument of it. Infinite size that can hold universes it mean it can hold infinitely many of universes

Not always by default, so why don't we assume that an infinite Low 2-C universe is also 2-A? Because it's wrong

Bruh the quote you brough is not say infinitely bigger than infinite size, it just say bigger than infinitely size. Where it say infinitelt bigger???

And from the tiering FaQ it literally say "infinitely bigger"

Infinitely larger in general doesn't get you to Low 1-C whether from Low 2-C or from 2-A

In order for a structure to be 2-A, it must first be infinite.

So being infinitely larger than 2-A is not Tier 1 = being infinitely larger than an infinite 4-D universe is not Tier 1

Yeah where the source of that argument?? Bruh infinitesimall or infinitely small means infinitely divided, of being divided again and again to infinity, it also being use for the integral and zeno paradox. So if A is infinitely small in perpective of B, then B is infinitely bigger in the perpective of A. Because if you reverse the infinitely divided it mean you need united the small piece that being smaller infinitely that will give you a piece that being bigger infinitely or yeah infinitely bigger

You go to the whole in the form of an assumption... The context of the two is very different.

And yeah infinitely larger than infinite is mean larger infinite cardinal, higher infinity that will give you more dimensional axis

Lmao no, it never says anything like that. When you add infinity to infinity, you still get the same degree of infinity. (Or
when you multiply it by infinity.)

Just as the set of natural numbers includes the set of odd and even positive integers and has the same mathematical infinity, although it is larger than them.

And also what you say also contradicts topology.

As far as being larger than infinitely-sized objects or spaces goes, one must analyze the context of the feat in question to determine if it truly qualifies for Higher-Dimensional Existence. In terms of volume (Or, more generally, measure), the only way to be truly bigger than an object of infinite size is to have a non-zero size in a space of more dimensions than the object in question. However, portrayals of more expansive realms containing infinitely large things within themselves are not necessarily indicative of such.

In short, you can be infinitely larger in size than a structure with infinite volume, but this does not necessarily mean higher dimensionality.

Being infinitely larger than a structure that is infinite "in terms volume" = Extra axis and that structure having 0 volume compared to you ≠ Being infinitely larger "in terms size"

Because size ≠ Volume

Volume = The place covered by axes in space(The place you cover in space)

Size = Only the place you cover on flat ground

 

[Fixxed]

Not always by default, so why don't we assume that an infinite Low 2-C universe is also 2-A? Because it's wrong

False equalization. We talk about structure that contain the low 2C structure, it is independent from that structure. Why you brought the same low 2C structure and add infinite size to it???

In order for a structure to be 2-A, it must first be infinite.

So being infinitely larger than 2-A is not Tier 1 = being infinitely larger than an infinite 4-D universe is not Tier 1

Where in the standard say about that???
Bruh i give you what the standard write about and you???

And from the tiering FaQ it literally say "infinitely bigger"

"In terms of points, one can say that everything from 1-dimensional space to (countably) infinite-dimensional space falls under it, as all of these spaces have the same number of elements (coordinates, in this case), in spite of each being infinitely larger than the preceding one by the intuitive notions of size that we regularly utilize (Area, Volume, etc)"

You not even say anything about this. It literally write in the standard that we use

You go to the whole in the form of an assumption... The context of the two is very different.

Assumption??? Bruh i give you link about my argument. Where the source of your argument about infinitesimall???
In this the one who make a assumption is you not me

Lmao no, it never says anything like that. When you add infinity to infinity, you still get the same degree of infinity. (Or
when you multiply it by infinity.)

Just as the set of natural numbers includes the set of odd and even positive integers and has the same mathematical infinity, although it is larger than them.

And also what you say also contradicts topology.

Are you learn about cardinality??? What is that???
Bruh is i say add infinity to infinity?? Dont strawmaning my argument. I say infinitely bigger than infinity

You know why the set of natural and integers have same infinity???

In short, you can be infinitely larger in size than a structure with infinite volume, but this does not necessarily mean higher dimensionality.

Being infinitely larger than a structure that is infinite "in terms volume" = Extra axis and that structure having 0 volume compared to you ≠ Being infinitely larger "in terms size"

Because size ≠ Volume

Volume = The place covered by axes in space(The place you cover in space)

Size = Only the place you cover on flat ground

You quoting that. Where in that quote say "infinitely bigger than infinity". Is literally just explain about "bigger than infinitely size". There are no word like "infinitely bigger than infinity" in that. Just show me where

Bruh we use higher infinity for have higher dimensional in here. Because higher infinity=real number=real coordinate space/real line=1 dimensional line

So have infinitely bigger than infinite is literally mean higher infinite that give higher dimensionality

In fact we use size for our tiering system. So yeah more bigger size=more dimensionality

 

[KLOL506]

This is turning into a "he said, she said" conundrum. Let's just tag @DontTalkDT, @Elizhaa, @DarkGrath, @Planck69, @Theglassman12, @Abstractions and @Ultima_Reality and see what they have to say about it.

 

[Georredannea15]

False equalization. We talk about structure that contain the low 2C structure, it is independent from that structure. Why you brought the same low 2C structure and add infinite size to it???

Because they are both infinite, but being infinite does not necessarily mean contains infinite amounts of something.

Where in the standard say about that???
Bruh i give you what the standard write about and you???

You not even say anything about this. It literally write in the standard that we use

You don't understand being infinitely larger in the sense of volume that I quoted perhaps 55 times above.

Being infinitely larger than an infinite structure in terms of size is not the same as being infinitely larger than an infinite structure in terms of volume. That's why we don't see "being infinitely larger than structures like 2-A and Low 2-C" sufficient for Tier 1.

Assumption??? Bruh i give you link about my argument. Where the source of your argument about infinitesimall???
In this the one who make a assumption is you not me

You haven't even looked at the links and articles I quoted above and you are trying to answer, go up and look.

Are you learn about cardinality??? What is that???
Bruh is i say add infinity to infinity?? Dont strawmaning my argument. I say infinitely bigger than infinity

That's why I said think of it as a set.

The set of natural numbers is a set that contains the set of positive integers and is larger than it, but they inherently have the same degree of infinity.

In short, being infinitely larger than infinite size is not Tier 1, yes.

Or the topological line example I quoted and gave, which supports, just like above, that being infinitely larger than an infinite line is not enough for the extra axis.
(to size, they are both infinite and one is an infinity larger than the other, but they still have the same volume and still has same axis)

You know why the set of natural and integers have same infinity???

You quoting that. Where in that quote say "infinitely bigger than infinity". Is literally just explain about "bigger than infinitely size". There are no word like "infinitely bigger than infinity" in that. Just show me where

Read what I said carefully, I explain the difference between being infinitely larger than an infinite volume and being infinitely larger than an infinite "size". Also, what DT said supports what I said with Ultima.

So have infinitely bigger than infinite is literally mean higher infinite that give higher dimensionality

In fact we use size for our tiering system. So yeah more bigger size=more dimensionality

So you call a line infinitely larger than an infinite line is 2-dimensional.

(to size, they are both infinite and one is an infinity larger than the other, but they still have the same volume and still has same axis)

What I said above also applies here.

What you say is complete wrong and completely contradicts topology. You don't understand the difference between size and volume.

Being an infinite structure does not necessarily mean that you have infinite volume. At the same time, just because you are infinitely larger than this infinite structure does not mean that you are infinitely larger in terms of volume.

What I quoted from Ultima and what DT said actually strongly support this, but if you don't want to understand or don't understand, I can't force you.

 

[KLOL506]

People. I have tagged DT, Ultima and a few other staff members. I would kindly suggest that you do not speak beyond this, all of you.

Failure to comply will result in me tagging another admin to oversee this, and you getting kicked out of the thread and reported to the RVT. Thank you.

 

[Fixxed]

Because they are both infinite, but being infinite does not necessarily mean contains infinite amounts of something.

No no, the one is are the structure and the other is contain that structure. Your example is false equalization

You don't understand being infinitely larger in the sense of volume that I quoted perhaps 55 times above.

Being infinitely larger than an infinite structure in terms of size is not the same as being infinitely larger than an infinite structure in terms of volume. That's why we don't see "being infinitely larger than structures like 2-A and Low 2-C" sufficient for Tier 1.

No, i say where the standard write about that???
Bruh i literally give you quote from tiering FaQ that literally say about the "infinitely bigger"

You haven't even looked at the links and articles I quoted above and you are trying to answer, go up and look.

No i look the link that you quote about the standard and no word in that say about "infinitely larger than infinity". So i ask you where it say about that in your quote???

That's why I said think of it as a set.

The set of natural numbers is a set that contains the set of positive integers and is larger than it, but they inherently have the same degree of infinity.

In short, being infinitely larger than infinite size is not Tier 1, yes.

Or the topological line example I quoted and gave, which supports, just like above, that being infinitely larger than an infinite line is not enough for the extra axis.
(to size, they are both infinite and one is an infinity larger than the other, but they still have the same volume and still has same axis)

I ask you, you know what is cardinality mean???
And then i ask you why the natural and integers have same degree of infinity??? You dont answer any of question

And i dont see where you quote about topology or blablabla that say about "infinitely bigger than infinity". What you quote is just about "bigger than infinitely size" where the "infinitely bigger"???

Read what I said carefully, I explain the difference between being infinitely larger than an infinite volume and being infinitely larger than an infinite "size". Also, what DT said supports what I said with Ultima.

No i talking about the standard that you quote. Where in that write about "infinitely bigger than infinity"??? Where???
Bruh i literally quoting the standard that say about "infinitely bigger". I quote that again if you forget, i even send the link for that

"In terms of points, one can say that everything from 1-dimensional space to (countably) infinite-dimensional space falls under it, as all of these spaces have the same number of elements (coordinates, in this case), in spite of each being infinitely larger than the preceding one by the intuitive notions of size that we regularly utilize (Area, Volume, etc)"

So you call a line infinitely larger than an infinite line is 2-dimensional.
What I said above also applies here.

What you say is complete wrong and completely contradicts topology. You don't understand the difference between size and volume.

Being an infinite structure does not necessarily mean that you have infinite volume. At the same time, just because you are infinitely larger than this infinite structure does not mean that you are infinitely larger in terms of volume.

What I quoted from Ultima and what DT said actually strongly support this, but if you don't want to understand or don't understand, I can't force you.

And you in here just ignore the argument that we talking about the infinitesimall. Where the argument of non-measurable set???

No i talking about higher infinity in here. Being infinitely bigger than infinity size is are higher infinity. That mean higher D

Are you even know that we give higher D for higher infinity???

You keep talking about volume and blablabla, thats irrelevant to my point. My point say about higher infinity size, that will get higher D in our tiering system standard

I can quote the standard if you still not bealive if bigger size will give you higher D

 

[Fixxed]

People. I have tagged DT, Ultima and a few other staff members. I would kindly suggest that you do not speak beyond this, all of you.

Failure to comply will result in me tagging another admin to oversee this, and you getting kicked out of the thread and reported to the RVT. Thank you.

Bruh.. this is not staff thread or even a content revision thread. It just ask and answer thread. I dont know if we have any rule about this, we still in context of the discussion not outside the context. So i dont know why we cannot discuss any longer about this???

 

[Dereck03]

Bruh.. this is not staff thread or even a content revision thread. It just ask and answer thread. I dont know if we have any rule about this, we still in context of the discussion not outside the context. So i dont know why we cannot discuss any longer about this???

Exactly this, we are in a Q&A thread, not in a CRT nor Staff thread, people here are discussing their point of view regarding the question to see of they can come to a conclusion, is not KLOL's right to start threatening with calling administrators and report to RVT when there's not even a single violation here. It would been different if OP said to not discuss anymore and wait for input from others but they aren't deviating from the main question of this thread, take this as an advice KLOL.

 

[KLOL506]

Bruh.. this is not staff thread or even a content revision thread. It just ask and answer thread. I dont know if we have any rule about this, we still in context of the discussion not outside the context. So i dont know why we cannot discuss any longer about this???

Because I'm pretty sure this question was tackled in the other thread Andika made regarding 4D.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I apologize, I wasn't sure if this exact topic has been brought up as of late. Either way, I do think everyone's said their thoughts on the matter and I don't mind just chillin and waiting for others to give their thoughts. So far in getting a likely/solid 2-A for sure and potentially Low 1-C but more context would definitely be needed for that. But given I don't have anymore context then that as this question originated from an old videogame "curse old videogames and their vagueness". I'll settle for just potentially 2-A for now and when I get around to fixing up that verse I'll make a CRT. I know how our Tier 1 standards can spark up long debates so I'll let this sit, and wait to see if anyone KLOL506 tagged wishes to comment but if not it's no big and I'll close this if no response in a few days.

 

[Georredannea15]

Because I'm pretty sure this question was tackled in the other thread Andika made regarding 4D.

Yes, you know what kind of statement they made about this topic before, that's what I was trying to say.

 

[KLOL506]

I apologize, I wasn't sure if this exact topic has been brought up as of late. Either way, I do think everyone's said their thoughts on the matter and I don't mind just chillin and waiting for others to give their thoughts. So far in getting a likely/solid 2-A for sure and potentially Low 1-C but more context would definitely be needed for that. But given I don't have anymore context then that as this question originated from an old videogame "curse old videogames and their vagueness". I'll settle for just potentially 2-A for now and when I get around to fixing up that verse I'll make a CRT. I know how our Tier 1 standards can spark up long debates so I'll let this sit, and wait to see if anyone KLOL506 tagged wishes to comment but if not it's no big and I'll close this if no response in a few days.

I'd rather this thread remain open for all the staff tagged to respond to this.

 

[Benimōru]

Why does the same topic keep getting discussed once in a week? lol