The commoners thread: Discussing Ultima's "On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System"

[Flowman777]

I mean, is much drama even occurring here in the first place? It sounds like people are saying that it shouldn't be possible for one bureaucrat to stop a thread with near-unanimous approval. Nothing really bad is happening.

 

[Arceus0x]

I mean, is much drama even occurring here in the first place? It sounds like people are saying that it shouldn't be possible for one bureaucrat to stop a thread with near-unanimous approval. Nothing really bad is happening.

It's more so about what will come after the upgrade is accepted

Also I hate the upgrade so I am sad.

 

[Flowman777]

Ah.

Why do you hate the upgrade to qualitative superiority so much? For the reasons others like DontTalkDT have stated or do you have other reasons? Just wondering if you have something new to add.

 

[Arceus0x]

Why do you hate the upgrade to qualitative superiority so much? For the reasons others like DontTalkDT have stated or do you have other reasons? Just wondering if you have something new to add.

In my opinion R>F by itself shouldn't even grant Low 1-C without proper beyond space-time statements, not to mention that Idk many verses that would use an R>F statement to show a 1-A character instead of a Low 1-C, so far most i've known, even the big ones, focus more on higher dimensional portrayal.
I just feel like making R>F a big ol jump to 1-A is tiktok levels of goonery and should never come to pass, but since everyone is agreeing and DT is getting piled on, ig the wiki will go down this path.

 

[Hasty12345]

the problem is there's no correct answer here, DTs suggestions however are mildly worse than Ultima's.

 

[Deidalius]

The amount of verses we have that use actual cardinality as a way to get to 1-A instead of metaphysical transcendence is countable on two hands. Shoving all of them into High 1-B+ is eminently reasonable, and an entire tier section for them is utterly superflous.

I'm curious, which are those two verses?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I'm curious, which are those two verses?

I said "countable on two hands," not "two verses."

 

[Deidalius]

I said "countable on two hands," not "two verses."

Ok, which are those verses though?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

the problem is there's no correct answer here, DTs suggestions however are mildly worse than Ultima's.

This is a golden mean fallacy of the worst kind.

 

[Arceus0x]

the problem is there's no correct answer here, DTs suggestions however are mildly worse than Ultima's.

There IS a solution.

It is extremely basic

 

[Deidalius]

There IS a solution.

It is extremely basic

I can't believe I fell for the same trick twice by the same perso. It's over.

 

[Hasty12345]

This is a golden mean fallacy of the worst kind.

We are dealing with made up stuff here, it's not like any of anything either of them are saying can be proven.

 

[Arceus0x]

I can't believe I fell for the same trick twice by the same perso. It's over.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

We are dealing with made up stuff here, it's not like any of anything either of them are saying can be proven.

Then this is meaningless to even bring up.

 

[Flowman777]

This is a golden mean fallacy of the worst kind.

Eh disagree there. It seems like Hasty12345 is saying that no solution works perfectly right rather than saying to just use a middle between DT's and Ultima's suggestions
without giving serious consideration as to whether the middle solution works sufficiently right.

 

[Hasty12345]

Then this is meaningless to even bring up.

sorry if I've offended you.

 

[Hasty12345]

Eh disagree there. It seems like Hasty12345 is saying that no solution works perfectly right rather than saying to just use a middle between DT and Ultima's without giving serious consideration as to whether the middle solution works sufficiently right.

that's what I was saying

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Eh disagree there. It seems like Hasty12345 is saying that no solution works perfectly right rather than saying to just use a middle between DT and Ultima's without giving serious consideration as to whether the middle solution works sufficiently right.

"No solution works perfectly" is an obvious thing that's useless to even mention.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

In my opinion R>F by itself shouldn't even grant Low 1-C without proper beyond space-time statements,

im pretty sure ultimate wanker agrees with you there

 

[Hasty12345]

"No solution works perfectly" is an obvious thing that's useless to even mention.

sorry for bringing it up

 

[Arceus0x]

sorry for bringing it up

don't be sorry, bring up whatever you want

 

[Metalballrun]

I do have the same issues as Arceus if that's the case. Although I think having clear separations between qualitative and quantitative superiorities is a good thing.

Good thing I actively avoid verses who deals with Tier 1. (Until my verse gets invaded by wankers).

 

[Electronic74947]

Is r>f still being considered outer there?

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Bureaucrats are not permitted to cancel each other's vetoes.

I hate the idea of "if a bureaucrat disagrees with a staff thread they automatically use their veto" NO it should be that they specify that they use their veto.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

The concept of a bureaucrat veto was a mistake.

 

[Deidalius]

I still don't get why the vote of staff members are more valuable than others.

Why are some random people more important than me? Or more important than other random people?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I still don't get why the vote of staff members are more valuable than others.

Why are some random people more important than me? Or more important than other random people?

Because certain fandoms would abuse their large numbers to get upgrades through even though the logic was faulty.

 

[Deidalius]

Because certain fandoms would abuse their large numbers to get upgrades through even though the logic was faulty.

I highly doubt any staff is more or less biased than an average member.

I'm pretty sure other powerscaling sites have a purely democratic system and they haven't gone to hell yet.

 

[Metalballrun]

We'd be glad to see if you can cite a community similar to this forum who is doing it better, maybe we can emulate their system.

But if you think people won't abuse a pure democratic system where everyone has equal votes, you're kidding yourself. Abuse via the majority appeal already happens in this forum at times.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Because certain fandoms would abuse their large numbers to get upgrades through even though the logic was faulty.

just revise the knowledgeable member system

 

[Ben_CleverName]

"Strong objections" is a bit funny. I mean they disagree hugely, but the actual arguments they make don't seem well supported or great enough to hold back the proposal tbh.

DT has been clobbered multiple times now, and Agnaa's post was pretty low-effort imo.

The current staff vote is hugely in Ultima's favor, with many administrators on that side.

Agnaa's response was almost 1:1 with the assumed counterpoints that were already addressed in the OP too lol

 

[Ikelaggan]

On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System

I do not care about this at all, assuming that it's a purely lexical change with nothing else supplanting the old term. "All" is so extremely broad that I do not support this. I don't really care too much, there's only 89 pages here. Which isn't so few that I'm certain, nor is it so many that I...

vsbattles.com

He brought in Plato's cave

 

[Lynieryz]

We could do a bingo to predict things that both DT and Ultima could say

 

[Deidalius]

What's the deal with Plato's cave?

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

What's the deal with Plato's cave?

I have no idea. I also have no idea how “above all possible character strings” is Tier 0. If anyone does please let me know .

 

[Magicomethkuon]

TIER 0 BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY CONFIRMED?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?

 

[Ikelaggan]

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?

Caught in a landslide. To escape from Reality.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Based on this:

• I don't want viewpoints that, really, are not valid readings of any case of Reality-Fiction Transcendence whatsoever (E.g. "Clearly, the fiction is the size of ink to this character, so the difference between them is finite" or "Dreams are just brain electricity, so seeing something as one is a finite difference.")
• I don't want examples where a reality/fiction dichotomy is simply used as an analogy for some generic superiority (E.g. "Just as a painting could never harm reality, so, too could he never harm this being")
• I don't want examples that don't qualify for a Reality-Fiction Transcendence to begin with, even under the current parameters (Up there, you tried to use Doki Doki Literature Club as a counterexample. However, DDLC is something we reject as a valid case of R>F altogether)
• I don't want examples that are really just Plot Manipulation and don't involve any form of R>F
• I don't want examples involving idiosyncratic definitions of what "Fiction" and "Reality" mean.
• I don't want cases where Reality-Fiction is simply equated to a dimensional difference, or the like, and vice-versa, to be used as "counterexamples" (E.g. "Well, fiction is generally considered to be 2-D to us...")
• As a consequence of the above (And a summation of the spirit of this list), I don't want faux Reality-Fiction, either. So, holographic principles, reality-as-simulation theories and the like are out of consideration as potential counterexamples

a whole lot of things would not qualify for R>F Transcendencce

 

[Executor_N0]

Considering all of that was basically already in the post I can't imagine how big the F.A.Q will be to explain all the minute details of the new system.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Considering all of that was basically already in the post I can't imagine how big the F.A.Q will be to explain all the minute details of the new system.

when you want a huge wall of text, always bet on ultima.