Beyond-Dimensional Existence

[Elyartaker]

Hello!
I hope everyone is having a great day.

In this thread, I would like to propose some changes to the Beyond-Dimensional Existence page, specifically to Type 2.
Currently Type 2 BDE has two variants.

Variant One:

1) As mentioned before, by a certain "excess of size," in which an object (Or collection of objects) is simply too large to be a dimensional space in the conventional sense. For instance, the Universe of Sets, which contains all mathematical set-structures, and therefore all spaces in which dimensions are defined, being larger than all such spaces. Characters of this nature are Low 1-A.

Variant Two:

2) Through a qualitative superiority over lesser things, which is to say: Ontologically surpassing all the contents of a lower reality, and being above their physical composition and differentiation. Characters of this nature don't simply lack all physicality and composition (As in Type 1), but surpass it altogether, being of a wholly superior nature that is not reachable by lower states of existence.

As you can see, these two variants are vastly different in both description and purpose. so I propose we clearly separate them on the BDE page and character pages for the following reasons:

• Range and Scaling

The former is strictly Low 1-A, no higher or lower (sometimes layers to Low 1-A, but is still Low 1-A). The latter starts at 1-A and can reach all the way to High 1-A+.

• Different Natures

The two variants are fundamentally different in scope and essence: one is quantitative, the other qualitative.

• Misleading Character Pages

A user who isn't deeply familiar with the 1-A, might assume Type 2 BDE is a singular thing, when it actually contains very different variants.

Some may argue:

"Well, we don’t separate Reality Warping just because it scales higher,"

or

"We don’t create separate aspects for Non-Existence Physiology (NEP) at 1-A and above."

But these comparisons don’t hold up.
Abilities like Reality Warping or NEP are defined by the same principle, regardless of whether they are Low 1-C or High 1-A. The nature of the ability remains consistent.
But Type 2 BDE covers two vastly different variants, closer case to Nonduality and Transduality, which are separated due to their qualitative differences, which is reflected in both its own ability page and character pages.

Solutions? I propose two options:

1- Add Aspect/Nature to the BDE page and character pages.

show whether the character has a quantitative or qualitative form of Type 2 BDE.

(bad)Example:

Beyond-Dimensional Existence – Type 2, Qualitative

or something similar to this.

2- Introduce a New Type (My Preferred Option)

Keep Type 2 exclusive to quantitative superiority, and create a Type 3 to represent qualitative superiority.


I know this isn't groundbreaking, but we can't ignore it. BDE Type 2 should be treated the same way as Nonduality and Transduality, and the differences in its scope should be reflected in character pages, just as Nonduality and Transduality.

Thanks for reading!

AGREE : Antvasima(option 2) - FINEPOINT(option 2) - ActuallySpaceMan42(option 2) - Qawsedf234(fine with both options, leaning mostly towards option 1) - Celestial_Pegasus(option 2) - Phoenks(option 2) - KLOL506(option 2) - Vyfourthaccount(option 2) - Hayato5652(option 2) - RigelBR7 - Voidnether - TheNothing84(option 2) - Shiedaisthepeak
DISAGREE :
NEUTEAL : DarkDragonMedeus(?)

EDIT:
blog for option 2:

Beyond-Dimensional Existence

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Vyfourthaccount]

I agree with the second option tbh

 

[Hayato5652]

I completely agree with this proposal. The current BDE Type 2 grouping is too vague and lumps together two fundamentally different concepts.

Separating them either by labeling their nature or by introducing a new Type 3, would not only improve clarity, but also help avoid confusion when scaling characters
This is long overdue and aligns well with how we already treat concepts like Nonduality and Transduality.
I agree with this thread.

 

[RigelBR7]

I agree, looks good.

 

[Voidnether]

Solutions? I propose two options:

1- Add Aspect/Nature to the BDE page and character pages.

show whether the character has a quantitative or qualitative form of Type 2 BDE.

There's a profile I believe that has already applied this and it was Kiana Kaslana when she was Low 1-A, her BDE2 is quantitative in nature before someone changed it to BDE1 cause it wasn't BDE2 anymore, imo the latter is what I wanted too but I don't think it could be warranted that given the former is what we're using but yeah

 

[Frey_Starlight]

I think ability changes like these are often crt'd with strictly staff discussion right?

 

[Elyartaker]

don't know tbh

 

[TheNothing84]

I strongly agreed with option second

 

[PrimeHydra64]

This seems like a topic for staff discussion, I think you should ask them about moving this into staff discussion thread.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

This seems like a topic for staff discussion, I think you should ask them about moving this into staff discussion thread.

Correct.

 

[Elyartaker]

Correct.

Yooo
can you move it to staff discussion if possible?

 

[FinePoint]

Since this is regarding site policy, and seems generally well-written and reasonable, I have moved it to Staff Discussion.

Please note that Elyartaker is the only non-staff who does not need to ask permission before commenting from this point onward.

 

[FinePoint]

And naturally, @DontTalkDT will need to look at this.

 

[Elyartaker]

Since this is regarding site policy, and seems generally well-written and reasonable, I have moved it to Staff Discussion.

Please note that Elyartaker is the only non-staff who does not need to ask permission before commenting from this point onward.

Thank you!

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Yooo
can you move it to staff discussion if possible?

It's already done, but just note that I only have forum moderation rights in the Joke Battles Wiki subsection, not the main one.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist

What do you think about this?

 

[Elyartaker]

BUMP

 

[Elyartaker]

BUMP

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm surprised I didn't get notified for this; however, I am unsure how to handle it. This isn't part of my expertise. Furthermore, Ultima Reality said he was going to be quite busy for the next couple months; and this topic more or less views his input in high regard. DontTalkDT and other Low 1-A and above tiering system experts may also comment.

 

[Elyartaker]

BUMP

 

[Elyartaker]

BUMP

 

[Wonder_of_Fantasy]

bump

 

[Elyartaker]

BUMP

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Mr. Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist

Your help seems to be needed here.

 

[KLOL506]

I think making a new key would do us good. I agree with making a new type, and given that anything above High 1-B requires a ridiculous amount of scrutiny and is already very niche, I don't think this will take up too much of our time to apply.

 

[Elyartaker]

BUMP

 

[Elyartaker]

BUMP

 

[TheNothing84]

....

 

[Elyartaker]

BUMP

 

[FinePoint]

I'm fine with the second proposal.
I'm not sure why they're lumped into the same type to begin with when so fundamentally different.

Of course, the natural question when changing any ability is how much work it would be to apply.
Adding a type like this would require us to evaluate all of the existing Type 2s to determine if they keep it or change to Type 3.

How many are there?

 

[Elyartaker]

Of course, the natural question when changing any ability is how much work it would be to apply.
Adding a type like this would require us to evaluate all of the existing Type 2s to determine if they keep it or change to Type 3.

How many are there?

I reckon it won't be too difficult.
Low 1-A characters/structures will keep their type 2.
1-A and above characters/structures can easily be mass edited via a fandom bot to have their type 2 changed to type 3.

 

[Elyartaker]

BUMP ^_^

 

[Elyartaker]

BUMP

 

[Elyartaker]

BUMP

 

[Phoenks]

The last time anyone was tagged for this was a while ago. Here's a list of some trusty fellows:

@Qawsedf234, @Celestial_Pegasus, @ActuallySpaceMan42

 

[Elyartaker]

BUMP

 

[Shiedaisthepeak]

Looks good at the first glance,good work

 

[Elyartaker]

20 likes!
Just need more staff.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Mr. Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist

We need some help here.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Your help seems to be needed here.

Reading through it, I'm not sure if it should be separated as much as aspects should be given.

Abilities like Reality Warping or NEP are defined by the same principle

The thing here is that BDE Type 2 Aspect 1 and Aspect 2 both do work off that same principal. Both are being beyond the subject of space-time with the nature of the beyondness being measurable or unmeasurable. Or in other words, Aspect 1 is on a quantitative scale while Aspect 2 is on a qualitative scale.

The OP mentioned Nonduality as an example, the change with ND and TD was that you can qualify for three aspects between two types. You're either lacking duality or exceeding duality and there's three different scopes of that nature that the character can qualify for. For that reason I say just split it into "BDE Type 2 - Aspect 1" and "BDE Type 2 - Aspect 2" rather than make a Type 3.

But if we do have to separate it, I won't be against it, I just think that clarifying them better is the way to go.