High 1-A Wording Tweak

[Agnaa]

Our Tiering System page says:

High 1-A: High Outerverse level

Characters or objects who transcend 1-A characters in the same vein that 1-A characters transcend the rest of the system.

While our Tiering System FAQ page says:

Q: Is transcending an 1-A character to the same degree they transcend normal humans High 1-A?

A: Generally speaking, no.

These aren't exactly the same question, but they're close enough that I think it reads as a contradiction, and should be corrected.

From the way the FAQ elaborates on things, I believe the key distinction is that a character can reach High 1-A by establishing a new system of transcendence over 1-A characters, but not by continuing the pattern used to reach 1-A in the first place.

To rectify this, my best suggestion is:

High 1-A: High Outerverse level

Characters or objects who operate on a different, superior qualitative framework from 1-A entities.

@DontTalkDT @SamanPatou @FinePoint

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima_Reality @Executor_N0 @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Planck69 @Everything12 @Ovy7 @IdiosyncraticLawyer @GrathOfLux @Udlmaster

What do you think about this?

 

[FinePoint]

I think that wording is far more consistent with how it's actually been applied in practice and seemingly intended.

The FAQ itself seemingly elaborates on how such a statement could sometimes be High 1-A depending on context, but the fact in itself that it's not the default means it shouldn't be the actual definition, and the fact that it would now link directly to the FAQ I think is just a great organizational change.

 

[SweetDao]

Got permission from FinePoint over Discord.

While I agree with the revised version of the explanation, let's be real here. There is clearly a problem with the way "High 1-A" is defined on the wiki right now. I'm unsure if it's the right CRT to bring up that problems, but it has been extremely common to see a lot of people, even staff members, have diverging opinion on "what can be High 1-A or not". Similarly, it doesn't help that right now the only "viable" explanation given to people is this:

That is to say: If there is a hierarchy of 1-A layers, each of which operates within the same framework, with the same "algorithm" dictating the difference between them, a High 1-A character would transcend the framework entirely, and instead operate on a different, higher hierarchy, governed by another, likewise higher algorithm. In other words, whereas 1-A is a qualitative superiority, High 1-A represents a "meta"-qualitative superiority.

It's all fun and all until you see Ultima's blog regarding an in-depth explanation:

Spoiler: Stuff

In the case of the tiers prior to 1-A, the "layers" in question are defined by the qualities of dimensionality and cardinality, with Low 1-A being the aggregate of all such structures into a proper class. Thus, the "framework" in question consists of the genus of quantity. As such, 1-A is aptly described as occupying a higher genus than anything below it.

Yet, there may also be similar hierarchies in 1-A itself, the levels of which have qualitative transcendences amongst each other as well. Thus, though a qualitatively greater domain surpasses the genus of quantity, still it is embedded within a broader genus of its own. And although the difference between any two of these levels is essential, still there is a broad, generic quiddity that applies uniformly to all its levels, which are then specifications of it in accordance with their degree of reality. To put it more precisely: The levels differ in species, but share a common genus.

So, for example: for three 1-A layers, A > B > C, each of them is nothing but "Generic Attribute + Specific Attribute A," "Generic Attribute + Specific Attribute B" and "Generic Attribute + Specific Attribute C." A High 1-A being is something that surpasses not only the specific attributes corresponding to the lower layers, but also the generic attribute defining the whole series of layers, and any potential other layers that can possibly spring from it. It is exactly how 1-A itself transcends the genus that defines all possible dimensional levels (Quantity).

Yet, a High 1-A character, too, can be placed within hierarchies of its own. As such, layers of High 1-A can also be seen as species of an overarching genus. And this process can extend arbitrarily far.

Further, nothing prevents a 1-A from having some commonality of genus with a High 1-A, or a 10-B from having commonality in genus with a 1-A, as none of these beings transcend genera absolutely, but relatively. Indeed, it is proper to say that all layers of the Tiering System could be species of a highest possible genus (As it were, the summum genus), as for example, Substance. And so, there is indeed generic commonality between all of them in this sense, such that one can speak of "Substance + Specific Attribute of 1-A," or "Substance + Specific Attribute of High 1-A."

If AT LEAST that was available for anyone who wanted to understand that thing, I would see the point to only put a "summarized" version on the Tiering System page itself, but right now, it's so hidden that almost no one can find it without having prior knowledge of it.

Also, while I understand being concise is important (especially on a page such as the Tiering System one), I don't think dabbling into the conceptual aspect of such a relatively abstract tier to be meaningful without at least bringing a few examples on the page. If there is some concern about the idea of bringing examples on this page specifically, then just add some few examples on that one while explaining why they are at this specific level. Or maybe add a note. Or maybe add something in the FAQ itself. Practicality should always take precedence over convolution.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Our Tiering System page says:

While our Tiering System FAQ page says:

These aren't exactly the same question, but they're close enough that I think it reads as a contradiction, and should be corrected.

From the way the FAQ elaborates on things, I believe the key distinction is that a character can reach High 1-A by establishing a new system of transcendence over 1-A characters, but not by continuing the pattern used to reach 1-A in the first place.

To rectify this, my best suggestion is:

@DontTalkDT @SamanPatou @FinePoint

Sounds ok to me.
If one wants to be critical on a high level, one could argue that it doesn't have to be a 1-A character, just a 1-A something.

 

[Agnaa]

SweetDao: If you have (or if anyone has) a link to that blog, I could try to find official page that could link to it.

DontTalkDT: Edited the proposed wording in the OP from "characters" to "entities".

 

[Qawsedf234]

What do you think about this?

SweetDao: If you have (or if anyone has) a link to that blog, I could try to find official page that could link to it.

I agree with the wording revision. But to be honest the main issue I see is that this is just a patch on leaking dam. The tier itself is truncated from this blog that no one has any real ability to find without decent amounts of site knowledge. The blog should either be incorporated into the page or be in a spot that's easier to reference.

Like right now people are still confused that there's two types of High 1-A+ and one is better than the other because this is all they have to go off of:

That said, characters who embody the framework of all possible worlds properly speaking may be rightly considered more powerful than those that can simply create arbitrarily big possible worlds while nevertheless existing in one.

So while I think Agnaa's change is good, I think the entire High 1-A tier should be looked over for better clarification as well. Like High 1-A+ Type I and II are used as terms but not spelled out officially.

 

[Agnaa]

I agree with the wording revision. But to be honest the main issue I see is that this is just a patch on leaking dam. The tier itself is truncated from this blog that no one has any real ability to find without decent amounts of site knowledge. The blog should either be incorporated into the page or be in a spot that's easier to reference.

Oh damn, that's not even a proper blog, just a user page.

From a quick glance, its formatting makes it quite difficult to link to or incorporate into a different page. Omnipotence only makes sense for some of its information, the Tiering System Explanation Page wouldn't make sense since it only really explains a few tiers, it relies on many recurring points that it's tough to meaningfully split up....

I think the best route would be for people to point out explanations they find helpful from that page, and then we can try to evoke those same insights from the Tiering System or Tiering System FAQ pages. I'm torn on whether that would deserve a different thread or not.

Like right now people are still confused that there's two types of High 1-A+ and one is better than the other because this is all they have to go off of:

Like High 1-A+ Type I and II are used as terms but not spelled out officially.

They weren't given too much information since we initially had no idea whether characters qualified for both of them. If we now know that some land in both, we can consider that. But that sounds big and different enough to perhaps need a different thread.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Oh damn, that's not even a proper blog, just a user page.

Yes, which is the issue. It was used for the Tier 1-A revisions and is still used as Tiering System evidence but it's just a user page by Ultima that's not linked anywhere.

But that sounds big and different enough to perhaps need a different thread.

Sure, I guess, but I feel like it would be better to just revise High 1-A at once rather than do it piecemeal.

For your proposal, I'm fine with the rewording of the qualitatively superior framework stuff.

 

[Agnaa]

I can already foresee problems with officially separating out the types of High 1-A+; we don't have any halfway decent way of representing that.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I mean, the main issue is that we're using them currently as semi-official terms in multiple CRTs even now, and it's causing confusion. Even something like this:

Type 1 = Characters who can create/destroy/manipulate the set of all logically possible (or impossible) worlds

Type 2 = Characters who embody the set of all logically possible (or impossible) worlds.

Would be better than what we currently have in my view.

But if you don't want to tackle it, we don't have to I guess.

 

[Agnaa]

That'd lead to confusion on how to actually input that on our pages. Would the AP section say "High Outerverse level+ (Type 1)"? That'd be quite a departure from our other ratings.

That's the tough nut we'd have to crack.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Would the AP section say "High Outerverse level+ (Type 1)"?

I do see your point here, but to be honest we probably shouldn't have made a distinction between High 1-A+ in the first place if we didn't want this to happen. Because its a problem right now with that rating.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that Qawsedf234's suggestion that we need to incorporate further information from Ultima's blog post into our tiering system explanation pages seems reasonable. However, Ultima told me that he will be studying for exams for at least another two months. Is somebody else in our staff able to competently handle the task?

 

[Agnaa]

I might be able to help out with this:

I think the best route would be for people to point out explanations they find helpful from that page, and then we can try to evoke those same insights from the Tiering System or Tiering System FAQ pages. I'm torn on whether that would deserve a different thread or not.

But I would need others to point out the strikingly helpful parts of the user page.

 

[SweetDao]

I got permission again by FinePoint.

Regarding the user page. The main problem, as Agnaa pointed out, is that it contains a lot of irrelevant information about what matters : tiering. This is something that Ultima has a tendency to do -with reason or not is another topic entirely- but it ends up creating stuff like the Omnipotence page, of which 80% of it is not even relevant. Interesting to read, sure, but irrelevant.

Ultimately, I want to point out that the relevant parts of the user page are the ones that explain directly the difference between a "common genus/common quality" and a "specific genus/specific quality". Thing is, as explained above, it's explained in such a way that it is more complicated than it seems.

To quote:

Yet, there may also be similar hierarchies in 1-A itself, the levels of which have qualitative transcendences amongst each other as well. Thus, though a qualitatively greater domain surpasses the genus of quantity, still it is embedded within a broader genus of its own. And although the difference between any two of these levels is essential, still there is a broad, generic quiddity that applies uniformly to all its levels, which are then specifications of it in accordance with their degree of reality. To put it more precisely: The levels differ in species, but share a common genus.

So, for example: for three 1-A layers, A > B > C, each of them is nothing but "Generic Attribute + Specific Attribute A," "Generic Attribute + Specific Attribute B" and "Generic Attribute + Specific Attribute C." A High 1-A being is something that surpasses not only the specific attributes corresponding to the lower layers, but also the generic attribute defining the whole series of layers, and any potential other layers that can possibly spring from it. It is exactly how 1-A itself transcends the genus that defines all possible dimensional levels (Quantity).

Yet, a High 1-A character, too, can be placed within hierarchies of its own. As such, layers of High 1-A can also be seen as species of an overarching genus. And this process can extended arbitrarily far.

To put it into a rough summary (pardon the probably rough phrasing):

1-A transcends everything below due to not operating on the same quality. It's superior solely because the degree of "the higher quality" is more important in a specific realm compared to another. To put it simply: just like universes with 12 dimensions are "bigger/more complex/higher in the scaling" than regular universes with 4 dimensions, 1-A realms are higher than Low 1-A/High1-B realms due to possessing a higher "realness value," let's say.

The "dimensionality aspect", while possibly still existing within a 1-A realm, becomes less relevant because we zoom out of that particularity the moment we jump into 1-A territory. The "Realness" quality becomes what Ultima calls the "Generic Attribute," while the value itself (which can be confused with the layers themselves within a hierarchy) becomes the "Specific attribute". As such, I feel like it's crucial to find a phrasing or explain it on the FAQ (even somewhere else if needed) that, as such, anything that pertains to that "Generic Attribute" (Realness here) just can't be beyond said attribute, no matter how far his degree is compared to everything else. (Barring very precise exceptions that aren't useful right now)

A problem that I've seen a lot (and maybe some people could voice their concerns too) is that some people argue that "transcendence over the specifics is enough to warrant a High 1-A rating," which, as it is explained right now on the wiki, is straight up false. It's not because a being, realm, or anything is "transcending a 1-A hierarchy/infinite hierarchy/whatever" that they are de facto High 1-A. No matter how big the gap is, if the gap itself operates on the same logic as the framework (Realness), it just can't be High 1-A. While the layers into the 1-A hierarchy are, more or less, doing a "n+1" regarding their "realness values", the "higher realm beyond and unreachable for the 1-A hierarchy" is simply doing "n(size of the hierarchy)+1", it's a bigger gap, not a difference in quality.

Similarly, just like 1-A "hierarchy/ies based on a specific quality" can be seen as a line stretching out on the x-axis, a High 1-A realm/hierarchy would be akin to a line going through the y-axis. So, it's not because you cut out the line arbitrarily and that another line is further away that both aren't on the same axis. (Imagine that drawing but with dimensionality within a rectangle replaced by 1-A layers, basically)

I think it would also help to explain (or at least make it clearer) that you can have multiple 1-A hierarchies, each "transcending the last" without getting any High 1-A rating. Same with High 1-A.

Regarding the issue with High 1-A+, I agree with Qawsedf234 opinion. The two types need to be outlined somewhere. Agnaa points out how "different" the indexing would be if we end up doing "High Outerverse level+ (Type 1/2)" but I don't think it's such a problem, ultimately. That tier is special as it is right now, and unless we wish to divide both types into their own tier, I feel like it's a good alternative. Thankfully, whatever is chosen will not amount to that much work, seeing how few High 1-A+ characters/realms exist right now.

 

[Agnaa]

Ultimately, I want to point out that the relevant parts of the user page are the ones that explain directly the difference between a "common genus/common quality" and a "specific genus/specific quality". Thing is, as explained above, it's explained in such a way that it is more complicated than it seems.

To quote:

To put it into a rough summary (pardon the probably rough phrasing):

1-A transcends everything below due to not operating on the same quality. It's superior solely because the degree of "the higher quality" is more important in a specific realm compared to another. To put it simply: just like universes with 12 dimensions are "bigger/more complex/higher in the scaling" than regular universes with 4 dimensions, 1-A realms are higher than Low 1-A/High1-B realms due to possessing a higher "realness value," let's say.

The "dimensionality aspect", while possibly still existing within a 1-A realm, becomes less relevant because we zoom out of that particularity the moment we jump into 1-A territory. The "Realness" quality becomes what Ultima calls the "Generic Attribute," while the value itself (which can be confused with the layers themselves within a hierarchy) becomes the "Specific attribute". As such, I feel like it's crucial to find a phrasing or explain it on the FAQ (even somewhere else if needed) that, as such, anything that pertains to that "Generic Attribute" (Realness here) just can't be beyond said attribute, no matter how far his degree is compared to everything else. (Barring very precise exceptions that aren't useful right now)

Isn't that already explained?

That is to say: If there is a hierarchy of 1-A layers, each of which operates within the same framework, with the same "algorithm" dictating the difference between them, a High 1-A character would transcend the framework entirely, and instead operate on a different, higher hierarchy, governed by another, likewise higher algorithm. In other words, whereas 1-A is a qualitative superiority, High 1-A represents a "meta"-qualitative superiority.

What about that different way of explaining it to people gets the idea across to them more easily?

I think it would also help to explain (or at least make it clearer) that you can have multiple 1-A hierarchies, each "transcending the last" without getting any High 1-A rating. Same with High 1-A.

I think that'd easily slot into the Q&A section, like:

Q: Is having multiple 1-A hierarchies, each transcending the last, enough to reach High 1-A?

A: Not generally, no. Just as High 1-B can include new hierarchies of different cardinals that vastly exceed the last, 1-A can include equivalents, where instead of each step corresponding to a larger infinite cardinal, it corresponds to a higher world which sees lower ones as fiction. It can even include equivalents of Low 1-A, although in practice this is rare. Fundamentally, 1-A includes all objects whose power is based on having a superior quality, in the same way that lower tiers are objects whose power is based on having a superior quantity. High 1-A is only reached when the key distinguishing point moves from qualities to meta-qualities.

Regarding the issue with High 1-A+, I agree with Qawsedf234 opinion. The two types need to be outlined somewhere. Agnaa points out how "different" the indexing would be if we end up doing "High Outerverse level+ (Type 1/2)" but I don't think it's such a problem, ultimately. That tier is special as it is right now, and unless we wish to divide both types into their own tier, I feel like it's a good alternative. Thankfully, whatever is chosen will not amount to that much work, seeing how few High 1-A+ characters/realms exist right now.

Welp, cards on the table, my preferred solution would be making Type 1 the only form of High 1-A+, and making Type 2 baseline Tier 0, with current Tier 0 becoming Tier 0+.

imo this would reflect things better (the first type is more related to High 1-A, and the second type is more related to 0), and work within our existing profile structure better.

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. A Tier 0+ doesn't seem appropriate, as Tier 0 is supposed to be the ultimate endpoint of all conceptualisation.

 

[DontTalkDT]

DontTalkDT: Edited the proposed wording in the OP from "characters" to "entities".

Guess in furthest sense the term entity could include things, places and abstracts so that's fine with me.

---

Regarding my opinion on the High 1-A+ types, I personally find it odd that one is considered more powerful than the other, which is what justifies treating them as types in the first place.
Like, I understand how a character embodying all possible worlds would be "more powerful" in the sense that they are harder to kill and (maybe) have better combat potential. However, I don't really understand it in terms of purely an Attack Potency perspective. Doesn't seem like a power-like difference to me.
In my books it seems like putting "being a universe" and "destroying a universe" into two different tiers.

 

[Agnaa]

Regarding my opinion on the High 1-A+ types, I personally find it odd that one is considered more powerful than the other, which is what justifies treating them as types in the first place.
Like, I understand how a character embodying all possible worlds would be "more powerful" in the sense that they are harder to kill and (maybe) have better combat potential. However, I don't really understand it in terms of purely an Attack Potency perspective. Doesn't seem like a power-like difference to me.
In my books it seems like putting "being a universe" and "destroying a universe" into two different tiers.

In short, I'd say it's because "arbitrarily many" =/= "all". Kind of like the difference between "endlessly far into 1-B" and "High 1-B".

Mostly due to it not really making sense to describe changes to all possible worlds; that would require there being another potential state for all of those possible worlds, which means they wouldn't have been all possible worlds to begin with. So the only coherent way to affect all of them is simply to be all of them, in an unchanging manner.

Hmm. A Tier 0+ doesn't seem appropriate, as Tier 0 is supposed to be the ultimate endpoint of all conceptualisation.

It's not adding a new value beyond the current one, it's setting the current one to that new value.

And that'd be since they're both fairly similar. One is the contents, one is the container. They're both immutable and all-encompassing, yet one still underlies the other.

 

[DontTalkDT]

In short, I'd say it's because "arbitrarily many" =/= "all". Kind of like the difference between "endlessly far into 1-B" and "High 1-B".

Mostly due to it not really making sense to describe changes to all possible worlds; that would require there being another potential state for all of those possible worlds, which means they wouldn't have been all possible worlds to begin with. So the only coherent way to affect all of them is simply to be all of them, in an unchanging manner.

I would argue that being all of them in an unchanging manner is not a feat of power to begin with.
If being all worlds doesn't allow you to change all worlds either, then it doesn't give a power-like advantage. It's not a "coherent way to affect all of them", because it doesn't have an effect on any of them.

Like, a character that embodies a universe but is incapable of actually affecting itself (so, couldn't crush a galaxy in itself to get rid of a pesky human) would in my book not get 3-A AP either. That would just be omnipresence.

 

[Agnaa]

Would you want Tier 0 as it exists currently to be nuked?

A Tier 0 character similarly couldn't crush a galaxy to get rid of a human, from its perspective. It could only provide the grounding for a reality where a galaxy gets crushed to get rid of a human. Alongside grounding all other possible worlds.

A High 1-A+ Type 2 being could similarly provide the substance for a reality where a galaxy gets crushed to get rid of a human.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Would you want Tier 0 as it exists currently to be nuked?

A Tier 0 character similarly couldn't crush a galaxy to get rid of a human, from its perspective. It could only provide the grounding for a reality where a galaxy gets crushed to get rid of a human. Alongside grounding all other possible worlds.

A High 1-A+ Type 2 being could similarly provide the substance for a reality where a galaxy gets crushed to get rid of a human.

Well, to answer a question with a question: Would you want a character embodying a universe, but unable to damage it, to be 3-A in AP for the reason that it provides the substance of a reality in which a galaxy can be crushed?
By our stabilization feat standards I doubt that's how we currently do things.

Tier 0 is an exception anyway, as it by nature is technically not many things. And you know my personal opinion is indeed not to have any of this to begin with.
But for the status quo, I would prefer to not expand a practice to lesser tiers just because the exception beyond exceptions has it.
Unless from some perspective the character embodying all possible worlds can do something the character affecting all possible worlds can't, I don't see one of them as more impressive than the other.

 

[Agnaa]

To take that tack, I also don't like the current setup of the system, but it was enshrined specifically with those being distinct types that can achieve those tiers, one of which is superior to the other. Unless we make a revision on that scale, I don't think we can overturn that.

I think my ideal solution would be for all characters which embody objects to get "{Tier} via size, {Lower Tier}/Unknown otherwise (Has shown the ability to will certain events/Has not shown the ability to directly interfere with events in reality)".

 

[FinePoint]

"The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system the VS Battles Wiki utilizes to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats and the varying scopes that they can affect or create/destroy."

On this basis, I strongly agree with DontTalkDT in that embodying something without being able to affect it simply shouldn't even give a rating other than omnipresence and/or durability- and definitely shouldn't be assumed superior to someone who can affect it in terms of tier.

That is to say, I think in practice the "two types" of Tier High 1-A+ should be fundamentally the same from a tiering perspective, so rather than change Tier 0 (Which would be weird, I agree with Ant there), we should just drop the notion that one is assumed "superior" to the other.

 

[Agnaa]

I completely disagree with that takeaway.

If you don't believe that simply existing at a huge size is a feat, then the second type of High 1-A+ should be deleted. It would be impossible to qualify for it.

 

[FinePoint]

If you don't believe that simply existing at a huge size is a feat, then the second type of High 1-A+ should be deleted. It would be impossible to qualify for it.

I don't see how it would be impossible to embody something and also affect it. Might be self-harm, but especially in fiction, that seems highly possible, and honestly I'd even be okay with it being the base assumption.

But if it's made clear they literally can't affect anything due to their size, then how can we logically place them at that level on the scale of how much they can affect things?

 

[Agnaa]

I don't see how it would be impossible to embody something and also affect it. Might be self-harm, but especially in fiction, that seems highly possible, and honestly I'd even be okay with it being the base assumption.

It wouldn't be impossible because it's themselves, but because we're talking about the space of all possible worlds.

If "them before being affected" and "them after being affected" are different states, then neither of them are actually the space of all possible worlds, and so wouldn't qualify.

But if it's made clear they literally can't affect anything due to their size, then how can we logically place them at that level on the scale of how much they can affect things?

We can't, which is why I think the only ways forward are to:

• Allow size/state to qualify by itself past a certain point (probably High 3-A, Low 2-C, or 1-A).
• Allow size/state to qualify by itself, but place a certain conditional on that, and also rate how much they can affect.
• Remove tiers that can only be reached through size/state.

 

[FinePoint]

It wouldn't be impossible because it's themselves, but because we're talking about the space of all possible worlds.

If "them before being affected" and "them after being affected" are different states, then neither of them are actually the space of all possible worlds, and so wouldn't qualify.

It does sound like we've written ourselves into a paradoxical corner.

I think a tier that describes a state of being with absolutely no relevance to VsBattles because change is considered impossible is fundamentally flawed for our purposes.

Remove tiers that can only be reached through size/state.

"Q: What happens if two Tier 0s fight?

A: Absurd notion."

I mean, can you honestly hear that and say our definition of Tier 0 is at all relevant when it declares the sole purpose of the website an impossibility which can't even be considered?

I don't think we need to remove them necessarily, but we do need to change some of our base assumptions about how "impossible" functions in fiction. We shouldn't be shoving fiction into a box, we should be building a box around fiction.

Who cares if a High 1-A+ being affecting itself is a contradiction to some obscure philosophy we've built around it? It sounds like it's our philosophy which needs to change. It seems completely counter-productive to me if a fiction meets literally every other criteria we lay out but we then completely discredit it for having the gall to participate in the exact thing we measure everything else by.

 

[Agnaa]

Because if we say that they can affect themselves, then there's no reason to place them at the apex of our system; characters could canonically affect them and be superior to them. It would also become much easier to reach, as them being affected would no longer be an anti-feat.

I argued that sort of thing when the tiering system change was being discussed. I was still heavily outvoted. People preferred them being immutable and insurpassable, and thus being the apex of the system, over being more generous with what we allow from fiction.

---

Anyway, I hope y'all can see why I think this is a big topic deserving of its own thread.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Anyway, I hope y'all can see why I think this is a big topic deserving of its own thread.

Alright, lets just change the wording for the first sentence then and move on

 

[Agnaa]

Is there anyone else we should wait on to evaluate the wording tweak?

 

[FinePoint]

Is there anyone else we should wait on to evaluate the wording tweak?

This is where we're at:

So far we've heard from me, you, Ant, Qaw, and DontTalk.

The admin vote seems to be unanimously in favor of the wording change so far.

The idea of incorporating Ultima's blog was brought up and agreed on but the specifics weren't discussed.

Qualms with Tier 1/0 in general were brought up, but as you said that's definitely better saved for another thread.

Other than the obvious (Ultima) who is unavailable, you pinged @SamanPatou in the OP and they have yet to respond.

---

My suggestion would be to apply the wording tweak, perhaps make a follow-up thread for incorporating the blog.

If nobody else does, I'll probably make a thread for Tier 1/0 in general as soon as Ultima is back and available.
I actually don't have any direct complaints about the conceptual boundaries of them, just in our rigidness regarding exceptions.

 

[Agnaa]

Alright, I'm gonna apply the change then.

EDIT: Done.

 

[Antvasima]

It wouldn't be impossible because it's themselves, but because we're talking about the space of all possible worlds.

If "them before being affected" and "them after being affected" are different states, then neither of them are actually the space of all possible worlds, and so wouldn't qualify.

We can't, which is why I think the only ways forward are to:

[*]Allow size/state to qualify by itself past a certain point (probably High 3-A, Low 2-C, or 1-A).

I personally agree with this solution.

Also, should we close this thread now, or is there anything left to do here?

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah seems best to close this, remaining topics (incorporating Ultima's user page into more official pages, indexing High 1-A+ Types in a more clear way, handling how certain AP ratings can't be reached through imposing effects on that scale) can be tackled in different threads, if others wish to make them.

 

[FinePoint]

Yeah seems best to close this, remaining topics (incorporating Ultima's user page into more official pages, indexing High 1-A+ Types in a more clear way, handling how certain AP ratings can't be reached through imposing effects on that scale) can be tackled in different threads, if others wish to make them.

I will do so then.

Thank you to everyone who helped out.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. Thank you to everybody here.