Lord of Light Profile Creation: Staff Votes [4 : 0]

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Is the Nameless the 'great burning blossom' and if it is, how is it squatting 'upon the limb of the world' if it supposedly is the world and all reality?

It's metaphors. I dont think deliberating on it much is that conducive to the discussion.

 

[FinePoint]

It's metaphors. I dont think deliberating on it much is that conducive to the discussion.

A metaphor doesn't usually directly contradict the premise it's trying to convey.

This entry seems like almost the entire extent of the justification for both this tier and the profile in general.
Before allowing the creation of a profile in the highest tier on our wiki, I find it wise to at least fully decipher and understand the primary document being presented as evidence, and not just dismiss every possible contradiction as a metaphor.

Not so, with a Tier 0. The nature of its transcendence results in it not being "somewhere else" compared to other things, in any sense whatsoever, insofar as that would entail an equivalent to "Being there, as opposed to here" and "Being here, as opposed to there." Since it transcends all such oppositions, it is also beyond any particular level of existence.

It is entirely possible for a being to be the entirety of a world without truly being the grounds of 'all reality'. Even the claims of superiority are technically not in the spirit of Tier 0, but more towards Tier 1.

Furthermore, who is the speaker here? Can we trust them? Is this even notable enough to be a profile?

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

A metaphor doesn't usually directly contradict the premise it's trying to convey.

This entry seems like almost the entire extent of the justification for both this tier and the profile in general.
Before allowing the creation of a profile in the highest tier on our wiki, I find it wise to at least fully decipher and understand the primary document being presented as evidence, and not just dismiss every possible contradiction as a metaphor.



It is entirely possible for a being to be the entirety of a world without truly being the grounds of 'all reality'. Even the claims of superiority are technically not in the spirit of Tier 0, but more towards Tier 1.

Furthermore, who is the speaker here? Can we trust them? Is this even notable enough to be a profile?

I mean it's literally saying those metaphors aren't enough to capture the nature of the nameless yet encompass them regardless.

and being none of these things I have named and at the same time all of them

 

[FinePoint]

I mean it's literally saying those metaphors aren't enough to capture the nature of the nameless yet encompass them regardless.

And that is valid, though the sentence structure is a bit vague. It may also be only excluding things outside the current sentence.

What of my other questions?

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

And that is valid, though the sentence structure is a bit vague. It may also be only excluding things outside the current sentence.

What of my other questions?

The claims of superiority are pretty in line with tier 0, especially with how to define any attributes at all is to lose them, and all these attributes unreal. It just means it's radically and fundamentally beyond identity or attributed existence, which is just tier 0. I have no idea about the reliability of the speaker though. It'd be kinda hard to prove someone with absolute cosmic knowledge when the nameless is seemingly impersonal and transcendent. Sometimes these are just wise characters that through the author are meant for worldbuilding purposes and just "know" and are somewhat enlightened to grand scheme of things. Maybe OP can say if that's the case or not.

 

[FinePoint]

Maybe OP can say if that's the case or not.

Alright. We can wait for them.

 

[Megaraptor149]

Alright. We can wait for them.

The speaker is not a random character. He is one of the most important characters in the novel, or I would say he is the MC. He is a highly knowledgeable and philosophically aware figure within the narrative. Also, he is not originally a god in the literal sense and never explicitly claims that he is not one. Throughout the story, his followers call him Mahasamatman, and he deliberately adopts the identity of a new Buddha as part of his role in initiating a rebellion against the established “gods.”

Well, that's about all a speaker who explains the Nameless in a summary.

 

[Megaraptor149]

The speaker is not a random character. He is most important characters in novel or i would say he is MC. He is a highly knowledgeable and philosophically aware figure within the narrative. Also he is not originally a god in the literal sense, he also never explicitly claims that he is not one. Throughout the story, his followers call him Mahasamatman, and he deliberately adopts the identity of a new Buddha as part of his role in initiating a rebellion against the established “gods.”

Well, that's about all a speaker who explains the Nameless in a summary..

That’s actually quite a common thing in fiction. Stories often include a character, sometimes a main figure and sometimes not, who speaks as the expositional voice regarding the nature of the Supreme Being or the structure of the world within fiction. So the fact that a character is explaining such things does not automatically make the statements unreliable or irrelevant (depending on what is described, something is there or not).

 

[FinePoint]

The speaker is not a random character. He is one of the most important characters in the novel, or I would say he is the MC. He is a highly knowledgeable and philosophically aware figure within the narrative. Also, he is not originally a god in the literal sense and never explicitly claims that he is not one. Throughout the story, his followers call him Mahasamatman, and he deliberately adopts the identity of a new Buddha as part of his role in initiating a rebellion against the established “gods.”

Well, that's about all a speaker who explains the Nameless in a summary.

Okay, so assuming the speaker is reliable, assuming we're interpreting this correctly, and that all the specific dubious language is a metaphor that self-admits it isn't adequate- that still leaves the final concern: notability.

Relative to the total size of the story, how much impact does this Nameless actually have beyond what's implied by their nature?

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Relative to the total size of the story, how much impact does this Nameless actually have beyond what's implied by their nature?

Does this even matter btw? We allow profiles for relatively irrelevant characters all the time. I don't think this logic of allowing not very relevant things changes for high tiers (I think this is only an exception to comics due to sheer size).

This is also a power indexing wiki. One can argue a being of such scope is notable enough to have a profile.

 

[FinePoint]

Does this even matter btw? We allow profiles for relatively irrelevant characters all the time. I don't think this logic of allowing not very relevant things changes for high tiers (I think this is only an exception to comics due to sheer size).

This is also a power indexing wiki. One can argue a being of such scope is notable enough to have a profile.

In that we generally want our characters to have complete and accurate information.

If a character is only vaguely mentioned a couple times, then we can't really say we have a full picture of them and that our profile is accurate and complete.

And to avoid meaningless bloat, we generally don't want profiles for every single background character with almost no information about them.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

In that we generally want our characters to have complete and accurate information.

If a character is only vaguely mentioned a couple times, then we can't really say we have a full picture of them and that our profile is accurate and complete.

And to avoid meaningless bloat, we generally don't want profiles for every single background character with almost no information about them.

I mean all the stuff about them seem to be pretty straightforward rather than vague. They dont need to be explained across like 20 pages or a few chapters in the book. If it's all there is in the book then it's probably the complete image.

I think meaningless bloat is weird and kinda vague itself when for powerscaling purposes indexing a tier 0 that can be properly indexed isn't meaningless.

 

[BleedingPeach]

I mean all the stuff about them seem to be pretty straightforward rather than vague. They dont need to be explained across like 20 pages or a few chapters in the book. If it's all there is in the book then it's probably the complete image.

I think meaningless bloat is weird and kinda vague itself when for powerscaling purposes indexing a tier 0 that can be properly indexed isn't meaningless.

I agree with you. We have a profile for Om (Siddhartha) and the information of said "character" is pretty much some kind of quotes from characters who aren't divine.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

I think problem is, is that a lot of tier 0s arent themselves actors in the narrative (they can be in some abrahamic depiction but that doesnt exclude the non-actors from having profiles just because some are) by nature of their being but are instead more like perhaps plot devices that serve as maybe a goal, a principle, and so on.

 

[Megaraptor149]

In that we generally want our characters to have complete and accurate information.

If a character is only vaguely mentioned a couple times, then we can't really say we have a full picture of them and that our profile is accurate and complete.

And to avoid meaningless bloat, we generally don't want profiles for every single background character with almost no information about them.

There are already many profiles on the wiki, especially Tier 1 and above, where the character in question, particularly a Supreme Being entity, is only mentioned many times. In many cases, they never directly act or appears within the story at all.

Their role is primarily to establish the cosmological structure of the setting. In other words, they function as worldbuilding elements rather than active participants in the plot.

 

[Megaraptor149]

I mean all the stuff about them seem to be pretty straightforward rather than vague. They dont need to be explained across like 20 pages or a few chapters in the book. If it's all there is in the book then it's probably the complete image.

I think meaningless bloat is weird and kinda vague itself when for powerscaling purposes indexing a tier 0 that can be properly indexed isn't meaningless.

Another example, Mathiverse, is explained and mentioned in not even 10 pages, lol.

 

[Elizhaa]

Tier 0 looks fine.

 

[Megaraptor149]

Hmm. It is turning into a problem that we do not receive much help from knowledgeable staff members here yet.

Can this be applied then? Since there are 4 staff who agree now.

Finepoint already agrees with Tier but has the same concern as Udlmaster about profile notability (but that's not really a big problem).

And that is valid, though the sentence structure is a bit vague. It may also be only excluding things outside the current sentence.

Okay, so assuming the speaker is reliable, assuming we're interpreting this correctly, and that all the specific dubious language is a metaphor that self-admits it isn't adequate- that still leaves the final concern: notability.

 

[Elizhaa]

Another example, Mathiverse, is explained and mentioned in not even 10 pages, lol.

There is also the case of the Goddess of The Manifold whose presence was minimal; in such cases it is the validity of statements that matters.
On the background characters, I think it was later clarified in CRT for characters like human like with 10-B statistics without special abilities, feat or powers; but if the characters have similar statistics however should have notable powers, feats or statistics like impressive intelligence, the page creation was fine in most cases (DC and Marvel might have their own rules was based on minimum issue appearance); there was a time when such non-notable pages used to be allowable, usually focusing in series like sitcom.

 

[Megaraptor149]

There is also the case of the Goddess of The Manifold whose presence was minimal; in such cases it is the validity of statements that matter.
On the background characters, I think it was later clarified in CRT for characters like human like with 10-B statistics without special abilities, feat or powers; but if the characters have similar statistisc however with should have notable powers, feats or statistics like impressive intelligence, the page creation was fine in most cases (DC and Marvel might have their own rules was based on minimum issue appearance); there was a time when such non-notable pages used to allowable, usually focusing in series like sitcom.

Yeah, after all, this wiki is intended for battleboarding and power index purposes, not for character biographies like most fiction wikis.

 

[Megaraptor149]

Can this be applied or wait until FinePoint give response?

 

[FinePoint]

Can this be applied or wait until FinePoint give response?

I still have the notability concern, but I won't hold up the CRT for that, so you can have my approval, and this can probably be applied.

If people really care that discussion could be its own thread entirely.

 

[Megaraptor149]

Saya masih memiliki kekhawatiran tentang kelayakan, tetapi saya tidak akan menunda CRT karena itu, jadi Anda bisa mendapatkan persetujuan saya, dan ini mungkin bisa diterapkan.

Jika orang-orang benar-benar peduli, diskusi itu bisa dijadikan thread tersendiri.

Okey, i will applied then.

 

[Megaraptor149]

Already applied, this can be closed

 

[Antvasima]

If FinePoint has not accepted this, and we have not received input from other staff members who know a lot about Tier 0, I do not think that it seems safe to apply this yet.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

If FinePoint has not accepted this, and we have not received input from other staff members who know a lot about Tier 0, I do not think that it seems safe to apply this yet.

Oblivion who has made multiple tier 0 profiles is agreeing with it, Udl (who is not staff) who probably knows more than most staff agrees with it. The only actual staff that knows a lot about tier 0 is Ultima himself, and he has been aware of this thread but never came. Isn't it unfair to hold up the thread for a single thread?

 

[SweetDao]

If FinePoint has not accepted this, and we have not received input from other staff members who know a lot about Tier 0, I do not think that it seems safe to apply this yet.

Actually, Finepoint was fine with the rating, their concerns was about the notability of the character.

 

[Re5yh]

Oblivion who has made multiple tier 0 profiles is agreeing with it, Udl (who is not staff) who probably knows more than most staff agrees with it. The only actual staff that knows a lot about tier 0 is Ultima himself, and he has been aware of this thread but never came. Isn't it unfair to hold up the thread for a single thread?

Ultima would probaly change his mind though

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I suppose that this is probably fine then.

I will close this thread. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.