This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Might be fine. See below for the reason I put that in.
True.
"Levels of infinity" would give off the impression that the new Tiering System still works off on some ill-defined notion that can be equated both to dimensional levels and to metaphysical differences, as we did before. I don't mind...
For my part: I already said that I don't have an issue with waiting. It's not like we're in any sort of rush to apply this. You can take the time you need, as far as I'm concerned.
Depends on what this "They are concepts" entails. If the pillars are all just the same undifferentiated "concept" then that's not inherently an issue, given robust enough statements. Overall boils down to the description given to them rather than the name they're called by.
Yeah, since in transcending all multiplicity whatsoever it also transcends any notion of a succession of states, and also whatever could condition such a succession.
Yeah, that's a fair enough way to assess it. But I don't think it's a good reason to just keep these pages un-applied, still, because either way some degree of confusion is bound to happen during this transition period. Even under what you are suggesting, for example, some verses will be...
SCP is an exceptional case because it's also in the process of being moved somewhere else and deleted. If it bothers you, it doesn't take much to just write down a big note in the verse page saying the verse is about to get thrown out and that, by extension, its ratings aren't going to be up to...
That sounds like a pretty wonky way to go about it. Making a bunch of CRTs for a Tiering System that isn't even formally applied and exists mostly in the form of sandboxes sounds like bad practice overall. Far better to go with the approach I pitched up there.
For the matter, I don't mind...
Afterwards, it's up to the supporters of each individual verse to revise them, if they believe the verses in question ought to be tiered differently with the new system. Most likely, I'll make a "hub" thread for all the CRTs that'll spawn out of these revisions.
More specifically for being described as "above the real" and similar.
Though, can you explain Lucifer's relation to dimensionality, also? The comics are a big vague on that mark, and the fact he's very much depicted as existing just fine in regular reality throws me off.
Narnia is not an Arian cosmology and Aslan is very much the equal of the Emperor. That's all there is to say on that.
Gotta say I'm pretty skeptical of High 1-A+/Tier 0 Narnia based on that reasoning, ngl. Seems like yapping to me.
I don't think that is needed, no, given how sparse such characters are. If, somehow, they start becoming numerous in the future, I think we can go back and have a discussion on whether to make more sub-divisions, but I doubt that will happen, and as is, making such divisions will just result in...
They are the same, largely. Low 1-A is "above dimensions," but just not really in the same sense as 1-A, which is in fact above quantitative differences in general.
Make Low 1-A into the Universe of Sets and we're good to go, I believe.
Anyway: I don't think expanding High 1-C is a priority issue right now. It wouldn't serve any practical purpose whatsoever for the foreseeable future whereas transferring 6-D to 1-C does. Ontop of what Agnaa said.
Not too sure about that, thinking of it now. Genuinely don't know of any characters who scale specifically to an inaccessible cardinal (Remember, we only had characters at that level before because we equated metaphysical layers to dimensions).
Plus, in a less significant note, I think it'd...
Hm.
@Antvasima
To clarify: How will votes work here? Technically, this is part of a site-wide revision, but it's also really just a ceremonial application of things that are already agreed upon (Save the discussion on tier reorganization). Given that, are we counting only admin votes and up...
Alright, so, I trimmed as much as I could without losing the essence of it. Here.
As an aside: I also edited-in this into the Tiering System page draft. Adding in that little detail about Low 1-A and clarifying something about High 1-B+ after Lawyer made a comment about it up there...
Sounds good. The FAQ page effectively already says this, so, we can probably add a footnote saying:
Don't mind that.
Don't mind that, either. I suppose I was unconsciously speaking from experience when writing that, but then again stuff like this is not exactly verifiable.
Mostly, the page...
I was actually thinking of the old-ass interpretation we had of Lovecraft's cosmology where Azathoth was the dreamer of everything and Yog-Sothoth was considered to be the dream itself. Just the general idea of "This thing that isn't really the superessence in-and-of-itself but is second to it...
The note itself is obsolete because characters with genuine R>F Transcendence just get BDE now. Hence I say we should remove it.
I'd say so, yeah. Don't think much will need to be changed with Low 1-A and up.
This is just saying "Life has no intrinsic meaning beyond what you consciously impose on it." It's neither a reference to Jung (And even if it was, it wouldn't amount to anything whatsoever) nor indicative of Conceptual Manipulation. Literally just basic existentialist shit.
I also hope you're...
Yeah, true enough on the last bit. I figured it'd be clear from how it's grouped under the same category as 1-A and High 1-A, but I guess rewriting it to be a bit clearer is good.