• 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.

2-B and "countless" revision

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know a staff member or two planning a CRT to merge 2-C and 2-B into one single being. Not sure when it'll arrive but it is in the works.

But yeah, it's weird as **** now.
Smh, I am the one who made a crt over it 2 months ago, the problem has been solved, it's not needed anymore.
 
Smh, I am the one who made a crt over it 2 months ago, the problem has been solved, it's not needed anymore.
You're not the first one and you won't be the last LMAO

The staff I know are higher dimensional beings that surpass your concepts of the word understanding. OwO
 
You’re cherry picking the definition of myriad. The second defitnion is “a great number”, which is actually more synonymous with countless’ definition than 10,000.
No, not really. On any front, actually.
  1. What separates my so called "cherry picking" of myraid from your usage of the less common use of countless? Why is just being like "definition 1" suddenly cherry picking when I do it? Are you prepared to address the fact that you're cherry picking countless far harder than I am myriad, under the terms you yourself set? Remember, I imposed none of this. Wanting to go to dictionaries is all you.
  2. In what way is "a great number" more supportive of your "countless usually means impossible to count to" than my "countless usually means a generic large number?"
 
The difference here is that I can absolutely prove that countless is not usually used to mean what you use it to mean here. It would be quite bizarre if we just assumed the esoteric academia definitions of words in every case by the default as opposed to how the word is actually used by people, and there's also plenty of characters who don't really have any way to be sure about the academia meaning anyways. It makes more sense to just default to how real people use the word, and then leave the academic option open if it can be sufficiently supported.
As for infinite as for countless, context is who making the statement and expanded on the character or the statement itself. Just a statement as it is no one takes.
 
Nah I've never changed my forum name I've just been gone for a while because I am a college student
 
How would you rate “I have destroyed countless space-time continuum”?
 
As for infinite as for countless, context is who making the statement and expanded on the character or the statement itself. Just a statement as it is no one takes.
Again, my position isn't incompatible with this. I'm fine with you being able to make an argument for the academic usage of the word countless, I just think you should have to make that argument because that's not usually what that word means. I want it to not be the default, not to just be unusable forever.
 
How would you rate “I have destroyed countless space-time continuum”?
Doesn't mean much without context.

CONTEXT IS KEY FAM. CONTEXT.

Honestly tho none of this would've ever been a problem if people knew how to name tiers better LMFAO
 
You're not the first one and you won't be the last LMAO

The staff I know are higher dimensional beings that surpass your concepts of the word understanding. OwO
Lol, true there are many, certainly tho, in my understanding they won't merge but will stay but if you say so then I guess I may have misjudged the things.
Smh I tried to merge them for my own personal intentions tho nvm 💀
 
Doesn't mean much without context.

CONTEXT IS KEY FAM. CONTEXT.

Honestly tho none of this would've ever been a problem if people knew how to name tiers better LMFAO
Ignore context, let's say he indeed destroyed countless space-time continuums, and it is proven that one “universe” is low 2-C.
REGARDLESS, all of it. How would you rate it? smh, ik the context matters bruh.
 
Ignore context, let's say he indeed destroyed countless space-time continuums, and it is proven that one “universe” is low 2-C.
REGARDLESS, all of it. How would you rate it? smh, ik the context matters bruh.
Depends on the context, multiversal structure and any other supporting evidence of travel between space-time continuums and if it gets heavy into the more scientific side of things.
 
Ignore context, let's say he indeed destroyed countless space-time continuums, and it is proven that one “universe” is low 2-C.
REGARDLESS, all of it. How would you rate it? smh, ik the context matters bruh.
80
 
Ignore context, let's say he indeed destroyed countless space-time continuums, and it is proven that one “universe” is low 2-C.
REGARDLESS, all of it. How would you rate it? smh, ik the context matters bruh.
If the character has atleast feats nearing or not too far below the statement in question which is w/o context has been stated then yes but like he hasn't even shown planet lvl feat and just statement like that exist then may not
 
Do you guys think I ignore context? I am saying “regardless of context”. Hypothetically.
If the character has atleast feats nearing or not too far below the statement in question which is w/o context has been stated then yes but like he hasn't even shown planet lvl feat and just statement like that exist then may not
Depends on the context, multiversal structure and any other supporting evidence of travel between space-time continuums and if it gets heavy into the more scientific side of things.
 
Again, my position isn't incompatible with this. I'm fine with you being able to make an argument for the academic usage of the word countless, I just think you should have to make that argument because that's not usually what that word means. I want it to not be the default, not to just be unusable forever.
Let me quote the premises to be clear.
You :- even if the statement over countless is coming from reliable character or sources it shouldn't be default to 2B.

Me :- if the statement is coming from reliable character and sources then no reason to vandalise it.

Is this what are the premises is?
 
That's what the entire contention of this thread is about. What to do without context. If you had literally zero you just wouldn't do anything with the statement, but that applies to basically everything on the website.
 
Basically, I will take “Rimuru 2-B” as a reference, it contains there countless universes. How would rate it now?
 
Let me quote the premises to be clear.
You :- even if the statement over countless is coming from reliable character or sources it shouldn't be default to 2B.

Me :- if the statement is coming from reliable character and sources then no reason to vandalise it.

Is this what are the premises is?
Reliability in this case would be something you'd have to prove in the first place. You'd need to make an argument as to why the statement giver would be using academia countless, and if that argument works out then congrats more biggatons for everyone. I would make the reliability or credibility of the statement's source a positive claim.

Basically, I will take “Rimuru 2-B” as a reference, it contains there countless universes. How would rate it now?
By doing this you add a whole lot of context to analyze, though. Whether Rimuru specifically or not would work isn't really under the scope of this thread unless you've got some specific issue with proposed standards you'd like to use him as a case to exemplify.

Anyways I don't care about anime and I don't have the time to go scrutinize his in particular so I have no opinion on how to rate him
 
That's what the entire contention of this thread is about. What to do without context. If you had literally zero you just wouldn't do anything with the statement, but that applies to basically everything on the website.
OP is just assuming we slap on countless without all that context.
 
That's what the entire contention of this thread is about. What to do without context. If you had literally zero you just wouldn't do anything with the statement, but that applies to basically everything on the website.

Me :- if the statement is coming from reliable character and sources then no reason to vandalise it.
Then I am standing with my premise for the reasons I've stated above. Will not derail any further as I've all said with me
 
OP isn't very coherent but it does open up with "I don't think it should default to this." I'm pretty sure on Xenforo there's a way for mods to edit post positions and put in a new OP but I'm not gonna fiddle around with that right before sleeping that seems like a bad idea
 
Reliability in this case would be something you'd have to prove in the first place. You'd need to make an argument as to why the statement giver would be using academia countless, and if that argument works out then congrats more biggatons for everyone. I would make the reliability or credibility of the statement's source a positive claim.


By doing this you add a whole lot of context to analyze, though. Whether Rimuru specifically or not would work isn't really under the scope of this thread unless you've got some specific issue with proposed standards you'd like to use him as a case to exemplify.

Anyways I don't care about anime and I don't have the time to go scrutinize his in particular so I have no opinion on how to rate him
That was not anime, that was a web novel, plus the only reason he got 2-B, was indeed a “countless worlds” statement.
There were no others than this. But also, nothing here suggests there is any contradiction or hyperbole meaning, the ability was indeed powerful.
 
I mean the point is that by bringing up Rimuru you're introducing a lot of context and getting away from "what do we do in the absence of said context." To evaluate Rimuru I'd have to go read his stuff myself, I don't really want to do that, so I'm just not opining on him in particular. His specific tier is not really what this thread is about.
 
So what have we learned here folks?

Do each verse's "countless" interpretation separately. There's context and other structures of their verse and other statements you may have missed.

Also make it so that only 2-C, 2-B and 2-A exist
 
I mean the point is that by bringing up Rimuru you're introducing a lot of context and getting away from "what do we do in the absence of said context." To evaluate Rimuru I'd have to go read his stuff myself, I don't really want to do that, so I'm just not opining on him in particular. His specific tier is not really what this thread is about.
I used the wrong example, since there is proof of 2-B rather than “countless Worlds”
 
So what have we learned here folks?

Do each verse's "countless" interpretation separately. There's context and other structures of their verse and other statements you may have missed.

Also make it so that only 2-C, 2-B and 2-A exist
I am being honest, but “countless” was never default… it was an unspoken rule
 
I'll lean to 2B there isn't any type of multiverse from type 1 to type 4 that limits the universes to this extent but simply go over countless or infinite, 5 or 100 universes within multiverse (theoritically) is already rare to say the least and when given the direct statement of countless I won't pressume it to be limited for no reason but maybe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top