• 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-C and 2-B Tier merge

Status
Not open for further replies.
KLOL506 said:
This practice should be mandatory and enforced, as has been agreed upon by most of the other staff members. Listing the number of universes destroyed that is.
Click to expand...
Has this somehow already been applied? Or will it only be applied after the discussion ends? (No more questions after this, to avoid derailing)
 
Tanin_iver said:
Argument from Anecdotal Evidence, which is a fallacy. But, I will still explain and address ur concern


I guess u may have honestly misunderstood. It is related to ur argument and I will explain why.

The concepts that people will have to deal with for understanding Tier 2 and its sub-tiers are Singular, Plural Finite, the numbers 1000 and 1001 (which are also plural finite) and Infinite. And to understand Tier 2 after our revision people will have to know Singular, Plural Finite and Infinite. As u can see even after our revisions the knowledge needed to understand is the exact same, u don't need to know more or any new concept to understand the thing.

Now, let there will be two sets of people A and B.
Set A: People who understands or will understand(newcomers) the current system and its concepts.
Set B: People who don't understand the current system and its concepts.

For A the revision will have no affect on their understanding as they don't have to understand anything new and they will easily migrate to the new system because they are dealing with the same concepts. U should have no basis for concern regarding them. Since, they can understand the old they can understand the new as there is nothing new to understand(if there were new concepts to understand I could understand ur skepticism and opposition, but this is completely unfounded).

For B, neither u nor I or anyone else for that matter in the wiki can help much in that regard, we can only try. Their only hope is a good grade school teacher.

And if u are still persistent on the idea that we should avoid this revision because people will not understand as u stated:

then u will have to oppose every revision ever made by default bcos people will not understand so there is no point in making any revision. And if u are not opposing every revision and only some out of personal subjective preference then ur take is hypocritical and makes ur opinions invalid if u don't even follow what u preach.

So, basically ur concerns have no real basis. In short, those who understood before, will still understand and those who don't now whether they understand after the revision is irrelevant and isn't concerned about the revision. We can only try to communicate better.
I would like to reiterate again, avoiding confusion isn't about avoiding change, its about communicating change.
Click to expand...
My lord. I wasn't aware I was speaking to the singular most objectively correct individual the world has ever birthed.

As someone else pointed out this is a matter of opinion. My concerns have valid weight because we have seen extremely similar situations in the past- "anecdotal evidence" is not an argument to dissuade recognizing patterns. If I had said "yeah well my cousin Jake struggles to remember things so we should probably just not", then yes, you'd be right. But this is not a personal story I'm relating to- this is details from the wiki's history. Arguing it as "anecdotal evidence" would leave you regarding all analyst information in history (which our civilization, as it stands, relies very much on) as moot. As it stands you're tagging buzzwords in the most obnoxious way possible.

People struggle to understand sweeping changes. It has happened in the past and it will happen again. The most immediate one I can think of is the Tier 1 changes which were, ironically, added to aid with clarity. So frankly I don't care if you, specifically, cannot appreciate my skepticism- something tells me you are trying to "win" the argument when there is no argument to be had.

As for "oh well surely you'll have to be against all changes then!!!!", for ***** sake you could at least try to understand the point, especially if you're going to bold things for bloody emphasis. This change has no benefit. There is none. It does not help anybody. Most changes we enact have some form of benefit for the wiki- CRTs are aimed to make pages more accurate, rule additions make the wiki a safer place, format changes make profiles more accessible, reference add-ons make profiles more reliable, the list goes on. This change doesn't do any of that.

This change is pedantic and acting as though it isn't is dumb. I'm unfollowing as I have no more urge to explain shit to you and then have you attempt to condescend to me with the same old debating verbage people have used since I found this hellsite. But, please, by all means, boast about your "debunks".
 
Just_a_Random_Butler said:
I am leaning towards neutral, with a slight preference for the current procedure.


Regardless of what happens in this thread, I think that this practice should at least be encouraged.
Click to expand...
I'd like to think most pages have this information relatively easily tracked, but before I go, I agree that making this a standard practice is good. It should be no different than linking calculations to a page so that everyone can easily decipher the exact AP.
 
KLOL506 said:
We already use this to Tier 1 so no reason why this wouldn't apply to Tier 2.


It will become a new rule regardless of whether or not OP's thread gets rejected.
Click to expand...
Well, I was asking whether it has or hasn't been applied yet, but I guess I worded that wrong, sorry for that. Still, thank you for answering. (And I just wanted to say this personally, thank you for handling this thread in the most professional way possible)
 
Mr._Bambu said:
My lord. I wasn't aware I was speaking to the singular most objectively correct individual the world has ever birthed.

As someone else pointed out this is a matter of opinion. My concerns have valid weight because we have seen extremely similar situations in the past- "anecdotal evidence" is not an argument to dissuade recognizing patterns. If I had said "yeah well my cousin Jake struggles to remember things so we should probably just not", then yes, you'd be right. But this is not a personal story I'm relating to- this is details from the wiki's history. Arguing it as "anecdotal evidence" would leave you regarding all analyst information in history (which our civilization, as it stands, relies very much on) as moot. As it stands you're tagging buzzwords in the most obnoxious way possible.

People struggle to understand sweeping changes. It has happened in the past and it will happen again. The most immediate one I can think of is the Tier 1 changes which were, ironically, added to aid with clarity. So frankly I don't care if you, specifically, cannot appreciate my skepticism- something tells me you are trying to "win" the argument when there is no argument to be had.

As for "oh well surely you'll have to be against all changes then!!!!", for ***** sake you could at least try to understand the point, especially if you're going to bold things for bloody emphasis. This change has no benefit. There is none. It does not help anybody. Most changes we enact have some form of benefit for the wiki- CRTs are aimed to make pages more accurate, rule additions make the wiki a safer place, format changes make profiles more accessible, reference add-ons make profiles more reliable, the list goes on. This change doesn't do any of that.

This change is pedantic and acting as though it isn't is dumb. I'm unfollowing as I have no more urge to explain shit to you and then have you attempt to condescend to me with the same old debating verbage people have used since I found this hellsite. But, please, by all means, boast about your "debunks".
Click to expand...
I stronglya agree with @Mr._Bambu above.

The suggested changes have not remotely received sufficient staff support to be applied, so further time-wasting arguments here seem pointless.

We can definitely apply a new rule for that the number of universes should be specified whenever possible though.
 
Antvasima said:
I stronglya agree with @Mr._Bambu above.

The suggested changes have not remotely received sufficient staff support to be applied, so further time-wasting arguments here seem pointless.

We can definitely apply a new rule for that the number of universes should be specified whenever possible though.
Click to expand...
I am sorry if I have no permission for talking here, but is there a rule for that in tier 1? As far as I am concerned, I can't see any.
 
Got ant's approval to speak here

I suppose the logic behind OP is good. The issue here is the community.people are generally known to the current system. Even outside vsbw people use the vsbw tiering system. it will mess up tier 2 for new scalers and even to the old ones , it's no denying fact that 1000 universe is an arbitrary number but we do such things all the times ,we have FTL ,MFTL MFTL+.
I am neutral leaning towards agreement coz accuracy ,logic is what our tiering system is based upon
 
KLOL506 said:
Seems like someone forgot to add it in after the Tier 1 revisions, but yes.
Click to expand...
I thought I am blind for a second, I was searching for it. But then ya, seems great suggestion.
Will be in a new section or in AP justification, and how should it look like?
 
Dread said:
I thought I am blind for a second, I was searching for it. But then ya, seems great suggestion.
Will be in a new section or in AP justification, and how should it look like?
Click to expand...
Just list how many universes are affected and then link it to any cosmological blog or scan. Should be the same step as making Tier 1-B profiles that list and link to the scan explaining how many dimensions are involved.
 
KingTempest said:
There is most definitely sufficient staff support, even more than the disagreements
Click to expand...
Well it seems that all staff that aren’t admins or bureaucrats have their names no longer bolded, probably as a result of Ant’s edit to clean up the vote count, since technically Thread Mods and CGMS have no jurisdiction as staff members on these matters

Factor that in and there are more staff disagrees than agrees
 
Pikaman said:
Well it seems that all staff that aren’t admins or bureaucrats have their names no longer bolded, probably as a result of Ant’s edit to clean up the vote count, since technically Thread Mods and CGMS have no jurisdiction as staff members on these matters

Factor that in and there are more staff disagrees than agrees
Click to expand...
...so Thread Mods... who's literal only privilege in a thread is to evaluate, has no jurisdiction to evaluate this thread... when Ant himself in this same thread said that thread mods have the privilege to evaluate
 
Pikaman said:
Don’t shoot the messenger
Click to expand...
you're fine

Agree: Emirp sumitpo (Thread Mod), Planck69 (Thread Mod), Andytrenom (Administrator), Starter_Pack (Administrator), Maverick_Zero_X (Thread Mod), LordTracer (Thread Mod), DemonGodMitchAubin (Thread Mod), Duedate8898 (Thread Mod), KingTempest (Thread Mod)

Disagree: Everything12 (Thread Mod), Antvasima (Bureaucrat), DontTalkDT (Bureaucrat), DarkDragonMedeus (Administrator), Mr._Bambu (Administrator)

9 Valid Agrees vs 5 Valid Disagrees

So where is this "not enough" at?
 
KingTempest said:
you're fine

Agree: Emirp sumitpo (Thread Mod), Planck69 (Thread Mod), Andytrenom (Administrator), Starter_Pack (Administrator), Maverick_Zero_X (Thread Mod), LordTracer (Thread Mod), DemonGodMitchAubin (Thread Mod), Duedate8898 (Thread Mod), KingTempest (Thread Mod)

Disagree: Everything12 (Thread Mod), Antvasima (Bureaucrat), DontTalkDT (Bureaucrat), DarkDragonMedeus (Administrator), Mr._Bambu (Administrator)

9 Valid Agrees vs 5 Valid Disagrees

So where is this "not enough" at?
Click to expand...
Well Ant seems to be enacting his veto as a bureaucrat, as he believes this would be a disastrous change for the wiki. As annoying as that is, and as much as I disagree that this is a veto worthy proposal, and it’s worrying that Ant is able to veto anything that he has any form of disagreement on, he is in his right to do so
 
KingTempest said:
There is most definitely sufficient staff support, even more than the disagreements
Click to expand...
These types of changes need a clear staff consensus, and there are more higher-ranked staff members who oppose this change.
 
KingTempest said:
...so Thread Mods... who's literal only privilege in a thread is to evaluate, has no jurisdiction to evaluate this thread... when Ant himself in this same thread said that thread mods have the privilege to evaluate
Click to expand...
They have the jurisdiction to evaluate content revision threads, but administrators and particularly bureaucrats have much more evaluation weight when it comes to very important wiki policy revisions.
 
Damage3245 said:
I'd like to know exactly what the disadvantage is of introducing this change.
Click to expand...
I would greatly appreciate if you read my earlier posts for the long version, but mainly it would turn our tiering system far less precise and easily overviewed by casual visitors, due to mashing together characters that can almost destroy an infinite number of universes and characters that can only destroy two of them with each other.

I also think that much of the entire point of our wiki is to provide as many hierarchical power level distinctions as practically convenient.

Also, as Bambu said earlier, such a change wouldn't really fulfill any positive need for this community. It is strictly motivated by a pedantic fixation on that the number 1000 doesn't have any scientific basis, and was strictly choosen for the sake of convenience, since a quite large part of the characters that can only destroy a finite number of universes end up there.
 
Pikaman said:
Well Ant seems to be enacting his veto as a bureaucrat, as he believes this would be a disastrous change for the wiki. As annoying as that is, and as much as I disagree that this is a veto worthy proposal, and it’s worrying that Ant is able to veto anything that he has any form of disagreement on, he is in his right to do so
Click to expand...
I cannot veto anything I want. Only the more important wiki policy changes, as a part of my job is to act as a buffer there. Also, the other bureaucrats can still overrule me together in such cases.
 
Antvasima said:
These types of changes need a clear staff consensus, and there are more higher-ranked staff members who oppose this change.
Click to expand...
there's 9 staff members (2 admins, 7 thread mods) agreeing and 5 staff members (2 admins, 2 bureau, 1 thread mod) disagreeing

so removing the admins from both sides and the 1 thread mod, that means 2 bureaucrats have more say then 6 thread mods?
 
Personally I don't think there would be any issue with "characters who could bust finite number of Universes" being in one tier, and "characters who could bust infinite numbers of Universes" being in another tier.

Characters can share the same tier without being at the same power, so character A who can destroy 2 Universes and character B who can destroy 20,000 Universes being in the same tier doesn't inherently cause any issues so long as their profiles are specific when it comes to the extent of their own power.

The tiering system itself would become less "precise" but the precision of the profiles themselves is all that really matters.
 
KingTempest said:
so removing the admins from both sides and the 1 thread mod, that means 2 bureaucrats have more say then 6 thread mods?
Click to expand...
Theoretically 1 bureaucrat could veto the vote of every thread mod, admin, and CGM on the site, though practically it would be insane for any given bureaucrat to attempt such a thing, and the other bureaucrats would shut them down almost instantly
 
Pikaman said:
Theoretically 1 bureaucrat could veto the vote of every thread mod, admin, and CGM on the site, though practically it would be insane for any given bureaucrat to attempt such a thing, and the other bureaucrats would shut them down almost instantly
Click to expand...
This is assuming that there isn't another Bureaucrat out of the remaining two that agree's with the Veto and assuming they don't Veto the Veto of the Veto
... Holy Veto's, Batman...
 
KingTempest said:
there's 9 staff members (2 admins, 7 thread mods) agreeing and 5 staff members (2 admins, 2 bureau, 1 thread mod) disagreeing

so removing the admins from both sides and the 1 thread mod, that means 2 bureaucrats have more say then 6 thread mods?
Click to expand...
Regarding fundamental policy structure revisions? Yes. That is definitely within the main areas of responsibility for our bureaucrats to decide.

However, the main issue is that we need an almost consistent staff consensus among the bureaucrats and administrators for this specific type of very important changes, which we do not have here, and it seems extremely unlikely that it will be achieved.
 
Last edited:
Pikaman said:
Theoretically 1 bureaucrat could veto the vote of every thread mod, admin, and CGM on the site, though practically it would be insane for any given bureaucrat to attempt such a thing, and the other bureaucrats would shut them down almost instantly
Click to expand...
Well, beyond a certain point of administrator opposition, I would still end up being outvoted. However, the administrators reached their positions because they are almost our most highly trusted staff members in terms of helpfulness and common sense, so I very strongly doubt that something that they all uniformly agree about would be something that I would oppose in the first place.
 
Damage3245 said:
Personally I don't think there would be any issue with "characters who could bust finite number of Universes" being in one tier, and "characters who could bust infinite numbers of Universes" being in another tier.

Characters can share the same tier without being at the same power, so character A who can destroy 2 Universes and character B who can destroy 20,000 Universes being in the same tier doesn't inherently cause any issues so long as their profiles are specific when it comes to the extent of their own power.

The tiering system itself would become less "precise" but the precision of the profiles themselves is all that really matters.
Click to expand...
Well, I still maintain that the entire point of this wiki is to be as specific as possible regarding hierarchical differences, and that we would gain no benefit whatsoever from imposing a pointless change motivated entirely by a need to be pedantic.
 
Tanin, I have already instructed you to stop hijacking this thread by spamming posts here. It is not remotely your place to make the decisions regarding such important issues for us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Wankbreaker
  • Locked
Tier 2 hotfix.
Replies
25
Views
3K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Goshtama
Low 2-C | Finite or Infinite Timelines?
Replies
1
Views
900
Richard5128pm
Richard5128pm
Fwyzzverse
  • Locked
Revisions (Tiering System) : Tier 2
Replies
10
Views
4K
Fwyzzverse
Fwyzzverse
Reiner04
  • Locked
Bigger than a Single 2-A Structure being a Low 1-C Standard - Clarification
2 3
Replies
115
Views
25K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top