Okay, if you feel that way you can pursue a revision, but that is the official definition of QS on this wiki, and it is present in the official standards for TD on the wiki. So as far as this CRT is concerned, Athena very plainly does not qualify and this discussion should come to a close with her getting ND Type 1, not TD Type 1. Your objection is against the standards themselves, which is beyond the scope of this CRT.
But we use this for tier.
I don't know how many times I've explained this, but such conceptual references and spatial references were discussed and differentiated for concepts of dimension in the revision.
Since it was already handled as I said, many characters got TD without what you said, but if you really want this, I can make the explanation here better to avoid this confusion.
Then they should be revised. Other profiles violating our standards doesn't mean we let this one slide.
We use it for both tiering and as a general definition of a type of transcendence.
I've linked the FAQ on this as well. Transcending the concepts of space in a QS fashion would give Athena +1D over what she is transcendent over. On its own it doesn't give someone a rating, you are correct.
But they didn't? Let me even say that since the new revision the only thing that has changed is the addition of lack, nothing has changed in terms of Transduality and transcendence and everything is the same
You're confusing the context of QS, where QS is not some kind of dimensional superiority here, it's just a superiority over all uses and all quantities of dualities.
I have said I think three seperate times that QS is not dimensional superiority and I recognize that.
Then go revise the standards.
Then both you and Georre go revise them.
But things like the uncountable infinity and higher level of infinity you quote are used for dimensional superiority, tier and math. Not used for TD and other haxs.
I already know it over and I was there when it was done, so yeah. You really don't need to teach me.
What I will do is an edit rather than a change.
I wouldn't do that Lmao, he can do that and if he does something like this, he will understand what Dereck and I mean here and it will be better for me. I'm the one who supported it anyway, it's accepted that way and that's the way it is.
I don't even know what profiles he's referring to. I'm just pointing out that "this other profile has it without meeting (x) criteria" is not a good justification for adding it to this profile without meeting that criteria.
There is only one definition of QS on this site. If you use QS to refer to anything other than that you're using it wrong. You cannot make up your own personal definition for QS.
Editing and changing are the same thing.
To be clear: There is not a misunderstanding. It is that your approach is at odds with the current standards. If you want to edit the standards so that they match your opinion you are welcome to attempt that, but the standards currently do not allow for what you're saying.
QS is not just used to mean uncountable infinity on this site, even the qualitative difference between aleph omega and inaccesible cardinals is not closed by uncountable infinity. This is already good evidence that what you say is wrong. This is only used in mathematics and tier, you can't use a term like uncountable infinity for things you can't count concretely and you can't prove it either.
make something clearer =/= change something completely.
Okay, we linked you to the FAQ where that definition was given. The reference to it in the TD standards link to that FAQ. Even if there were any other definition (there isnt) it would still be unmistakable that that was the intention for TD
That's fine. Georre wants to change the TD standards to remove the QS requirement. He's welcome to try
Lmao no.
Kinda true tho. Anyway, if you want to make a thread reevaluating the TD requirement criteria to either remove QS or add more options that don't rely solely on QS then I'm fine with supporting you.
Yes, at this rate I think I will because it creates a huge misunderstanding and even the verses that are the textbook of TD do not have this obligation. I will do it tomorrow at the latest.
If you want to revise the definition of QS to encompass something other than an uncountable infinite difference, feel free. Currently that is the only meaning it has, and that is the definition that the TD page links to when it references QS.
And yes, I will do it anyway.
Sure. You think our TD standards are inaccurate and you disagree with them. Feel free to pursue a revision of the standards.
When I said Buddhism, I was talking about Buddhism in WoD.
I'm not confusing anything. You're just not getting how the site works. QS is without debate an uncountable infinity as mentioned in the FAQ. You can feel that it shouldn't be used that way for TD, but that is the current standard.
WoD is a bad example to use, since they do have examples of QS between realms and concepts. Which is where their TD comes from.
No? QS exists only within the layers in the hierarcies, and the connection between concepts/dualities and gods only comes from being outside of these dualities and transcending them.
Read their TD justifications
They have it because they exist within their own Tellarium's which are already multiple layers of QS beyond a universe.
Being beyond infinitely beyond a concept is something you can prove, as multiple other series have. GoW just doesn't qualify.
geor spoke only according to the description in the profile, I don't want to change the subject, but as far as I remember Tapestry included the concepts of duality and nonduality.
Man... How many times do I have to tell you that you don't have to have something like this?? Even the verses agreed with before didn't have such requirements, it would be best for everyone if you just said "disagree" instead of saying things like that, which is extremely ridiculous for TD. The higher existence is here literally made with "transcendence" and as a result of she's transcendental existence, she becomes uninteractable to such forces and beings. I don't know what more should be in one verse.
Yes, that's the only accepted definition of QS on the site, and that is the definition linked in the Transduality page.
I only ask one thing. Can you prove to me the "uncountable infinite superiority" over dualities?
I guess you won't object to these by saying "your comments" anymore.
Again, if you want to add a new type of QS to the standards that'll take a staff revision. The term was literally created for the purpose of describing an uncountably infinite increase in power. It has no other definition.
There is not the slightest similarity or relevance between TD and any power level, no. TD is not a state of power, but a state of self and existence independent of power
Yes, this thread isn't for revising standards. As long as you understand that the proposal is incorrect per the standards then that's fine. Anything else would be derailing.
Thanks but no, because I don't want this to be closed and opened again due to a simple misunderstanding.
