• 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.

Ben 10 Cosmology Downgrade Part 2 (MINOR Continuation)

Status
Not open for further replies.
16,927
4,844
Refer to the title please.

The purpose of this thread is simply to continue off from this one. to address something that was left unresolved So no, this thread is not to address Alien X as I said I would be making soon at some point, it's to finish up this previous thread. And yes, im making a quick continuation thread to address this. I specifically requested that the other thread be opened for me to voice the unresolved problem(s) that were left to tie up, and I saw just now that it got closed again before I got the opportunity to voice them. So it's better to do it like this rather than request the old thread to be opened a second time.

Anyway, i'll give a quick recap. The former thread was to downgrade the Ben 10 Cosmology for a number of different reasons, ones you can see by reading through the thread I linked here. After a large discussion, it was agreed by majority to have the regular Ben 10 Multiverse remain at 2-A via the timestream being stated infinite. After that, the discussion then changed to discussing whether each individual universe in the multiverse should also be considered 2-A or not. Most staff have seemingly agreed on letting each universe stay at Possibly 2-A. That's what got the previous thread closed. So the thread looks pretty much finished right? Except, that's not entirely true.

Determining what tier to put the universes at was only ONE of the things left that needed to be discussed, and that's because there's still the on-going problem on whether or not these 2-A dimensions are even agreed on being inside the universe in the first place. The thread got closed before we had a consensus on this, it was only agreed that the number of them could be Possibly 2-A. But, that's not going to matter if these said number of dimensions are not actually residing inside of the universes, which we still need to discuss. And yes, this was still in discussion. @Eficiente had given plenty of arguments against the universes containing these dimensions, and was in the middle of giving more arguments, before being able to continue as the thread got closed up.

@DontTalkDT, one of the staff members we waited on to give feedback to break this deadlock, very clearly even expressed in his answer that 2-A Universes depends on the context.

Alright, so after reading through all that I think both sides have good points.

I would say possibly infinite universe-sized dimensions per universe is alright, but the show is clearly playing loosely with its terminology and probably not strict in classification either. So if ya look at a feat of someone destroying the universe it should be considered whether universe means prime universe or also all dimensions (or something in-between) based on context.
And I ain't going to get into that.

Honestly, this arguably doesn't even look like agreeing with 2-A universes, as opposed to just answering from a neutral side, but im not wasting everyone's time arguing technicalities

TL;DR

The thread shouldn't have gotten closed just yet. Yes, more people found Possibly 2-A to be a reasonable tier, but that was only one of the things left to determine by the end of that thread. Whether or not these 2-A dimensions actually reside inside of the universe was something else to still be discussed and determined, but the thread got closed simply because people sided more with 2-A.

Here was the staff vote tally for 2-A from the last thread:

Single Universe is 2A: @DarkDragonMedeus , @DontTalkDT , @Firestorm808 , @Lonkitt , @Sir_Ovens , @Dereck03

Disagree with Universe being 2A: @Eficiente , @Maverick_Zero_X , @Everything12 , @GyroNutz

This thread is to knock the latter problem out.
 
Last edited:
Also, just to say real quick, I do apologize for not answering back when the old thread was actually opened. For the past week ive had a very busy schedule with work and have had very little personal time to be able to come on site to address what I wanted to.

I understand the old thread went on for a while and that everyone can't wait on me forever, but as I've said, I have a life outside of this site as everyone else does and just simply did not have the opportunity to come sooner, so I made this brief continuation thread for this purpose.
 
This is more so looks like a scaling thread rather than a cosmological thread.

I get what your trying to say, but its still mainly cosmological since this discussion is to still address whether or not the universes actually contain these dimensions.

If they don't, 2-A or lower doesn't matter, they'd be low 2-C as normal.

If they do, THEN the universes can be Possibly 2-A.

We still have to determine which one is the case.
 
@Eficiente had given plenty of arguments against the universes containing these dimensions, and was in the middle of giving more arguments, before being able to continue as the thread got closed up.
Bruhh, He is a mod he can open the thread if he wanted to reply. Moreover after Reopening two more staff disagreed with the thread.
I'll wait for CHAD @Reiner and alpha @Firestorm808 for their response.
 
The thread shouldn't have gotten closed just yet.
As you said yourself, you've been busy these days and neither i nor anyone else had a better idea of how to suggest a counter-argument to the proposed topic, besides that thread had gone on long enough to almost reaching 10 pages, so we decided to end it there since we can't spend our entire time on that... but maybe we can return to this point if staff find the justifications of possibly 2-A inconsistent.
@Eficiente had given plenty of arguments against the universes containing these dimensions, and was in the middle of giving more arguments, before being able to continue as the thread got closed up.
What were his arguments again? Eficiente iirc thought that the alternate dimension of the Null Void was not made by Azmuth's race (Galvans) and had repeated some points that were already well established between us for a long time if I'm not mistaken, like the term "dimension" not always referring to dimensions within the universe since the dimensions that Ben 10's Cthulhu (Dagon) referred to were indeed universes, even Zamasu had already adressed this long ago.



As for the rest of the stuff, i'll stay neutral for now...
 
It was agreed universes stay Possibly 2-A but whether destruction of the universes can be considered possibly 2-A should be looked upon case by case.
Agreeing on the number on dimensions being Possibly 2-A and agreeing on whether or not those dimensions are actually present inside the universes are 2 different things. Possibly 2-A was agreed on from Holiday's statement and Bens millions of dimensions statement to prop it up enough to be possibly 2-A.

But that only works under the preconceived notion that these number of dimensions exist inside the universe.
 
Why this thread made again? Previous thread got rejected by 5 staff members are we supposed to continue the entire life? People should learn how to take an L.
 
Why this thread made again? Previous thread got rejected by 5 staff members are we supposed to continue the entire life? People should learn how to take an L.
He was trying to make a point he didn't get to in the thread because it got locked before he responded.
 
He was trying to make a point he didn't get to in the thread because it got locked before he responded.
I literally don't see any point in the OP at all but just naming people that @Eficiente made a good point. Like just the last time when ppl were keep presenting someone as a god or smth. Meh.
 
What was rude in there? I am literally just saying to move on and Don't just keep Makin a thread over and over again on same thing each time after it got rejected.
You said "take the L", when there was still heated debate in the last thread that had supporters for both sides. You act like it was a complete wash and that no arguments could be made to counter what those in disagreement said, which evidently isn't true. Professor is a great debater, and he deserves to be treated with more respect than that (Well, everyone does, but that's besides the point).
 
And like I said already, more people finding Possibly 2-A is fine, but that’s only one of the things left to be done.

You still need people to agree on whether or not those dimensions are present inside the universe, which is a separate matter from the former.
 
And like I said already, more people finding Possibly 2-A is fine, but that’s only one of the things left to be done.

You still need people to agree on whether or not those dimensions are present inside the universe, which is a separate matter from the former.
Vote tally on universe being 2A from the previous this thread is continuation of:

Single Universe is 2A: @DarkDragonMedeus , @DontTalkDT , @Firestorm808 , @Lonkitt , @Sir_Ovens , @Dereck03

Disagree with Universe being 2A: @Eficiente , @Maverick_Zero_X , @Everything12 , @GyroNutz
Here is the vote then
 
That is not votes for those dimensions being inside the universes, those are votes for what the number of dimensions would be if they’re inside them. Again, these are 2 separate matters and one of them is to be determined here.
 
Last edited:
That is not votes for those dimensions being inside the universes, those are votes for what the number of dimensions would be if they’re inside them. Again, these are 2 separate matters and one of them is to be determined here.
Lmfao the previous thead was literally arguing over universe being 2A or not if these Dimensions are inside universe or not, stop being dishonest entire thread was on it.
 
yes. The previous thread determined universe being possibly 2-A.
Imagine saying previous thread wasn't on if these Dimensions are inside universe or not but universe was arguing for 2A, 2B, 2C and infact low 2C for eficiente. I am dumbfounded here.
 
Lmfao the previous thead was literally arguing over universe being 2A or not if these Dimensions are inside universe or not,
And only the former was concluded

The number doesn’t matter if most people don’t agree on them actually being inside the universe

Even DontTalk, one of the people who found possibly 2-A acceptable, very clearly said the context is important and it depends on that.

stop being dishonest entire thread was on it.

It wasn’t. These were 2 entirely different problems that you are blanketing as one thing and THAT is wrong.

Get more people to agree on these dimensions being inside the universe and THEN Possibly 2-A universes becomes a thing.
 
And only the former was concluded

The number doesn’t matter if most people don’t agree on them actually being inside the universe

Even DontTalk, one of the people who found possibly 2-A acceptable, very clearly said the context is important and it depends on that.



It wasn’t. These were 2 entirely different problems that you are blanketing as one thing and THAT is wrong.

Get more people to agree on these dimensions being inside the universe and THEN Possibly 2-A universes becomes a thing.
As I said, previous thread determined possibly 2A universe after all the arguements presented by OP for it to downgrade to 2C and arguements presented by efi for it to be low 2C. Update the tally right now.
 
@Aachintya31

And like I just said, that has nothing to do with this. Agreeing on Possibly 2-A is not the same as agreeing on those dimensions being contained inside the universe. The number of them being 2-A or otherwise was one issue that got concluded when most people agreed on 2-A, but that doesn’t solve the other problem.
 
@Aachintya31

And like I just said, that has nothing to do with this. Agreeing on Possibly 2-A is not the same as agreeing on those dimensions being contained inside the universe. The number of them being 2-A or otherwise was one issue that got concluded when most people agreed on 2-A, but that doesn’t solve the other problem.
"I would say possibly infinite universe-sized dimensions per universe is alright" - DontTalkDT, DT was the tie breaker to determine the state of the universes in that thread
 
@Aachintya31

And like I just said, that has nothing to do with this. Agreeing on Possibly 2-A is not the same as agreeing on those dimensions being contained inside the universe. The number of them being 2-A or otherwise was one issue that got concluded when most people agreed on 2-A, but that doesn’t solve the other problem.
And those numbers were accepted to be inside universe that's ******* why universe didn't get downgraded, entire OP is screaming, entire thread is screaming downgrade universe to low 2C, 2C, 2B based of numbers of DDimensions inside it. Update the tally or meet me in RVR.
 
I’ll ask since you voted in the other thread

Just so you can please clarify, when you agreed with Possibly 2-A, did you also agree with these 2-A number of dimensions being inside the universes? Or did you agree on this based on the notion that they are?
Why dereck will agree to possibly 2A universes when the entire thread was on if these Dimensions are inside universe or not? They were determined to be inside universe after all the arguements presented against it. Universe is possibly 2A as per 6 staff members. Update the tally.
 
Why dereck will agree to possibly 2A universes when the entire thread was on if these Dimensions are inside universe or not?
That wasn’t the entire thread at all

My thread was arguing against BOTH things. That they weren’t 2-A and weren’t inside the universes either once @Eficiente gave arguments against the latter even being a thing.

These were 2 separate issues that my thread was tackling at the same time, only one of them was concluded when most people + staff agreed Possibly 2-A was fine. But that’s only determining what the number of dimensions would be when going under the notion that they’re present inside the universe.

The dimensions being contained in the universe and what the number of those dimensions would be are 2 different things.
They were determined to be inside universe after all the arguements presented against it.
Yeah no. They weren’t. @Eficiente flat out gave counters against you and you guys had the thread closed before that could continue further.
 
@Eficiente flat out gave counters against you and you guys had the thread closed before that could continue further.
Bruhh, He is a mod he can open the thread if he wanted to reply. Moreover after Reopening two more staff disagreed with the thread.
You should stop saying possibly 2-A was agreed upon as it's misleading. Instead universe being Possibly 2-A was agreed upon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top