• 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.

Chaos Force Low 1-C Upgrade?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Redgrave and Cal agreed. I think another staff too.but I can't recall well.
 
My_area said:
Transcending time and space was previously not supporting evidence for Low 1-C,it even used to be in notes of tiering system.Guess it must have changed or something?

I know,which is why I am asking if its possible to get a thread where standards for Low 1-C were changed?
Click to expand...
I mean it is never been, "transcending time and space" like I said before is something tricky since it is often ended as flowery words in fictions such as for dimensional travel, time travel, being unbound by time and space, being outside linear time, being as strong as spacetime, capable to control the spacetime. and etc etc.
However, if the context is regarding a higher plane of reality, which said plane has showing of superiority over the lower spacetime, it should be adequate.
 
My_area said:
Simply transcending space and time doesn't equate to transcending the space and time by degree of infinity which is what the entire "transcending space and time of Chaos force" seems to base around.
Click to expand...
And we're back to you bastardizing information again, swell. I'll address this point in specific later, but this reply was in context to their insinuation that the scans regarding it being a higher plane wouldn't specifically boost its dimensionality.

“and ur scan to the characters not being able to see doesnt means nothing, because we directly can see that they are exactly on the same place as the grandfather, which can justify that when someone reaches the chaos force, they become abstract, or maybe even less than it, but none of these things justify a Low 1-C argument, and the context of it pretty much is similar to Stands being able to affect with people but people can't affect/interact with stands”

Their comparison to Madoka Magica makes that pretty self-evident too. "Higher Planes" like spiritual ones don't just innately transcend space and time. You even conceded to such when you said it would make them higher into 4D (though this is a minimalistic approach at this point). You're defending a point from someone that actively is contradicting what you said, so I'm not sure why you reply on behalf of them. Then again, that would make sense for why you again decided to not refute based on the relevant context.
My_area said:
What the definition just shows as a preposition doesn't mean transcendence
Just look at the example they gave for the 2nd usage in the preposition
"the switchboard is not staffed outside normal office hours"
Here outside is just being used to show that switchboard isn't staffed when beyond the scope of office hours not that it transcends the normal office hours.
Click to expand...
A couple things.

1.) The source you're quoting from isn't the one I linked even, lol.

2.) How outside is going to be used in the second definition is obviously contextually dependent. In that instance, it very obviously wouldn't be the direct idea of transcendence. Add the idea of space-time and how you would have to interpret it is different. Beyond the scope and limits of space-time = above it, it's just that simple. Words aren't static and become richer based on the greater structure of the sentence, that is basic linguistics. What you quoted is more akin to the first definition "situated or moving beyond the confines or boundaries of," not the second one.
My_area said:
They are vague in the sense of talking about degree of transcendence.Its not beyond,its outside space and time.Outside space and time =/= Beyond space and time.Outside building =/= Beyond building,the same is the case here.You can show the word transcendence innumerable times and it still wouldn't explain the degree of the transcendence on level of Low 1-C until relevant scans explaining the degree of transcendence is posted.Thats quite a accusation you put on her when she is merely disagreeing with the reasoning of transcendence being used on par with low 1-C and calling it vague.
Click to expand...
Okay, if it's vague on "the degree of transcendence," then that's something they need to clarify. If you say something is vague without any clarification, then the default assumption would be you're referring to the general material. That'd be obviously incorrect as I've explained, and it would be them trying to dog whistle to the people uncertain on their position right now. Dog whistling to harbor disagreement is dishonesty at its finest. And yeah, that's kind of what a dog whistle is. It's something you can easily deny but was most definitely intentional in signaling an idea.

You're repeating your argument based on the first definition of outside, which we've already been over why it's contextually the second. We're going back to arguments in ad nauseum. People already posted how we handle transcendence on the site in terms of the FAQ for how it fits the requirements. You're literally beating a dead horse of a point, yet again.
My_area said:
It appears as repetition to you because I have been addressing the same points made by others which would also come under standard of repetition which you of course didn't mention.No,I am not having a incorrect take on sites policies,Its literally how Low 1-C was used to be dealt and this amount of evidence would never have warrant for Low 1-C upgrade but now it appears that as if policies for Low 1-C has loosened up.Also no it isn't ad naueseum,its simply arguing with multitude of reasoning being present here by people,that isn't ad nauesum.Except that peoppe are looking at the wider context presented by the op and it still doesn't warrant Low 1-C.There isn't much misinterpretion going on here,just commenting based on what the scans has shown and these "non arguments" aren't really getting refuted,rather just ignored some of the times.
Click to expand...
It appears as repetition because that's literally what it is. Ex.: People explain the ideas of scans, "No that's wrong because higher plane isn't Low 1-C," people explain it's part of greater context and how it contributes, "Okay but being a higher plane still doesn't show Low 1-C," and it goes on, rinse and repeat. Not sure what you're insinuating by me not mentioning your specifically favorable interpretation of events that you like to put you in a holy light, not my problem it's not realistic.

Evidence like this has always been fine for Low 1-C. Radiant Historia literally got a possibly for the fact it viewed timelines as flat and beneath and that it transcended an infinite multiverse. Just because you're unnecessarily upping the standards based on your own personal view isn't anyone else's problem. It's just been more of an unspoken rule before the page was created last month.

“ad nau·se·am
/ad ˈnôzēəm/
adverb
referring to something that has been done or repeated so often that it has become annoying or tiresome.”

So repeating the same idea over and over and over again isn't as nauseum? Do tell on how an official definition is wrong.

I didn't say literally everything being said was a non-argument, what. I said arguments like "It would affect X verse" is a non-argument. What verses you could possibly extend this to should literally have no impact on this thread. If you actually think that's a good reason to deny something, I'm sorry because there's not much I can do for you there. That's just common sense and something the site would reject as a valid reason.
My_area said:
No,she has been addressing the arguments based on looking at them completely.Except we are literally explaining with reasoning as to how it isn't enough for Low 1-C unless it has changed or loosened up which might be the case here.
Click to expand...
Okay My area, tell me where in any of these first few quotes from Bern do you see where she actually says anything that isn't "Higher plane doesn't mean Low 1-C" or "Outside doesn't mean Low 1-C". I'll wait.

1.) “Higher planes aren't enough to Low 1-C, Madoka Magica is a example of it, and ur scan to the characters not being able to see doesnt means nothing, because we directly can see that they are exactly on the same place as the grandfather, which can justify that when someone reaches the chaos force, they become abstract, or maybe even less than it, but none of these things justify a Low 1-C argument, and the context of it pretty much is similar to Stands being able to affect with people but people can't affect/interact with stands”

2.) “I can't see possibly low 1-C on it, I just agree some hours ago cuz I like Sonic verse, and if I said No, they will ask the reasons, so, to avoid it, I just agree, but after the comments, I feel that I needed to answer it”

3.) “Outside space and time its different than Transcend it”

4.) “It need, in the same way that 3-D beings like IRL humans see fictional verses as 2-D, to be 5-D, u need RF in comparison to 4-D things, and vague things like Beyond space and time aren't enough to it, because the scans are also vague, and as I showed previously, it does not meet the things enough to 5-D”

We're four comments in quoted disagreements and there's nothing actually addressing OP. It's just them replying to limited ideas from it and discussing these two topics secularly. It's even worse because it's them looking at the topics in isolation, or else they'd realize how some of the scans posted clearly would make the CF of a degree of higher dimensionality, as you've even noted yourself. Once again, I wouldn't suggest stanning the arguments of someone clearly arguing different ideas than you and not doing it as you are. Legitimately, you've misrepresented numerous counterarguments based on what you were arguing when they were aimed at other people.
My_area said:
Except the fact that definition wasn't even being used in a way which you ascribed it as such as I have explained.Preposition usage of outside literally means that you aren't in the structure rather out of the structure or beyond the boundaries of the structure.Like I am outside of the house.Here outside being used as a preposition means that I am beyond the boundary of the house hence I am outside of the house.Manifesting into reality just means its outside of the reality bounds which doesn't mean it acts as degree of infinity transcendence over the reality.
Click to expand...
Not a fact, just your butchered interpretation. That's the definition of the first usage, not the second. If you looked at the link you'd realize that. The fact that it's called a "higher plane" contextually supports the idea of being above space-time in that usage of outside versus your unfounded, superfluously conservative interpretation of the text. No one said manifestation by itself directly proves infinite transcendence, it's a supporting point to the overall idea of higher-dimensionality. Can you go a single counterargument without segregating scans from the greater idea of something? Like seriously, this is something you've done in nearly all of your refutes.
 
Asriel77 said:
the reason why was because alot of people are actually against it.
im 100% with it tho for sure.
Click to expand...

The reason why they against it was due to their own perception, which is why we’re waiting on Ultima to look it over.
 
GreatIskandar14045 said:
I mean it is never been, "transcending time and space" like I said before is something tricky since it is often ended as flowery words in fictions such as for dimensional travel, time travel, being unbound by time and space, being outside linear time, being as strong as spacetime, capable to control the spacetime. and etc etc.
However, if the context is regarding a higher plane of reality, which said plane has showing of superiority over the lower spacetime, it should be adequate.
Click to expand...
Thats true but here if transcending space and time is referring to surpassing the space and time with some degree of transcendence like in case of higher to lower level reality then according to the FAQ page of tiering system,it can qualify for Low 1-C.
PlozAlcachaz said:
And we're back to you bastardizing information again, swell. I'll address this point in specific later, but this reply was in context to their insinuation that the scans regarding it being a higher plane wouldn't specifically boost its dimensionality.

“and ur scan to the characters not being able to see doesnt means nothing, because we directly can see that they are exactly on the same place as the grandfather, which can justify that when someone reaches the chaos force, they become abstract, or maybe even less than it, but none of these things justify a Low 1-C argument, and the context of it pretty much is similar to Stands being able to affect with people but people can't affect/interact with stands”

Their comparison to Madoka Magica makes that pretty self-evident too. "Higher Planes" like spiritual ones don't just innately transcend space and time. You even conceded to such when you said it would make them higher into 4D (though this is a minimalistic approach at this point). You're defending a point from someone that actively is contradicting what you said, so I'm not sure why you reply on behalf of them. Then again, that would make sense for why you again decided to not refute based on the relevant context.
Click to expand...
There is no "bastardizing information" again,that is just your own again false claims which cant be proven,you actually focus more on making random unproven accusations instead of actual rebuttal as its showing but moving on yes,it being on higher plane of reality doesn't equate to higher dimension.

Not sure why you quoted her statement,I simply dont see the point of quoting her statement then attempting to tell me something I already know.I wasn't even talking about spiritual one,I was literally talking about higher plane of reality no matter the context which by no means on their own is anything higher than the x tier depending on the context.She didn't say that it wouldn't amount to anything so I again dont see the point of this comment.I am replying the comments which goes against my proposed side and I refute them whether they are addressing me or not.Also funny because I refuted your comment based on the relavant context so thats again you throwing the empty claims here which amounts to nothing.
PlozAlcachaz said:
A couple things.

1.) The source you're quoting from isn't the one I linked even, lol.

2.) How outside is going to be used in the second definition is obviously contextually dependent. In that instance, it very obviously wouldn't be the direct idea of transcendence. Add the idea of space-time and how you would have to interpret it is different. Beyond the scope and limits of space-time = above it, it's just that simple. Words aren't static and become richer based on the greater structure of the sentence, that is basic linguistics. What you quoted is more akin to the first definition "situated or moving beyond the confines or boundaries of," not the second one.
Click to expand...
1) Maybe next time check the sources which you link? The one I quoted is the example of the 2nd prepositional usage of outside which is exactly what your source link led me to

2) Contextually dependent sure but its meaning doesn't take 180 degree otherwise there would have been 3 usage of outside under preposition which there isn't.It isn't direct idea of transcendence because the 2nd prepositional usage of outside doesn't refer to transcendence lol.Literally adding space and time there and it doesn't change anything and ignoring the fact that 1st prepositional usage would apply for chaos force case not 2nd which would invalidate your argument entirely but lets ignore it for argument sake.Being beyond the space and time is being above it which only refers to surpassing it and not to its position being beyond the structure of space and time.I know how statement meaning in English works,dont have to tell me that.The meaning of 2nd usage is similar to the 1st one just used under a different context.Still doesn't help your point
PlozAlcachaz said:
Okay, if it's vague on "the degree of transcendence," then that's something they need to clarify. If you say something is vague without any clarification, then the default assumption would be you're referring to the general material. That'd be obviously incorrect as I've explained, and it would be them trying to dog whistle to the people uncertain on their position right now. Dog whistling to harbor disagreement is dishonesty at its finest. And yeah, that's kind of what a dog whistle is. It's something you can easily deny but was most definitely intentional in signaling an idea.

You're repeating your argument based on the first definition of outside, which we've already been over why it's contextually the second. We're going back to arguments in ad nauseum. People already posted how we handle transcendence on the site in terms of the FAQ for how it fits the requirements. You're literally beating a dead horse of a point, yet again
Click to expand...
I suppose she could explain why the scans are being vague as it could be intepreted differently.You haven't explained at that time how she was exactly dog whistling to people uncertain of their position,you just threw a random accusation.She didn't dog whistle,she started arguing for disagreement after I posted my reasons as to why I disagree with Low 1-C,if she did it before me then you would have a point.

And no we have not been over why its 2nd,in fact you haven't even explained or argued why 2nd usage would be used over the 1st one,it is you simply inventing a new event in the debate which didn't happen previously in order to support your "ad naesum" point.Disagreement over the same points doesn't equate to ad naesum.Yet you actually started beating this dead horse by replying to me before I started to think that Low 1-C standards might have changed.
PlozAlcachaz said:
t appears as repetition because that's literally what it is. Ex.: People explain the ideas of scans, "No that's wrong because higher plane isn't Low 1-C," people explain it's part of greater context and how it contributes, "Okay but being a higher plane still doesn't show Low 1-C," and it goes on, rinse and repeat. Not sure what you're insinuating by me not mentioning your specifically favorable interpretation of events that you like to put you in a holy light, not my problem it's not realistic.

Evidence like this has always been fine for Low 1-C. Radiant Historia literally got a possibly for the fact it viewed timelines as flat and beneath and that it transcended an infinite multiverse. Just because you're unnecessarily upping the standards based on your own personal view isn't anyone else's problem. It's just been more of an unspoken rule before the page was created last month.

“ad nau·se·am
/ad ˈnôzēəm/
adverb
referring to something that has been done or repeated so often that it has become annoying or tiresome.”

So repeating the same idea over and over and over again isn't as nauseum? Do tell on how an official definition is wrong.

I didn't say literally everything being said was a non-argument, what. I said arguments like "It would affect X verse" is a non-argument. What verses you could possibly extend this to should literally have no impact on this thread. If you actually think that's a good reason to deny something, I'm sorry because there's not much I can do for you there. That's just common sense and something the site would reject as a valid reason.
Click to expand...
Except it isn't because I have been addressing multiple people who are arguing the same point which are then combined into 1 comment which appears as repetition if viewed under a single comment.And there is no "not mentioning your specifically favorable interpretation of events which you like to put you in holy light,not my problem that its not realistic" because there is no my specific favorable interpretation of the events,its how the events go.Again another empty claim made and hypocritical at that considering that your inserting your interpretation here by explaining the events under your own light.

Evidence like this has never been fine for like 1 to 2 years.Go give me 5 examples of the characters or the verses which were upgraded to Low 1-C on basis of simply surpassing the time with degree of transcendence being unknown.Also you started on the wrong foot by giving a example which doesn't support your point because it has it viewing the infinite timelines as flat(which is just another form of reality-fiction transcendence as fiction is flat for us) and transcending multiverse becomes supporting evidence which as to what I have said before would be enough for Low 1-C.I didn't "upped" the standards,the standards were this upped for 1 to 2 years,so not my problem if you weren't aware how the site operated in the past and merely are commenting on the current state.Unspoken rule which perhaps changed maybe? Ever thought about that?

Repeating the same idea because I am replying to others over the same points made by them isn't repeating the point until it becomes tiresome or others give up so hence its not ad naesum.You dont have to just quote the fallacy definition you have to understand how they are used within the debates as well.
PlozAlcachaz said:
or using non-arguments as a way to deny something that most people agree is straightforward.
Click to expand...
This is what you quoted.Am I supposed to magically know that by this vague statement that you are refering to "it makes x verse this!"?Finally a claim which makes sense.Also site can reject it for non valid reason but anyways.
PlozAlcachaz said:
Okay My area, tell me where in any of these first few quotes from Bern do you see where she actually says anything that isn't "Higher plane doesn't mean Low 1-C" or "Outside doesn't mean Low 1-C". I'll wait.

1.) “Higher planes aren't enough to Low 1-C, Madoka Magica is a example of it, and ur scan to the characters not being able to see doesnt means nothing, because we directly can see that they are exactly on the same place as the grandfather, which can justify that when someone reaches the chaos force, they become abstract, or maybe even less than it, but none of these things justify a Low 1-C argument, and the context of it pretty much is similar to Stands being able to affect with people but people can't affect/interact with stands”

2.) “I can't see possibly low 1-C on it, I just agree some hours ago cuz I like Sonic verse, and if I said No, they will ask the reasons, so, to avoid it, I just agree, but after the comments, I feel that I needed to answer it”

3.) “Outside space and time its different than Transcend it”

4.) “It need, in the same way that 3-D beings like IRL humans see fictional verses as 2-D, to be 5-D, u need RF in comparison to 4-D things, and vague things like Beyond space and time aren't enough to it, because the scans are also vague, and as I showed previously, it does not meet the things enough to 5-D”

We're four comments in quoted disagreements and there's nothing actually addressing OP. It's just them replying to limited ideas from it and discussing these two topics secularly. It's even worse because it's them looking at the topics in isolation, or else they'd realize how some of the scans posted clearly would make the CF of a degree of higher dimensionality, as you've even noted yourself. Once again, I wouldn't suggest stanning the arguments of someone clearly arguing different ideas than you and not doing it as you are. Legitimately, you've misrepresented numerous counterarguments based on what you were arguing when they were aimed at other people.
Click to expand...
That is literally what the counters for the upgrade can be summarized into,you are asking her to make more counters of something which can only be countered under few points.Those comments do address OP scans which has outside space and time and then higher plane of reality contained in 1 scan,you thinking it doesn't address op doesn't mean it doesn't address it.She did address them at once and then arguing it seperately as the arguments went towards discussing specific points.I didn't even agree with degree of higher dimensionality,I only agreed if the site standards for Low 1-C has changed.I mean she and I were disagreeing Low 1-C Archie Sonic verse based on similar arguments though I was responding to other people comments directed at other people because their refute is also refuting my stance.
PlozAlcachaz said:
Not a fact, just your butchered interpretation. That's the definition of the first usage, not the second. If you looked at the link you'd realize that. The fact that it's called a "higher plane" contextually supports the idea of being above space-time in that usage of outside versus your unfounded, superfluously conservative interpretation of the text. No one said manifestation by itself directly proves infinite transcendence, it's a supporting point to the overall idea of higher-dimensionality. Can you go a single counterargument without segregating scans from the greater idea of something? Like seriously, this is something you've done in nearly all of your refutes.
Click to expand...
Too bad its still a fact,your claim of my interpretation being butchered really doesn't mean anything because thats again claim made out of your own bias,not actual fact.And the definition of the second usage is very similar to 1st but applied in different context,I looked at the link hence I refuted you while you were saying the example weren't from same source means you haven't properly looked at the source.It being called higher plane means its above space and time by unknown degree,still doesn't prove infinite transcendence.Supporting points are meant to support the main argument not just exist to make the text larger which what your irrelevent mentioned claim did.It doesn't and I refuted as to how it doesn't explain higher dimension.My refutes were done addressing all of the relevant scans used to picture one whole idea with other comments refuting separate points.That literally wasn't me refuting seperate scans and ignore the big picture.Again a useless claim.

As its been shown here,you wasted more time addressing claims which is outside the purpose of CRT and less on actual counters pertaining to the topic of the CRT and just dodge them by labelling it as ad hominem which is just dishonest.
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
So far Ploz responded to My Area, who I guess should be given a chance to respond back.
Click to expand...
Thanks for giving the chance but our argument at this point isn't even relevant to the topic in hand so you can just ignore that.I am just waiting for someone to elaborate on Low 1-C standard before I voice in my agreement because my point entirely hinges on Low 1-C standards of this site
 
Last edited:
My_area said:
Thats true but here if transcending space and time is referring to surpassing the space and time with some degree of transcendence like in case of higher to lower level reality then according to the FAQ page of tiering system,it can qualify for Low 1-C.
Click to expand...
Based on the scans I saw, it is. That's why it should be qualified, unless you can argue it means something else via the context.
 
Thats true but here if transcending space and time is referring to surpassing the space and time with some degree of transcendence like in case of higher to lower level reality then according to the FAQ page of tiering system,it can qualify for Low 1-C.
Click to expand...

And it just did, Literally ones who are from the Chaos Force said that lower dimensional beings can't affect them, this is not a Bill Cipher situation lol
 
My_area said:
Thanks for giving the chance but our argument at this point isn't even relevant to the topic in hand so you can just ignore that.I am just waiting for someone to elaborate on Low 1-C standard before I voice in my agreement because my point entirely hinges on Low 1-C standards of this site
Click to expand...
Then shouldn't we have a general thread to discuss the standard change? Because then it wouldn't just be a sonic issue anymore but a general one.
 
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
Then shouldn't we have a general thread to discuss the standard change? Because then it wouldn't just be a sonic issue anymore but a general one.
Click to expand...
There is no need, we based Low 1-C via our Tiering System FAQ, also "transcending time and space" is alrighty for Low 1-C as long the verse elaborated it as a superior higher plane of reality, which the verses in general don't.
 
Too bad its still a fact,your claim of my interpretation being butchered really doesn't mean anything because thats again claim made out of your own bias,not actual fact.And the definition of the second usage is very similar to 1st but applied in different context,I looked at the link hence I refuted you while you were saying the example wasn't from same source means you haven't properly looked at the source.It being called higher plane means its above space and time by union degree,still doesn't prove infinite transcendence.Supporting points are meant to support the main argument not just exist to make the text larger which what your irrelevent mentioned claim did.It doesn't and I refuted as to how it doesn't explain higher dimension.My refutes were done addressing all of the relevant scans used to picture one whole idea with other refutes refuting separate points.There literally wasn't me refuting seperate scans and ignore the big picture.Again a useless claim.
Click to expand...


How is Ploz is being bias lmao and yes when your in a higher plane that is above a Infinite sized Multiverse, it should count as a Low 1-C and supporting points are used to support the main argument because the fact that it has quite stated multiple times that the Chaos Force are a higher plane of existence and refer to it as a new reality proves that it exists on a higher plane of existence.
 
This maybe is the third times or so I'm gonna repeat; you don't necessarily need an infinite transcendence statement/showing or reality-fiction difference in order to be qualified as Tier 1. Next person who bring it again as an argument shouldn't be taken seriously at this point.
 
Last edited:
GreatIskandar14045 said:
Based on the scans I saw, it is. That's why it should be qualified, unless you can argue it means something else via the context
Click to expand...
If what FAQ has outlined is really how the standards of Low 1-C are presently then low 1-C Archie Sonic verse is fine
MikeBro25 said:
And it just did, Literally ones who are from the Chaos Force said that lower dimensional beings can't affect them, this is not a Bill Cipher situation lol
Click to expand...
Not sure when lower dimensional being part was stated but yes I get your point
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
Then shouldn't we have a general thread to discuss the standard change? Because then it wouldn't just be a sonic issue anymore but a general one
Click to expand...
It seems the standards has already changed which is being reflected on FAQ page with infinite transcendence not being needed anymore.So I wonder if any such threads were created for changing of the standards if not I wanted one staff members being knowledgable on tiering system to elaborate on qualification for Low 1-C but I guess its not happening soon.
MikeBro25 said:
How is Ploz is being bias lmao and yes when your in a higher plane that is above a Infinite sized Multiverse, it should count as a Low 1-C and supporting points are used to support the main argument because the fact that it has quite stated multiple times that the Chaos Force are a higher plane of existence and refer to it as a new reality proves that it exists on a higher plane of existence.
Click to expand...
I would appreciate if you put all of the responses against me in 1 comment in order to avoid cluttering the thread and yes he is talking out of his bias of how the events are portrayed.It didn't count like that previously because higher degree of 2-A exists.The supporting point of his supported nothing and we know it exists on higher plane of existence,the problem comes if the higher plane of existence can be equated to Low 1-C.
 
My_area said:
It seems the standards has already changed which is being reflected on FAQ page with infinite transcendence not being needed anymore.So I wonder if any such threads were created for changing of the standards if not I wanted one staff members being knowledgable on tiering system to elaborate on qualification for Low 1-C but I guess its not happening soon.
Click to expand...
Thats kind of what I meant. As in we get a thread to ask for clarity on this so we can get an official consensus.

If it checks out, then upgrade away Sonic. If not, then there's more of a discussion to be had.
 
We are waiting on a staff to elaborate, tho, 3 have already agreed with the upgrade.
 
GreatIskandar14045 said:
So you still staying neutral or
Click to expand...
I suppose at this point,staying neutral is best,since FAQ pages exist but the thread for Low 1-C standard change is probably not there so thats the probably the best state right now.
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
Thats kind of what I meant. As in we get a thread to ask for clarity on this so we can get an official consensus.

If it checks out, then upgrade away Sonic. If not, then there's more of a discussion to be had
Click to expand...
That seems like a reasonable solution to this issue,we can do this.
 
Right,if it happens which doesn't seem likely which is why creating a thread for clarification could be better issue
 
Can somebody summarise the arguments for and against this in an easy to understand manner please?
 
I'm not the most familiar with Archie Sonic, and also, Sera wishes never to be pinged on a Sonic thread ever again.

But anyway, I trust Ultima Reality, so if he's surprised this isn't Low 1-C, I'm pretty much fine with it. There also appear to be multiple "Higher dimension" and "Transcending all time and space" statements, so I think Low 1-C is pretty much reasonable.
 
Infinite transcendent was not the only factor for the Low 1-C upgrade. The tiering system does have some clarifications on the matter since late-2019 as those below:
A) Equivalent to a large extra dimensional space. That is, a higher-dimensional "bulk" space which embeds lower-dimensional ones (Such as our universe) as subsets of itself, whose dimensions are not microscopic / compactified.
B) Portrayed as completely transcending lower-dimensional objects and spaces in the setting of a given work of fiction.

Low 1-C is fine, with me. I believe the transcendence of Chaos Force was accepted to be a valid type concept 2 from all reality; I can't find the CRT but I did found the accepted blog. So, transcendence doesn't look too vague, in this case; context-wise, if one transcends all of the reality conceptually then there is the possibility of Low 1-C rating.

Honestly, I think Super Sonic and those who scaled should be solid Low 1-C. There was a thread in the past where it was decided. Executor among others brought up the arguments that the Low 1-C chaos energy for feats scaled to physical stats makes the solid Low 1-C more fine with me (High 2-A is now Low 1-C, if there is confusion). I think if just some characters become solid Low 1-C then there is a higher inconsistency since there is powerscaling that exists point towards it.
Some of the characters that I think would are scaled those below, from the last thread:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Peptocoptr27
Catching Up To The Games: Archie Sonic Speed Upgrades + Low 2-C Post Genesis Wave
2
Replies
78
Views
5K
Accelerated_Evolution
Accelerated_Evolution
y3p_owo
"I've got your limit right here!" (Archie Super Form Revision)
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
y3p_owo
y3p_owo
Brogeefrong
WE MAKIN IT INTO A HIGHER COSMOLOGY WITH THIS ONE🗣🔥 | Archie Sonic, Solaris and Cosmology additions | 0-0-0
2 3 4
Replies
150
Views
10K
Brogeefrong
Brogeefrong
ShakeResounding
  • Locked
Too Many To Count: An Archie Sonic Cosmology Revision
2 3 4
Replies
125
Views
11K
ShakeResounding
ShakeResounding
y3p_owo
  • Locked
Archie Shadow + Enerjak Addition
Replies
31
Views
3K
y3p_owo
y3p_owo
Back
Top