Context is always important - Changing a bad formulation of the Tiering System

[DontTalkDT]

So, there has been a recent proposal to upgrade a character to Low 1-A due to this scan:

As you see, the character has a skill with a 3 word description saying it's the "surpass dimensions skill". And you would think that with 3 words of description, no shown effect and no further context it is pretty obvious that this isn't going to fly by our Tier System's standards, but.... eh.... no? The standards are actually written in a not great way that makes it pretty non-obvious.

Let's take a look:

As a general rule-of-thumb, statements of being "above dimensions" and the like, whenever validly indicating a superiority over higher dimensions, fall under this tier without further context. See here for more information.​

See guys, it says there clearly that you get Low 1-A if there is no context.
...
Yeah, fairly sure what that is supposed to mean is "if you have additional context showing the transcendence is qualitative, then you get 1-A", but that's not what it says.

And it links the FAQ for more information, so perhaps that is better? Well...
Not really.
The section that seems relevant to the problem ultimately skips over any description of criteria for something to be "actual superiority over dimensions" and just starts its debate with the assumption that it's clear and proven that actual superiority is the case.


So yeah, as it stands our information pages pretty much say that literally everything that mentions surpassing dimensions gets Low 1-A slapped on it without need to take any further look at it, which is not great.

We should change 3 things at minimum:

1. Context is always relevant. Let's remove that "without further context" thing. Replace it with a tighter formulation if needed.
2. Transcending dimensions statements (and the like) should pretty much have all the considerations of transcending space and time apply to them the same way. I guess adding a crossreference to that in the transcending dimensions section of the FAQ might be enough, but we could also add a reformulation of it to the transcending dimensions section. Maybe add a small specifier to the Tiering System text as well to make clear that we are talking about statements that indicate proper transcendence.
3. There should probably be mention in the transcending dimensions section regarding when we assume that refers only to dimensions which exist in the verse and when we assume it refers to dimensions in general (aka something about nature idk). Currently it only is about the latter, but it shouldn't be.

@Ultima_Reality @Agnaa

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Agreed, I have also heard of "Ascending outside of time, space and dimension" to have users assume default to Low 1-A as well.

 

[Planck69]

Yeah, this makes sense.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I think the basic rule of thumb is that your dimensions have to be proven space-time dimensions before "transcends all dimensions" statements can be taken seriously. I don't see how the current wording isn't clear when to get to this point, you'd have to have already passed the explanation of spatio-temporal dimensions.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I don't think the current description has many failures outside of being vague on what constitutes "superiority," which should be clarified indeed. Let me have a try at it:

In general, characters with statements relating to being "Above dimensions," "Transcending dimensions," "Beyond dimensions," etc. have tbe possibility of landing on this tier. However, these statements must meet the following criteria in order to do so:

1) The statement must refer to "dimensions" as a general term. If it is possible to infer from surrounding context that its scope is qualified in some fashion (i.e. So that it is in actuality referring to "All [other] dimensions," or something of the like), it does not suffice. If the statement involves "space and time," the same applies. In such cases, one would need to be distinguish if the series is referring to spatiotemporality itself or simply using "spacetime" as a proper name for a singular universe.

2) The statement must refer to the character being superior to dimensions, and not simply exterior to them, the latter of which being something that often satisfies much of the aforementioned verbiage. For example: A character with Type 1 Beyond-Dimensional Existence is exempt from spacetime altogether and therefore can be said to "Transcend dimensions" or "Transcend space and time," insofar as "transcendence" can simply mean "separation." Moreover, "to transcend" used as a verb can also mean "To travel out of," and so care must be given to cases in which this sense of the term is clearly being employed.

In that vein, the superiority in question must be clearly depicted in the verse as something size-like. For instance, if the statement is done in reference to a realm that dwarfs dimensional space and renders it as in some way minuscule in comparison to itself. All the more so, of course, if the "size" of the realm in question is explicitly correlated to its beyond-dimensional nature (For example, by the two being mentioned in the same breath, in a way that makes clear they are both descriptions of a single fact).

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

I don't think the current description has many failures outside of being vague on what constitutes "superiority," which should be clarified indeed. Let me have a try at it:

This is fine.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I don't think the current description has many failures outside of being vague on what constitutes "superiority," which should be clarified indeed. Let me have a try at it:

Let me make some suggestions for change based on that draft:

If it is possible to infer from surrounding context that its scope is qualified in some fashion (i.e. So that it is in actuality referring to "All [other] dimensions," or something of the like), it does not suffice.

This should be formulated with the reversed default. E.g.

If it is not possible to infer from surrounding context that its scope isn't qualified in some fashion (i.e. So that it is in actuality referring to "All [other] dimensions," or something of the like), it does not suffice.

Or something of that nature. Without context "all" should be assumed to mean "all that exist" not "all that could exist". Like, with the above "surpass dimensions" skill, there is no context and hence there should be no assumption of theoretical dimensions being part of the consideration.

---

If the statement involves "space and time," the same applies. In such cases, one would need to be distinguish if the series is referring to spatiotemporality itself or simply using "spacetime" as a proper name for a singular universe.

I would suggest to link to the Tiering FAQ section here. Additionally, spacetime can also refer to the totality of existing space and time, which should probably also be mentioned. So maybe:

If the statement involves "space and time," the same applies. In such cases, one would need to ensure that the series is referring to spatiotemporality itself. It could also just refer to a timeline or the amount of space and time that exists in the verse. See here for more details on that.

---

All the more so, of course, if the "size" of the realm in question is explicitly correlated to its beyond-dimensional nature (For example, by the two being mentioned in the same breath, in a way that makes clear they are both descriptions of a single fact).

I would suggest to move this to point 1) and make it clearer that this or explicit generality is required. (IIRC this was meant to be sufficient, right?)
So maybe add after the firs paragraph of 1) a second one that reads:

Alternatively to the context or the statement itself clearly indicating that all dimensions, even such that the fiction may not include, are meant it is also sufficient if the "size" of the realm in question is explicitly correlated to its beyond-dimensional nature (For example, by the two being mentioned in the same breath, in a way that makes clear they are both descriptions of a single fact).

I would furthermore suggest to use another example instead of the "in the same breath" one. That one can easily go wrong. E.g. "They transcend dimensions. They need to stay non-dimensional as our 11-D universe can't contain the infinite weight of their existence." That is a size-like (as in, quantitative) comparison mentioning non-dimensionality and size-like transcendence in one breath, even being connected in a way, but can easily just mean that the character's "weight" just needs something bigger than 11D in particular. This suspicion would remain valid if you replaced "11-D universe" with "world".
Personally, I would use an example more like

(For example, by their "size" being said to be caused by their non-dimensional nature)

---

So in total I would suggest the following improved draft:

In general, characters with statements relating to being "Above dimensions," "Transcending dimensions," "Beyond dimensions," etc. have the possibility of landing on this tier. However, these statements must meet the following criteria in order to do so:

1) The statement must refer to "dimensions" as a general term. If it is not possible to infer from surrounding context that its scope isn't qualified in some fashion (i.e. So that it is in actuality referring to "All [other] dimensions," or something of the like), it does not suffice. If the statement involves "space and time," the same applies. In such cases, one would need to ensure that the series is referring to spatiotemporality itself. It could also just refer to a timeline or the amount of space and time that exists in the verse. See here for more details on that.

Alternatively to the context or the statement itself clearly indicating that all dimensions, even such that the fiction may not include, are meant to be transcended it is also sufficient if the "size" of the realm in question is explicitly correlated to its beyond-dimensional nature. An example would be their "size" being said to be caused by that nature.

2) The statement must refer to the character being superior to dimensions, and not simply exterior to them, the latter of which being something that often satisfies much of the aforementioned verbiage. For example: A character with Type 1 Beyond-Dimensional Existence is exempt from spacetime altogether and therefore can be said to "Transcend dimensions" or "Transcend space and time," insofar as "transcendence" can simply mean "separation." Moreover, "to transcend" used as a verb can also mean "To travel out of," and so care must be given to cases in which this sense of the term is clearly being employed.

In that vein, the superiority in question must be clearly depicted in the verse as something size-like. For instance, if the statement is done in reference to a realm that dwarfs dimensional space and renders it as in some way minuscule in comparison to itself.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Or something of that nature. Without context "all" should be assumed to mean "all that exist" not "all that could exist". Like, with the above "surpass dimensions" skill, there is no context and hence there should be no assumption of theoretical dimensions being part of the consideration.

The Tiering System doesn't really make this distinction anymore. The revisions basically abolished the whole notion of something being able to be beyond-dimensional "only over" the dimensions actually existent in its cosmology but not beyond-dimensional in the proper sense (i.e. Beyond dimensions in general). So, unneeded. Since your spacetime suggestion seems to be pretty much using the same logic, it isn't really needed either.

Personally, I would use an example more like

Looks good.

 

[DontTalkDT]

The Tiering System doesn't really make this distinction anymore. The revisions basically abolished the whole notion of something being able to be beyond-dimensional "only over" the dimensions actually existent in its cosmology but not beyond-dimensional in the proper sense (i.e. Beyond dimensions in general). So, unneeded. Since your spacetime suggestion seems to be pretty much using the same logic, it isn't really needed either.

But you basically mention the case of Type 1 BDE yourself and I believe the Tiering Revision also was just about characters confirmed to have a certain connection between the nature of their BDE and their transcendence.

Like, your draft acknowledges that a fiction could have the idea of saying "transcends all dimensions" to mean "transcends all [other] dimensions" i.e. those which exist. Characters with a size-like superiority over exlusively 11 dimensions aren't impossible.
You can't acknowledge the possibility of these statements being made to mean something qualified and then act like no context at all implies it can't mean that.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

But you basically mention the case of Type 1 BDE yourself and I believe the Tiering Revision also was just about characters confirmed to have a certain connection between the nature of their BDE and their transcendence.

Like, your draft acknowledges that a fiction could have the idea of saying "transcends all dimensions" to mean "transcends all [other] dimensions" i.e. those which exist. Characters with a size-like superiority over exlusively existing dimensions aren't impossible.
You can't acknowledge the possibility of these statements being made to mean something qualified and then act like no context implies it can't mean that.

With those examples, I was pretty much thinking of a hypothetical case where, say, a realm is described as "Beyond dimensions" but then received further descriptions that make it clear that it is, itself, just another dimensional space and not something of a whole other nature. In that case, giving out "All [other] dimensions" as an example of such a hypothetical statement was a goofus on my part. Should probably have phrased it as "Beyond [other] dimensions," because I don't really think you can intelligibly have a statement involving "All dimensions" mean that, since the "all" already tells you the statement isn't being qualified. So it being anything else would be less "The statement turns out to be more restricted going by context" and more "The statement is just being contradicted."

I don't think Type 1 BDE is very relevant to the case, since we're already granting that "Above all dimensions" means superiority, while Type 1's whole gimmick is that it lacks superiority.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Should probably have phrased it as "Beyond [other] dimensions," because I don't really think you can intelligibly have a statement involving "All dimensions" mean that, since the "all" already tells you the statement isn't being qualified. So it being anything else would be less "The statement turns out to be more restricted going by context" and more "The statement is just being contradicted."

From a language standpoint that makes no sense. "All" virtually never includes hypothetical things that don't currently exist. If I said "all cars drive using combustion or electric engines" nobody would correct me by saying "actually, hypothetically existing future cars might use antimatter to drive, so it's not all cars". All in itself means "all there currently are" if no further specifier is given.
Heck, when I say "All eggs got broken" I don't even mean all in the universe. "All"-statements frequently refer to an implicit subset.
So one can very much have intelligible all statements mean "all that exists". I dare say the opposite is the exception. I can't think of a single regular conversation in which I would use "all" to mean "all past, present and future, as well as all hypothetically existing as well as all things we don't know if they even can exist in our reality".

 

[Antvasima]

I am fine with DontTalk's suggestions here.

@Qawsedf234 @DarkGrath @Elizhaa @Executor_N0 @Everything12 @IdiosyncraticLawyer @Agnaa

 

[Ultima_Reality]

From a language standpoint that makes no sense. "All" virtually never includes hypothetical things that don't currently exist. If I said "all cars drive using combustion or electric engines" nobody would correct me by saying "actually, hypothetically existing future cars might use antimatter to drive, so it's not all cars". All in itself means "all there currently are" if no further specifier is given.
Heck, when I say "All eggs got broken" I don't even mean all in the universe. "All"-statements frequently refer to an implicit subset.
So one can very much have intelligible all statements mean "all that exists". I dare say the opposite is the exception. I can't think of a single regular conversation in which I would use "all" to mean "all past, present and future, as well as all hypothetically existing as well as all things we don't know if they even can exist in our reality".

That doesn't really translate into this context, because "Beyond all dimensions" (Granting that it means "superiority" in the relevant sense, mind you) is descriptive of a realm that exceeds dimensional spaces without, itself, being a dimensional space, which is indeed what tiers Low 1-A and up are focusing on. If you try to apply the same logic in those examples to this scenario, it'd just fail, because then the realm posited as "Above all dimensions" would itself be a dimensional thing, and therefore not be above all dimensions after all. Hence my talk of it not really mattering if technically the statement is referring to "The dimensions that exist."

I guess a way to put it would be "If you're out of the extension of a predicate, you're already out of the intension as well," regardless of how large of a set said extension is. So there really is no such thing as "Superior to all dimensions that exist but not to all dimensions period," unless the "superiority" is like, the kind that could be ascribed to Type 1 BDE (e.g. A character that's "superior" insofar as he can blow things up)

 

[DontTalkDT]

That doesn't really translate into this context, because "Beyond all dimensions" (Granting that it means "superiority" in the relevant sense, mind you) is descriptive of a realm that exceeds dimensional spaces without, itself, being a dimensional space, which is indeed what tiers Low 1-A and up are focusing on. If you try to apply the same logic in those examples to this scenario, it'd just fail, because then the realm posited as "Above all dimensions" would itself be a dimensional thing, and therefore not be above all dimensions after all. Hence my talk of it not really mattering if technically the statement is referring to "The dimensions that exist."

I guess a way to put it would be "If you're out of the extension of a predicate, you're already out of the intension as well," regardless of how large of a set said extension is. So there really is no such thing as "Superior to all dimensions that exist but not to all dimensions period," unless the "superiority" is like, the kind that could be ascribed to Type 1 BDE (e.g. A character that's "superior" insofar as he can blow things up)

I mean, first, we could be talking about a character, not a realm. These statements typically are made about characters.

Second, "If you try to apply the same logic in those examples to this scenario, it'd just fail, because then the realm posited as "Above all dimensions" would itself be a dimensional thing" is just not a justified conclusion. There is no logical contradiction in the realm having Type 1 BDE and, for completely unrelated reasons, be superior to just the existing dimensions in "size". If you have a non-dimensional realm (say one with NEP) where all residents surpass 11 dimensions due to being so powerful they can blow them up with a thought, but don't have that power over 12 dimensions, that doesn't introduce spatial properties on their home. Their home can't even be contained in 12 dimensions, as something nonexistent can't be contained in anything.

As said, you use a very unusual idea of what "all" means that would be non-obvious to anyone casually speaking about such topics and hence shouldn't be assumed to be the default interpretation. "All" in "transcends dimensions" statements, should be interpreted like it would be in any regular conversation until stated otherwise.

Let me give you a practical example.

“Yes. If we were to interfere, would this be the time?”

It may have been wrong to refer to that place as dark. In fact, the word “place” was not entirely accurate either. Non-existent things could not be explained. Nevertheless, a few voices lurked within where no one could interfere.

“We have no more attachment to Othinus herself, but this ending could hinder Kamijou Touma’s future. Then again, I doubt anyone but us could resolve this now that a magic god is involved. It would be a shame to have the direction thrown off so much for something so trivial.”

“High Pries, we’re thinking about influencing events by interfering with the existing world, aren’t we?”

“Don’t worry, Nephthys. The old man isn’t so foolish he wouldn’t calculate all that out. This shows just how different an existence Othinus was. Although I doubt she realized the truth behind Gremlin.”

“Othinus was a failure.”

“She reached the level of magic god, so there is no reason to be that cruel.”

“High Priest, you’re as kind as ever when it comes to judging others. If it didn’t come from looking down on everyone, you might have actually achieved enlightenment.”

“Nephthys, we are all lacking in some way. Othinus was remarkable yet went a bit too far, but that is just the kind of person Gremlin gathers.”

“Gremlin, the name of a plain fairy that is not dyed in the colors of any existing religion.”

“Instead of being a fusion of science and magic, it’s an organization that every magic god of every religion can take part in equally☆”

“Oh, Niang-Niang. Where have you been?”

“The concepts of distance and time don’t matter here, remember? And I can’t leave regardless. Even if I did, I’d just end up gathering unwanted attention on a global scale like Othinus.

“If you think about it, you could call this our way of being ecological. We do it because the world is too small for us to live in, but it isn’t easy putting up with being here.”

“But, High Priest,” cut in a girl’s voice that sounded even younger and also childish. “Miss Zombie’s theory is essentially the same as holding up opposing mirrors, right? By splitting up our power infinitely, we can intentionally weaken ourselves and avoid destroying the world whenever we move an arm or leg.”

“By infinitely dividing our infinite power, we’ve kept ourselves at a level just barely low enough for this world to contain. …But in a way, this is the worst possible transformation, don’t you think? You could just keep killing and killing us without end. Like a matryoshka doll or an onion, you would have to fight a nearly eternal battle to completely kill us.”

These have pretty much all the ingredients. There is a size-like relationship (world is too small to contain their power) and the realm they are in is nonexistent and hence has no concept of distance and time (nondimensional).
In common language it wouldn't be unusual to say they "surpass all dimensions" on account that they do surpass their verse's currently existing dimensions by being too powerful for them. Yet, simultaneously, this is a quantity problem. The container that is spacetime is too small to contain their power, but if they lower their power they can actually get in with a lesser part of it and be dimensional if they want.
Yet before they were non-dimensional, superior to spacetime and in a properly non-dimensional place.
Their problem is they have 4 liters of power but the balloon of spacetime only holds 1 liter. The whole problem is they need a bigger balloon, which a bigger spacetime could be.
They are an example of characters one could get the idea to say transcend all dimensions (in a regular conversation) and not mean theoretically existing ones to be included.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I mean, first, we could be talking about a character, not a realm. These statements typically are made about characters.

Second, "If you try to apply the same logic in those examples to this scenario, it'd just fail, because then the realm posited as "Above all dimensions" would itself be a dimensional thing" is just not a justified conclusion. There is no logical contradiction in the realm having Type 1 BDE and, for completely unrelated reasons, be superior to just the existing dimensions in "size". If you have a non-dimensional realm (say one with NEP) where all residents surpass 11 dimensions due to being so powerful they can blow them up with a thought, but don't have that power over 12 dimensions, that doesn't introduce spatial properties on their home. Their home can't even be contained in 12 dimensions, as something nonexistent can't be contained in anything.

As said, you use a very unusual idea of what "all" means that would be non-obvious to anyone casually speaking about such topics and hence shouldn't be assumed to be the default interpretation. "All" in "transcends dimensions" statements, should be interpreted like it would be in any regular conversation until stated otherwise.

Let me give you a practical example.




These have pretty much all the ingredients. There is a size-like relationship (world is too small to contain their power) and the realm they are in is nonexistent and hence has no concept of distance and time (nondimensional).
In common language it wouldn't be unusual to say they "surpass all dimensions" on account that they do surpass their verse's currently existing dimensions by being too powerful for them. Yet, simultaneously, this is a quantity problem. The container that is spacetime is too small to contain their power, but if they lower their power they can actually get in with a lesser part of it and be dimensional if they want.
Yet before they were non-dimensional, superior to spacetime and in a properly non-dimensional place.
Their problem is they have 4 liters of power but the balloon of spacetime only holds 1 liter. The whole problem is they need a bigger balloon, which a bigger spacetime could be.
They are an example of characters on could get the idea to say transcend all dimensions (in a regular conversation) and not mean theoretically existing ones to be included.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant by "Unless that superiority is the kind that could be ascribed to Type 1 BDE." Looks fine to add that up to the page, then. Given you already suggested that little addition clarifying that Low 1-A is valid if the non-dimensional nature is the cause of the character/realm's superiority, I don't think confusion is gonna spring up.

 

[Agnaa]

While I technically agree more with DT's view, Ultima's view is the one espoused by the vast majority of staff members during the tiering system revisions, and we shouldn't revert that here.

So, change it as Ultima suggests. Except fix a typo ("tbe" should be "the").

 

[Elizhaa]

I agree more with Ultima's views and the application of his suggestions.

 

[Antvasima]

While I technically agree more with DT's view, Ultima's view is the one espoused by the vast majority of staff members during the tiering system revisions, and we shouldn't revert that here.

So, change it as Ultima suggests. Except fix a typo ("tbe" should be "the").

Okay. I suppose that seems to make sense.

 

[DontTalkDT]

While I technically agree more with DT's view, Ultima's view is the one espoused by the vast majority of staff members during the tiering system revisions, and we shouldn't revert that here.

I have the impression that what was decided is that it can be the case if the BDE is connected to the nature of transcendence, not that it works without evidence. But given that you're the second one to express that opinion, I suppose I can skip it for now and at some later time make a thread to officially revise it.

I would still suggest to switch the example and move that one part to criteria 1), though.

 

[Agnaa]

I have the impression that what was decided is that it can be the case if the BDE is connected to the nature of transcendence, not that it works without evidence. But given that you're the second one to express that opinion, I suppose I can skip it for now and at some later time make a thread to officially revise it.

I'd say that the decision seemed more like "When a character has a BDE-type statement, we never have to consider how many dimensions or which dimensions the 'all' applies to; we'd automatically assume it means 'all that could be constructed in ZFC'."

I'm sure there's some examples we could invent where their transcendence is explicitly distinct from them being non-dimensional, and those two are never combined, where they accordingly wouldn't get a big tier.

I would still suggest to switch the example and move that one part to criteria 1), though.

I'm sorry, what's the difference between that suggestion and the one I accepted that Ultima offered?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I'm sure there's some examples we could invent where their transcendence is explicitly distinct from them being non-dimensional, and those two are never combined, where they accordingly wouldn't get a big tier.

To Aru seems to be close to this, where the case is basically just "The character has Type 1 BDE + Enough firepower to blow up all the spacetime in the setting." But I don't see that happening with reference to, say, a realm. Seems to be something that'd exclusively happen in cases where it's a character that basically has too much Ki for spacetime to endure or whatever.

 

[Agnaa]

To Aru seems to be close to this, where the case is basically just "The character has Type 1 BDE + Enough firepower to blow up all the spacetime in the setting." But I don't see that happening with reference to, say, a realm. Seems to be something that'd exclusively happen in cases where it's a character that basically has too much Ki for spacetime to endure or whatever.

I don't find it impossible to imagine "this character can blow up a timeline" and "this character exists completely outside of space and time" coexisting in a series with a multiverse, or a larger structure. I know some characters that are kinda close, but don't want the practicalities of those cases to derail this thread.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'm sorry, what's the difference between that suggestion and the one I accepted that Ultima offered?

See this reply.
What you addressed was the first section, so we remove the changes from that but keep the rest.

I would like to still apply the rest of them, i.e. link the Tiering FAQ in the relevant part, move that one statement to the section above and replace the

(For example, by the two being mentioned in the same breath, in a way that makes clear they are both descriptions of a single fact).

example with something more objective like

An example would be their "size" being said to be caused by that beyond dimensional nature.

 

[Agnaa]

See this reply.
What you addressed was the first section, so we remove the changes from that but keep the rest.

I would like to still apply the rest of them, i.e. link the Tiering FAQ in the relevant part, move that one statement to the section above and replace the

example with something more objective like

For just linking the FAQ, sure.

But I'd want to reword the connective tissue you added to the statement when moving it. Changing it from

Alternatively to the context or the statement itself clearly indicating that all dimensions, even such that the fiction may not include, are meant to be transcended it is also sufficient if the "size" of the realm in question is explicitly correlated to its beyond-dimensional nature. An example would be their "size" being said to be caused by that nature.

To

This criteria can be bypassed if the "size" of the realm in question is explicitly correlated to its beyond-dimensional nature. An example would be their "size" being said to be caused by that nature.

And now that I see it that clearly, I don't think having that standard is a good idea. Rather than showing a strongly size-like comparison as getting past other standards, we should show how a strongly size-unlike comparison fails to meet the standards. Which would more belong at the end of this new section.

I think I could write something out for that, but I'm blanking on examples for weakly size-unlike and strongly size-unlike cases. If y'all can give me some, I could take it from there.

 

[Antvasima]

@Agnaa @DontTalkDT

What are the conclusions here so far?

 

[Agnaa]

All three of us agreed on some changes to make. DT and I have disagreed on another change, which Ultima hasn't clearly commented on recently.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, if you have reached an agreement regarding certain specific changes, they are probably fine to apply, whereas the one you disagree about are obviously not.

A summary explanation of your agreed changes would be appreciated though.

 

[DontTalkDT]

And now that I see it that clearly, I don't think having that standard is a good idea.

Wasn't that pretty much verbatim the standard decided in the Tiering Revision, though?

 

[Agnaa]

Wasn't that pretty much verbatim the standard decided in the Tiering Revision, though?

I don't think so. If a series is clearly referring to just a single timeline when they say "Timeline-eater is too big for that space-time" then we shouldn't automatically chuck it at Low 1-A just because its superiority is size-like. I don't think that's something that was endorsed in the Tiering Revision.