• 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.

(DB Tier 1) We must imagine a DB scaler happy.

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can delete this since it's probably a derail.

But the fact that there was a staff revision thread immediately, without any draft or proper format, as soon as DB tier 1 was accepted and people are using it against tier 1 DB before any conclusions were reached in said thread....seems really fishy.

Like, really fishy.
the fact that people rushed back here with rash conclusions of that thread is also fishy but hey
 
You can delete this since it's probably a derail.

But the fact that there was a staff revision thread immediately, without any draft or proper format, as soon as DB tier 1 was accepted and people are using it against tier 1 DB before any conclusions were reached in said thread....seems really fishy.

Like, really fishy.
Afaik, the new revisions don't affect dragonball and ben 10
 
Dread commented and disagreed two hours and 30 minutes ago, which delays the grace period. If any of you don’t want to delay the grace period then I suggest you people to stop derailing the thread and let it sit as it is.
 
Dread commented and disagreed two hours and 30 minutes ago, which delays the grace period. If any of you don’t want to delay the grace period then I suggest you people to stop derailing the thread and let it sit as it is.
That's not how it works my guy. A single disagreement is not gonna overwrite the many staff agreements.
 
That's not how it works my guy. A single disagreement is not gonna overwrite the many staff agreements.
It’s still going to stir up another discussion. I might be comprehending it wrong anyways. Just hope that this topic won’t get heat it again.
 
umm

is georr's thread going to affect this upgrade??
 
umm

is georr's thread going to affect this upgrade??
No. Not in the slightest.
 
umm

is georr's thread going to affect this upgrade??
Yes, in its entirety.
 
cap


This is textbook DB example. DB isn't getting affected. It's still tier 1.

Carry on DB bois.
Wow... what's funny is, I mentioned something exactly like this in depth (e.g. the timeline capturing the continuous change of the multiverse) under my original response to the old staff thread, but I completely abandoned that line of reasoning since I messed up the whole "space-time separation doesn't give new axes" stuff. Who knew it still held merit? I don't know where that other thread is going, but yeah. This is textbook Dragon Ball.
 
Last edited:
Dread commented and disagreed two hours and 30 minutes ago, which delays the grace period. If any of you don’t want to delay the grace period then I suggest you people to stop derailing the thread and let it sit as it is.
Not only does it not hold up against the staff but it’s also been addressed too. One would actually use DDT’s argument to support this upgrade because that’s just exactly how DB works with Time Travel.
 
images
 
Also, another thing about Geo’s thread is, I don’t think DontTalk disagrees that an overarching timeline is Low 1-C as long as the lesser timelines are serviced by their own time dimensions. He clearly read the OP, and responded that “the last thread wasn’t meant to change the standards,” so it’s not like he hasn’t seen the current phrasing for that section of the faq. He said multiple times that a time dimension spanning timelines shouldn’t qualify in itself, nothing about spanning time dimensions. I think he’s on the same page as us in that a higher time dimension is orthogonal and inherently a different direction.

I believe that so far, he’s mainly addressing ways to demonstrate higher time dimensions without confirmation of lesser timelines having their own time dimensions: whether it be explaining how different universes having certain flows of time would be indicative of existing under parallel time dimensions (e.g. if time flowing backwards in one universe means something), or how an overarching timeline could be interpreted as having 4-D snapshots and measuring the continuous change of the multiverse (which Dragon Ball has anyways).
 
Also, another thing about Geo’s thread is, I don’t think DontTalk disagrees that an overarching timeline is Low 1-C as long as the lesser timelines are serviced by their own time dimensions. He clearly read the OP, and responded that “the last thread wasn’t meant to change the standards,” so it’s not like he hasn’t seen the current phrasing for that section of the faq. He said multiple times that a time dimension spanning timelines shouldn’t qualify in itself, nothing about spanning time dimensions. I think he’s on the same page as us in that a higher time dimension is orthogonal and inherently a different direction.

I believe that so far, he’s mainly addressing ways to demonstrate higher time dimensions without confirmation of lesser timelines having their own time dimensions: whether it be explaining how different universes having certain flows of time would be indicative of existing under parallel time dimensions (e.g. if time flowing backwards in one universe means something), or how an overarching timeline could be interpreted as having 4-D snapshots and measuring the continuous change of the multiverse (which Dragon Ball has anyways).
You should probably take this to the DBS discussion thread tho, not here
 
cap


This is textbook DB example. DB isn't getting affected. It's still tier 1.

Carry on DB bois.
This isn't basically time traveling from one timeline to a different timeline. As you see here

These are very different from the timeline that contains multiverses, to time traveling to a temporal dimension that does not contain anything (including the universe), or something like that. But yeah, we are all waiting for DT 🌚
 
Also, another thing about Geo’s thread is, I don’t think DontTalk disagrees that an overarching timeline is Low 1-C as long as the lesser timelines are serviced by their own time dimensions. He clearly read the OP, and responded that “the last thread wasn’t meant to change the standards,” so it’s not like he hasn’t seen the current phrasing for that section of the faq. He said multiple times that a time dimension spanning timelines shouldn’t qualify in itself, nothing about spanning time dimensions. I think he’s on the same page as us in that a higher time dimension is orthogonal and inherently a different direction.

I believe that so far, he’s mainly addressing ways to demonstrate higher time dimensions without confirmation of lesser timelines having their own time dimensions: whether it be explaining how different universes having certain flows of time would be indicative of existing under parallel time dimensions (e.g. if time flowing backwards in one universe means something), or how an overarching timeline could be interpreted as having 4-D snapshots and measuring the continuous change of the multiverse (which Dragon Ball has anyways).
Anyone trying to downgrade based of whatever will have to create his own thread and prove it anyway. So yeah, this thread, as of now, is what it is.
 
Also, another thing about Geo’s thread is, I don’t think DontTalk disagrees that an overarching timeline is Low 1-C as long as the lesser timelines are serviced by their own time dimensions. He clearly read the OP, and responded that “the last thread wasn’t meant to change the standards,” so it’s not like he hasn’t seen the current phrasing for that section of the faq. He said multiple times that a time dimension spanning timelines shouldn’t qualify in itself, nothing about spanning time dimensions. I think he’s on the same page as us in that a higher time dimension is orthogonal and inherently a different direction.
So yes. Essentially the old standards and the things old standards rejected were supposed to still be fundamentally valid, but there was a little misunderstanding. Mehh, it's okay.
I believe that so far, he’s mainly addressing ways to demonstrate higher time dimensions without confirmation of lesser timelines having their own time dimensions: whether it be explaining how different universes having certain flows of time would be indicative of existing under parallel time dimensions (e.g. if time flowing backwards in one universe means something), or how an overarching timeline could be interpreted as having 4-D snapshots and measuring the continuous change of the multiverse (which Dragon Ball has anyways).
As stated here, the fact that time flows forward or backward is not evidence of different/extra axis and direction; it can basically occur along the same axis. Other alternative explanations are also here.

And another problem is here that it is necessary to have specific statements for such "4D snapshots". And frankly, I didn't expect this much either.

Anyway, we're waiting for the draft now
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top