Infinite Power Statements - Editing Rules Revision

[Deagonx]

Per some discussions with DT and Ant, and given a few recent incidents involving discussions about the phrase "infinite power" being used in CRTs, it seemed prudent to clarify the wiki policy on how we treat statements of "infinite power" as there is a widespread misconception that such a statement can be scaled to 3-A. We discussed an addition to the site's Editing Rules page and possibly a foot note to the Tiering System page. This is the tentative wording that DT came up with:

Statements regarding infinite power have to be carefully analyzed. As some of the most extraordinary claims around, they tend to require much more support than most other statements. The statements should be ensured to not be hyperbole, come from a reliable source, judged regarding consistency, have some supporting evidence and be interpreted in context. As an example for the latter point, one should consider that sources of infinite power often mean things like perpetuum mobile, i.e. objects that can provide a finite amount of power for an unlimited timeframe, rather than providing infinite power all at once.

This will help clarify that a phrase regarding infinite power or limitless power does not necessarily scale to a certain tier, because the phrase itself is particularly prone to hyperbole (infinite can be used relationally, i.e. the power is so great relative to the speaker that it's limitations have no practical meaning) or can be used about the quantity of power (a robot with infinite energy, a fighter that never tires), and that in order for such a phrase to be used as evidence for tiering there needs to be specific and concrete evidence that justifies it's usage for that tier.

If needed, I am also willing to go through the wiki for profiles that use this phrase as a basis for tiering and provide further scrutiny. I went through earlier and found many that I thought were questionable.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree, it is a common hyperbole especially when villain characters use it.

 

[Antvasima]

This seems reasonable to me.

@AKM sama @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X

What do you think?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Yeah, it's a fine note to make on either the AP page or in the FAQ page.

 

[Elizhaa]

It seems alright.

 

[Planck69]

Makes sense.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I agree.

 

[KLOL506]

Seems fine at a glance.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I hate entering a thread to just say yes.

With that said (thus ensuring that I am, in fact, saying more than just yes), yes.

 

[Deagonx]

Okay. I am assuming 10 or so staff agrees is sufficient to move forward with this.

Yeah, it's a fine note to make on either the AP page or in the FAQ page.

Okay, so we could add it to the Tiering FAQ and the AP page. Ant do you want me to handle that?

 

[KLOL506]

Okay. I am assuming 10 or so staff agrees is sufficient to move forward with this.



Okay, so we could add it to the Tiering FAQ and the AP page. Ant do you want me to handle that?

We have to wait 2 days after the CRT's creation date as a grace period before we apply the revisions.

 

[Deagonx]

We have to wait 2 days after the CRT's creation date as a grace period before we apply the revisions.

Ah, okay.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so we could add it to the Tiering FAQ and the AP page. Ant do you want me to handle that?

It is safer if an experienced staff member handles it.

@Qawsedf234

Would you be willing to handle it please?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Would you be willing to handle it please?

I guess I can do it when the 48 hour grace ends.

 

[Starter_Pack]

Looks good. I agree with this!

 

[Propellus]

I guess this should be fine

 

[Antvasima]

I guess I can do it when the 48 hour grace ends.

Thank you.

Please remember that it is 48 hours from when a thread was first posted.

 

[Deagonx]

FWIW that's about 4 hours from now

 

[Antvasima]

Yes.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Per some discussions with DT and Ant, and given a few recent incidents involving discussions about the phrase "infinite power" being used in CRTs, it seemed prudent to clarify the wiki policy on how we treat statements of "infinite power" as there is a widespread misconception that such a statement can be scaled to 3-A.

High 3-A

Also, for the thread's request, this can be done by adding it to “Statements” page, not necessarily in FAQ.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Also, it is mostly indirectly already being a thing in the page

Note: Please remember that character and narrative statements tend to use flowery language and exaggerate to certain degrees. Without any further context to clarify, statements such as characters being “beyond space-time” or especially omnipotent statements are not enough to suggest upgrades. When reviewing a statement for potential upgrades, be sure to keep this in mind.

You can add it as an extra option, but not really needed for a whole section in FAQ.

Or in “Hyperbole” section, it works as well.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I expanded the statement and hyperbole stuff. For the FAQ this is the best I could come up with

'Statements such as infinite power, infinite strength, or having unlimited of something don't automatically indicate that something can produce an infinite amount of energy or work at once. For example, an engine with infinite energy can just provide a finite amount of power over an unlimited period of time which wouldn't give that engine higher dimensional or infinite levels of energy (for example, a machine with a perpetual motion engine). All statements involving "infinite strength" shouldn't be taken at face value without further context to their validity, as this can lead to inflated ratings and cause contradictions with other elements within a story. If proven, however, statements of infinite strength would qualify for '''High 3-A''' with no additional context to the cosmology.

 

[ImmortalDread]

This is a minor CRT proposal, and I don't believe it requires a vote from additional staff members, as we have previously operated using this system. The OP is seeking to establish it as an official process.

As previously mentioned, this could be added to the Hyperbole page.

 

[Qawsedf234]

As previously mentioned, this could be added to the Hyperbole page.

I already did.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I already did.

If everything is done, then the thread can be closed.

 

[GyroNutz]

For what it's worth, I agree that this is a worthwhile addition

 

[Antvasima]

@Qawsedf234 @Deagonx

I made a few adjustments to the latest draft text. Is this acceptable, and if so, to which pages should it be added? Our Tiering System footnotes and Hyperbole page?

"Statements such as infinite power, infinite strength, or having unlimited amounts of something don't automatically indicate that a character or item can produce an infinite amount of energy or work at once. For example, an engine with infinite energy can just provide a finite amount of power over an unlimited period of time, which wouldn't give that engine higher-dimensional or infinite levels of energy (for example, a machine with a perpetual motion engine). All statements involving "infinite strength" shouldn't be taken at face value without further context and preferably evidence regarding their validity, as this can lead to inflated ratings and cause contradictions and severe inconsistencies with other elements within a story. If proven, however, statements of infinite strength would qualify for '''High 3-A''' with no additional context regarding the degree of infinity involved."

 

[Qawsedf234]

I made a few adjustments to the latest draft text. Is this acceptable, and if so, to which pages should it be added? Our Tiering System footnotes and Hyperbole page?

I believe it would be either the FAQ page (something like Q: What rating does infinite power give) or a further explanation on the Hyperbole page.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Both the Hyperbole and FAQ pages seem like good places to add the text in question then. Would it be acceptable to add it to both of them? If not, I think that the FAQ page is better.

 

[Deagonx]

I made a few adjustments to the latest draft text. Is this acceptable, and if so, to which pages should it be added? Our Tiering System footnotes and Hyperbole page?

I propose the following rewording.

Statements regarding infinite power, infinite strength, or unlimited quantities do not automatically indicate an ability to produce an infinite amount of energy at once. For example, a 9-volt battery that never depletes could be said to have an infinite quantity of energy, but not an infinite magnitude (as it is limited by voltage). Statements involving "infinite power/strength" must be clearly indicative of magnitude to qualify for tiering, in order to avoid inflated ratings or inconsistencies in a story. Further, the hyperbolic nature of the phrase must be taken into consideration, where characters are prone to describing someone's power as infinite in a context where it is so great as to be insurmountable from their perspective, but not truly infinite in a manner relevant to their tier. If proven, however, statements of infinite strength would qualify for '''High 3-A''' or higher if evidence regarding a higher degree of infinity above baseline is established.

 

[Antvasima]

I propose the following rewording.

Statements regarding infinite power, infinite strength, or unlimited quantities do not automatically indicate an ability to produce an infinite amount of energy at once. For example, a 9-volt battery that never depletes could be said to have an infinite quantity of energy, but not an infinite magnitude (as it is limited by voltage). Statements involving "infinite power/strength" must be clearly indicative of magnitude to qualify for tiering, in order to avoid inflated ratings or inconsistencies in a story. Further, the hyperbolic nature of the phrase must be taken into consideration, where characters are prone to describing someone's power as infinite in a context where it is so great as to be insurmountable from their perspective, but not truly infinite in a manner relevant to their tier. If proven, however, statements of infinite strength would qualify for '''High 3-A''' or higher if evidence regarding a higher degree of infinity above baseline is established.

I agree with using that rewording.

@Qawsedf234 @GyroNutz @Starter_Pack @KLOL506 @Mr._Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa @Planck69 @LordGriffin1000

Is it acceptable for you as well?

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Deagonx are you against adding it in the hyperbole page? Because, in my opinion, it is most appropriate there.

 

[Deagonx]

@Deagonx are you against adding it in the hyperbole page? Because, in my opinion, it is most appropriate there.

I think it warrants placement in multiple pages, but I agree that it should be included in the Hyperbole page.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so would our Tiering System FAQ and Hyperbole pages be sufficient to include the text in?

 

[ImmortalDread]

I have an idea. Include it on the hyperbole page towards the end and make a remark in the high 3-A category of the tiering system.

 

[Antvasima]

This text would likely derail too much from the main context if we place it in the main part of our tiering system page.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I said, we add a note in the tiering system, and not the draft. A note would look like this:

Just because a statement involves infinite power doesn't necessarily make it high 3-A. For further information, please refer to this page.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That kind of note at the bottom of our Tiering System page might work, yes.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with using that rewording.

@Qawsedf234 @GyroNutz @Starter_Pack @KLOL506 @Mr._Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa @Planck69 @LordGriffin1000

Is it acceptable for you as well?

Looks good to me.

 

[Qawsedf234]

If not, I think that the FAQ page is better.

Personally, I think only the FAQ page should have it. Since its answering a question rather than a general hyperbolic thing.

As for the explanation, it works in my view. Though the 9-volt thing should be dropped and just mention a battery or power source since that's a more common fictional thing.