• 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.

Kirby Cosmology Upgrade Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
If Potemkat and James could read the thread from the start, they would do me a real solid. I don't have much time right now to respond, let alone look for where in the thread this has been adressed, but much like most of the points above, I'm pretty sure this argument:
fiction mentioning these terminologies doesn't always mean exactly what someone would think that would allow it to be tier 1 on the VS Battles Wiki.
has been adressed earlier. I'll be back by friday.
 
@James_Plays_4_Games

What do you think should be done here and why? And would an upgrade to 5-dimensional Kirby be too inconsistent with the general portrayal of his power level?
Apparently I'm expected to read the thread from beginning to end now, and that doesn't seem reasonable to me. If there is a specific point somewhere early in the thread that disproves my ideas, then it would be better for someone who has actually been here since the beginning to find it and show me it, since that person wouldn't need to search as hard.

As for whether or not 5D is consistent to Kirby's power level, this thread isn't exactly about that. It's about upgrading the cosmology, for Another Dimension to be 5D. If Another Dimension were to be proven as a 5D location, then it would recontextualize feats that the characters have done.
 
Apparently I'm expected to read the thread from beginning to end now, and that doesn't seem reasonable to me. If there is a specific point somewhere early in the thread that disproves my ideas, then it would be better for someone who has actually been here since the beginning to find it and show me it, since that person wouldn't need to search as hard.

As for whether or not 5D is consistent to Kirby's power level, this thread isn't exactly about that. It's about upgrading the cosmology, for Another Dimension to be 5D. If Another Dimension were to be proven as a 5D location, then it would recontextualize feats that the characters have done.
So is somebody willing to help out with this?
 
Main problem is the word for dimension can also mean parallel/alternate/"world" dimensions like in english.
Yeah, your issue is that you disagree with the translation provided by Japanese experts both on-site and off-site. You made that pretty clear the last time you commented. And that's fine, but then, how is debating it with me supposed to help? Bring out more translators and hope to find one who agrees with you. Idk.
That's similar to the point I was making against the idea of Another Dimension being 4D or 5D anyway.
Wait, so then you do disagree with the translation provided...
Sure we know that the mentioning of transcendence is in the sense that would allow it to mean dimensional transcendence, but fiction mentioning these terminologies doesn't always mean exactly what someone would think that would allow it to be tier 1 on the VS Battles Wiki.
...unless what you mean to say is that even with the accurate translation, the Kirby writers still decided to use those words inaccurately. It seems like this might be what you were going for, but it's a completely baseless assumption. It would require counter-evidence that proves AD CAN'T be 5D.
 
Wait, so then you do disagree with the translation provided...

...unless what you mean to say is that even with the accurate translation, the Kirby writers still decided to use those words inaccurately. It seems like this might be what you were going for, but it's a completely baseless assumption. It would require counter-evidence that proves AD CAN'T be 5D.
I don't disagree with the translation. I explained why I don't. I already explained why your conclusion doesn't naturally get produced from the statement that got translation and that you analyzed, not that the writers "decided" to use those words "inaccurately". Read the following paragraph while thinking that every time I write that Another Dimension is stated to transcend space-time, I'm referring to it being in the sense of dimensional complexity.

Here's a new comparison example that I thought of just now. If a genius character who's conceited about their intelligence regards people who aren't as smart as them "lower-dimensional beings", that uses "dimensional" in the dimensional complexity hierarchy sense, but it undeniably doesn't qualify for tier 2 nor better. The VS Battles Wiki accepts the interpretations that make the least assumptions, so being higher-dimensional in the sense that the previous sentence means it in is what the default interpretation is, exactly like how having "infinite" physical power isn't good evidence for any particular tier. Another Dimension being stated to be transcendent beyond space-time doesn't necessarily mean that it's transcendent in the sense that it's infinitely above 4D infinity, which is the requirement for the VS Battles Wiki to regard it as tier 1. It's less clear that the statements about Another Dimension being transcendent are used in the weaker interpretation since Another Dimension is a location that genuinely has some properties that you could describe as fourth-dimensional, but having some fourth-dimensional properties and being stated to transcend space-time doesn't equate to being infinitely above 4D infinity, unless we treat speculation as facts. You've been repeatedly avoiding the need of proving that Another Dimension is infinitely above 4D infinity by behaving as though your conclusion of Another Dimension being 5D is simply what naturally follows the premise of there being statements that Another Dimension transcends space-time, even though as I've described multiple times, this premise doesn't always create that conclusion. It's not unreasonable to regard Another Dimension as possibly tier 1, but it's still an assumption that I prefer to not approve of when there isn't clear evidence.
 
No they just push a possibly for the sake of it, not because they have a standard understanding of what they're talking about. It's still wrong for all the reasons said above.
I should clarify that when I wrote "it's not unreasonable to regard Another Dimension as possibly tier 1", I wasn't referring to what's viable to put on the VS Battles Wiki pages, I meant that I understand why some people personally think this. I still think their conclusion is false, probably in the same way that you do.
 
No they just push a possibly for the sake of it, not because they have a standard understanding of what they're talking about. It's still wrong for all the reasons said above.
This kind of aggression, claiming the opposition just doesn't understand what they're talking about, is seriously uncalled for and doesn't contribute to any meaningful discussion
 
I'm not sure why there is so much hostility. The entire debate is over whether the statements of space-time transcendence -- which have been shown to be referring to dimensions in the mathematical sense -- are enough to bump Another Dimension's cosmology to 5D. With Another Dimension's screwiness, these statements are not contradicted in-game. I, personally, am inclined to agree with this assessment, as these are official statements that effectively act as the text of the game, a statement from (AFAICT) an omniscient narrator. However, given that there is clearly disagreement over whether it counts, I believe a "possibly" rating is appropriate, since there is in fact potential evidence for the upgrade, but it is not certain whether that evidence amounts to the full transcendence a Low 1-C tier needs.

This is just my opinion, but:

If a "possibly" rating is inappropriate, then either we need to accept this proposal and others with similar levels of evidence, or every existing page that is in tier Low 1-C or above based on statements of space-time transcendence alone must be downgraded. I at least think there's room for compromise.
 
What about the 4-D stuff?
It's already a small multiverse, in that sense it's already 4-D.
This kind of aggression, claiming the opposition just doesn't understand what they're talking about, is seriously uncalled for and doesn't contribute to any meaningful discussion
Being direct isn't the same as being aggressive, claiming some people "doesn't understand what they're talking about" is in fact something you can do in a discussion if concluded that way. If true, it sets the state of things and how things need to be worked from that. I wouldn't for example say this on their back, it needs to be said in the discussion itself. You may be confusing being aggressive with the reality I proposed being harsh, which is not the same.
 
Being direct isn't the same as being aggressive, claiming some people "doesn't understand what they're talking about" is in fact something you can do in a discussion if concluded that way. If true, it sets the state of things and how things need to be worked from that. I wouldn't for example say this on their back, it needs to be said in the discussion itself. You may be confusing being aggressive with the reality I proposed being harsh, which is not the same.
I can't really say I agree with that, because... What does that even accomplish? Like, I can kinda see what you're saying, but that's more of an ideal scenario. In reality, what happens is just that the people who you claim to "not know what they're talking about" just end up feeling insulted by it.

This isn't some "harsh reality being proposed" (in fact I find it odd that claiming a valid point to just come from not knowing what they're talking about can even be considered a "harsh reality"), it's just being rude. At least, that's as far as I can see it.

And, as you can see now, all that has resulted from it is a completely irrelevant discussion on if you're being rude or not, and thus steering us away from the topic at hand.
 
This kind of aggression, claiming the opposition just doesn't understand what they're talking about, is seriously uncalled for and doesn't contribute to any meaningful discussion
Although it'd be preferable for him to not be coldly blunt, I should point out that his message did contribute to meaningful discussion, because it made me realize that my previous message could be misinterpreted so I made a clarification after, and because his message did confirm that his viewpoint is the same as it has been. I describe Eficiente's contributions as a double-edged sword.

Eficiente is trying to apply psychology to this discussion, but he seems to not realize that most people don't realize that, so they end up feeling uneasy when it's not explained in a paragraph like this one. I'm going to explain what he means and reveal how it's useful. My way of explaining it is slightly different than his, since I don't think the problem of this thread is precisely just that people don't know what they're talking about. It's more of what I like to call "VS debater mentality", which I'm pretty sure I mentioned earlier in this thread. We might have all gone through it at some point in our lives, and while the effects go away for some people, it's not as easy for others. It's when people are so immersed in this culture of analyzing the canonical capabilities of fictional characters while using a variety of set terminologies and guidelines, to the point where their manner of literary analysis entirely revolves around how the VS Battles Wiki functions, how the VS Battles Wiki uses terminologies, and what would make for an interesting addition to a VS Battles Wiki profile. (It's actually not limited to the VS Battles Wiki, but that's not important right now.) A simple example of "VS debater mentality" in action is a person believing that a character has fear manipulation due to the character consistently showing that they can make many people fear them and this fact being dramatized within the fictional work, even though nothing suggests that the character causing fear is a supernatural ability. The person believes this not because they have sufficient proof, but because they have positive feelings towards the character in the same way they have positive feelings towards this type of analysis and the idea of fear manipulation applying to what they have observed, so they combine the concepts subconsciously and genuinely think that it's the default way it should be interpreted (even though it isn't).

The situation in this thread is similar to the fear manipulation one I just wrote, except it's more difficult to realize that Another Dimension isn't 5D because, like I described in post number 891, the statements about Another Dimension are similar to the goal of this thread, and can understandably mislead people who are thinking about the VS Battles Wiki into agreeing that Another Dimension is 5D, even if they aren't under the effect of "VS debater mentality".
 
The entire debate is over whether the statements of space-time transcendence -- which have been shown to be referring to dimensions in the mathematical sense -- are enough to bump Another Dimension's cosmology to 5D. With Another Dimension's screwiness, these statements are not contradicted in-game.
AD does transcend space & time, and this is meaningless w/o the way in which it transcends space & time being infinitely so. Because anything can transcend anything, you may even hear the word in real life, where no target of it is infinitely greater than what it transcends. This was talked about in the thread before and you can read about it in the Tiering Q&A.

Needless to say, this not being contradicted in-game doesn't matter.
I can't really say I agree with that, because... What does that even accomplish? Like, I can kinda see what you're saying, but that's more of an ideal scenario. In reality, what happens is just that the people who you claim to "not know what they're talking about" just end up feeling insulted by it.

This isn't some "harsh reality being proposed" (in fact I find it odd that claiming a valid point to just come from not knowing what they're talking about can even be considered a "harsh reality"), it's just being rude. At least, that's as far as I can see it.

And, as you can see now, all that has resulted from it is a completely irrelevant discussion on if you're being rude or not, and thus steering us away from the topic at hand.
Well, in general saying something like that can at best make others summon more knowledgeable users about a topic, or make the people already in the thread be a bit more sharp because maybe that's needed, maybe in part that comes in the form of a bigger effort to explain things being made. At worst, it's still pretty worth it as it states one's perspective of the truth of the matter around, and that alone is good enough, imagine in the future after the thread is done someone else comes to read it, as we have most of everything registered, and imagine am I right on my assertion, see more value on it now? I would rather not have people read threads and think "Ok so I'm noticing [X bad or improvable thing] and nobody is catching up to it (Bold, but fair)/they're not even saying they notice it (More true...unless there really is no one catching up to it), how would they let alone overcome it?". Take the third person view as more of an example, it improves things to have an accurate analysis of everything so far to decide what to do next or simply keep on participating, which includes opinions that aren't hard facts that would take a second to test, which includes negative takes.

There is some level of emotional maturity needed to be in a debate community, much less complex than how it may or may not sound to some hearing that at glance. Being told to be wrong, and even that one doesn't know what they're talking about, can happen, it's not abnormal or anything, it's pretty standard even. Sugarcoat it would then be a free decision. To clarify, I did so while talking to a plural amount of people, not singular; I know, it changes nothing.

I mean harsh as in, the idea that one is agreeing in a topic that they not know sufficient about is a big deal, it's a "bad thing", and thus it can be "harsh" to hear one is the one doing this. It's as rude as it is believing someone did [X wrong thing] with stuff to back it up and saying them that they are a [X definicion of people who do the X wrong thing], you could say that's rule, but don't confuse with the other kind of way in which one can be rude. It's a bit of a misuse of the word when talking about appropriate behavior.

I think some better genuine peace comes from a small back & forward like this, rather than not liking what one did & pretending like it didn't happen. Though it could have happened elsewhere.
 
I will say in advance that I have read through this response, Eficiente, and I appreciate the response. I do understand your position better now. I just won't give it a full response of my own because I don't want to derail from the subject matter any further than we already have through this discussion.

Settling this matter is far more important at the moment
 
AD does transcend space & time, and this is meaningless w/o the way in which it transcends space & time being infinitely so. Because anything can transcend anything, you may even hear the word in real life, where no target of it is infinitely greater than what it transcends.
Exactly. The disagreement is over whether or not it transcends it infinitely. I and Pepto at least view it as such, you clearly disagree and think it does so to a lesser extent not justifying a full tier jump, that's fine -- I fully understand what's going on here and how the Tiering System works. I'm just saying a "possibly" rating would at least allow some nuance to show that it could be interpreted as 5D, though it's not a certainty. Even without that, we could at the very least have some mention of the possibility in the blogs, if nothing else.
 
Yeah, your issue is that you disagree with the translation provided by Japanese experts both on-site and off-site. You made that pretty clear the last time you commented. And that's fine, but then, how is debating it with me supposed to help? Bring out more translators and hope to find one who agrees with you. Idk.
I just said what the problem is... You are too angry..
I don't know why you say I don't know my language... It's not a rare word..
 
Exactly. The disagreement is over whether or not it transcends it infinitely. I and Pepto at least view it as such, you clearly disagree and think it does so to a lesser extent not justifying a full tier jump, that's fine -- I fully understand what's going on here and how the Tiering System works. I'm just saying a "possibly" rating would at least allow some nuance to show that it could be interpreted as 5D, though it's not a certainty. Even without that, we could at the very least have some mention of the possibility in the blogs, if nothing else.
That's the golden mean fallacy. It's not that (Eficiente and) I only disagree with the interpretation as if the truth is that much of a mystery. I go further than that, explaining how the interpretation of Another Dimension being 5D isn't viable for the VS Battles Wiki. I have not seen that the way I explained it has been disproven.

If we have a few people who think Kirby is tier High 3-A because he's stated to have infinite power, because he defeated the Master Crown that has limitless power, and some other supporting points, so someone makes an intelligently structured content revision thread proposing that this be the interpretation used, people disagree, then the proposal gets switched to the interpretation being "possibly" the case, it doesn't change the fact that the interpretation goes against how the VS Battles Wiki works. What about the proposal for Kirby being tier 9-B based on many times he has been portrayed at this level? It may contradict his in-story power level, but if we're focusing purely on quantity, then this tier is the most "consistent" for him. I've seen this interpretation be intelligently formed and conveyed in the past. If someone proposed that this interpretation should "possibly" apply to the pages due to how fiction can be ambiguous, would we ignore more VS Battles Wiki guidelines that help treat fiction less ambiguously? When adding the interpretation that Another Dimension is possibly tier 1, which would end up translating to Kirby's power, it would be: "Galaxy level ([evidence]), likely Low Multiverse level ([evidence]), possibly Wall level ([evidence]), High Universe level ([evidence]), or Low Complex Multiverse level ([evidence])". Is this what you want Kirby's profile to be like? I sure don't. It's not that I think "Galaxy level, likely Low Multiverse level" is the supreme interpretation, it's just an interpretation that's viable to have on the VS Battles Wiki. I know very well that interpreting a fictional character's canonical power has nuance, but it doesn't change what the standards of the VS Battles Wiki are.

Edited in clarification: Kirby scaling to Another Dimension is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. In this message, the second paragraph is only meant to be a comparison example to support the idea in the first paragraph about how indulging in the golden mean fallacy can lead to negative consequences.
 
Last edited:
When adding the interpretation that Another Dimension is possibly tier 1, which would end up translating to Kirby's power, it would be: "Galaxy level ([evidence]), likely Low Multiverse level ([evidence]), possibly Wall level ([evidence]), High Universe level ([evidence]), or Low Complex Multiverse level ([evidence])". Is this what you want Kirby's profile to be like? I sure don't.
This thread is not about upgrading the character, it's upgrading the cosmology, so your posts on the matter are only clogging the thread further. Yes, an upgrade to the cosmology would likely lead to an upgrade for Kirby. It's obvious that the attempt would happen if this upgrade goes through. But instead of doubling down on a topic this thread was never meant to handle, the thread needs to be honed in on what it has been trying to accomplish FOR YEARS. This is exactly why it has taken so long to get literally anywhere, be it upgrade or not. (This isn't a tirade against you, btw)

So can everybody who's clinging to it just DROP the talk about Kirby scaling? I'm not even a Kirby supporter (and I'm neutral on the matter) but this thread is just getting ridiculous.
 
This thread is not about upgrading the character, it's upgrading the cosmology, so your posts on the matter are only clogging the thread further. Yes, an upgrade to the cosmology would likely lead to an upgrade for Kirby. It's obvious that the attempt would happen if this upgrade goes through. But instead of doubling down on a topic this thread was never meant to handle, the thread needs to be honed in on what it has been trying to accomplish FOR YEARS. This is exactly why it has taken so long to get literally anywhere, be it upgrade or not. (This isn't a tirade against you, btw)

So can everybody who's clinging to it just DROP the talk about Kirby scaling? I'm not even a Kirby supporter (and I'm neutral on the matter) but this thread is just getting ridiculous.
You quoted my message out of context to do the straw man fallacy. However, I should clarify that I meant to be doing a comparison example.
 
You quoted my message out of context to do the straw man fallacy.
The Fallacy Fallacy AND an assumption of my intent, it wasn't my goal to strawman you but it doesn't make my point of needing to keep this revision on track any less valid.
However, I should clarify that I meant to be doing a comparison example.
That one I'll say is on me, my b. Still, it could set the precedence that these things can and should be discussed when they really shouldn't be.
 
Fallacy Fallacy, wasn't my intent to strawman you but it doesn't make my point of needing to keep this revision on track any less valid.

That one I'll say is on me. Still, it could leave the impression that these things should be discussed when they really shouldn't be.
My point was to show how indulging in the golden mean fallacy leads to bad consequences, which was the premise of my message that I established in the first paragraph, which you left out in your quote. I only used Kirby's power as a comparison example to make my first paragraph more comprehensible. I could've used a different character from a different fictional work as a comparison example. Kirby scaling to Another Dimension is indeed irrelevant to the overall point of this thread, but my message was already on track.

Sorry if you got the wrong impression though; it's actually kind of my fault too because I left out the clarification when posting the message. I try not to explain every little detail about my intentions because not everyone is willing to read a huge amount of text. Just know that I would never make such a shallow argument like you initially thought I did.
 
Sorry if you got the wrong impression though; it's actually kind of my fault too because I left out the clarification when posting the message. I try not to explain every little detail about my intentions because not everyone is willing to read a huge amount of text. Just know that I would never make such a shallow argument like you initially thought I did.
Completely fine, my dude! Was definitely just a misunderstanding on my part lol, glad we solved that quickly
 
Can we please just settle with 4-D stuff and end this Kirby forsaken thread for Kirby's sake
Like Eficiente wrote in post number 897: "It's already a small multiverse, in that sense it's already 4-D." Plus, it already clearly has a special connection to wormholes. Another Dimension being stated to be higher-dimensional could've been referring to its nature and legitimate 4D effects rather than its size. None of the statements about it being beyond space-time explicitly refer to its size.
 
Can't help but notice that it's still 2 staff for and 2 staff against this CRT, so we still need further staff input.
2 staff?

Also one of those staff is me... And Calc Group Members don't have the authority over CRTs that Thread Mods, Admins, etc. do (it's pretty odd how few people know this)
 
2 staff?

Also one of those staff is me... And Calc Group Members don't have the authority over CRTs that Thread Mods, Admins, etc. do (it's pretty odd how few people know this)
You're not staff it just shows you in the list because Image Helpers and Calc Group Members are quite useful in some scenarios.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top