Lifting Strength, Tier 11, & Tier 0

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Currently, Tier 0 characters are treated as existing beyond quantitative and qualitative distinction alike; to reflect that, they have Lifting Strength, Striking Strength, and Stamina set to Inapplicable due to transcending such qualities. However, LS in particular also uses "Inapplicable" as a term to refer to lower-dimensional characters or those qualitatively inferior to baseline reality, which makes no sense and is a relic of the old tiering system. To remedy this issue, I would like to propose that we rename that usage of "Inapplicable" to Infinitesimal with a description of "Lifting objects that are wholly inferior to 3-dimensional space, and are thus below standard measurements of weight. This might range from lower-dimensional characters existing on less than three spatial axes, to characters who inhabit qualitatively inferior levels of existence."

Also, I would like to propose that we remove the note at the bottom of the page that claims that Infinite and Immeasurable LS are "literally impossible" IRL because it makes no sense. If this note refers to the best feats accomplished in nature, it would also include anything above Class M because that's the most anything has ever lifted IRL. If it refers to modal possibilities, it's obvious nonsense because models of a universe where infinite or higher-dimensional weight exist can work perfectly fine in math.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Antvasima @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

 

[Ultima_Reality]

You can conceivably have lower-dimensional objects with finite mass, so I wouldn't cast such a wide blanket on all of them with that description. Should be reworded.

Granted I think the change itself is good; saying Lifting Strength is "inapplicable" is weird when you can have 11-C characters who are regular humans on their level of reality and so have a concept of mass/weight that matters to them. Contrary to Tier 0, where the whole thing really is just not applicable. So, yeah.

 

[DarkGrath]

Currently, Tier 0 characters are treated as existing beyond quantitative and qualitative distinction alike; to reflect that, they have Lifting Strength, Striking Strength, and Stamina set to Inapplicable due to transcending such qualities. However, LS in particular also uses "Inapplicable" as a term to refer to lower-dimensional characters or those qualitatively inferior to baseline reality, which makes no sense and is a relic of the old tiering system. To remedy this issue, I would like to propose that we rename that usage of "Inapplicable" to Infinitesimal with a description of "Lifting objects that are wholly inferior to 3-dimensional space, and are thus below standard measurements of weight. This might range from lower-dimensional characters existing on less than three spatial axes, to characters who inhabit qualitatively inferior levels of existence."

I don't mind this suggestion. The lifting strength page is strangely vague on what exactly is meant to qualify as "Inapplicable", but beside that, it just seems useful to distinguish the lifting strength of something on qualitatively inferior planes with something beyond qualitative distinctions. I imagine having such a delineation would just make the meanings behind the expressions clearer. As for whether "infinitesimal" is a good term for it, I'm not so sure - to my understanding, something infinitesimal is approaching but not at zero, but I don't think this aptly describes how we would think of qualitatively inferior lifting strength.

Also, I would like to propose that we remove the note at the bottom of the page that claims that Infinite and Immeasurable LS are "literally impossible" IRL because it makes no sense. If this note refers to the best feats accomplished in nature, it would also include anything above Class M because that's the most anything has ever lifted IRL. If it refers to modal possibilities, it's obvious nonsense because models of a universe where infinite or higher-dimensional weight exist can work perfectly fine in math.

I would like to acknowledge the Chesterton's Fence and ask that we don't remove this note until we figure out for what reason it was put there. But while I am pretentious, I'm not pretentious enough to claim I think that removing this note would have serious long-term consequences. If we can figure out why the note was put there first, that would be good, but I wouldn't oppose removing it.

 

[Tllmbrg]

So, how do we plan to define tier 11 LS?
Will there be a difference between a 11-A LS feat and a 11-C LS feat now rating wise or

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

As for whether "infinitesimal" is a good term for it, I'm not so sure - to my understanding, something infinitesimal is approaching but not at zero, but I don't think this aptly describes how we would think of qualitatively inferior lifting strength.

If you want to argue that this issue is present here, I'd say you'd have to argue that it's present in Immeasurable lifting strength as well. Do you want to change that as well?

I would like to acknowledge the Chesterton's Fence and ask that we don't remove this note until we figure out for what reason it was put there. But while I am pretentious, I'm not pretentious enough to claim I think that removing this note would have serious long-term consequences. If we can figure out why the note was put there first, that would be good, but I wouldn't oppose removing it.

It was in https://vsbattles.com/threads/lifting-strength-page-revision.155039/ with no attached reason.

Will there be a difference between a 11-A LS feat and a 11-C LS feat now rating wise or

No, for the same reason there isn't one for different higher-dimensional spaces.

 

[Starter_Pack]

This seems fine, from a glance.

 

[DarkGrath]

If you want to argue that this issue is present here, I'd say you'd have to argue that it's present in Immeasurable lifting strength as well. Do you want to change that as well?

Could you elaborate? I think it's fairly apt, actually, to say that someone lifting something on a qualitatively superior plane is 'Immeasurable', given that we can't measure that form of lifting within the definitions of mass present in the lower plane. Comparatively, describing lifting something on a qualitatively inferior plane as 'Infinitesimal' doesn't seem apt, as that still defines a value for the mass being lifted greater than 0, which isn't the case when describing qualitative inferiorities. I can take a guess, but for clarification and ease of discussion, what exactly are your issues with the term 'Immeasurable' in lifting strength?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Could you elaborate? I think it's fairly apt, actually, to say that someone lifting something on a qualitatively superior plane is 'Immeasurable', given that we can't measure that form of lifting within the definitions of mass present in the lower plane. Comparatively, describing lifting something on a qualitatively inferior plane as 'Infinitesimal' doesn't seem apt, as that still defines a value for the mass being lifted greater than 0, which isn't the case when describing qualitative inferiorities. I can take a guess, but for clarification and ease of discussion, what exactly are your issues with the term 'Immeasurable' in lifting strength?

I'll elaborate later when I have more time, but do you have a different suggestion for the replacement?

 

[DarkGrath]

I'll elaborate later when I have more time, but do you have a different suggestion for the replacement?

Not really. But, just to give some basis for discussion - if we are describing a character who is physically incapable of lifting mass as we think of it due to the nature of their existence being qualitatively inferior, "Inutile" might be a worthwhile description for their lifting strength. "Inutile" is usually used to describe things that cannot have an effect on something else, and it's fairly in-line with the language often used on these pages.

 

[Starter_Pack]

Not really. But, just to give some basis for discussion - if we are describing a character who is physically incapable of lifting mass as we think of it due to the nature of their existence being qualitatively inferior, "Inutile" might be a worthwhile description for their lifting strength. "Inutile" is usually used to describe things that cannot have an effect on something else, and it's fairly in-line with the language often used on these pages.

Thesaurus moment.

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that these suggestions seem reasonable. Thank you for helping out.

You can conceivably have lower-dimensional objects with finite mass, so I wouldn't cast such a wide blanket on all of them with that description. Should be reworded.

Do you have any suggestions for another title?

Just to give some basis for discussion - if we are describing a character who is physically incapable of lifting mass as we think of it due to the nature of their existence being qualitatively inferior, "Inutile" might be a worthwhile description for their lifting strength. "Inutile" is usually used to describe things that cannot have an effect on something else, and it's fairly in-line with the language often used on these pages.

That word might be too obscure to be properly understood by our visitors.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Not really. But, just to give some basis for discussion - if we are describing a character who is physically incapable of lifting mass as we think of it due to the nature of their existence being qualitatively inferior, "Inutile" might be a worthwhile description for their lifting strength. "Inutile" is usually used to describe things that cannot have an effect on something else, and it's fairly in-line with the language often used on these pages.

I'm fine with that too.

 

[Antvasima]

Do you have any suggestions for another title?

That word might be too obscure to be properly understood by our visitors.

@Ultima_Reality @DarkGrath

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that these suggestions seem reasonable. Thank you for helping out.

Do you have any suggestions for another title?

That word might be too obscure to be properly understood by our visitors.

@Ultima_Reality @DarkGrath @Starter_Pack @DontTalkDT @Agnaa

Your help would be very appreciated here.

 

[Agnaa]

Do you have any suggestions for another title?

I'd suggest

This might range from lower-dimensional characters existing on less than three spatial axes, where that lower-dimensionality renders them far weaker than three-dimensional characters, to characters who inhabit qualitatively inferior levels of existence.

That word might be too obscure to be properly understood by our visitors.

I'm not too worried about that. Beyond us choosing obscure words, we've sometimes simply invented words for our ratings. So from that lens, I see it as better than terms like "outerversal'.

Especially since I don't have any good leads on better terms.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Would "Insubstantial" be a good name?

 

[DarkGrath]

Would "Insubstantial" be a good name?

I prefer "inutile" - "insubstantial" implies one thing can still affect another, just to an inconsequential extent, which doesn't seem apt here - but I'm not really fussed about the exact term used. I'd rather it was an agreeable term we can reach efficiently rather than a hypothetically perfect term, so if others like 'insubstantial', I wouldn't contest it.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I prefer "inutile" - "insubstantial" implies one thing can still affect another, just to an inconsequential extent, which doesn't seem apt here - but I'm not really fussed about the exact term used. I'd rather it was an agreeable term we can reach efficiently rather than a hypothetically perfect term, so if others like 'insubstantial', I wouldn't contest it.

There are multiple ways one can interpret the term, of which one obvious one is that it just can't affect you at all, or that it doesn't have "substance" in the standard plane of reality. If you want to argue that it could be interpreted as something like what you say, which I don't agree is even the more intuitive way to see it, I could just as easily say the same about any number of other terms we use that could be "misleading" in this way. I really don't like "inutile" because it's so obscure that even people who study English for a living will tend not to know it.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

For reference, here's a visual depiction of how common the words we've been discussing are:

Google Books Ngram Viewer

Google Ngrams: infinitesimal, insubstantial, inutile, 1800-2022

books.google.com

 

[DarkGrath]

There are multiple ways one can interpret the term, of which one obvious one is that it just can't affect you at all, or that it doesn't have "substance" in the standard plane of reality. If you want to argue that it could be interpreted as something like what you say, which I don't agree is even the more intuitive way to see it, I could just as easily say the same about any number of other terms we use that could be "misleading" in this way. I really don't like "inutile" because it's so obscure that even people who study English for a living will tend not to know it.

Mhm, I see your point.

To illustrate what I was saying more clearly - "insubstantial", broken down into its components, just means "without substance". In regular conversation, when hearing something along the lines of "this affected this thing to an insubstantial extent", I still get the impression that it was affected - just that the result wasn't anything notable.

Comparatively, "inutile" in the same vein just means "without utility". When something along the lines of "this thing was inutile for this purpose" is said, I imagine something that lacks the utility for that purpose, and thus isn't capable of doing it in the first place. My opinion is that fits this broad notion of "being unable to lift something due to the nature of your existence not having the qualities needed to lift it" better.

You can say otherwise - I'm not the authority on the English language - this is just how I read these terms.

 

[Flashlight237]

I personally think we could simply go with "Lower-Dimensional" for Tier 11 LS. I mean, come on, it's straight and to the point; why complicate it with other terminology?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I personally think we could simply go with "Lower-Dimensional" for Tier 11 LS. I mean, come on, it's straight and to the point; why complicate it with other terminology?

The wording sticks out compared to the other terms, and we also need it to cover qualitatively inferior beings.