Low 1-A Wiki Wide Tiering Revision, Beyond Dimensions.

[Ultima_Reality]

In any case, I'll respond to the new stuff in a bit, but I hope I've made my point clearer here? Seems like people were under the impression that I would accept way, way, way more cases than I actually do, which is a bit of a jump to conclusions in my view.

 

[Theglassman12]

So what’s the arguments being made here? It’s kind of hard to follow tbh.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

So what’s the arguments being made here? It’s kind of hard to follow tbh.

From what I gather most of the previous points are only half as long as they are due to some communication issues, so, I suppose that's to be expected. I suppose that means I should make my next answer to DT as short as simple as possible, and hopefully the exchange that follows will consist of equally short posts.

In the meantime I think someone else who's been following can do a summary of the discussion. If either me or DT (If he doesn't decide to write the summary himself that is) have our arguments misrepresented, we can interject.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

So what’s the arguments being made here? It’s kind of hard to follow tbh.

DT argue that the standard for beyond dimensions is Low 1-A and Ultima argue it is High 1-A.

 

[Theglassman12]

Like beyond dimensions as a general statement or literally anything and everything that has to do with beyond dimensions like beyond the concept of dimensions or definitions of space and time?

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Like beyond dimensions as a general statement or literally anything and everything that has to do with beyond dimensions like beyond the concept of dimensions or definitions of space and time?

Both.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Like beyond dimensions as a general statement or literally anything and everything that has to do with beyond dimensions like beyond the concept of dimensions or definitions of space and time?

In general, the debate is far we extrapolate being "beyond dimensions", "beyond possible dimensions" etc. and which tiers we give for such statements.

To make it as short as physically possible (and hence losing lots of nuances):

Ultima seems to be of the opinion that you can extrapolate to characters being High 1-A without the story mentioning cardinals or infinite levels of infinity or anything like that, just based on the character being "superior to dimensionality in nature".

My approach on the other hand is more conservative. I generally don't think such statements should be used to scale the verse more than 1 level of infinity higher than the largest structure mentioned in the verse (either mentioned to exist or mentioned to at least be possible to exist, depending on which statement is made). There are two exceptions to that.
The first exception is very niche statements that clearly explain some inference rule. E.g. if a verse states "we can at any point add one more dimensions" then probably any finite amount are possible and hence we can rank a character transcending all of them as Low 1-A.
The second is that if the statement is something like "above all dimensions in mathematics" and the fiction mentioned mathematical higher dimensions, then I am willing to extrapolate higher, but just up to Low 1-A (i.e. baseline above any number of finite dimensions) unless infinite dimensions are explicitly mentioned.

Probably summarized my ideas in way more detail than Ultima's but... yeah. I think the fundamental conflict is clear at least.

 

[Theglassman12]

So what about a realm that transcends everything a particular verse encompasses and they mention even the very definition of dimensions or the definition of space and time is transcended as a whole would that still be Low 1-A or 1-A?

 

[DontTalkDT]

So what about a realm that transcends everything a particular verse encompasses and they mention even the very definition of dimensions or the definition of space and time is transcended as a whole would that still be Low 1-A or 1-A?

Let me say that neither me nor Ultima argue in favor of 1-A. I'm for Low 1-A, Ultima for High 1-A. Agnaa did argue for 1-A, though, so I guess the option is technically on the table. (Note, all of those have asterisk attached and don't necessarily apply to the particular case you ask about)

In any case, IMO it depends on what the "definition of dimensions" is in the verse. What do we know is encompassed in that? I believe it stands to reason that a verse that explains no details regarding that and that only demonstrated 11 dimensions would get a lesser rating than, say, a verse that explains the dimensions in a very detailed mathematical way and has shown to have infinite of them already.

 

[Agnaa]

"The levels of the Tiering System aren't necessarily dimensional. They can also simply be things that are equivalent to dimensional jumps, but not the same thing as them." (Fails to explain what makes those other things be equivalent to dimensional jumps in the first place)

As I've already repeatedly said, it's an arbitrary equivalence, and we could make any amount of other arbitrary equivalences. We could say that they're smaller than dimensional jumps, or that they're far larger than dimensional jumps, and still have a similarly coherent system.

The fourth point of contention, in particular, eventually boiled down to me asking "Why exactly is a jump of one dimension sufficient to describe the scope of a character who is superior to dimensions?" (And so did the whole thing with the "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" shtick), which in turn leads to the third point. So, as I see it, that right there is the real crux of the whole debate. Rushing to votes is just avoiding any actual addressing of it.

Because "superior to dimensions" doesn't tell us how many, so we lowball to the amount that exists plus the smallest noticeable increase in power at that level in our system.

The whole "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" thing is because you interpret some statements as meaning that "superior to dimensions" = "superior to all dimensions", while we don't. If you think you're not actually stricter on this than the others are (as you say in one of your latest posts), then why is this something you ever disagreed with me about? I said what I thought it would be tiered in the cases where I took such statements seriously, and so has DT, yet you've also responded to our willingness to give out those sorts of tiers.

We've already gone over these a bunch, such as here. They are not unaddressed.

 

[AKM sama]

What it doesn't address, however, is why exactly the interpretation being proposed here (That "beyond dimensions" can be satisfied just by equating that to being one dimension higher) is a feasible one at all.

We lowball by default unless sufficient evidence/backing is present to go any higher. Especially in these cases we need to be more strict. Agnaa has answered this above satisfactorily. We shouldn't make higher assumptions/interpretations than the minimum viable one.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

We lowball by default unless sufficient evidence/backing is present to go any higher. Especially in these cases we need to be more strict. Agnaa has answered this above satisfactorily. We shouldn't make higher assumptions/interpretations than the minimum viable one.

Stopping here for a second to respond to this, but Agnaa's point, to my understanding, is that "above dimensions" doesn't necessarily imply you're above a dimension to such a degree that you're fundamentally above what a dimension is.

Like, it's what I've said up there: We, as 3-dimensional beings, are of course infinitely larger than a hypothetical 1-D being who has only height and nothing else. But that doesn't make us above the dimension of height entirely: We still have height. So we're larger than things that have only those dimensions, but we don't exactly exceed the dimensions themselves. Agnaa's viewpoint seems to be that he doesn't think "beyond dimensions" even if taken literally necessarily implies such a relationship, while I do.

(I might be missing the mark here, though, since this is based on a conversation I had with him in private. If I misunderstood something, he can and should correct me)

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

Well, it seems like we will likely end up with @DontTalkDT's suggestions after a bit of further discussion.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Gotta say I apologize for my sizeable absence, by the by. Like I mentioned somewhere else, I'm fairly busy in weekdays, especially as of late. I'll probably be free to continue this by the weekend.

 

[Antvasima]

No problem.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, it seems like we will likely end up with @DontTalkDT's suggestions after a bit of further discussion.

Since @DontTalkDT has sufficient staff support to apply these revisions, and nothing else is happening here, I think that he can go ahead and do so now.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Now, in my defense, I wrote this yesterday. Though I fell asleep.

Which brings us to the second problem. You are posing a very specific view of what "being above the dimensions" is supposed to mean and assume all fiction will abide by the definition you just made up, no evidence required. You can't just assume everyone thinks like you in such specific matters. Without evidence that a fiction takes that philosophical viewpoint, you can't just use it even if you think it's correct. Because fiction plays by its own rules. All we can do is to go by the parts of the rules it bothers to tell us about and otherwise default to low-ends.

I'm bringing up the specific view that our Tiering System recognizes, this being the ability called Beyond-Dimensional Existence Type 2 (Being above spatial properties entirely), so, dunno what your issue is, since it's a definition we already all agreed to, I hope? I never said that no evidence would be required for us to conclude that a verse is abiding by the notion I'm speaking of. I'm talking about cases where we are already sure the verse is abiding by that notion.

We are, fundamentally, only comparing one thing: Power. And all characters have to have something that corresponds to power and is comparable to power in other verses. Otherwise, they could be untierable. That as well I have explained already.

So, first, I'm not comparing the size of a non-dimensional realm to a dimensional one. I am comparing the power needed to destroy a non-dimensional realm to the power needed to destroy a dimensional one.

I made the analogy of a void that could house a 3D realm before and said that destroying it could then be considered equivalent to 3D destruction or, more abstractly, that its "size" is equivalent to that of 3D space. To go more into detail on that: The reason I would accept it being 3D is that if you can destroy the void as a whole then you should reasonably be capable of doing the same when it has the 3D space inside, so you have to have at least as much power as needed to destroy the 3D space. If not for that, destroying the dimensionless void would be untierable. Note that I do not mean to say the void has a 3D size in a literal mathematical sense, this is only an analogy I use to describe how it would be treated for feats that involve the void, such as destruction.

That is one example of how I can talk about dimensionless things having tiering differences that can be equalized to those of dimensions. A void that can hold a 4D space inside has a better feat than the one that can hold only 3D space in it. When evaluating feats of destroying them, we would rank the former as the same power as destroying a 4D space and the latter as the same power as destroying 3D space, a relative power difference equivalent to that of destroying space 1 dimension higher. Two non-dimensional things, but the power differences involved can be the same.

I am aware you are going by some notion of "power," yes, but ultimately gauging what power it takes to significantly affect and destroy something is going to be tied into making an equivalence between the "size" of what's being affected and some given n-dimensional space, so, I think that distinction is one without a difference, as said prior. So, by that point, we're just saying "Those things are equivalent because we say they are equivalent." If you try to apply any actual reasoning to it, you see that the argument itself is a false equivalence: Making a equivalence between two things due to a property they both share (Superiority over some scope of existence. Both 4-D space and a conceptless void house 3-D space, so they're equivalent)

Frankly, I'd be fine with saying destroying a dimensionless void that's not superior to dimensions, but different in nature from them, would be untierable, for the reasons above. When you say "We tier it this way because if you can destroy a conceptless void capable of housing a 3-D space then you can destroy the 3-D space as well," you're not really tiering the non-dimensional properties of the void, just the fact that it can house a 3-D space, and this would in turn just loop back into my point: That, if this void isn't really superior to dimensions, then it is irrelevant to the conversation at hand, and that if it is and you're equating it to 4-D space solely from the fact they are both superior to a 3-D space, then that's fallacious logic.

Your argument seems to boil down to "Fiction can have different kinds of transcendence that aren't necessarily dimensional in nature, so being beyond dimensions doesn't inherently mean you jump infinite tiers," but I think that's also a weird argument that gets amended fairly straightforwardly once you apply Occam's Razor: Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. Which is to say that, if a verse never mentions or alludes to other equivalent methods of transcendence, we generally speaking would have to assume that dimensional.jumps are the only available avenue. Else we are effectively just assuming the cosmology allows for paradoxes without good reason, which to me is a no-no.

We acknowledge that, contrary to the difference between dimensional space, a R>F difference is not one of quantity, but of quality. As even infinity in fiction can not harm reality, we default to R>F being a power difference equal to the relative gap between an n-dimensional space and an n+1 dimensional space

Yeah, and I'd say that's pretty untenable. As Agnaa pointed out, those things can get pretty arbitrary, but as soon we make an equivalence between these things, we are giving in to other implications of equality. For instance, as far as we are concerned, if you are in Layer A, transcending Layer B as fiction, putting together uncountably infinite things in Layer B is going to have something there transcend into Layer A (If we didn't treat it like that it would entail the difference between layers being greater than a dimensional jump). These implications get pretty bad when we're equating dimensional things to non-dimensional things.

Say, I can define a collection of sets which contains R^4 as subset in addition to several smaller sets and on which you can't define a metric, topology or dimensions at all. The set would then be larger than R^4 by the same reasoning the universe of sets is bigger than dimensions, yet it could only consist of several subsets of R^5 and hence be smaller, all while not carrying any spatial structures. E.g. a character that is {R^4, {}, R^2, (1,1,4,5,7), [1,4]^4 x {2,1}}.

Not if you're taking the standard constructions in math into account, no. Like, if you can get R^5 to begin with, then implicitly you're saying cartesian products up to that point are already a thing, and by then nothing really stops you from going arbitarily far with this, so it doesn't really carry the same weight as something that exceeds dimensions, in my view.

The example itself is especially weird because that set is... just a collection, it has no structure to speak of. So what you're describing wouldn't be equivalent to some transcendent space containing R^4, R^2, and other things (Or even a collection of things so big that it forms one). It'd be just those very spaces you mention, and nothing else (In other words it'd be like considering only 4-dimensional space and 2-dimensional space and absolutely nothing else). And it wouldn't be larger than the spaces it consists of, either: Saying that would be like saying that a set of 3 apples has more volume than a single apple (Not talking about the added sizes of the apples. Just the set of apples itself)

What the part in brackets is concerned: As I said in prior parts of the debate, several things beyond knowledge can be factors why not more dimensions exist. Additionally, even for someone with knowledge it can mean something different. A physicist might speak within the range of the theories they find relevant, for instance. It's one of the more reasonable extrapolations, which is why I consider allowing it under the conditions I laid out in my summary of the proposal, but it's not like no exceptions can exist.

You did say that stuff like "Beyond all dimensions is mathematics" would be something you're willing to extrapolate up to Low 1-A, yeah. But I find that quite bizarre when you say that stuff like "transcends the definition of dimensions" would also be equivalent to a dimensional jump above the rest of what physically exists in the verse. Presumably the same would apply to stuff like "Beyond the quality of having dimensions" or "Beyond the idea of dimensions." If you're making such all-inclusive statements, then you're inherently also including dimensions that exist only in the abstract, too (Supposing the statement can be taken literally that is). It's not like further dimensions not physically existing makes them outside the definition of dimensions or anything.

I believe I have in this and earlier posts laid out in great detail what I understand to qualify as minimal fundamental superiority.

The problem with your argument is twofold.

First, transcending 6 1D axis separately isn't a 6D feat. Just as transcending 0D points isn't a feat of being above every space assembled of such.

Being uncountably infinitely larger than 6 1D axes separately doesn't mean you're above their multiplication, no, just like being larger than 1-D space doesn't mean you are larger than 2-D space, but being above the very notion of "length" certainly does. It's as I said before: We are infinitely larger than something that has only height, but we are not above the quality of height itself by any means.

What you are claiming by saying that all dimensions are the same and it hence makes no difference is in essence that no verse can have a limit on the number of possible dimensions in it, which is nonsense for already explained reasons.

Physically, it may have a limit, yes, but in the abstract, not really. And I'd say a fair few kind of statements would lead to you transcending purely theoretical dimensions by nature (And this ties into the previous point about verses where mathematical structures are what define reality, not solely physics)

 

[Ultima_Reality]

To be perfectly honest I feel this one is adequately addressed by other points I made, but, for the sake of making things extra clear...

To expand further on a few things: You can have power in an equivalent amount to that needed for some dimensional feat without said power in itself being dimensional. That's again the whole composite hierarchy thing. The moment we talk about BDE characters we straight up start ignoring the idea that "power" is dimensional, as otherwise those characters should just have no power at all.

Of course, but just because we accept that non-dimensional power is a thing, doesn't mean it can be equated to power that is dimensional in nature. My argument never involved claiming that all power has to do with dimensions, as is, just that, if your power is above dimensions (In the sense I mean), it can't be equated to a higher-dimensional amount of power. This in turn just links back to the false equivalence I pointed out earlier.

(And of course, as said, if we go by the "This thing is just different in nature from dimensions, but not superior to any dimensional space," then I'm absolutely fine with rating feats of affecting things like that as unquantifiable. If the verse has stuff that's different from dimensions but somehow equatable to them, that's fine, but assuming those other avenues for reaching greater sizes exist by default, just because the Tiering System does, is not)

 

[KLOL506]

Since @DontTalkDT has sufficient staff support to apply these revisions, and nothing else is happening here, I think that he can go ahead and do so now.

Let's not be so hasty. Ultima has provided arguments. We should wait for what DT and the others have to say about it.

Until it comes to a point where both sides agree to disagree, we must analyze their arguments and when both proceed to argue no further, then we left the staff vote once more (As tedious as it sounds, it's the best option we have). No more explaining beyond that point.

 

[Deagonx]

Until it comes to a point where both sides agree to disagree, we must analyze their arguments and when both proceed to argue no further

That's completely unfeasible, as it is entirely possible for such an argument to continue literally forever. No matter what, one side is going to have the "last word" on a specific issue. We don't handle any other discussions this way and I don't see why we would start now. There's also no reason to restart the vote or wipe clean the current votes, as anyone who voted for or against it has been capable of chiming in if they reversed their vote throughout the course of the discussion.

Ant certainly isn't being hasty. This thread has been open for a month and the discussion has already been extremely thorough.

 

[KLOL506]

That's completely unfeasible, as it is entirely possible for such an argument to continue literally forever. No matter what, one side is going to have the "last word" on a specific issue. We don't handle any other discussions this way and I don't see why we would start now. There's also no reason to restart the vote or wipe clean the current votes, as anyone who voted for or against it has been capable of chiming in if they reversed their vote throughout the course of the discussion.

Given how controversial and big Tier 1 as a whole is, I really don't see the need, given that staff are already disinterested in the tier itself and there's hardly a lot of people who know their shit about it. Stuff like this already takes a huge chunk of time to properly get right, so I'd rather we take this slow and steady instead of bullrushing it into something of a big-ass mess.

Ant certainly isn't being hasty. This thread has been open for a month and the discussion has already been extremely thorough.

Tier 1 revisions last a lot longer than that for good reason.

 

[Deagonx]

Given how controversial and big Tier 1 as a whole is, I really don't see the need, given that staff are already disinterested in the tier itself and there's hardly a lot of people who know their shit about it. Stuff like this already takes a huge chunk of time to properly get right, so I'd rather we take this slow and steady instead of bullrushing it into something of a big-ass mess.

No one is bullrushing it. We have more than enough staff votes to clear the revision. I completely disagree with arbitrarily delaying it. DT, Ant, AKM, Firestorm, Qawsedf, and DDM voted in favor of it.

 

[KLOL506]

No one is bullrushing it.

IDK fam, Ultima just gave a thorough response and Ant isn't even gonna consider reading it even once before jumping to applying it.

We have more than enough staff votes to clear the revision. I completely disagree with arbitrarily delaying it. DT, Ant, AKM, Firestorm, Qawsedf, and DDM voted in favor of it.

And that gives you the right to discard Ultima's arguments completely?

 

[KLOL506]

I feel I should remind everyone some members could not properly summarize DT’s point was, but continued to vote for his stance, which calls into serious question the faith and validity of the vote all together.

If Tier 1 is such a controversial tier, that is intrinsically harder to get than everything else, then I think it should be proven that everyone actually understands what they’re agreeing with. Also, a stern reminder the DC Heralds thread was delayed for Ant’s entire vacation (which lasted weeks), despite staff and member being in favor of a majority of the additions. This thread isn’t even half the size of that one, we can definitely wait.

I am inclined to agree with this.

 

[Deagonx]

IDK fam, Ultima just gave a thorough response and Ant isn't even gonna consider reading it even once before jumping to applying it.

And DontTalk gave several thorough responses of his own. No one is "jumping to apply it." It was approved with more than twice the required number of staff votes, with all of them being admins.

And that gives you the right to discard Ultima's arguments completely?

I have no idea what you mean by "discarding" his argument, but as I've already made clear I do not agree with it. And I needn't explain what gives me the right to disagree with an argument.

I feel I should remind everyone some members could not properly summarize DT’s point was, but continued to vote for his stance, which calls into serious question the faith and validity of the vote all together.

This is frankly ridiculous and there is absolutely no policy or precedent for which Administrator votes can be invalidated based on someone's suspicion that they "do not understand what they're agreeing with."

we can definitely wait.

We can, but there's no valid reason to. The revision has been agreed upon by a convincing majority of votes.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

That's completely unfeasible, as it is entirely possible for such an argument to continue literally forever. No matter what, one side is going to have the "last word" on a specific issue. We don't handle any other discussions this way and I don't see why we would start now. There's also no reason to restart the vote or wipe clean the current votes, as anyone who voted for or against it has been capable of chiming in if they reversed their vote throughout the course of the discussion.

Ant certainly isn't being hasty. This thread has been open for a month and the discussion has already been extremely thorough.

There is a decent bit of stuff to clarify, I'd say. For instance when I pointed out that DontTalk's argument of "Beyond the idea of dimensions may not necessarily be 1-A or up because it can be restricted to the change of mathematical knowledge displayed in the verse" is responded by "N-dimensional space and n+1-dimensional space are in the same scope of mathematical knowledge, so saying that such a statement would be just one higher infinity up is still strange" his response was:

What the part in brackets is concerned: As I said in prior parts of the debate, several things beyond knowledge can be factors why not more dimensions exist. Additionally, even for someone with knowledge it can mean something different. A physicist might speak within the range of the theories they find relevant, for instance. It's one of the more reasonable extrapolations, which is why I consider allowing it under the conditions I laid out in my summary of the proposal, but it's not like no exceptions can exist.

Which is more of the same "Okay, but how do we know a statement means what you're saying it means?", which, again, is valid but irrelevant when my point is about what tier we are to get when we know a statement is to be taken literally. See the infinite energy analogy I made on my last post on the previous page. You can't exactly respond with "Okay but what if the statement isn't fully literal?" if I'm talking about a hypothetical where it is, in fact, fully literal.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Deagonx We can though, in the same vein that a lot of CRTs gets their votes invalidated because they've voted either before any refutes have been made or that they just didn't read the arguments and just say they agree via points that were debunked, if the staff doesn't really bother reading the thread and just blindly agrees, we should invalidate it.

 

[KLOL506]

And DontTalk gave several thorough responses of his own. No one is "jumping to apply it." It was approved with more than twice the required number of staff votes, with all of them being admins.

Okay? And like Milly said, both arguments should be summarized into single, easy-to-understand posts for maximum effect for agreement before anything else proceeds. That should literally be how any CRT is settled.

I have no idea what you mean by "discarding" his argument, but as I've already made clear I do not agree with it. And I needn't explain what gives me the right to disagree with an argument.

Disagreeing with an argument and discarding arguments are two different beasts. Your comment makes it sound like you do not even want to let Ultima comment any further on the topic.

This is frankly ridiculous and there is absolutely no policy or precedent for which Administrator votes can be invalidated based on someone's suspicion that they "do not understand what they're agreeing with."

This is an even more ridiculous take, staff aren't infallible. No one is. Plus, they get invalidated all the time when brand new refutes or info comes to the table. This shouldn't be any different.

We can, but there's no valid reason to. The revision has been agreed upon by a convincing majority of votes.

Really depends on how they've been agreed to.

 

[Planck69]

This is frankly ridiculous and there is absolutely no policy or precedent for which Administrator votes can be invalidated based on someone's suspicion that they "do not understand what they're agreeing with."

Deagonx, after the DC Heralds debacle you pulled with votes, you are the last person I'd expect to talk about how staff votes can't be invalidated. They can, especially when new arguments are brought to the table against the agreed upon stance.

 

[Deagonx]

in the same vein that a lot of CRTs gets their votes invalidated because they've voted either before any refutes have been made or that they just didn't read the arguments and just say they agree via points that were debunked, if the staff doesn't really bother reading the thread and just blindly agrees, we should invalidate it.

I disagree, and have even explicitly disagreed with this in the context of someone attempting to invalidate a vote of yours on an MG thread i.e. "I debunked those points and he never responded so his vote shouldn't count" as if you have to stick around arguing circularly with every MG supporter and if at any point you leave the thread with a comment of theirs unresponded to, they could claim your vote no longer counts because you "didn't address their argument" or "your points were debunked."

I don't think this is the appropriate venue to thoroughly hash out the philosophy of when or how we would invalidate staff votes, but the fact remains that there isn't an official mechanism for this, and a separate discussion would be needed to implement one. I find this line of thinking particularly disconcerting given that the agrees in question are all from experienced admins and bureaucrats.

Okay? And like Milly said, both arguments should be summarized into single, easy-to-understand posts for maximum effect for agreement before anything else proceeds. That should literally be how any CRT is settled.

There's no rule that both sides need to condense their points into a summary for a CRT to conclude, and similar to my sentiments above, this is not the place to hash out whether or not such a thing should be standard.

Your comment makes it sound like you do not even want to let Ultima comment any further on the topic.

Ultima can say as much as he would like to, the point of my comment is that there is no basis for delaying the revision.

This is an even more ridiculous take, staff aren't infallible. No one is. Plus, they get invalidated all the time when brand new refutes or info comes to the table. This shouldn't be any different.

Our system isn't based on infallibility, it's based on votes.

Deagonx, after the DC Heralds debacle you pulled with votes, you are the last person I'd expect to talk about how staff votes can't be invalidated. They can, especially when new arguments are brought to the table against the agreed upon stance.

I did not invalidate those votes, at all. I never said the votes from the previous thread didn't count anymore. I just didn't include the tally that a member had drawn up in the OP because I noticed it misattributed some of Eficiente's votes.

 

[PrinceofPein]

The whole votes street fight is derailing, this is not a medium for people to take jabs at each other.
Let us wait for DT.
Also both parties needs to stop going back and forth and just summarise their arguments and call people in to vote.

 

[KLOL506]

I disagree, and have even explicitly disagreed with this in the context of someone attempting to invalidate a vote of yours on an MG thread i.e. "I debunked those points and he never responded so his vote shouldn't count" as if you have to stick around arguing circularly with every MG supporter and if at any point you leave the thread with a comment of theirs unresponded to, they could claim your vote no longer counts because you "didn't address their argument" or "your points were debunked."

Tough shit then, if you can't defend your argument against new points then it doesn't deserve to stand. You want votes? You need to make them count, or just express your neutrality.

I don't think this is the appropriate venue to thoroughly hash out the philosophy of when or how we would invalidate staff votes, but the fact remains that there isn't an official mechanism for this, and a separate discussion would be needed to implement one. I find this line of thinking particularly disconcerting given that the agrees in question are all from experienced admins and bureaucrats.

There doesn't need to be, unless you wanna make a CRT on that.

There's no rule that both sides need to condense their points into a summary for a CRT to conclude, and similar to my sentiments above, this is not the place to hash out whether or not such a thing should be standard.

Really doesn't matter when it descends into obscurity like this

Ultima can say as much as he would like to, the point of my comment is that there is no basis for delaying the revision.

This sounds eerily disrespectful but I'll digress.

Our system isn't based on infallibility, it's based on votes.

Said votes can't afford to be infallible.

I did not invalidate those votes, at all. I never said the votes from the previous thread didn't count anymore. I just didn't include the tally that a member had drawn up in the OP because I noticed it misattributed some of Eficiente's votes.

You still removed them which is literally in the same vein as invalidating them. There is nothing left to discuss about that anymore.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Deagonx You do realize when it came to any of those MG threads I actually read and responded to their points? This isn't the same thing as a random staff member showing up to comment one time to agree on a thread despite numerous counter arguments, and never coming back to further elaborate on their points right?

 

[KLOL506]

I get that people usually don't have the patience or time to respond to every argument, but when you are a high-ranking staff member, you have to at least try to keep up to your rank's name don't you? And it's not like all of them won't be able to back-and-forth without a concession or disagreement now, would they? Some are indeed passionate enough to see their respective threads through and are willing to hash out the details or any wiggle room if necessary.

 

[KLOL506]

Anyway, that's enough back and forth. Let DT respond first.

 

[Deagonx]

Tough shit then, if you can't defend your argument against new points then it doesn't deserve to stand. You want votes? You need to make them count, or just express your neutrality.

Thats a perfectly fine opinion for you to have, but it isn't a site standard at all, so if you'd like to make it one that would be an entirely separate discussion. This is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

You still removed them which is literally in the same vein as invalidating them.

No, it isn't, I removed a non-staff member's tally because it inaccurately listed some of the votes. Provably so. I never claimed (nor would I claim) that the actual votes didn't count. This is an egregious misrepresentation of what happened and has no relevance whatsoever to this thread.

This isn't the same thing as a random staff member showing up to comment one time to agree on a thread despite numerous counter arguments, and never coming back to further elaborate on their points right?

It's kind of moot, it doesn't do us any good to compare and contrast those situations, the main fact of the matter is that none of these notions about how votes ought to work are official and this isn't an appropriate venue to hash out when staff votes should or shouldn't be counted. The staff votes here count, obviously, and can't be invalidated by the fact that more arguing occurred after their votes. That's not a thing, and if it is to be a thing, that would need a Staff Discussion thread.

Anyway, that's enough back and forth. Let DT respond first.

Okay, but we do not have to wait for his response to act on the revisions.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

The whole votes street fight is derailing, this is not a medium for people to take jabs at each other.
Let us wait for DT.
Also both parties needs to stop going back and forth and just summarise their arguments and call people in to vote.

Second this.

No one is bullrushing it. We have more than enough staff votes to clear the revision. I completely disagree with arbitrarily delaying it. DT, Ant, AKM, Firestorm, Qawsedf, and DDM voted in favor of it.

I might also add that DDM, as far as I see, was more aligned with Agnaa's proposed middle ground, which is considerably less strict than DontTalk's stance it seems ("Above dimensions statements, if taken literally, are 1-A and not High 1-A" being his position). Qawsed also disagreed on the basis of "Any above dimensions statement being High 1-A is textbook NLF," but I never claimed that any such statement would be at that level, like I clarified later on. AKM also justified his agreement with Agnaa's response up there, and... Well, about that:

Agnaa seems like he doesn't want to bother logging in to the wiki again, so, in lieu of that, he gave me permission to share a screenshot of him confirming what I said in the previous post, here. I also threw in a bit of the conversation him and I had off-site regarding the topic.

TL;DR: As said above, his stance is that, if a statement is accepted as saying a character is "beyond dimensions" in the sense that they are superior to spatial qualities as a whole (The very property of having a dimension, in other words), then labelling it at 1-A is not an issue even if the verse makes no mention of infinite-dimensional space. His issue lies more with vaguer cases where "beyond dimensions" can be interpreted as something else, since, in his view, a higher-dimensional object (And similar jumps) can also be viewed as beyond dimensions relative to a lower-dimensional one (And so in that sense you can be beyond a set of dimensions while not being fundamentally above "dimension" as a general characteristic)

While I disagree with him on that last one, I think it's more of a semantics issue than anything, since from the start I've been using "beyond dimensions" to mean "This character is above and beyond spatiotemporal qualities entirely" anyway. That aside we share some common ground on the core problem. That said, he also seems to be of the view that the disagreement between myself and DontTalk isn't as fundamental as I think it is, which... I'd like DontTalk to opinate on, frankly.

 

[KLOL506]

Thats a perfectly fine opinion for you to have, but it isn't a site standard at all, so if you'd like to make it one that would be an entirely separate discussion. This is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

It's an objective fact that if your vote doesn't have an answer for the new refutes, it would effectively get null and voided. It isn't a standard because it's just that obvious. Or do you reckon we make a rule for every such minor detail that can be settled with just common sense.

No, it isn't, I removed a non-staff member's tally because it inaccurately listed the votes. I never claimed (nor would I claim) that the actual votes didn't count. This is an egregious misrepresentation of what happened and has no relevance whatsoever to this thread.

Doesn't matter, you still removed it. Which you absolutely shouldn't have.

And while you're right it doesn't have relevance to the OP itself, it does have relevance to your whole opinion about votes and invalidation that you made here, which, as you yourself said, also irrelevant to OP. That being said, we should stop now and just wait for DT.

It's kind of moot, it doesn't do us any good to compare and contrast those situations, the main fact of the matter is that none of these notions about how votes ought to work are official and this isn't an appropriate venue to hash out when staff votes should or shouldn't be counted. The staff votes here count, obviously, and can't be invalidated by the fact that more arguing occurred after their votes.

Again, not everything is black and white like how you made it out to be here.

That's not a thing, and if it is to be a thing, that would need a Staff Discussion thread.

Doesn't have to be when it's that obvious. You're just being nitpicky for absolutely no reason.

Okay, but we do not have to wait for his response to act on the revisions.

Aight but like, that's your opinion.

Now, back to the thread and no more dilly-dallying.

 

[KLOL506]

If someone can make summaries of the three sides of Agnaa, DT and Ultima I might be able to make a vote (May or may not count because I'm not a mod but eh. Doesn't hurt to try). No promises tho.