That's definitively untrue.
I see no reason to re-publish an inaccurate tally, but regardless, I didn't invalidate the votes or claim they didn't count, so its irrelevant to the topic of invalidating votes.
No, you're just trying to invalidate several admin votes on a basis that is not established anywhere in our policies.
This is probably a relevant summary of information here. I find that those factors are probably enough to pit a chunk of the current vote tally under further scrutiny.
Nope, been there, seen it happen in majority of the CRTs I've lurked in or participated in.
Like Planck said, you're the last person to be able to say that after what happened in the DC thread, so I'd suggest not bringing this up to begin with and focus on the OP on that front.
If I did I'd just say it outright. I'm just telling you to not be so hasty and pay better attention to exactly what you're voting for.
People play fast and loose with the rules all the time. Seeing it happen isn't proof of concept that it's some sort of unwritten standard. It certainly doesn't justify delaying this revision that you personally have seen it happen.
And like I said, what I did on the DC thread has nothing in common with the vote situation here or the discussion we're having, because I never suggested or implied that certain votes should be discarded on any basis. I stand by my decision to not repost an inaccurate tally from a non-staff member on a Staff Discussion thread. Moreover, I did not bring it up in the first place, Planck did. All I did was point out that what I did was not invalidating the previous staff votes in any way.
I feel DDM's statements here are more clear:
That is true, but he also said: 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.
All those CRTs weren't playing fast or loose. They spanned multiple pages at a time with multiple back-and-forths until a summary ultimatum was finally reached, which it was for majority of those revisions.
Sure, still doesn't stop the decision from being a wrong one to take however. Also, one final point, you didn't just remove non-staff tallies, you also removed staff tallies from Glass himself who went through all of those feats to give his vote.
Deagon, what did I say about removing vote tallies being the same as invalidating them?
Mind linking this comment? Was it before or after the comment Ultima made?
This is a total non-sequitur to what I just said.
I really couldn't care less if you think it's the wrong decision, I was merely establishing that what I did has no relevance to the concept of discarding votes as advocated for in this thread. Also, the "tally" was written by a non-staff member, not Glassman. "Tallies" does not mean votes, there was one tally, singular. I did not include the tally that Lord_Farquaad wrote because it was inaccurate, I never said anyones votes didn't count.
If your argument is that "Not including Lord_Farquaad's vote tally in the OP of the thread is the same as saying you don't think any of those votes count anymore" then I'd say that's fairly ridiculous, because as I've repeatedly established: I do not think any of those votes should be discarded, I just didn't include Lord_Farquaad's list of votes due to the inaccuracies I saw in it.
Genuinely didn't catch that. I guess the Find in page function failed me after all.
That was a response to me inquiring on why, exactly, "one higher infinity/dimensional jump higher" was a minimum viable lowball, to which he founded his response on Agnaa's.
Not exactly, because there was pretty extensive back and forth even before those votes. Three of the admin votes for the revision are on this very page.
I mean, I think this portion is effective:
I understand, but respectfully, even in the discussions that you and I have had on these subjects, it's rarely the case that my explanation for why I see something another way is perceived as satisfactory. Which, I get it, that's a big part of why we have this core disagreement, because I also can't really relate to/wrap my head around your approach to things, so it's not easy to parse out our differences in a way that "makes sense" to the other party. But I'm of the same inclination, that "one higher infinity" is the minimum viable application of such a statement, and is thus preferable in the absence of further information. And to the points being made above about staff votes, the fact that AKM sees it that way is valid and counts as a vote, and given how rarely AKM has time to participate in threads, (his last post on the wiki being May 2nd), the approach of saying his vote doesn't count until he fully hashes this out with you is kinda crazy to me.
Not without permission from an admin you can't.
Well, I'm note entirely the best judge of the policy, and of course throwaway statements are a thing. I generally want to avoid using verse specific examples, but I have seen some people repeatedly use the "Dimension above the concept of time and space" or "Can devourer and infinite number of dimensions" that are being used to describe the same Interdimensional Void to try to upgrade a verse to 1-A. When there isn't evidence that the term "Dimension" means the same thing in those respective sentences, with the former statement at best sounding like a single plane of higher infinity and would sound like a Low 1-C statement at best. I think Glassman might actually know what verse I'm talking about. But I do agree that often times such simple statements might not want to get too jumpy for the absolute highest end interpretations.
I don't see any reference to the dimensions being of spatio-temporal nature like Ultima has demanded here tho. Ultima explicitly demanded that there be references to such.
If staff members do not engage in rational and evidence-based discussion by not responding to new evidence and arguments presented, it may be reasonable to question the validity of their votes. This is not only a matter of "it is not in site standards" but also common sense in making informed decisions.
What we recognize is that BDE Type 2 exists, we don't recognize that it is High 1-A and never did. I'm not sure where you take that from. All BDE Type 2 currently is, is that you are non-spatial in nature and are transcendent of dimensions within the scale of your verse.
And they get pretty ridiculous if you don't. Are you saying a set of all sets in fiction could transcend into reality? Obviously not. Then by the argument you just presented R>F transcendence should be TIer 0.
If you say that a non-dimensional space that is tiered by comparing to dimensions wouldn't really be superior, then you are contradicting yourself in that the High 1-A tier is also the result of comparing it to dimensions. I indeed do not tier the non-dimensional properties of any void, because those are just not tierable. The only thing we can tier is the relative relationship in "size", i.e. power needed to destroy them, when compared to dimensional spaces. If the spaces weren't tiered like that you would have no guarantee that those who destroy them are superior in power to dimensional characters. Only by asserting that they are "larger" (need more power to destroy) than some dimensional reference space you can do so.
Actually, no. I don't really say anything about cartesian products. Real number vector spaces are frequently only uniquely defined up to isomorphisms. And for the sake of my argument I also could just remove the 5-tuple. It's not really required to be there.
The specific formulation as I included in my layout was:
Being above height itself however isn't being above area. And being above area isn't being above volume. So, no, there is no reason being above the notion of length requires to being larger than 2-D space. Measures (i.e. quantifications of size) are usually defined completely separately for each dimension. It requires quite some mathematical work to get to the point where you can compare them and then that comparison indicates nothing about something beyond the notion of 1D being larger than 2D. So yeah, you can have a notion of dimensional size separately of 1 dimensional size in particular.
Yeah, no. The idea that in the abstract a verse can't have a limit on its dimensions is incredibly speculative. It's just as bad of an assumption as that a character that is above anything humanity can imagine should be Tier 0, because naturally that would include abstract stuff like the class of sets.
Quite the opposite. Occam's razor says to take the least amount of assumptions. Interpreting dimensionality to mean what the verse has shown in the scope of dimensions requires 0 assumptions. Assuming that it means stuff not actually mentions requires to assume extrapolation holds, which is at least 1 assumption.
Dimensional spaces are not just directions. That's a false equivalence. Left and right, might be just up and down but rotated differently (given, that one can rotate it is an assumption in itself. Regularly you can't just rotate something into higher D directions). However, those are all 1D objects. An n-dimensional space can't be rotated into an n+1 dimensional space. The size of a n-dimensional space is larger than the the of the unification of the n 1D axis that span it. Being able to transcend a number of 1D axis literally just lands you in Tier 11. So if that's what your "above dimensions" means you don't even get anywhere. Only transcending all n-dimensional spaces (for all n) gets you anywhere and those can't be equalized to each other in any way.
That is quite a cop-out.
...As are the dimensions of verses that don't mention anything about infinite dimensions? Like, it's weird how you acknowledge that verses can have limits to dimensionality which aren't High 1-A, yet you argue for the suggestion of extrapolating them to High 1-A without explicit evidence that those realms of scale are even considered in the verse.
Agree with Ultima: @Lonkitt
You conflate dimensions with dimensionality. You know the difference I presume?
I suppose you didn't quite unterstand my analogy. I never claimed you can turn a n dimensional space into a n+1 dimensional space. I said there is no intrinsic difference between dimensions in a dimensional structure.
Ok, yeah, you didn't get it at all. I am not talking about the transcendence of a 1-D structure here.
We don't. Please tell me you actually know what the premise of this whole debate is.
No it's not because you didn't understand the premise. That's a horrible example.
I literally said I don't care, but sure, let me give you a hypothetical. Who begs shall receive:
I haven't and it isn't. You just suddenly decided to make it the point, severely derailing the thread over and over again. Ultima told you to get back on point a multitude of times, yet you just kept going. Your lack of imagination for such a feat is no argument.
I literally start off saying "I will not debate the tiering of this." This honestly feels like you are debating in bad faith, portraying your opponents in a bad light.
The difference is the nature of dimensions (mainly in regards to their size). I thought I made that pretty clear. If a vere's dimension doesn't fit our standards, we obviously wouldn't tier them as such. Did you actually think Id be advocating for that?
Due to the separation argument thing? I wish anyone would be able to tell me what that was based on. Like, I asked frequently in the thread why that was and I start to get the impression that nobody even knows the details anymore.
No, this is about the question why we would put it at 1-A, instead of Low 1-A. Like, the main difference between Agnaa's and my view. Not the whole extrapolation beyond anything mentioned issue with Ultima.
No, I have? It was pretty much exactly the same stuff Ultima said and which I already answered regarding his replies. Like, the "all dimensions are the same" thing? 1:1 a point Ultima made.
Eh, debatable. The fundamental issue regarding extrapolation isn't all that complex.
That sounds like a fairly simple thing to demonstrate. In fact, it can be inferred about as soon as higher dimensions become a topic of conversation. Dimensions, after all, are fundamentally a mathematical concept, and if higher dimensions are mentioned in a sense, then it is natural that the dimensions included in the mathematics of the verse extend to all finite numbers. I don't find much of a reason to assume that it stops at, say, R^6, when the factors that allow you to construct R^6 also allows you to extend the number of dimensions arbitrarily far (Covering all values of n, at least). So if a verse states something is "beyond the idea of dimensions" (Provided it refers to the general notion and not just to, say, a specific person's conception) or "beyond dimensionality" (The quality of having X is not the same as X), I don't see why that wouldn't be Low 1-A even under your stricter view.
Yeah, I never said that criteria was particularly hard to achieve? The point of that was to clear the criteria of "the stuff we put the character above is actually mentioned in the verse". If the verse makes a dimensional argument it will often be the case that it naturally mentions higher dimensions of finite number. Same criteria for infinite and cardinal many dimensions is more rarely fulfilled, though.
The factors allow you to cover finite dimensions, yeah. Hence in that realm I'm fine, assuming the other criteria (purely theoretical dimensions are explicitely included + proper qualitative superiority) are given as well.
If it's meant in a mathematical sense of dimensions (as in, theoretical dimensions are included so that possible limits of physics or supernatural power and stuff play no role) then I can agree with that. Like, that's what the compromise with Agnaa was all about. So as long as you keep it to Low 1-A instead of High 1-A, we are mostly in agreement on that.
What is "such feats" here? Because, as said, for strictly mathematical stuff where higher dimensions were considered and qualitative superiority is given, I'm willing to go to Low 1-A, not just +1. But that doesn't extend to infinite dimensional and cardinal stuff without it being mentioned.
I feel like that already fails at the matter of qualitative superiority. Like, this seems to detail a beyond dimensional existence, but I see no evidence of infinite superiority above even the three dimensional universe, much less a multiverse or even bigger constructs.
