On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System

[Ultima_Reality]

I wouldn't really characterize that as a semantics issue. There is a big difference between "We are making our standards more strict" and "Our standards are remaining the same, but will finally be enforced with the appropriate level of scrutiny."

If it is the former, then we need to clarify what standarpds are being added. Reality-Fiction Transcendence isn't unique in that regard, a lot of our standards get ignored or misapplied. That's what the revision process is essentially all about.

There are two levels to this: The practical level, and the theoretical level. Firestorm asked a question that, fundamentally, is very practical: "Will we be stricter on what qualifies as R>F, should this revision be accepted?" The answer to that is, of course, "Yes. Way more." And in what ways is outlined in what I quoted up there (I mean, Bugs Bunny isn't gonna be 1-A, and neither is Mxyzptlk. That much should give you a good idea of what's being weeded out)

So, overall, I do indeed see no point in being so manic about whether or not this constitutes a "standard" change (Make no mistake: I would say it does), especially now. And if clarity is what's needed, I already summarized the basic requirements for R>F (Or, ontological superiorities, more generally) up there.

 

[Deagonx]

There are two levels to this: The practical level, and the theoretical level. Firestorm asked a question that, fundamentally, is very practical: "Will we be stricter on what qualifies as R>F, should this revision be accepted?" The answer to that is, of course, "Yes. Way more." And in what ways is outlined in what I quoted up there (I mean, Bugs Bunny isn't gonna be 1-A, and neither is Mxyzptlk. That much should give you a good idea of what's being weeded out)

If our standards already encompass the same things that you are proposing then all we can really say on a practical level is that we will encourage staff members to pay closer attention to the standards, which feels like something of a shallow response to the matter at hand and certainly doesn't constitute a change in our standards. I would love for there to be increased scrutiny across the board with how and when we are handing out high tiers based on what our standards actually say, but you saying that people should do that from now on and people actually doing that from now on are very different matters and we should be clear about which one we are saying in response to a staff member asking "are our standards getting stricter?"

So, overall, I do indeed see no point in being so manic about whether or not this constitutes a "standard" change (Make no mistake: I would say it does), especially now. And if clarity is what's needed, I already summarized the basic requirements for R>F (Or, ontological superiorities, more generally) up there.

Where does your proposal diverge from the existing Reality-Fiction Transcendence page? You're saying the standards are changing, so you must have some idea of what is being changed within it?

 

[Agnaa]

After some talk on Discord, I think I can cogently present the sort of tension Deagon's getting at.

If we already have standards on that level (which we largely seem to), it seems like the issue isn't about getting the correct written standards, but about having those standards applied properly by evaluating staff. And solving that problem requires a different approach.

We could hope that this would resolve itself naturally. That the jump to 1-A would make staff pay more careful attention. That the large tiering system change would cause staff to sincerely throw out their old preconceptions of what qualifies. That staff members would naturally fall in line with the precedent Ultima sets during upcoming revisions.

But if we don't believe that'll resolve naturally, we may need to take more extreme measures, like limiting the scope of who can agree to 1-A from R>F, or giving certain users veto rights in this regard, even if those measures are temporary.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

After some talk on Discord, I think I can cogently present the sort of tension Deagon's getting at.

If we already have standards on that level (which we largely seem to), it seems like the issue isn't about getting the correct written standards, but about having those standards applied properly by evaluating staff. And solving that problem requires a different approach.

We could hope that this would resolve itself naturally. That the jump to 1-A would make staff pay more careful attention. That the large tiering change would cause staff to sincerely throw out their preconceptions of what qualifies. That staff members would naturally fall in line with the precedent Ultima sets during upcoming revisions.

But if we don't believe that'll resolve naturally, we may have to take more extreme measures, like limiting the scope of who can agree to 1-A from R>F, or giving certain users veto rights in this regard, even if those measures are temporary.

After the discussion in question (To which I stood largely as an observer due to a malfunctioning device, but I digress), I came to a better appreciation of the point being raised, as well. I'm, of course, fine with the framing that "We're not introducing anything new to to the system, only reevaluating what's alreeady there." And that's in fact a position that I pretty staunchly advocated for, in earlier parts of the thread. Largely, my diggings just led me to establish a divise between the "formal" standards and the "practical" standards, the latter of which are what 90% of people have in mind when they think of "R>F."

All-in-all, my point is simply that people entering this thread should thrown down their preconceptions of what exactly R>F Transcendence is, since it's most likely not really very close to what the concept should be (And which I am arguing for, in here), and likewise nowhere near as strict.

 

[Executor_N0]

Since I was pinged to reply here, I would say that the Wiki has more to gain from this revision than not and so I'm in favor of it even after all the discussions around it, of course, getting it accepted here is just the first step and more will be decided after that. (I don't think this would go to the voting because I'm just a Calc Group member, but since I was pinged here, I'll give this opinion just in case.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Since I was pinged to reply here, I would say that the Wiki has more to gain from this revision than not and so I'm in favor of it even after all the discussions around it, of course, getting it accepted here is just the first step and more will be decided after that. (I don't think this would go to the voting because I'm just a Calc Group member, but since I was pinged here, I'll give this opinion just in case.

Noted. Tally:

• Agree: Antvasima, DarkDragonMedeus, DarkGrath, Ultima_Reality (thread starter), Everything12, Elizhaa, Maverick_Zero_X, Firestorm808, Sir_Ovens, Celestial_Pegasus, Agnaa, Planck69, CrimsonStarFallen, Theglassman12, IdiosyncraticLawyer, CloverDragon03, Executor_N0, KLOL506
• Disagree: DontTalkDT, Qawsedf234, Deagonx
• Neutral:

 

[CrimsonStarFallen]

I would agree with Ultima's points as long as we make sure to apply the strictness that's been discussed here. A lot of fictional series, and even in real life really, people equate the jump between higher dimensions to a fictional difference, and people are very ready to accept it as such. I would rather not have a wave of people managing to get characters to 1-A from this, or bogging down the staff more.

(although, side note, I'd also really, really rather not give more people the ability to veto entire threads)

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I would agree with Ultima's points as long as we make sure to apply the strictness that's been discussed here. A lot of fictional series, and even in real life really, people equate the jump between higher dimensions to a fictional difference, and people are very ready to accept it as such. I would rather not have a wave of people managing to get characters to 1-A from this, or bogging down the staff more.

(although, side note, I'd also really, really rather not give more people the ability to veto entire threads)

Counted.

 

[KLOL506]

I HATE YOU ULTIMA

Anyway, after having read the summaries against my will, please save me, he has held me as hostage, Ultima's proposal seems to be the most reasonable one.

No I will not elaborate further

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I HATE YOU ULTIMA

Anyway, after having read the summaries against my will, please save me, he has held me as hostage, Ultima's proposal seems to be the most reasonable one.

No I will not elaborate further

Noted.

 

[Theglassman12]

Looking through the arguments, I'm kinda siding with Ultima here, his points make more sense to me.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Looking through the arguments, I'm kinda siding with Ultima here, his points make more sense to me.

Counted.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Finally got around to reading this. I’m currently in support of Ultima’s proposed changes.

 

[Firestorm808]

So long as we are consistent with what does and doesn't meet the requirements of R>F, I could see this working.

I would assume that the adding/removing dimensions excerpt from the 1-A without infinite dimensions would also apply to the R>F standard in some capacity.

I have some questions regarding how various stories may incorporate Platonic concepts and the like, but we can go over that when the time comes.

 

[Agnaa]

I would assume that the adding/removing dimensions excerpt from the 1-A without infinite dimensions would also apply to the R>F standard in some capacity.

wdym by this?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I would assume that the adding/removing dimensions excerpt from the 1-A without infinite dimensions would also apply to the R>F standard in some capacity.

The proposed Tiering System effectively nullifies the need for infinite dimensions, an infinite hierarchy, or even an insinuation of either of those things, to begin with. Which is to say, for example: If you solidly fulfill all the requirements for R>F (Seen above), then you are 1-A, and the verse doesn't have to even allude to infinite dimension/hierarchy stuff at all. So the excerpt you mention will most likely be either removed or severely altered.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Finally got around to reading this. I’m currently in support of Ultima’s proposed changes.

So long as we are consistent with what does and doesn't meet the requirements of R>F, I could see this working.

Noted.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I'd remove Firestorm for the moment. He's yet to clarify if he is fine with what I said above.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath We would appreciate your votes here.

 

[Agnaa]

While my personal opinion still leans against this revision, I think it sucks that content/thread/calc mods aren't counted, so I'll move my vote to align with their general will; the agree column.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

@Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath We would appreciate your votes here.

I will reiterate my thoughts on this thread that I mentioned in private.

All possible results of this thread dissatisfy me, and all discussion disinterests me, even moreso than most of the quasi-esoteric discussions we love to engage in. The current spirit of the community regarding this thread gives me further reason to not touch this thread with a thirty-foot pole. Do not wait on my vote.

 

[Firestorm808]

The proposed Tiering System effectively nullifies the need for infinite dimensions, an infinite hierarchy, or even an insinuation of either of those things, to begin with. Which is to say, for example: If you solidly fulfill all the requirements for R>F (Seen above), then you are 1-A, and the verse doesn't have to even allude to infinite dimension/hierarchy stuff at all. So the excerpt you mention will most likely be either removed or severely altered.

I suppose that makes sense.

 

[KLOL506]

I suppose that makes sense.

I take it you agree with Ultima's proposals then?

 

[GrathOfLux]

I've been asked a few times to offer my input here again. My stance has not substantially changed since I last left input on this thread - however, I understand simply stating that is not very helpful, so I'll be more specific about what I agree with.

I find Ultima's account of the arbitrariness of equating dimensional differences to R>F transcendence, as well as his criticisms of the low-balling of 'beyond dimensional' statements, to be compelling. Particularly, I believe his argument demonstrates how the intuitive approach of conflating these concepts under the label of 'uncountably infinite differences' and thereby considering them to demonstrate equal levels of power doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I also don't really have issues with his standards for R>F transcendence. The criticism that superiority is not merely uninteractability/intangibility, and the argument that alternate conceptions of reality/fiction would allow for fictional entities to be interactable/tangible, seems to just be a fundamental misunderstanding. Being removed from dimensions is acknowledged as a necessary, but not sufficient factor for this account of R>F transcendence, in the sense that all higher dimensions are composed of arrangements of lower dimensions. To assert that a higher dimensional character is 'real', relative to lower dimensional characters being 'unreal', is to suggest the total composition of a 'real' entity is 'unreal'. This doesn't require a specific account of fiction to justify - it only requires acknowledging the basal logical principle that something cannot be both X and not X at the same time. We can deduce from this that something which is 'real', relative to 'unreal' dimensions, cannot be constituted by those dimensions - and importantly, this doesn't entail the inverse that anything not constituted by those dimensions (for example, an intangible soul) is necessarily 'more real'. This is not a tacked-on conception of reality/fiction; it is just a necessity if we accept that any conception of reality/fiction must be logically coherent, and therefore not contradict itself. It's a complex line of argument, but not at all fishy.

In conclusion, then; Ultima's account of how our current treatment of 'beyond dimensional' and R>F transcendences is foundationally unsound is compelling, and his proposals address these concerns comprehensively. I would be willing to support the integration of these proposals into our tiering system.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I've been asked a few times to offer my input here again. My stance has not substantially changed since I last left input on this thread - however, I understand simply stating that is not very helpful, so I'll be more specific about what I agree with.

I find Ultima's account of the arbitrariness of equating dimensional differences to R>F transcendence, as well as his criticisms of the low-balling of 'beyond dimensional' statements, to be compelling. Particularly, I believe his argument demonstrates how the intuitive approach of conflating these concepts under the label of 'uncountably infinite differences' and thereby considering them to demonstrate equal levels of power doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I also don't really have issues with his standards for R>F transcendence. The criticism that superiority is not merely uninteractability/intangibility, and the argument that alternate conceptions of reality/fiction would allow for fictional entities to be interactable/tangible, seems to just be a fundamental misunderstanding. Being removed from dimensions is acknowledged as a necessary, but not sufficient factor for this account of R>F transcendence, in the sense that all higher dimensions are composed of arrangements of lower dimensions. To assert that a higher dimensional character is 'real', relative to lower dimensional characters being 'unreal', is to suggest the total composition of a 'real' entity is 'unreal'. This doesn't require a specific account of fiction to justify - it only requires acknowledging the basal logical principle that something cannot be both X and not X at the same time. We can deduce from this that something which is 'real', relative to 'unreal' dimensions, cannot be constituted by those dimensions - and importantly, this doesn't entail the inverse that anything not constituted by those dimensions (for example, an intangible soul) is necessarily 'more real'. This is not a tacked-on conception of reality/fiction; it is just a necessity if we accept that any conception of reality/fiction must be logically coherent, and therefore not contradict itself. It's a complex line of argument, but not at all fishy.

In conclusion, then; Ultima's account of how our current treatment of 'beyond dimensional' and R>F transcendences is foundationally unsound is compelling, and his proposals address these concerns comprehensively. I would be willing to support the integration of these proposals into our tiering system.

Counted.

I'd remove Firestorm for the moment. He's yet to clarify if he is fine with what I said above.

He has now.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

While my personal opinion still leans against this revision, I think it sucks that content/thread/calc mods aren't counted, so I'll move my vote to align with their general will; the agree column.

I think this sets a bad precedent. You should not decide to vote against your genuine preferences due to disagreeing with site standards. If you have a problem, you should make a thread to contest the policy that content/thread/calc mods aren't counted.

 

[Everything12]

I think this sets a bad precedent. You should not decide to vote against your genuine preferences due to disagreeing with site standards. If you have a problem, you should make a thread to contest the policy that content/thread/calc mods aren't counted.

It's their vote, they can do with it as they see best. That what they see best normally coincides with their opinion is simply what happens most of the time and is not a hard rule.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I've been in agreement from the beginning, but I guess I should make it clear why.

Ultima's initial explanation on the previous thread already established the groundwork for why this would work. You can stack however many dimensions you want in fiction, yet it remains fiction. Therefore a reality > fiction transcendence will always be larger than a dimensional transcendence. That's the core idea of the revision. I'm probably oversimplifying it but that's the tl;dr if anyone is still interested at this point.

As long as clear limitations and rules are set for actually reaching a reality > fiction transcendence (which I believe we already have in place, just that it works like dimensional transcendence), I believe there should be no problems.

Also don't we have a standard that says you can move in higher dimensions just fine as a lower dimensional since it's just a new vector of direction? Wouldn't being literally fictional stop you from moving in reality cause it's not a vector and is just straight up a greater mode of existence entirely? I don't know. Maybe I'm just waffling. It's 3am. I'm gonna sleep now.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I've been in agreement from the beginning, but I guess I should make it clear why.

Ultima's initial explanation on the previous thread already established the groundwork for why this would work. You can stack however many dimensions you want in fiction, yet it remains fiction. Therefore a reality > fiction transcendence will always be larger than a dimensional transcendence. That's the core idea of the revision. I'm probably oversimplifying it but that's the tl;dr if anyone is still interested at this point.

As long as clear limitations and rules are set for actually reaching a reality > fiction transcendence (which I believe we already have in place, just that it works like dimensional transcendence), I believe there should be no problems.

Also don't we have a standard that says you can move in higher dimensions just fine as a lower dimensional since it's just a new vector of direction? Wouldn't being literally fictional stop you from moving in reality cause it's not a vector and is just straight up a greater mode of existence entirely? I don't know. Maybe I'm just waffling. It's 3am. I'm gonna sleep now.

Counted.

 

[Antvasima]

Alright everyone, please read this, this and this post thoroughly and say what you agree with and what not. Thank you!

@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler

I would greatly appreciate if those of you who have not evaluated and voted yet here do so. Thank you greatly for your help.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Some of those on this list were already pinged and responded, and the rest doesn't seem very interested in inputting here (Crabwhale, in particular, apparently has made clear to Agnaa that he won't vote here). Might be better not to force those people to vote.

Should your own vote be counted in the above, by the by? Asking as a formality.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I was pinged three times... I have no real interest in this thread. I have tried my hand at learning about Tier 1 stuff and it didn't work out, our standards for that is beyond my understanding so I cannot give any valid agreement or disagreement regarding this thread so I won't be voting since i don't have the time or patience to fully get into this topic. My apologies.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I do see good points on both sides and especially DontTalkDT's concerns for how the term "Omnipotence" can be overused or prone to be taken out of context. But I ultimately lean towards supporting Ultima's proposals for how the R>F stuff will be treated even if it may be someone rare for the examples he reveals to be elaborately expansive for what he describes as a true R>F.

I also officially casted my vote with this post.

 

[Firestorm808]

The proposed Tiering System effectively nullifies the need for infinite dimensions, an infinite hierarchy, or even an insinuation of either of those things, to begin with. Which is to say, for example: If you solidly fulfill all the requirements for R>F (Seen above), then you are 1-A, and the verse doesn't have to even allude to infinite dimension/hierarchy stuff at all. So the excerpt you mention will most likely be either removed or severely altered.

You can put me on the side for agreeing for now. Should we have a draft of the revision to this FAQ section prepared?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

You can put me on the side for agreeing for now. Should we have a draft of the revision to this FAQ section prepared?

There'll be revisions to a lot of things, so, that comes later.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

I don't have too much interest in the high tiered stuff these days, hence why i have just been observing here, that said Ultima's side of the argument was pretty much where my opinion was.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I don't have too much interest in the high tiered stuff these days, hence why i have just been observing here, that said Ultima's side of the argument was pretty much where my opinion was.

Counted.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Counted.

If I'm not mistaken, I think you still need to count Agnaa's vote. Just making sure

 

[Ultima_Reality]

If I'm not mistaken, I think you still need to count Agnaa's vote. Just making sure

Lawyer dislikes that Agnaa is switching his vote for the reasons he gave, but seeing as he isn't the officially appointed vote counter of this thread, or anything (Meaning he doesn't have the authority to reject a vote), and Agnaa already reiterated his official vote, I took the liberty to move Agnaa's position in the tally myself.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Lawyer dislikes that Agnaa is switching his vote for the reasons he gave, but seeing as he isn't the officially appointed vote counter of this thread, or anything (Meaning he doesn't have the authority to reject a vote), and Agnaa already reiterated his official vote, I took the liberty to move Agnaa's position in the tally myself.

Fine, whatever. Do we have enough votes to apply this now?