On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System

[Ultima_Reality]

Wasn't my intention to derail or cause drama if that's a concern. This topic can probably be revisited if Ultima's proposition is accepted to begin with

It's also better to avoid derailing, yes. Should I delete the off-rails posts?

 

[Antvasima]

Let us focus on the main topics here without unnecessary conflict please.

 

[CloverDragon03]

It's also better to avoid derailing, yes. Should I delete the off-rails posts?

That'd help to stay on track actually, yeah. As far as I'm concerned, delete away

 

[Antvasima]

It's also better to avoid derailing, yes. Should I delete the off-rails posts?

Well, I find a potential tier 12 a valid topic here, but not unnecessary hostility that derails from all other discussion here.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Well, I find a potential tier 12 a valid topic here, but not unnecessary hostility that derails from all other discussion here.

My suggestion would be that we focus on Ultima's summary first. As it focuses on Tier 1 stuff, I don't believe Tier 11/potentially Tier 12 stuff would come into play just yet. Afterwards, if necessary, it can be discussed (since said stuff seems like it relies on Ultima's Tier 1 proposals being accepted to begin with)

 

[Antvasima]

Okay then.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Oh yeah, I should add, having read through Ultima's summary, I agree with his proposals (a High Hyperverse level+ tier for spaces with uncountably infinite dimensions also makes sense to me)

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

It won't affect the former, no. The latter will be affected, though, yes, since one of the proposals is making transcendences over dimensionality in general be qualitative superiorities and thus scaling them to 1-A as a default. (Provided a good standard of evidence, of course)

What should we do with that thread, as well as https://vsbattles.com/threads/high-...aul-the-inaccessible-cardinal-debacle.158137/, https://vsbattles.com/threads/type-4-multiverse-and-outerverse-level.156361/, and https://vsbattles.com/threads/tier-2-revision-merging-3d-spaces-and-destroying-empty-space.157173/, then?

 

[CloverDragon03]

The latter one is about Tier 2 so I don't believe it'll be affected

 

[Planck69]

Reading through Ultima's post and the back-and-forth with Deagonx, honestly I don't have anything against this. So, I agree.

Minor but wouldn't keeping the term Low 1-A rather than High 1-B+ look better? Granted, I'm not particularly hung up over it.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Minor but wouldn't keeping the term Low 1-A rather than High 1-B+ look better? Granted, I'm not particularly hung up over it.

1-A is supposed to be reserved for qualitative superiorities, which no longer include dimensional jumps, so low 1-A doesn't make sense as a name anymore.

 

[Theglassman12]

So what exactly does 1-A+ and High 1-A remotely mean if R>F qualitative superiority is just 1-A? Are we still treating it like 3-D to High 1-B transcendence only in a 1-A R>F aspect or something else?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

1-A+ and High 1-A would stay effectively the same. The former would be for an infinite hierarchy of qualitative superiorities. The latter would be for characters who are above the "quality" defining the lower hierarchy altogether, while still working on their own, higher form of qualitative superiority. For example, in Marvel Comics, the omniverse has an infinite hierarchy of dreams-within-dreams in itself, and above that, then, is the Outside, which transcends all forms of reality and dream and yet nevertheless still has its own hierarchy that works on something else entirely.

Here.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

What should we do with that thread, as well as https://vsbattles.com/threads/high-...aul-the-inaccessible-cardinal-debacle.158137/, https://vsbattles.com/threads/type-4-multiverse-and-outerverse-level.156361/, and https://vsbattles.com/threads/tier-2-revision-merging-3d-spaces-and-destroying-empty-space.157173/, then?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

What should we do with that thread, as well as https://vsbattles.com/threads/high-...aul-the-inaccessible-cardinal-debacle.158137/, https://vsbattles.com/threads/type-4-multiverse-and-outerverse-level.156361/, and https://vsbattles.com/threads/tier-2-revision-merging-3d-spaces-and-destroying-empty-space.157173/, then?

Well, if this is accepted, then the first thread will have just aged like milk. Type 4 Multiverses would, at absolute most, be very high into High 1-B+, so the second thread will lose its relevance as well. Third thread is unrelated to the topic, so, wouldn't be affected, really.

 

[DarkGrath]

In my formal, academic, indubitable opinion, I have to confess - you cooked.

Normally, my instinct on a thread as important as this would be to play the devil's advocate for a bit. Even with something I ultimately agree with, I find it to be helpful (especially for such important discussions) to ensure that every reasonable counterargument is addressed. That way, there isn't any rational ground on which to doubt the conclusions drawn, and the topic can be comfortably put to rest with no loose ends.

However, I just don't have any issue with what has been expressed here. The greatest issue I have is that this should have all been considered a long time ago. I've even fairly recently had similar lines of thought (albeit, far less comprehensive) regarding the ways in which we've treated dimensional jumps under qualitative superiority, and the counterarguments you address go over every rationalisation I had for the current state of the system. That being said, I do intend to give this thread another read later, if only to pick out and polish the semantics of the matter. If I can be trusted with anything, it's to be a pretentious skeptic.

I don't expect changing the tiering system to reflect these conclusions will be easy, regardless of how we go about it. But, admittedly, I want to see it done. In the long term, I imagine this would be the ideal for the quality of our indexing.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Well, if this is accepted, then the first thread will have just aged like milk. Type 4 Multiverses would, at absolute most, be very high into High 1-B+, so the second thread will lost its relevance as well. Third thread is unrelated to the topic, so, wouldn't be affected, really.

Should we lock these three threads while you leave a post explaining why they're irrelevant now in all of them, then?

1. https://vsbattles.com/threads/dealing-with-dimension-once-and-for-all.159694/
2. https://vsbattles.com/threads/high-...aul-the-inaccessible-cardinal-debacle.158137/
3. https://vsbattles.com/threads/type-4-multiverse-and-outerverse-level.156361/

 

[Qawsedf234]

We need your help here.

I don't mind helping out I guess, but being honest the 1-A proposal seems like it will immediately lead to any author insert having a 1-A upgrade attempt and I'm not for that.

Most of the time R>F isn't even transcendence as much as they have the ability to freely alter the lower world and I can't see this change doing anything but making certain things worse. Especially when this change has been proposed before and shot down for this exact same reasoning.

But sure, I wouldn't mind being in some discussion about it. Expressing my personal feeling though, the tiering system cannot cover all of fiction. It's always been a "generally covers most things" thing and attempting to quantify all of fiction will inevitably lead to failure. Just having a character with R>F being the equalivent of a Tier jump doesn't cause problems in 99% of cases.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Most of the time R>F isn't even transcendence as much as they have the ability to freely alter the lower world and I can't see this change doing anything but making certain things worse.

These instances of R>F can easily just be dismissed, as they would be even under the current Tiering System. This isn't a problem created by what I'm proposing, so using that as a reason to reject it is nonsensical.

But sure, I wouldn't mind being in some discussion about it. Expressing my personal feeling though, the tiering system cannot cover all of fiction. It's always been a "generally covers most things" thing and attempting to quantify all of fiction will inevitably lead to failure.

We can reach closer to that ideal than what we have currently, at the very least. I've already outlined why the Tiering System proposed is just objectively better and more consistent than the current one, and "It will lead to more arguments" doesn't negate that.

Just having a character with R>F being the equalivent of a Tier jump doesn't cause problems in 99% of cases.

No, it does, in fact, cause several logical problems. I already said what those are.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Should we lock these three threads while you leave a post explaining why they're irrelevant now in all of them, then?

1. https://vsbattles.com/threads/dealing-with-dimension-once-and-for-all.159694/
2. https://vsbattles.com/threads/high-...aul-the-inaccessible-cardinal-debacle.158137/
3. https://vsbattles.com/threads/type-4-multiverse-and-outerverse-level.156361/

 

[CloverDragon03]

Well, I'd say whether or not the threads are relevant depends on whether or not this thread is accepted, so maybe not just yet

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

1-A is supposed to be reserved for qualitative superiorities, which no longer include dimensional jumps, so low 1-A doesn't make sense as a name anymore.

So if this is passed, would low 1-A dudes not tied to qualitative superiority just get bumped down to High 1-B+?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Should we lock these three threads while you leave a post explaining why they're irrelevant now in all of them, then?

1. https://vsbattles.com/threads/dealing-with-dimension-once-and-for-all.159694/
2. https://vsbattles.com/threads/high-...aul-the-inaccessible-cardinal-debacle.158137/
3. https://vsbattles.com/threads/type-4-multiverse-and-outerverse-level.156361/

I suppose so, yes. This thread is picking up steam, so, may as well.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

So if this is passed, would low 1-A dudes not tied to qualitative superiority just get bumped down to High 1-B+?

Yeah.

 

[Qawsedf234]

These instances of R>F can easily just be dismissed,

How can they be easily dismissed? Your proposal is that R>F doesn't work with mathematics and should be 1-A or higher. I'm not seeing how this won't be seen as an arbitrary criteria of what does or doesn't count.

No, it does, in fact, cause several logical problems. I already said what those are.

Logical problems because you're trying to fit a square peg in a triangle hole. The tiering system doesn't need to cover literally every base and we can equate things to their equalivent.

It will lead to more arguments" doesn't negate that.

It doesn't negate it but if the change proposed only works in fringe cases and makes everything notable more confusing I don't see why it should be added either.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

How can they be easily dismissed? Your proposal is that R>F doesn't work with mathematics and should be 1-A or higher. I'm not seeing how this won't be seen as an arbitrary criteria of what does or doesn't count.

Because "Some R>F isn't transcendence, just hax" is a problem that already exists even under the current Tiering System. And under the current Tiering System, if a R>F isn't transcendence, just hax, we'd reject it as a basis for a higher tier.

So you're basically saying that we should reject this proposal because of a problem completely unrelated to it.

Logical problems because you're trying to fit a square peg in a triangle hole. The tiering system doesn't need to cover literally every base and we can equate things to their equalivent.

Except the entirety of the OP was dedicated to explaining why there is no "equivalence" here. All the equivalences made by the current Tiering System are false ones.

So what I am suggesting is that we, in fact, start fitting the square pegs into the square holes, and the triangle pegs into the triangle holes.

It doesn't negate it but if the change proposed only works in fringe cases and makes everything notable more confusing I don't see why it should be added either.

It doesn't work "only in fringe cases." There are plenty of cases of legitimate qualitative superiorities on the wiki. And I don't see how it makes anything more confusing. If anything, it makes things less confusing.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Because "Some R>F isn't transcendence, just hax" is a problem that already exists even under the current Tiering System. And under the current Tiering System, if a R>F isn't transcendence, just hax, we'd reject it as a basis for a higher tier.

I'm not seeing how this answers my question. What is the listed criteria for what counts and how do we make it not arbitrary. I want a hard list since this change will effect a large swath of characters.

Except the entirety of the OP was dedicated to explaining why there is no "equivalence" here. All the equivalences made by the current Tiering System are false ones.

It's an equalivent to being above what they effected rather than being conceptually above every faucet shown or theoretically existing within a work like what I'm getting from your proposal.

It doesn't work "only in fringe cases." There are plenty of cases of legitimate qualitative superiorities on the wiki.

What are some examples of characters you would make Tier 1/0 with this proposal. What characters in your mind do count and don't count.

anything, it makes things less confusing.

I don't see how explaining to a new user what an empty power set means and the nature of a null set is less confusing than "One notch above whatever they effected".

 

[CloverDragon03]

I'm not seeing how this answers my question. What is the listed criteria for what counts and how do we make it not arbitrary. I want a hard list since this change will effect a large swath of characters.

I think his point is that regardless of this thread's existence, this is something we've had anyway, so it's not even relevant to begin with

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I'm not seeing how this answers my question. Why is the listed criteria for what counts and how do we make it not arbitrary. I want a working list since this change will effect a large swath of characters.

The primary criterion is just "The lower layer is literal unreality/nonexistence while the higher layer is reality/existence." After we establish that, deciding if a verse qualifies or not is largely a matter of pinpointing if it contradicts this condition or not. For example, as Deagon and I discussed up there, characters just wrestling with the supposed higher reality as if it was equally real to their own with no explanation would potentially count as an anti-feat for this (See the Animaniacs example I gave up there)

It's an equalivent to being above what they effected rather than being conceptually above every faucet shown or theoretically existing within a work like what I'm getting from your proposal.

And this is, itself, a false equivalence. It's basically saying "Y and X both transcend Z, so clearly Y and X are equivalent!", which is something I chastise at length in the OP.

What are some examples of characters you would make Tier 0 with this proposal.

Firstly, not Tier 0, since the proposal is basically kicking the current baseline of Tier 0 down to High 1-B and making 1-A the tier for qualitative stuff instead.

Secondly: An example I already gave up there would be God from Seekers into the Mystery. After that: Characters who are superior to dimensionality altogether would qualify, as well.

I don't see how explaining to a new user what an empty power set means and the nature of a null set is less confusing than "One notch above whatever they effected".

"We should stick to the objectively incorrect explanation because the correct one may be subjectively more confusing to explain to new users" is a terrible thing to unironically consider. The OP of this thread is only as long as it ended up being because I needed to explain these things to people who are already far too accustomed to think of R>F Trancendences and the like as equivalent to dimensional jumps.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I think his point is that regardless of this thread's existence, this is something we've had anyway, so it's not even relevant to begin with

Also, this, too.

 

[Qawsedf234]

The primary criterion is just "The lower layer is literal unreality/nonexistence while the higher layer is reality/existence." After we establish that, deciding if a verse qualifies or not is largely a matter of pinpointing if it contradicts this condition or not. For example, as Deagon and I discussed up there, characters just interacting with the supposed higher reality as if it was equally real to their own with no explanation would potentially count as an anti-feat for this (See the Animaniacs example I gave up there)

You said "primary". Meaning you have an idea of secondary characters that also count. As before can you provide a list of what does and doesn't count

And this is, itself, a false equivalence. It's basically saying "Y and X both transcend Z, so clearly Y and X are equivalent!", which is something I chastise at length in the OP.

But we don't say that they're equivalent, which just rate them in the same Tier. Something being 5D through geometric dimensions and something being rated higher than 4D due to R>F are still fundamentally different within the system. Every higher tier after Tier 2 has this built in considering a 5-D Multiverse would still only be Low 1-C.

Secondly: An example I already gave up there would be God from Seekers into the Mystery. After that: Characters who are superior to dimensionality altogether would qualify, as well.

I'm asking for who does and doesn't count (since God wasn't in the OP). Your proposal is large and I want to know what criteria you think does and doesn't count so I get an idea off what you're working off of. I'm not asking you to go through every profile but you obviously have examples of what does and doesn't count and I want to know them.

Firstly, not Tier 0, since the proposal is basically kicking the current baseline of Tier 0 down to High 1-B and making 1-A the tier for qualitative stuff instead.

So to make sure I'm understanding you right, you're suggesting we go back to the 2018 version of the Tiering System

Basically, a being or an object which is outside and beyond all dimensions of time and space. This is something completely formless, abstract, metaphysical and transcendental. The usual scale does not make sense against a beyond dimensional object. Such beings can not be affected by destruction within the dimensions of time and space, or physical matter and energy. This "space" in which there is no dimension can be the background for any dimensional space. Within such a beyond dimensional "space", a dimensional structure with any number of dimensions can be placed, because there are no restrictions regarding dimensions.

Am I understanding you correctly?

"We should stick to the objectively incorrect explanation because may be subjectively more confusing to explain to new users" is a terrible thing to unironically consider.

My complaint wasn't that it was or wasn't correct, but your assertion that this is simpler to explain when it isn't. It's an additional complex subject when Tier 1 already confuses the majority of our users and just name dropping your OP won't fix the issue

 

[Ultima_Reality]

You said "primary". Meaning you have an idea of secondary characters that also count. As before can you provide a list of what does and doesn't count

That word is really irrelevant, since it's just a remnant of earlier drafts of the post, so forget I said it. To reiterate: The criterion, as far as R>F Trancendences are concerned, is: "The lower layer is literal unreality/nonexistence while the higher layer is reality/existence."

But we don't say that they're equivalent, which just rate them in the same Tier. Something being 5D through geometric dimensions and something being rated higher than 4D due to R>F are still fundamentally different within the system. Every higher tier after Tier 2 has this built in considering a 5-D Multiverse would still only be Low 1-C.

According to the dictionary, "equivalent" means:

equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc.

So if we are saying they are the same tier, we are saying they equivalent, yes. As said, the current logic is literally "They are not identical, but they equivalent." Which is utter nonsense for reasons already explained.

So to make sure I'm understanding you right, you're suggesting we go back to the 2018 version of the Tiering System

Not quite, since even the old Tiering System still had R>F Transcendences as equivalent to dimensional jumps for some reason. Moreover the proposed version of 1-A wouldn't be exclusively about "ooooH beyond dimensions." This sort of stuff qualifies for it, but generally speaking it's just "Qualitative superiorities, as opposed to quantitative."

My complaint wasn't that it was or wasn't correct, but your assertion that this is simpler to explain when it isn't.

It is simpler to explain when you consider the fact everything I said about R>F boils down to "Nothing added to nothing is still nothing."

 

[Qawsedf234]

To reiterate: The criterion, as far as R>F Trancendences are concerned, is: "The lower layer is literal unreality/nonexistence while the higher layer is reality/existence."

Is that the sole criteria or is there more.

So if we are saying they are the same tier, we are saying they equivalent, yes. As said, the current logic is literally "They are not identical, but they equivalent." Which is utter nonsense for reasons already explained.

In that case we can also just change the wording to not be equalivent.

to dimensional jumps for some reason. Moreover the proposed version of 1-A wouldn't be exclusively about "ooooH beyond dimensions." This sort of stuff qualifies for it, but generally speaking it's just "Qualitative superiorities, as opposed to quantitative."

What is your written justifications for Tier 1-A and on. How would the definitions look if this thread was accepted right now and we made the changes.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Is that the sole criteria or is there more.

Does "no glaring anti-feats" (Of the sort I mentioned) count as a criterion? If so, I suppose that's another.

In that case we can also just change the wording to not be equalivent.

So... We would then start to say the two things aren't identical. But that they aren't equal, either?

I don't think I even have to explain why this solves absolutely none of the problems I brought up.

What is your written justifications for Tier 1-A and on. How would the definitions look if this thread was accepted right now and we made the changes.

Outerverse level: Characters whose superiority over lesser realms is qualitative, rather than quantitative. This is to say that their transcendence over them hinges on metaphysical qualities as opposed to mathematical quantities, and as such are completely beyond any and all extensions of the latter. For example, characters to whom lower worlds are literal unreality/fiction/nonexistence, or characters who exceed the necessity of physical size and dimensionality entirely.

1-A and High 1-A I already explained in the OP.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

So your saying that dimensional jump are just quantitative superiority? And Dream, R>F, unreality to reality are qualitative superiority?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

So your saying that dimensional jump are just quantitative superiority? And Dream, R>F, unreality to reality are qualitative superiority?

Yeah.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Yeah.

And they got 1-A for that?

Huh, neat. I agree

 

[Qawsedf234]

Does "no glaring anti-feats" (Of the sort I mentioned) count as a criterion? If so, I suppose that's another

It's a big change Ultima. I just want a list of is a qualifier and what isn't. If it's just "Nonexistent and can't be interacted with" that's fine, but I want to know if that's all there is to it or if there's more.

1-A and High 1-A I already explained in the OP.

Are you suggesting that we getting rid of Tier 0 again then?

don't think I even have to explain why this solves absolutely none of the problems I brought up.

I really don't think they're problems in the first place.

But if we're changing the system radically (again), it's whatever I guess.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

It's a big change Ultima. I just want a list of is a qualifier and what isn't. If it's just "Nonexistent and can't be interacted with" that's fine, but I want to know if that's all there is to it or if there's more.

Admittedly, I really can't think of any criteria other than these two. I appreciate suggestions from others, of course, but in my mind those two are the ones to keep close by.

Are you suggesting that we getting rid of Tier 0 again then?

Not really. Tier 0 can just be reflective of what it currently is, just as High 1-A is.

I really don't think they're problems in the first place.

You're basically saying "Blatant false equivalences, category errors, self-contradictions and just overall bad logic are not problems." It'd be understandable if they were unavoidable, but I just explained how they are very much avoidable.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Not really. Tier 0 can just be reflective of what it currently is, just as High 1-A is.

I thought you were moving all Cardnial Sets to High 1-B. Are we still keeping Inaccessible Cardnials at 1-A and higher?

It'd be understandable if they were unavoidable, but I just explained how they are very much avoidable

You explained how we can rework the entire system to handle a problem that's not really a problem. Which, sure if guess but it's not an easy job.