On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I'm not reading all of that (the comments) but I'll give my opinion on this.

I'd prefer a tiering system that's more linear and has a continuity and a link rather than a tiering system with a disconnect and link breakage for higher powers just because "meh, bigger = better"

It's like saying that character A is equal to or bigger than character B because A is at the pinnacle of its cosmology despite character B's cosmology being bigger. There's a clear break in continuity! And thus, makes it easy to wank

Do you have permission?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Do you have permission?

Doesn't seem like it, so I deleted it

 

[Planck69]

@MichaelJZero This is not the place for nonsensical DC scaling attempts nor do you have permission to post here.

@IdiosyncraticLawyer There's no need to go back and forth on this.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I enjoy how long your run-on sentence is there. That needs more commas while making fun of someone else's post needing grammar improvements. Four commas in one sentence wasn't enough, needs like five or six.

And Bravo, congrats on publicaly showcasing your need to be seen as a deductive reasoning expert, aiming at my hypothetical not being hypothetical and instead being sarcastic. You found me out! Rats.

Next time, I'll not make it so complex. You claiming you didn't understand it just means you need to brush up on your DC lore and understanding of the cosmology. I can point you in the right direction to a fun YouTube channel that helps others with that.

Not only are you posting without permission, you're now teasing and mocking a staff member for pointing you out. I will be reporting this if you continue.

 

[DontTalkDT]

(In case anyone wonders, I'm almost done with my next reply. Just a little more and addressing the counterpoints for completeness's sake. Prooooobably will finish tomorrow.)

 

[Antvasima]

Just a note that it seems too easy to reach tier High 1-A and 0 according to Ultima's current tiering system draft. I would prefer if we keep tiers Low 1-A and 1-A+ in order to not lump together too many different scales of power.

On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System

To clarify the situation, let me spin up a scenario: Suppose you have two realms. Realm A and Realm B. Realm A is a universe much like ours, while Realm B is a transcendental place that has pretty much all of the properties we'd expect of something that fits the bill for "qualitative...

vsbattles.com

 

[Antvasima]

For Tier 1, Ultima wants to move higher cardinalities to a new sub-tier of High 1-B called High 1-B+, delete Low 1-A, and repurpose 1-A as a tier for transcending dimensions entirely while also equating instances of reality-fiction relationships to 1-A layers instead of dimensional jumps. Consequently, High 1-A will be repurposed as a tier for transcendences superior in nature even to transcending dimensions and reality-fiction relationships.

As for Tier 0, Ultima wants to repurpose it into a tier to classify a specific type of being he calls a "Monad" that's seen somewhat regularly in verses that deal with ineffability, as he believes its current definition as a tier for things superior in nature to High 1-A doesn't justify its existence as a separate tier from High 1-A. Further explanation can be found in this post.

At least going by the way it was explained above.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Just a note that it seems too easy to reach tier High 1-A and 0 according to Ultima's current tiering system draft. I would prefer if we keep tiers Low 1-A and 1-A+ in order to not lump together too many different scales of power.

On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System

To clarify the situation, let me spin up a scenario: Suppose you have two realms. Realm A and Realm B. Realm A is a universe much like ours, while Realm B is a transcendental place that has pretty much all of the properties we'd expect of something that fits the bill for "qualitative...

vsbattles.com

I've a pitch for a potential version of Low 1-A that will allow us to actually emphasize the rather large difference in scope between certain levels of infinity. But it's not as relevant as the matters at hand, so I'll deal with those, first, before explaining it in more depth. 1-A+ is indeed still included in these proposals.

As for whether Tier 0 is easy to reach, I... strongly disagree, actually. It's a very strict tier all around, I'd say. But we can sort that out once we come to an agreement on whether the premise of the tier is coherent.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I am still uneasy with diminishing our amount of tiers though. With the separation of quantitative infinity and qualitative transcendence, if anything we seem to need more of them afterwards, at least to cover our current areas of quantitative infinity.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Okay. I am still uneasy with diminishing our amount of tiers though. With the separation of quantitative infinity and qualitative transcendence, if anything we seem to need more of them afterwards, at least to cover our current areas of quantitative infinity.

I'll talk to you about this in private messages, in a bit. You seem fairly busy nowadays, so I figure at least a summary of my proposals there would be good. (Heads up that I'm reasonably open to adding extra tiers to allow for better specificity, though, but, again, a topic for later)

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is good then. It is important for me that we continue to try to be as specific as practically possible.

 

[Antvasima]

Just a note that I have talked with Ultima in private and still personally support this revision, as long as he sticks to what we talked about regarding a sufficiently high number of tiers to distinguish between different conceptual scales and that the highest tiers have reliable safeguards to make them very difficult to reach.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Spoiler: Preamble for Ultima

For any of what you just said to mean anything, you first have to demonstrate that all those things aren't necessary consequences of "Layer Y sees Layer X as literally nonexistent." If they are, then, no, a verse doesn't need to explicitly say any of those things for them to be true.

You'll be hard-pressed to find a verse that actually says "The gap between him and us is strictly one of quality, not of quantity! We can't beat him!!!!", for example, yet we're happy to say that this (The fact a R>F Transcendence is purely qualitative, and in no way quantitative) is true of any verse with R>F.

Given this I will ignore your requirements then, as the fact that I disagree with that reasoning is part of the point.

Many replies to other things will be given on the way, but I will address my text mostly to a general reader, so I won't include quotes to where we discussed that. This means there will also be repeats of things we already argued, as I am mainly explaining my own stance as a whole.

What I agree with and what I argue against​

Let’s start with the hypothesis.
Ultima goes into great length about how R>F and dimensional levels are not actually the same. And I agree, they are not.
I furthermore agree that, without applying any form of verse or reality equalization, higher dimensional beings are not necessarily able to harm realms higher in a R>F hierarchy. However, I think there is the option to apply reality or verse equalization if the community wishes to do so. Why would we do so? Well, I will get to that later. And to be clear: I’m not saying that we necessarily have to. There are other options.

So what am I disagreeing with? The idea that R>F characters per default would be superior to all quantitate notions of size or dimensions in particular.
What I will argue in the following is that it is plausible for fictional setting to employ an attitude regarding meta-fiction which allows for that and that we should not default to vastly high-end assumptions like making characters that see a regular universe as fiction be above those that would be several infinities of size larger than the same universe. We should instead employ a system which decides superiority based on feats and explanations the verse itself makes.

What is superiority?​

The debate by its nature doesn't employ the qualitative superiority term as it’s currently defined (as that is in a quantitative way), so we must start this with the question of what superiority is and how we determine it. And I mean just basic superiority here, not the infinite times superior superiority we currently use. Hence no infinity requirements in the following.

Ultima in his OP for the most part argues that adding spatial dimensions will never result in a R>F transcendence, no matter how many are added. This in particular also carries the notion that a higher dimensional character wouldn’t be able to harm a R>F character, regardless of size.
Both of those are certainly relevant criteria. That a superior character can’t be harmed by an inferior one is a necessity. That even infinite of an inferior realm won’t add up to a superior one is one of the criteria we currently use for qualitative superiority as well, although we use it under the assumption that one can actually build up the larger object given enough of the smaller when it comes to dimensions, which is somewhat of a relevant relation as it means that they are comparable.

Those two alone are not sufficient, though. Allow me to give an example of why: Think about spirits and possibly astral worlds they live in. A spirit can not be harmed by anything in the physical world, as it is of a non-physical quality. Neither will adding more physical space or matter ever make something into a spirit or an astral object. Evidently, a spirit or an astral plane of existence would equally fulfil these criteria.
Yet intuitively these wouldn’t in general be considered superior to universes, multiverses or higher dimensions in general, right? So we are missing some distinguishing criteria.
If someone asked why a ghost is not superior to the universe, the likely first answer you would get is "well, they can't destroy it, can they?" And that is pretty on point. Just being metaphysically uninfluenced from the world isn't enough. The superior being must be able to interact with the inferior world. And not just interact a little, but in fact be able to destroy it, create it or at the very least significantly affect the totality of it. An astral plane where all ghosts can destroy the universe by its nature could quite possible be considered superior to it, don't you think?

Another example would be any abstract character that is below 3-A. No amount of larger space will ever amount to reaching a conceptual entity, but that doesn't mean they are all Tier 1.

I will also give a practical example here: In the book Aerial City London England is cut off from the rest of the world by making it fictional.

England is sealed inside the world of writing known as a book.

As people began moving from Europe to the New World in the latter half of the fifteenth century, the non-humans took over England. In order to create a protected land for them, the gods and demons that led them cut England away from reality and sealed it inside the book they had made.

The monsters, gods, demons, and heroes that had existed in reality until that point moved to that imaginary England and lived on as fictional beings…that is, as beings that only exist in the form of writing and words.

As a book, England has a cover known as heaven and a back cover known as hell. Between those are nine chapter title pages, the same number as there are orders of angels.

From the moment you set foot in that foreign land, your own form and emotions are expressed in writing.

Humans rarely have a chance to enter that space.

The name of that world of fiction and the title of that book is “Aerial City – London.”

Ironically, that is done to protect it. That's because humans from the outside rarely have any chance to interact with this fictional world at all. In fact, when trying to destroy it, humans in the story found it easier to become fictional themselves and destroy it from the inside. I think this is a pretty good example for a case where a realm is seen is true fiction, but there is clearly no proper superiority. What is lacking is the ability for the more real world to be offensively powerful in comparison i.e. the ability to destroy the fiction.

Sadly it is not quite as easy as to require exactly that. Being completely unreachable from some plane of existence and being able to wield absolute power over it is certainly a sufficient criteria for superiority, but in fictional scaling we will quickly find exceptions. Namely, characters equal to characters that can do that. In a reality-fiction transcendence context, if the universe is just a person's dream then another person in the same world won't be able to influence that dream as they are not the one dreaming it. But they can still fight the person dreaming it in their shared world, in a regular fist fight for example, so they would still scale.

What this all in all comes to is that I would put the following necessary criteria on on superiority:
"A character that is superior to a realm should not be able to be harmed by anything potentially in it and should either be able to destroy, create and/or significantly affect that realm or scale to someone that can."
That's pretty similar to our existing tiering standards. You will find requirements like that on the tiering system page.

Alternatives on the nature of reality and fiction in fiction​

To judge where R>F goes one has to think about what exactly that is in fiction. Specifically, if a character has no explicit statements or feats on being above all dimensions, we will want to look if the lowest reasonable interpretation of R>F actually requires them to be superior to those things. And that scenario is pretty much what this whole revision is about.
I believe Ultima also said we should be looking for the lowest viable interpretation:

You know how you often say we work with the minimum required things? I don't hold antipathy for that sentiment at all.

With that in mind, let us go through a few ways the nature of fiction within fiction can be understood.

Literally like in reality​

The perhaps most obvious approach is to assume that it works as in reality. However, that is also the most high-end approach possible.
If it works as in reality that means that a character that has a world in a book can write literally anything into that book and make it reality in that world. The character could write a copy of all of Marvel, DC, Demon King Daimao, Umineko and whatever else in their book and create a to him fictional world containing all of those, making them superior to those. They could also write of transduality, beyond dimensional existence, omnipotence, true unity, logic and whatever else. It would be the highest possible Tier 0, as nothing another fiction presents couldn't potentially get described in the book. Even R>F differences are meaningless, as they could write about as many as they like of those as well.
This is the model in which the fiction being "unreality" or "nothingness" to the writer is as literal as it gets.

Now, it's pretty obvious why we wouldn't want to use this. It's the most extreme high end and there are alternatives to this. Not to mention that if we also were to treat other things like that it would become paradoxical: A transdual character would be above the distinction of reality and fiction, yet an author can write about transduality. Both would be above the other by nature.

Ultima's proposal​

Now, Ultima doesn't actually explain very well in the OP what he actually assumes the nature of R>F to be. He just expands on it being different from dimensions. But in the debate since he has explained more on his assumptions and I will quote those. (Obviously gotta make a selection here, so you are warned)

Yeah, I am well aware that's what you had in mind. Put it simply: That's not really a logical consequence of my arguments, no. For example, swap "An author writing a story from a higher world" with a Plato's Cave scenario ("The world is illusory and the true reality is the world of abstract objects beyond it"), and it becomes far less obvious that this kind of transcendence implies a transcendence over all kinds of layers.

So, in short, you're not inferring that from "Sees lower worlds as fiction/unreality," but from "Is an author." Thus that's a thing you have to debate separately. You know how you often say we work with the minimum required things? I don't hold antipathy for that sentiment at all.

Very good explanation. I believe the above suggestion of making diagrams explaining R>F Transcendence, and how it relates to dimensions, was actually a pretty good idea. So, I had those charts made (Credits to @ImmortalDread. My thanks):

---

This whole point has little substance. Namely because it assumes that my argument's validity hinges on Reality-Fiction Transcendences being identical to how we see fiction in real life, which isn't the case (The fictional works we make IRL are not "lower worlds").

For how exactly I am treating "fiction" and "realness," in this case, I refer you to Executor's explanation up there. That serves as an answer to other questions of yours, as well.

The simplest way to understand this, in my opinion, is with Plato's Cave.

I think everyone knows the general idea, you have the shadows being projected by things that truly exist in a cave. But you need to understand that the intent behind it is that Plato wants to depict the difference between something that is physical and temporary and something that is metaphysical and eternal (More on the exact definition of eternity in a future blog post).

Therefore, the exact difference between the ideas and the physical world is not literally the shadows because the shadows and the objects projecting the shadows reside in the same state of existence, they are both physical events. However, you can understand the representation of the shadow as something that isn't the object itself, the idea behind the shadow.

And that is basically the idea with the whole metaphysics and r>f Ultima is bringing up. There's a difference between physical expansion and metaphysical expansion.

If you draw within a page, you are spreading small 3D ink across the surface of a 3D page creating an image that is 3D in total existence, but with a 2D surface area that matters (Could also be a 3D one if someone wants to work with textured paper), but the idea you are representing with that image is not the same as the image.

So the "fiction" here is basically the same as the "idea", you are using physical existence to represent something that exists as an idea, but the two are not the same existence. You can't stack up drawings until they become the literal idea you were thinking, but you can use that to represent what exists in your mind, but they will never share the same state of existence.

So, basically the same as Plato's cave. The difference is that while Plato's cave depicts the superiority of an idea beyond matter (As the idea does not exist in either time or space, but it's beyond it), the way Ultima is depicted mostly is with inferiority, but the general idea is the same, the difference between things that exist in the same physical level and those that don't.

If you increase the number of dimensional axes that an object spreads across with significant size, you are still only expanding the same physical aspects. All those dimensions exist as part of a singular whole with the same existence, they are just displaced orthogonally to each other. Therefore, no matter how much you increase the number of dimensions, you'll never stop being that type of existence. So, they are a matter of quantity, not quality. That means, if you are a 3D being and become a 4D being, you are not beyond the very spatial axes themselves, in fact, you literally are defined by them.

If something is not defined by spatial axes, you can't just say it's the previous spatial axes plus one because that literally is something defined by spatial axes, it's not something not defined by them.

Now, let me attempt to summarize the basic for those of you who do not want to read all of that yourself: Ultima introduces an idea lesser than the 'like in reality' one.

He says that the world of a character that sees our universe as fiction would be made from something like concepts (/abstracts / universals) or at least have some special metaphysical property that makes it fundamentally different than our universe. The idea is to limit the scope of R>F by saying: Just like a regular concept can not govern another concept, but can govern physical reality, a R>F author can write physical reality, but can not write R>F.

I.e. in Ultima's system someone that has a book where the story in the book is a lesser universe, they would either be assumed to be incapable of writing about "an author that writes a lesser universe" in the book or, if they can write it, it would not actually cause that to exist in the lesser world the book covers.
That solves the problem of R>F layers being meaningless, which the 'like in reality' system had, by saying that there can be authors that can't write those, making it plausible to by default assume they can't.
The same would then apply to higher layers. I.e. an author that writes an author that writes the universe, would not be able to write about an author that writes an author that writes the universe, as each layer of R>F would have its own nature or degree of abstractness which authors of lower layers can't grasp.

Now, Ultima hasn't explicitly said so as far as I recall, but I would guess logically that would expand to other attributes as well. I.e. an author may likewise be incapable of writing characters that are truly transdual, characters with beyond dimensional existence that transcend all dimensions by one or several layers or omnipotent characters. That solves the corresponding problem of R>F being above all of those otherwise.

Ultima also says that he doesn't really assume every (or any) character in the higher worlds here would necessarily have author powers over lesser realities, but still believes they would have power equivalent to that needed to destroy any story, even those physically infinitely larger than what the stories in the verse have shown to be. In my opinion it would need more assumption on the nature to really assume that, though. (if you want to see the full debate on that point, to check if I misinterpreted Ultima or for full context, it is part of the replies at the start of page 5 of the thread)

Let me note that I believe at this point one can already not talk about the universe some Tier 1 author is writing being literal nothingness or literal unreality to them. The story is now limited in scope. Not everything that can be written can appear in it. The story is given the attribute of just being physical, as opposed to the abstract extra attribute the higher reality has. And the story essentially refuses the author the ability to just put everything in it.
The story now isn't literally just the text or a dream, but it has supernatural properties linked to it. In fact, in fiction it is pretty standard of R>F differences to have the story as just some supernatural thing. Both in the sense that we often see it as such (e.g. the crystals that are lesser worlds in Umineko) but also because they display properties that don't fit literal unreality or nothingness, such as events in them progressing on their own according to choices made by characters in it.

This idea on how reality-fiction works is logically not wrong. However, contrary to what Ultima claims, I don't believe it to be the lowest not self-contradictory interpretation of the nature of fiction. Nor do I consider it to be a philosophy many authors would actually intent to apply. I certainly haven't seen a fiction like that.

One may also ask that, if we are arbitrarily assuming that higher worlds in R>F are conceptual realms or otherwise have special properties we invent for them and that they can not write things with such properties, why can we not do the same but with special properties that don't make them superior to all quantitative size?
I see no logical contradiction in saying that the authors can not write stories featuring realms beyond a certain maximum size. It's not like the idea of R>F having a quantitive nature is unheard of either. There is the infamous Umineko scan (https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/File:Umineko_Dimensions.png). Of course, that would still not mean that characters larger than what they can contain in their story would be able to harm them. However, they would not be able to harm those large character either. It would be like ghosts and physical matter: Neither ever amounts to anything of the other, but neither can they ever hurt each other. No superiority.

In fact, instead of tying it explicitly to dimensions one can even make just a really small alteration to get a very similar system that cares for size:

Ultima's proposal, but I modified it using other concepts​

The examples Ultima makes in his proposal relate the higher reality in a R>F case to be like concepts (/ abstracts / universal). And it's a particular kind as well: A Type 1 Concept and a special one that has no limitations for over how large structures it can apply.
Another logically valid option would be the same but with Type 2 or Type 3 concepts. Or with Type 1 Concepts, which can't cover spaces of arbitrary size e.g. because no concept of higher dimensions exists or only a concept up to a certain number of dimensions… or because they just don’t. Really, even Type 1 Concepts frequently just don’t govern a reality that is of arbitrary size.

In that case, following the same line of logic, we gain a R>F level of a quite similar nature and with quite similar properties. The only difference is that it is abundantly clear that the fictional level in this case can not hold realms of arbitrary size.
I.e. if you have a fiction with no concept of higher dimensions then the author in the superior reality can not write a fiction of that nature. We could hardly claim that if we compare to a fiction with a 100 dimensional space that this would just be part of their fiction under these circumstances. Of course, other way around, we could still not claim that the 100D space would include the superior reality in it, as that still has a different nature.
It’s just that we now see that the superior reality is not actually superior to the 100D space. It is only superior to the universe that its concepts actually govern. For anything larger than that it just has a relationship of non-interaction. It’s just matter vs. ghosts all over again.

This point of view is also logically valid and is still proper R>F transcendence, as you still have complete control over everything in your fiction while nothing in the fiction can really affect you, as you are still some abstract thing. (Well, unless you’re like the Type 3 concept of cars and cars stop existing, but that’s not really the kind of concept one could relate R>F to anyway)

Plot as its own abstract layer of the universe​

In the above two theories we have considered the higher world as being made up of something like the concepts that govern the lower world. However, a theory I actually see frequently in fiction is that plot is just an underlying layer of reality all on its own.
As a practical example take Clash of Hexennacht (https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Clash_of_Hexennacht). Therein plot is a layer of reality more abstract than laws of nature and names, but less abstract than concepts. Honestly, the plot in most series with below 3-A plot manipulation is probably something like that, as that is how manipulating plot isn’t manipulating the whole universe at once.

That viewpoint on plot is also telling us something about the nature of R>F in such a verse. What someone that just sees the plot of the world from a higher reality is doing, is to visualize and manipulate that plot of the universe while simultaneously existing outside and unbound by it. Since that plot is a fundamental part of the existence of the inferior reality, the residents of the inferior reality can not harm something beyond the plot they exist within. I.e. we have proper R>F transcendence as nothing within the plot can harm that outside it, while those outside it that have control over the plot have absolute power over all inside it.

And this world as well may have limitations, similar to the way laws can have limitations. One plot could only rule over one universe, instead of the same plot governing all universes. Or some universes may have plot and others do not. The City Series is an example of that. (Only has one profile right now, so maybe not the best example)
Or, perhaps the most common version: Everything may have an underlying plot, but the plot manipulator may only have control over one universe's plot, but not that of all universes or even larger spaces. Just like not every law manipulator that has absolute control of one universe and transcends it, equally controls all other universes at once.

As an example: In Clash of Hexennacht there is the book of creation, which contains the story of several universes. However, that is still governed by concepts. E.g. since no concept of immortality exists, these stories can't have immortal beings. And since no concept of anything bigger than a multiverse is known to exist, from that alone it's questionable that the book could create stories like that.

This nature is quite different from the others in that it gives the fictional universe a special property that makes it fictional, in the form of a "plot field". This is likewise not a logically contradictory theory and one can have perfectly reasonable R>F showings with it. In fact, if a fiction has R>F layers where they transcend all of their own verse, as is usually the case, then based on presentation alone this type can be pretty much indistinguishable from the types above.
This type also explains why layers work: The plot of each reality is limited in scope and manipulating a lesser reality's plot is different from manipulating your own. Adding more R>F layers to a lesser reality would be like trying to create a new kind of electromagnetism by manipulating the field of electromagnetism. That's clearly different from regular manipulation.

It is, in my opinion, a valid nature that one can consider for how R>F might work and just about the lowest kind which still allows for R>F. And I think having a "local" plot like this is not rare.

Others​

Honestly, I can probably come up with more and if you know any that appear in fiction let me know and I might add them if I do some big summary towards the end. Like, we are talking about a fairly non-standardized mechanic here and there are bound to be many legitimate opinions on how this works.

Ultima's proposal doesn't really solve the underlying issue​

So, this is a more indirect point of criticism, but I still think it is important to bring up. As I said plenty at this point, I don't think R>F per default is above all dimensions and I also don't think adding higher dimensions would at some point amount to a R>F difference. I think a character that sees just the 3D universe as fiction has no feats that would justify being able to destroy 5D space or a 5D character. On the other hand, I don't think a 5D character would be able to destroy the first character's world or harm them in any way. Neither are superior to the other, they just can't interact.

Now, one might say that Ultima's proposal is easier, as it allows us to compare the characters and declare winners in battles between them. Such an argument doesn't hold much weight as far as truth is concerned, but I still think I should point out one of my problems with it.

Said problem is that it solves that issue for the comparison between two kinds of transcendence and then commits to making the exact same mistake for all others.

Consider: Besides R>F and dimensions, one could also gain a level of superiority by things like transduality or omnipotence or higher realms in which the lesser realms are nothing or many other imaginable kinds of transcendence. But comparisons between those things carry the exact same problems as comparisons between dimensions and R>F. If your R>F doesn't allow to write transdual characters then adding more R>F layers will never get it there either. Other way around, if your transduality isn't above all R>F then adding more layers of it is unlikely to change it. At least, not by default without the fiction indicating such a fundamental change in what you're doing.
Basically: Those things should not interact either. So for the reasons Ultima brought up in the OP it makes no sense to consider them equal, yet he does that in his proposed system.

Conclusion​

All this comes down to is this: Just being unreachable alone is not enough to be superior, especially if the other person in turn is unreachable to you. If you can't prove that you or anyone you scale to has power over the totality of the "lesser" realms, then it's questionable if they are actually lesser or if they are just different.
There are perfectly reasonable views on how fiction within fiction works which do not require being superior to one universe to imply being superior to all dimensions without limit and every notion of quantitive size in general. You can see a universe as fiction and have complete control of it, yet have no power at all over anything outside of it. (Especially if we compare different verses) These alternate options for the nature of R>F are not really stranger or less natural than the equivalence to abstracts in Ultima's proposal on the nature either. Nor does Ultima's system solve the difficulty in comparing different kinds of transcendence in general.

And as there exists such perfectly reasonable options for how fiction within fiction works, it would be wrong to default for extremely high-end interpretations like them transcending all dimensions and quantitive size without limit. That would be hasty generalization or, to use the fallacy that is a special case of that, a no-limit fallacy.

We should hence not use a system that makes such assumptions for verses that have no feats or statements putting them remotely on that level. Making characters with R>F above a simple universe 1-A is just not a reasonable degree of extrapolation.

What to do with this information​

Now, I hear Ultima say "but you can't just say my system is bad and not suggest some other one. If you don't defend the current system you must propose something else!"
Honestly, I disagree. I think proposing and debating options for systems is much better done in a different thread. I can't, after all, add my proposals to the OP as equal alternatives at this point.

But sure, let's still talk about at least some options. I don't think they are exhaustive and I'm honestly open to many suggestions as long as they consider what I have lined out above regarding the different possible viewpoints on reality-fiction in fiction.

The first option is basically the current system. "But DontTalk" I hear you say "didn't you agree with Ultima that dimensions and R>F layers don't equalize in the beginning? And didn't you say in your whole explanations that they don't do either?"
Yes, yes I did. The thing is that something being metaphysically true and us having to put it into our tiering system are two different things. From a metaphysical perspective, it's also wrong to equalize magic between two verses, but we still do so to enable fights.
The system by which we equate R>F layers to dimensional levels is called "Composite Hierarchies" for a reason. We are compositing things quite consciously, by saying that despite not being the same, we list things that have the same number of levels of transcendence above a standard universe as being the same tier. That makes characters comparable and lets characters with different kinds of transcendence fight. That is both simple and allows us to have many of the fun debates, which otherwise couldn't happen due to some stupid technicality.
If we as a community agree to consciously continue doing that kind of verse/reality equalization then it is a legitimate option.

But we could also go a different way. We could, for example, start adding a section about the nature of a character's levels of transcendence to Tier 1 profiles. At the most basic level that would break down the levels of transcendence into their different natures. Like: 5 levels of R>F and 10 levels of higher dimensions.
Those informations can then be used to decide how the characters would interact (or not interact) in battle in a better-informed fashion.
How we exactly separate tiers would also be open to debate. We could continue to go by the sum of all levels. Or we could go by the maximum level between each kind of transcendence. Or any other system, just as long as we keep each character to what their feats and statements actually prove.

Extra Extra!​

So, the above is what I would call required reading. The below is some extra considerations and addressing of Ultima's counter-points for completion's sake. If you think they hold much weight, maybe read this too.

Spoiler: Extra stuff

Universe Simulation and similar​

So, I brought up a while ago that computer simulations are also a kind of R>F and since computers have limited computing power they by their very nature couldn’t hold arbitrary many dimensions, as more dimensions = more computing power necessary to simulate them.
I was basically told that those aren’t proper counter examples as they are "faux Reality-Fiction". Now, no idea what exactly Ultima plans to do with those if he doesn't consider them proper reality-fiction. Will virtual R>F just be downgraded to not give higher tiers? Will he still equalize those to dimensions? Idk.
What is interesting is that the same argument can be applied to other things. E.g. the human brain only has limited processing power, so what can be part of dreams is inherently limited for the same reasons. Our thought machine is just not big enough to dream of infinite dimensional space.
Not to mention that it wouldn't to begin with. We humans can't really comprehend higher dimensions in a visual fashion and hence can't really dream of them either. The physiology of the dreamer puts limits on the dream.
So they and other things with similar problems should really not be considered either following the same logic.

Not that I personally agree with that. I think both are perfectly fine R>F examples, just that they are good examples of spaces which per default are not above worlds of arbitrary size.

Counterpoint 1: On the NLF​

Now, the first statement regarding nothingness I think I already sufficiently debated above. In reality-fiction differences, fiction is simply not literal nothingness and size never adding up to a qualitative difference is not sufficient to prove superiority (just as matter never stacking up to souls doesn't apply superiority of souls).

The second part talks about a mechanism, but the verses we are talking about are those that don't have described any explicit mechanism for R>F that would put them above all dimensions. The NLF is a special case of the hasty generalization fallacy: The mistake of stretching something beyond what was meant to apply it to a greater scope than it was ever intended. And without a doubt that is possible. We have practical examples like Umineko that see their R>F layers in a quantitative fashion. And as I listed above there are various logically feasible ways to view the nature of R>F to not include superiority. It would be a NLF to default to higher interpretations if we know that lower interpretations are in fact a possibility.

Counterpoint 2: Minimum Interpretations​

The problem here is twofold, and are things I basically already addressed. To make it short: Ultima's interpretation is not the lowest viable one and his analogy about length and height not equating more or less real just isn't a sufficient criteria for superiority - it misses the aspect of the other thing having power over it.
Having lots of R>F will never reach infinite D spaces either if each world is just 3D.

Counterpoint 4: The Antithesis​

This is probably not a strong point in either direction, but I still will point out that I perceive this the exact opposite way for a similar reason.
IMO just assuming that characters with R>F have enough strength to destroy infinite dimensional spaces and the like without feats is the act of altering them to work according to the proposed tiering system. Meanwhile, assuming that their abilities are limited to what they demonstrate is having a system that evaluates them by how they are depicted.

Counterpoint 5: Possibility​

I think the reasoning mistake here lies in the fact that it ascribes the authors to a particular viewpoint regarding reality-fiction or specifically regarding transcendent power.
Yes, they might intend to demonstrate transcendent power, but not the kind of transcendence Ultima subscribes to for R>F. They will mostly just think of it as a higher world without any considerations towards comparison to other size concepts or transcendence concepts in general.
Expecting the author to demonstrate feats or statements if they wish for the R>F to be above all dimensions or cardinalities is not a matter of expecting them to account for the tiering system. It is instead just expecting them to explain the nature of the R>F to be that if they intend it to be. If they don't, then we have no reason to assume they would subscribe to an understanding of R>F that has this attribute.

What Ultima argues here is like saying "we can't restrict multiversal characters to have actual multiversal feats or statements, as that would be expecting the authors to know our tiering system. If they intend their characters to be stronger than universal characters that should be enough!"
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it still is absence of evidence. Not knowing the author's view on the matter, or them not even having one, doesn't allow you to assume that they have such a high-end one.

Counterpoint 6: Well...​

Problem is that the chain of reasoning there isn't solid, the topic is highly philosophical (and consequently subjective) and examples breaking the suggestion exist. So given how massive the claim is, it is indeed appropriate to expect more evidence than a fiction just throwing a R>F difference.

Counterpoint 7: Yes, but actually no.​

The problem is that this assumes that there is a general consensus on your reasoning being true to begin with. With physics we can assume every author starts out agreeing with it. Regarding metaphysical subjects like this we usually can't.
I could start a debate here about free will, but even if I could convince everyone that I'm logically right, fact remains that I can't assume every author agrees with me. I once listened to a few university philosophy lectures and as the professor said at the start (paraphrased): "Everything you will learn is just an opinion. In philosophy, there is nothing everyone agrees on."
You can't expect evidence of absence when people don't even think they are breaking some logical rule.

Counterpoint 8: So as I said earlier...​

Well, as seen in my main arguments I neither believe the assumptions presented here are generally true nor do I believe that the conclusion is a necessary consequence of them.
Fiction in fiction is not literal nothingness and mere non-comparability is not superiority.

Counterpoint 9: Metaphysics contains the word physics, but is something else entirely​

The physics comparisons are bad as physics is universally agreed upon by basically everyone. Same with math, really. They are a much more solid foundation than a philosophical opinion.

But the main problem here is of course the assumption that everyone would agree that the proposed chain of reasoning is how things must work.

Honestly, one could use this and similar arguments in the prior counterpoints to just as well argue that we should assume the nature of R>F working like literal fiction.

Counterpoint 13: Let's not just ignore counter-examples​

Honestly, this entire counterargument is basically a No true Scotsman. It argues that we can just ignore counterexamples because it would be easy to differentiate them from "real" R>F.
That's just not how things work. We are seeing fictions that actually tell us more about how they view the nature of reality fiction and demonstrate that some author's view doesn't align with the proposed reasoning. That such points of view exist shows us why defaulting to a much higher tier is illegitimate: Because the reasoning put forth is not as universally agreed upon truth as Ultima presents it. There is no guarantee that other authors aren't envisioning something like those authors do, but don't explicitly mention it.

When we are talking about what a default assumption should be it simply is no legitimate argument to say that one can deal with counter-examples separately. It doesn't make them go away.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Big one, eh.

I guess it was my choice to make the OP as long as it is, so, fair's fair. Gimme a day or two to put together a reply. Will maybe take this as an opportunity to respond in other threads I left hanging.

 

[DontTalkDT]

You can always reply to it in small pieces if you want like I did until now
On the other hand, I really need to get back to my work, so take your time.

 

[Antvasima]

I personally think we should be very careful with regards to just how many tiers we want in the name of specificity. The idea here should be about quality, and not stat-padding-based quantity.

Just a note that I only support this revision if we apply a high degree of specificity through a quite high number of tiers.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Would it be ok for me to pitch an idea, seeing as I am not a mod? I think I have an idea that could possibly help out a lil. Especially @Antvasima, @Ultima_Reality and @DontTalkDT. I just don't want to be banned.

Do you have permission? Also, only staff can ping people.

 

[Trigger]

Do you have permission? Also, only staff can ping people.

For real?

 

[Trigger]

Do you have permission? Also, only staff can ping people.

Well I'll be. Sorry for the inconveniences. I'll go read the policies then I'll be right back. Also how does one get "permission"?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Well I'll be. Sorry for the inconveniences. I'll go read the policies then I'll be right back. Also how does one get "permission"?

Ask a Thread Moderator, Administrator, or Bureaucrat.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

As an update on the above: Yeah, I'm late. Going through a move and all, so, been occupied with helping that out for the past few days. The response itself is nearly done, so, expect it to be thrown here sometime tomorrow.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

As an update on the above: Yeah, I'm late. Going through a move and all, so, been occupied with helping that out for the past few days. The response itself is nearly done, so, expect it to be thrown here sometime tomorrow.

@Ultima_Reality Progress on this?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

@Ultima_Reality Progress on this?

I haven't forgotten, obviously. Moving just turned out to be a far, far lengthier thing than I expected. I'll probably go back to doing wiki things sometime within this weekend.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Take your time. Honestly, I'm still busy as hell anyway and then christmas stuff is coming up. So who knows when I would find time for replies anyway.
Honestly, end of april sounds like a great date. Then I will be done with my stuff.

 

[Flowman777]

Antvasima gave me permission to make this post.

On this thread, I noticed that Ultima Reality and DontTalkDT have been debating about whether the proposed tiering changes are reasonable. Something I was thinking of is this: shouldn't there also be heavy discussion on what kinds of evidence would be needed to access very high tiers (tiers above absolutely all quantitative jumps) or if it is possible for there to be such evidence? Obviously, DontTalkDT and Ultima Reality's debate is important for determining whether the system is reasonable at all. But even if Ultima Reality's tierings are reasonable low-end estimates (I disagree with that on the basis of DontTalkDT's reasons but that's besides the point of this message and I'm not a staff member anyways, so I digress), I feel that trying to figure out just how specific of evidence is needed for various tiers will help make the system more viable to be used in practice via making the highest tiers require enough unambiguous evidence to prevent them from being given to random ambiguous statements or feats. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence after all.

 

[DontTalkDT]

To an extent, we are doing that, although that is mostly in the context of to which degree the jumping above all the quantitative tiers even makes sense.

Like, as I brought up my write up above, I question that Ultima's way of equalizing different kinds of qualitative jumps is any more correct than the current equalization of qualitative and quantitative jumps. As the comparisions IMO are really of fundamentally of the same nature.

And, of course, Ultima's proposal inherently is about how tiers above all quantitative jumps can be reached without explicit statements or feats of them being above all quantitative things, such as by just having a R>F transcendence over a basic 3D space. If we decide that we require more evidence than that (as I argue), Ultima's tier-restructuring proposal as such is probably off the table. This isn't to say that there aren't yet more possible revisions that have some similar aspects one could do, just that there would be little point in discussing them here. (E.g. whether we could consider ranking R>F transcendence with specific statements of transcending dimensions as being a specific tier is a relevant question, but I don't think it would impact how we structure our tiering system. That would just be a question of where to put it in the system we end up in.)

That being said, not all details necessarily warrant discussion at this stage. Basically, unless it possibly impacts the adoption of the system, it probably makes more sense to debate it after we decide on the adoption or not.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

All righty, then. I'll address this by order of relevance. So, the bits with actual substance come first, and the more insubstantial ones come after. So this post doesn't really match the order of arguments.

So, I brought up a while ago that computer simulations are also a kind of R>F and since computers have limited computing power they by their very nature couldn’t hold arbitrary many dimensions, as more dimensions = more computing power necessary to simulate them
I was basically told that those aren’t proper counter examples as they are "faux Reality-Fiction". Now, no idea what exactly Ultima plans to do with those if he doesn't consider them proper reality-fiction. Will virtual R>F just be downgraded to not give higher tiers? Will he still equalize those to dimensions? Idk.
What is interesting is that the same argument can be applied to other things. E.g. the human brain only has limited processing power, so what can be part of dreams is inherently limited for the same reasons. Our thought machine is just not big enough to dream of infinite dimensional space.
Not to mention that it wouldn't to begin with. We humans can't really comprehend higher dimensions in a visual fashion and hence can't really dream of them either. The physiology of the dreamer puts limits on the dream.
So they and other things with similar problems should really not be considered either following the same logic.

Problem is that the chain of reasoning there isn't solid, the topic is highly philosophical (and consequently subjective) and examples breaking the suggestion exist. So given how massive the claim is, it is indeed appropriate to expect more evidence than a fiction just throwing a R>F difference.

Computers also don't have enough computational power to render the entire universe (Much less an infinite universe). So if you say: "Well, a computer can't contain that, so it shouldn't be counted as transcending it," by that logic, Reality-Fiction Transcendences aren't really infinite differences, either, and are in fact very finite. Both this and the example involving dreams indeed fall under this (I know you said you would ignore my requirements, but frankly this is outrageous on all fronts, so I will in fact appeal to them here). If anything, it only shows that computer simulations are not, in fact, a kind of R>F.
Or more precisely: It shows that the "lesser world" (If it exists) wouldn't be the computer simulation, but the thing being simulated, just like the lesser world of a R>F difference involving books wouldn't be the text of the book, but what the text is describing, therefore meaning that the limitations of the text don't constitute a limitation of what the lesser world can hold. Are we going to say that an author seeing a lower universe as a book suddenly isn't infinitely above said universe if the book doesn't painstakingly describe every single detail of it down to a quark? Or if the book doesn't have infinite pages? Of course not. Yet that's what your logic leads to.

So the error comes from conflating two separate things: The lower plane, and the medium representing the lower plane, which is something we specifically note against, even. So the argument is founded on a misunderstanding of how R>F Transcendences are meant to work. If a verse conflates the medium and the thing that it represents to the extent that limitations on the former constitute limitations on the latter, then, yeah, that verse doesn't have R>F to start with.

So your examples are inadequate and all your claims of "subjectivity" a fairly poor shield to use (The latter, also, only betray poor knowledge of philosophy and an even poorer understanding of metaphysics, which are not this trivial, opinion-based enterprise, unlike what you seem to think), but nevertheless I see the need to clarify something: You seem to be under the conception that any showing of "This reality pops up as part of an artificial thing in some higher realm" counts as "R>F." I am not.

Spoiler: CLARIFICATION

In general, I'm skeptical of things like a cosmic entity pulling a human into their realm and saying "Oh, this board game is how your brain processes the appearance of your universe from here." Same with purely "visual" showings that don't actually inform us of the nature of the superiority in question (Since, when dealing with incomprehensible cosmic stuff, such visualizations are inherently not fully literal, anyway). So that seems to be the disjunction between us here: You say cases like this are "The fiction throwing a R>F difference." I say they aren't, even if they sure look like it.

What fits the bill, then? Of course: Cases where the higher world is literally a "Real World." Which is to say: We know the author is, literally, an author of books and not just a cosmic being that is perceived as an author of books, the beings there are literal normal people that just live in a higher world, etc (Because then we know each layer contains its own particular set of dimensions, and isn't related to the others through dimensional differences). Cosmologies that say "The world is illusory and there is a true reality above it" qualify, as well. And if a verse defines, say, mental existence as intrinsically inferior to physical existence (So that, say, a mental construct would be inferior even to lower-dimensional things and spaces, since those too are physical by virtue of being part of space), then I'd also say the gap between the two is greater than any dimensional jump.

Your issue with all this seems to be that you believe I am introducing some entirely new version of what Reality-Fiction Transcendence is to the wiki, but I am not. All of this is stuff that's already there, and which you used as counterarguments against me in past debates. This, for the matter, is also why everyone here is well-aware of what I mean, except you.

Those cases, the ones that qualify, are ones where we know the sheer gap in power between the two realms is qualitative, and not quantitative. The cases that don't qualify, though, are ones where we don't know that, and where it could very well be interpreted as quantitative with no contradiction. This is the problem with your "Computer Simulations" example, also: Even if I were to humor it, what you're saying there is less "Qualitative superiorities aren't necessarily above all quantitative superiorities" and more "Reality-Fiction Transcendences aren't necessarily qualitative superiorities." Really just avoiding the more pressing issue, at best.

And I would indeed say that there are verses featuring Reality-Fiction Transcendences in the exact ways I listed above. Many, in fact, which I can actually make a list of, if needed.

Since your "counter-proposals" simply abide by this same misunderstanding of what R>F is, I won't really bother to address them. They're of the exact same nature as the computer simulation example: Quite bad all around. In fact, one of the roots of your disagreement appears to be the idea that my proposals don't actually constitute "the lowest feasible interpretation of what R>F is." Which, as shown above, isn't true. So, I won't even bother to address repetitions of this same point (Which are all over your post)

Those two alone are not sufficient, though. Allow me to give an example of why: Think about spirits and possibly astral worlds they live in. A spirit can not be harmed by anything in the physical world, as it is of a non-physical quality. Neither will adding more physical space or matter ever make something into a spirit or an astral object. Evidently, a spirit or an astral plane of existence would equally fulfil these criteria.
Yet intuitively these wouldn’t in general be considered superior to universes, multiverses or higher dimensions in general, right? So we are missing some distinguishing criteria.
If someone asked why a ghost is not superior to the universe, the likely first answer you would get is "well, they can't destroy it, can they?" And that is pretty on point. Just being metaphysically uninfluenced from the world isn't enough. The superior being must be able to interact with the inferior world. And not just interact a little, but in fact be able to destroy it, create it or at the very least significantly affect the totality of it. An astral plane where all ghosts can destroy the universe by its nature could quite possible be considered superior to it, don't you think?

Another example would be any abstract character that is below 3-A. No amount of larger space will ever amount to reaching a conceptual entity, but that doesn't mean they are all Tier 1.

I will also give a practical example here: In the book Aerial City London England is cut off from the rest of the world by making it fictional.

Ironically, that is done to protect it. That's because humans from the outside rarely have any chance to interact with this fictional world at all. In fact, when trying to destroy it, humans in the story found it easier to become fictional themselves and destroy it from the inside. I think this is a pretty good example for a case where a realm is seen is true fiction, but there is clearly no proper superiority. What is lacking is the ability for the more real world to be offensively powerful in comparison i.e. the ability to destroy the fiction.

Sadly it is not quite as easy as to require exactly that. Being completely unreachable from some plane of existence and being able to wield absolute power over it is certainly a sufficient criteria for superiority, but in fictional scaling we will quickly find exceptions. Namely, characters equal to characters that can do that. In a reality-fiction transcendence context, if the universe is just a person's dream then another person in the same world won't be able to influence that dream as they are not the one dreaming it. But they can still fight the person dreaming it in their shared world, in a regular fist fight for example, so they would still scale.

What this all in all comes to is that I would put the following necessary criteria on on superiority:
"A character that is superior to a realm should not be able to be harmed by anything potentially in it and should either be able to destroy, create and/or significantly affect that realm or scale to someone that can."
That's pretty similar to our existing tiering standards. You will find requirements like that on the tiering system page.

This is just your previous point, except phrased with more words that add nothing substantial to it. In fact, it just shows your fundamental misunderstanding of the arguments at hand: You think my point is that being unreachable to a certain thing, by virtue of a different nature, inherently makes you superior to it. But everyone here can see that this, of course, is not what I am saying at all, nor is it a logical consequence of what I am saying. So I don't know why you keep repeating this.

Furthermore, your jump from "A difference in nature isn't sufficient to assert a true superiority" to "Therefore, it must mean that whatever definition of 'superiority' we come up with must include having power to interact with the lesser reality" is also very much a non-sequitur. And one that was already thoroughly addressed here.

I also already addressed the tidbit I bolded at the bottom, there. In the same post linked above, too. To reiterate: You seem to be under the impression that these things are derived in the same way that AP is derived in lower tiers. They are not. In fact, they are functionally more analogous in nature to Durability, since, as said, Reality-Fiction Transcendence is entirely about "What others can't do to you," rather than "What you can do to others." It's just that this unassailable nature derives from something analogous to "size" in the character.

Consider: Besides R>F and dimensions, one could also gain a level of superiority by things like transduality or omnipotence or higher realms in which the lesser realms are nothing or many other imaginable kinds of transcendence. But comparisons between those things carry the exact same problems as comparisons between dimensions and R>F. If your R>F doesn't allow to write transdual characters then adding more R>F layers will never get it there either. Other way around, if your transduality isn't above all R>F then adding more layers of it is unlikely to change it. At least, not by default without the fiction indicating such a fundamental change in what you're doing.
Basically: Those things should not interact either. So for the reasons Ultima brought up in the OP it makes no sense to consider them equal, yet he does that in his proposed system.

"Transduality" in the genuine sense is just Tier 0 under my proposals, so it's an irrelevant example, since I'm not falsely equalizing it to anything. It and "Omnipotence" (The rigorous definition of it that I outlined, that is) are one and the same thing, in fact. "Higher realms in which the lesser realms are nothing" is just what R>F is, also. So none of these are very strong examples of your point.

When these concepts are portrayed wrongly, and thus made to not be themselves (And thus deprived of everything that makes them distinct from other forms of transcendence), they can be tiered wherever, really. Though I still expect certain tiers to be the most common default for some of them. Transduality over all things in reality, for instance, would be 1-A in most cases, since spatial differentiation (And thus dimensionality) is something that can reasonably be assumed to fall under it in the overwhelming majority of cases. It's up to the verse to tell us what is (And isn't) a duality, otherwise, as well as how these dualities operate.

Counterpoint 1: On the NLF​

Now, the first statement regarding nothingness I think I already sufficiently debated above. In reality-fiction differences, fiction is simply not literal nothingness and size never adding up to a qualitative difference is not sufficient to prove superiority (just as matter never stacking up to souls doesn't apply superiority of souls).

The second part talks about a mechanism, but the verses we are talking about are those that don't have described any explicit mechanism for R>F that would put them above all dimensions. The NLF is a special case of the hasty generalization fallacy: The mistake of stretching something beyond what was meant to apply it to a greater scope than it was ever intended. And without a doubt that is possible. We have practical examples like Umineko that see their R>F layers in a quantitative fashion. And as I listed above there are various logically feasible ways to view the nature of R>F to not include superiority. It would be a NLF to default to higher interpretations if we know that lower interpretations are in fact a possibility.

Counterpoint 5: Possibility​

I think the reasoning mistake here lies in the fact that it ascribes the authors to a particular viewpoint regarding reality-fiction or specifically regarding transcendent power.
Yes, they might intend to demonstrate transcendent power, but not the kind of transcendence Ultima subscribes to for R>F. They will mostly just think of it as a higher world without any considerations towards comparison to other size concepts or transcendence concepts in general.
Expecting the author to demonstrate feats or statements if they wish for the R>F to be above all dimensions or cardinalities is not a matter of expecting them to account for the tiering system. It is instead just expecting them to explain the nature of the R>F to be that if they intend it to be. If they don't, then we have no reason to assume they would subscribe to an understanding of R>F that has this attribute.

What Ultima argues here is like saying "we can't restrict multiversal characters to have actual multiversal feats or statements, as that would be expecting the authors to know our tiering system. If they intend their characters to be stronger than universal characters that should be enough!"
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it still is absence of evidence. Not knowing the author's view on the matter, or them not even having one, doesn't allow you to assume that they have such a high-end one.

These caricatures of my stance are pretty poor all-in-all, and they're already addressed by the first thing, but I will use them as an opportunity to expound one aspect of the proposals: BDE. Your logic against it is flawed because it relies on the understanding that Type 2 Beyond-Dimensional Existence has a feasible lowball beneath 1-A, and that understanding is, itself, grounded on a subpar understanding of the ability itself. To elaborate:

Spoiler: EXAMPLE 1

Imagine I have a character, who I will call "Joe." Joe's nature is one that completely lacks space and time, and for a time he has no feats whatsoever other than this. Joe, then, is rated at Unknown, and has Type 1 BDE.

Now, the cosmology of Joe's verse only has 4 dimensions, and eventually Joe is stated to be so powerful that he is able to blow up 5-dimensional universes (Although those don't exist in his setting). By the logic you uphold, that statement now means Joe has Type 2 Beyond-Dimensional Existence. This is an incorrect assessment. Joe's BDE is still Type 1, even with that statement.
This, I believe, is your cardinal error here: You think Type 2 BDE boils down to just Type 1 BDE + AP higher than the dimensional structures of your verse, and therefore reason that being "Above dimensionality" can be defaulted to just mean "Is aspatial/atemporal + Has the raw power to destroy structures a dimension higher than whatever is present in the verse." That's not what Type 2 BDE is about, so that lowball likewise is invalid. (Keep this in mind, since I find it likely that your reply to the following would be rooted in this same flawed understanding)

Now that I've explained where you're going wrong, let me outline the kind of nonsense that your logic (And by extension, the current Tiering System's) results, as well as the misconceptions it springs from:

Spoiler: EXAMPLE 2

You seem a bit uninformed on philosophy, so I'll take the time to explain some things to you. Firstly, a failure in your thinking is that you neglect to make a distinction between two pretty fundamental things: A term's intension and a term's extension. Now, what are those?

Basically, the intension of a term is the definition of that term; it is the basic qualities and the attributes that it entails and encompasses. Meanwhile, the extension of a term is the set of actual things to which that definition applies. For example: The intension of the term "boat" is "A vessel used to travel along water bodies." The extension of the term "boat" is all the boats in the universe.
Catch the difference there? The intension, obviously, holds not just for all the boats in the universe, but also for boats that don't actually exist and will never exist. It encompasses, for example, a boat as large as Mount Everest, or a boat the size of Saturn. The extension, obviously, definitionally only encompasses the set of boats that do exist, since it just is that very set. The extension is X, and the intension is Xness, the quality of having X.

At this point, I think it's easy to see where you're going wrong: You think attributes and definitions are extensions, when in actuality they're intensions. You think, for example, that "X"ness (The quality of having X) is entirely encompassed in "The set of all X that exist." So, for example: To you, "Cupness" is just "The set of all cups that exist in the world," and "Dimensionality" likewise is just the set of all dimensions that exist in the world. And then you go on to argue that saying "Dimensionality includes more than just the dimensions that exist, and transcending it means you transcend more than physically exists" is an unwarranted assumption, or a "NLF." When it really isn't, it's just a basic thing in both logic and philosophy of language, and an intrinsic feature of how these things work.

And this, by the way, holds true regardless of what position you hold on the existence of Universals (Or concepts, as we've come to know them in this community). The intension of the term "Dimension" includes all conceivable dimensional spaces regardless of whether or not it actually exists as an abstract object in some other world. You don't need to assume Platonism is true, or something, to say that. It holds 100% true even on a metaphysically neutral ground. Ask any logician about this and they'll tell you that Intension and Extension are, in fact, different things.

Furthermore, it also means that "Oh, but the number of dimensions might be limited by the laws of physics of the verse!" is completely and utterly irrelevant, as physical possibility is only a limit to the extension of a term. Intension concerns itself entirely with metaphysical, or logical, possibility, which is a different thing entirely. So in order for that argument to even be successful, you'd have to demonstrate that the existence of more dimensions in the given verse is logically impossible, and you can't say that it is so simply because it's physically impossible.

(Though that argument is weird, anyway. I don't know why you think transcendence over physics is... somehow limited by physics. Physics are more fundamental than that which transcends them, I guess)

And in anticipation of a potential rebuttal here: Yeah, being "above dimensions" in the Type 2 BDE sense does, in fact, require being above the intension of the term "dimension," and thus all possible dimensional spaces. It requires you to be above the very quality of having dimensions in the first place. Why? Well let's take an example:

Imagine I have a verse whose cosmology caps at 3-A, with the observable universe being all that exists in it. So, the diameter of 93 billion light-years around us, pretty much. Hell, have the verse be one with a presentist cosmology too, while you're at it, so we're sure it does indeed cap at that and doesn't have even a Low 2-C structure in it.

Now, in this verse, there is a cosmic entity, who I'll call "Saul." And Saul is stated to be "Above all finite things" (Note: Not "above all other finite things," or any caveated statement. He is above all finite things, period). Logically speaking, Saul should, at minimum, be High 3-A. He can't be just higher into 3-A than the rest of the verse, because if he was, he'd be himself a finite thing, and thus not be above all finite things at all. Yet for the logic you apply to BDE to be consistent, Saul would in fact have to be just 3-A. There aren't any finite things above a diameter of 93 billion light-years in there, after all, so clearly we don't know if he is above structures of 100 billion light-years, or 200 billion light-years, or 90^100 light-years...

Since "Above all finite things" is pretty much identical to "Infinite," this is to say your logic is equivalent to saying that, for an "infinite power" statement to be High 3-A, the verse needs either an infinitely large cosmology for the character with the statement to scale above, or an insinuation that something like it could exist by the verse's physics, which isn't the case even now: We just require "infinite power" to be literal in the way we need it to be to qualify for High 3-A (i.e. The character is able to exert infinite force. No High 3-A cosmology needed)

We can reframe this scenario in another way, too: Say, the verse's cosmology caps not at 3-A but at 5-B. So, in that case, your framework would make it so Saul's "above finite all things" lands him at 5-B, too. After all, there are no finite things larger than 5-B in the verse, so clearly "finiteness" as a whole caps at 5-B, and therefore "infinity" by the verse's standards is only a higher level of 5-B.

Since 5-B and 3-A and any finite tier are all equally far away from High 3-A, this means that you can just extend this to increasingly ridiculous scenarios that are exactly as valid as the above ones. Say, a verse has an atom-sized cosmology and then a character pops up saying "I am above the concepts of finiteness, and limits, and size, and mass and energy," only for us to rate that character at "Slightly above atom level."

All this, of course, is completely absurd, yet it's what your logic necessitates. That's the kind of nonsense that results from conflating intension and extension. And frankly the only way you can possibly argue your way out of this is by saying that Intension doesn't exist at all, which isn't really a tenable position to hold.

So, TL;DR the Tiering System is currently based on a misunderstanding of outrageously elementary facts of logic and philosophy of language, and applying it in the current manner results in it not even being consistent with itself and saying some outright nonsense ontop of that. Obviously, this applies to any system that makes use of those same "methods" too.

The character could write a copy of all of Marvel, DC, Demon King Daimao, Umineko and whatever else in their book and create a to him fictional world containing all of those, making them superior to those. They could also write of transduality, beyond dimensional existence, omnipotence, true unity, logic and whatever else. It would be the highest possible Tier 0, as nothing another fiction presents couldn't potentially get described in the book. Even R>F differences are meaningless, as they could write about as many as they like of those as well.

Now, it's pretty obvious why we wouldn't want to use this. It's the most extreme high end and there are alternatives to this. Not to mention that if we also were to treat other things like that it would become paradoxical: A transdual character would be above the distinction of reality and fiction, yet an author can write about transduality. Both would be above the other by nature.

As you said, "R>F Transcendence exactly as it is in reality" is not something I want to instate. Not because "This would inflate characters!", though, but because the concept is inherently nonsensical. A non-thing. It doesn't really exist.

He says that the world of a character that sees our universe as fiction would be made from something like concepts (/abstracts / universals) or at least have some special metaphysical property that makes it fundamentally different than our universe.
(...)
One may also ask that, if we are arbitrarily assuming that higher worlds in R>F are conceptual realms or otherwise have special properties we invent for them and that they can not write things with such properties, why can we not do the same but with special properties that don't make them superior to all quantitative size?

I never said that. At no point did I say that higher R>F layers have to be conceptual realms, and what have you. These "special properties" are also already baked-in into the notion of what Reality-Fiction is, so, yeah. Misconstruing them as "invented" reflects badly both on your points and on your knowledge of the Tiering System.

---

So, in short, your arguments mostly boil down to:

• Misunderstanding (And thus strawmanning) my points.
• Misunderstanding the Tiering System.
• Misunderstanding basic principles of both logic and philosophy.
• An extremely poor understanding of philosophy and metaphysics in general, as said before.
• Haphazard examples that only look like what they purport to be, but don't share of the same essence as it at all.
• Dodging the core issue (My point is "Qualitative superiorities should be above quantitative superiorities" and you somehow think "What you hold to be qualitative superiorities sometimes are quantitative!" is valid as a primary counterargument)

Frankly, unless you bring up some extremely innovative thing to the table, instead of repeating the same insubstantial points over and over, then I am afraid we have no more to say to each other here.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

By the by, I also want to add something I forgot to mention. Up there, you said:

The debate by its nature doesn't employ the qualitative superiority term as it’s currently defined (as that is in a quantitative way), so we must start this with the question of what superiority is and how we determine it. And I mean just basic superiority here, not the infinite times superior superiority we currently use. Hence no infinity requirements in the following.

Yeah, about that:

Reality-Fiction Transcendence

It is not uncommon in fiction for characters to view lesser realities as if they were fiction, in much the same way as a real world human would view fiction. Frequently that comes in the form of almighty author characters which can freely rewrite those lesser realities. The other way around...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Reality-Fiction Transcendence is a state where a being is qualitatively superior to another world, as a result of seeing the world as fiction and thus being more 'real' than said world. Due to this, the character will be treated as completely superior to the cosmology it transcends, and all characters limited to it, and will thus be granted a higher tier.

For example, if a character were to view an entire space-time continuum as fiction, they would be superior to such an extent that finite, or even basic infinite, differences in power cannot overcome their superiority. Thus, they would be treated as more than infinitely greater, such as in this case Low 1-C. The gap between the higher world and the lower world would be strictly one of quality, not quantity.

So, yeah. A bit sussy, in my eyes.

 

[Antvasima]

I still support Ultima here, although as I said earlier, we have to sufficiently expand our amount of tiers in conjunction, so important distinctions are not left out.

 

[GrathOfLux]

I have been asked again by Ultima to respond to this thread.

Having read through the past few replies, and re-reading some of the older replies to refresh my memory, my stance has not changed.

I don't believe DT has understood much of what Ultima is proposing. Ultima, obviously, can speak for himself on what he is proposing - and as shown above, he has in each instance where it has been brought into question. In fact, he's brought up this very concern numerous times throughout this thread.

Quite frankly you seem to have misunderstood my proposal a fair bit, if you think that's what I'm saying should be accepted.

Honestly, I'm not sure if you understand my arguments, or if you even understand what this debate is about.

You think my point is that being unreachable to a certain thing, by virtue of a different nature, inherently makes you superior to it. But everyone here can see that this, of course, is not what I am saying at all, nor is it a logical consequence of what I am saying. So I don't know why you keep repeating this.

You seem to be under the conception that any showing of "This reality pops up as part of an artificial thing in some higher realm" counts as "R>F." I am not.

I never said that. At no point did I say that higher R>F layers have to be conceptual realms, and what have you.

Yet a great deal of the responses have been structured as "Ultima said that - this is the contradiction with it", with the problem simply being that Ultima never said that in the first place. The counterarguments to the proposals have been consistently uncompelling, for no reason more basic than the fact that they often aren't even addressing the proposals in the first place. As such, my stance is still that the proposals Ultima has put forward are coherent and should be implemented.

DT is, of course, fully in his right to continue responding. It isn't objectionable to simply misunderstand what someone else is saying in a debate. My problem is that I don't even know if he would still be contesting these changes if he understood what they actually entailed - as of yet, these replies have consistently targeted a very specific construction of Ultima's proposals that are far removed from reality. Even if he would still contest it, that would at least provide an avenue for legitimate debate that could iron out the open questions these proposals lend themselves to. Yet, the past few replies between Ultima and DT have not made any progress towards a resolution to this topic, mainly because these replies have done little more than clarify things that did not need to be clarified.

I don't particularly want to be called here again to be asked to re-read a thread that has reached past the length of some novels, and I don't think many staff members would be willing to evaluate this thread thoroughly by this point either. Furthermore, a revision as fundamental and important as this one had ought not to be mishandled due to evaluations from members who do not understand the subject matter. I also don't believe waiting weeks for further responses from both sides will make the subject matter any clearer to evaluating members. As such, I don't believe further extensive replies from Ultima and DT will amount to us reaching a reasonable conclusion here. In lieu of that, I would like to suggest that the final standpoints and arguments of Ultima and DT are summarised comprehensively (preferably, with Ultima summarising his own points, as with DT summarising his own) for other staff members to provide their input and, hopefully, to reach an agreeable verdict.

 

[Bobsican]

I have permission to post some stuff:

As seen in the discussion thread for this topic but for blue names, Ultima already has major staff support, DT is the only main roadblock, nearly every other staff that has commented on this thread is fine with the premise on Ultima's side. Given the like ratio of recent posts it also seems unlikely the line of thought of most staff has changed on this regard.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I have permission to post some stuff:

As seen in the discussion thread for this topic but for blue names, Ultima already has major staff support, DT is the only main roadblock, nearly every other staff that has commented on this thread is fine with the premise on Ultima's side. Given the like ratio of recent posts it also seems unlikely the line of thought of most staff has changed on this regard.

Likely or unlikely, concisely summarizing this debate and the positions raised in it so far is still overall the most proper thing to do, since it ensures full transparency on all sides. It helps that the reasons behind the opposition's disagreement are, by and large, springing from one single idea (I.e. "There are lower feasible interpretations of these things that validate the current system, or at least something similar to it"), too.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Just to be clear, I will respond when I have time. Currently have other discussions about this, too, which I want to finish first.

I have permission to post some stuff:

As seen in the discussion thread for this topic but for blue names, Ultima already has major staff support, DT is the only main roadblock, nearly every other staff that has commented on this thread is fine with the premise on Ultima's side. Given the like ratio of recent posts it also seems unlikely the line of thought of most staff has changed on this regard.

Ultima has yet to reply to the counter-arguments of anyone other than me, most notably Agnaa. That should be kept in mind.

I have been asked again by Ultima to respond to this thread.

Having read through the past few replies, and re-reading some of the older replies to refresh my memory, my stance has not changed.

I don't believe DT has understood much of what Ultima is proposing. Ultima, obviously, can speak for himself on what he is proposing - and as shown above, he has in each instance where it has been brought into question. In fact, he's brought up this very concern numerous times throughout this thread.







Yet a great deal of the responses have been structured as "Ultima said that - this is the contradiction with it", with the problem simply being that Ultima never said that in the first place. The counterarguments to the proposals have been consistently uncompelling, for no reason more basic than the fact that they often aren't even addressing the proposals in the first place. As such, my stance is still that the proposals Ultima has put forward are coherent and should be implemented.

DT is, of course, fully in his right to continue responding. It isn't objectionable to simply misunderstand what someone else is saying in a debate. My problem is that I don't even know if he would still be contesting these changes if he understood what they actually entailed - as of yet, these replies have consistently targeted a very specific construction of Ultima's proposals that are far removed from reality. Even if he would still contest it, that would at least provide an avenue for legitimate debate that could iron out the open questions these proposals lend themselves to. Yet, the past few replies between Ultima and DT have not made any progress towards a resolution to this topic, mainly because these replies have done little more than clarify things that did not need to be clarified.

I don't particularly want to be called here again to be asked to re-read a thread that has reached past the length of some novels, and I don't think many staff members would be willing to evaluate this thread thoroughly by this point either. Furthermore, a revision as fundamental and important as this one had ought not to be mishandled due to evaluations from members who do not understand the subject matter. I also don't believe waiting weeks for further responses from both sides will make the subject matter any clearer to evaluating members. As such, I don't believe further extensive replies from Ultima and DT will amount to us reaching a reasonable conclusion here. In lieu of that, I would like to suggest that the final standpoints and arguments of Ultima and DT are summarised comprehensively (preferably, with Ultima summarising his own points, as with DT summarising his own) for other staff members to provide their input and, hopefully, to reach an agreeable verdict.

Honestly, summarize what you think Ultima suggests then, if you think it's different from what I address.

I have the impression that when Ultima says I don't understand him he usually doesn't understand my counterpoint, but it is just entirely unhelpful to just accuse each other of not understanding.

I also worry that staff may have other ideas on what Ultima's proposal is than what Ultima or I think it is, as DDm for instance said

I don't think that's what he's even trying to propose, I was at first worried that to be something is every single R>F example being a default to 1-A regardless of just perceiving a single Low 2-C with no confirmation of the existence of alternate timelines or quantitatively superior dimensions. And I don't think Ultima is actually trying to go that far based on some other clarifications spoken. But a minimum may very from verse to verse and I at least agree with the basics that quantitatively superior and qualitatively superior are two widely different things with the latter being unfathomably better context wise. But let's say a verse is known to have at least 7 qualitively superiors dimensions in terms of "They exist" combined with the fact that one qualitively superior dimension exists. And while the verse treats it separately and it's only shown to be superior to the first 4 dimensions and/or at least one timeline, it is still officially a higher plane of existence above those other 7 dimensions and thus would be 1-B at minimum. Likewise, plenty of R>F realms have "Beyond dimensionality" statements which only adds further context. And especially if that specifically includes Imaginary/mental dimensions (Which is always Uncountable Infinite), then it's 1-A is the minimum.

Which seems to me to actually be something different from what Ultima suggests, despite him generally agreeing with the proposal.

 

[Deagonx]

I don't particularly want to be called here again to be asked to re-read a thread that has reached past the length of some novels, and I don't think many staff members would be willing to evaluate this thread thoroughly by this point either. Furthermore, a revision as fundamental and important as this one had ought not to be mishandled due to evaluations from members who do not understand the subject matter. I also don't believe waiting weeks for further responses from both sides will make the subject matter any clearer to evaluating members. As such, I don't believe further extensive replies from Ultima and DT will amount to us reaching a reasonable conclusion here. In lieu of that, I would like to suggest that the final standpoints and arguments of Ultima and DT are summarised comprehensively (preferably, with Ultima summarising his own points, as with DT summarising his own) for other staff members to provide their input and, hopefully, to reach an agreeable verdict.

I agree, but I am wary of this being mishandled. I think it's really important that we understand precisely (and concisely at that) what changes are being proposed, because if the summary post is just a somewhat shorter essay-style post I think we're going to run into the same problem. I've done my best to follow what's going on but at this point I feel like I really only know a couple of the main points.

1) Dimensional superiority will be considered "quantitative" and cap at High 1-B
2) "Qualitative" superiority will solely encompass things like R>F, ontological superiority, superiority to dimensionality.
3) Still not entirely sure what Tier 0 would be.
4) ???

Ideally the proposed changes should be formatted in a similar manner. The full details don't need to be compressed or left out, they can be included as full explanations below somewhere, but it's crucial that we are able to communicate the basic matter-of-fact changes that are being made so that we go into this with eyes open. If the issue with DT's responses truly is that he doesn't understand what argument Ultima is making, I am more inclined to think of that as a communication issue that needs to be resolved.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Ultima has yet to reply to the counter-arguments of anyone other than me, most notably Agnaa. That should be kept in mind.

To clarify: Aside from Agnaa, you are the only active opponent of this thread, at least among members with voting rights.

Honestly, summarize what you think Ultima suggests then, if you think it's different from what I address.

I have the impression that when Ultima says I don't understand him he usually doesn't understand my counterpoint, but it is just entirely unhelpful to just tell each other that the proposal isn't understood.

Grath told me she'll reply to this in the morning, as it's very late for her right now. I have a few thoughts about what you just said, but, unlike certain others, I don't believe in such a thing as responding on another's behalf, so let's stop on our tracks for a bit, and wait for her.

 

[DontTalkDT]

@Ultima_Reality Can you clarify if what DDM said in the reply I quoted in my last post is correct? Since people are telling me that I don't understand the proposal again, I suppose it's better if I don't go and assume.

 

[GrathOfLux]

Honestly, summarize what you think Ultima suggests then, if you think it's different from what I address.

I have the impression that when Ultima says I don't understand him he usually doesn't understand my counterpoint, but it is just entirely unhelpful to just accuse each other of not understanding.

I also worry that staff may have other ideas on what Ultima's proposal is than what Ultima or I think it is, as DDm for instance said

Refer to this:

As such, I don't believe further extensive replies from Ultima and DT will amount to us reaching a reasonable conclusion here. In lieu of that, I would like to suggest that the final standpoints and arguments of Ultima and DT are summarised comprehensively (preferably, with Ultima summarising his own points, as with DT summarising his own) for other staff members to provide their input and, hopefully, to reach an agreeable verdict.

I've expressed that I see the back-and-forth on this topic as a problem that is getting in the way of the resolution to this thread. This, naturally, also applies to any other back-and-forth that could be derived from the thread. Whatever summary I provide, it would be nothing more than a source for further back-and-forths, and therefore, more problems.

I certainly believe I have understood Ultima's proposals, but I don't see the value in continuing to interject with claims of what someone else thinks you or Ultima is saying. That is why I would prefer you two summarised your final standpoints and your reasonings for them. If you believe you have been misunderstood as well, this is your opportunity to set the record straight.

Ideally the proposed changes should be formatted in a similar manner. The full details don't need to be compressed or left out, they can be included as full explanations below somewhere, but it's crucial that we are able to communicate the basic matter-of-fact changes that are being made so that we go into this with eyes open. If the issue with DT's responses truly is that he doesn't understand what argument Ultima is making, I am more inclined to think of that as a communication issue that needs to be resolved.

I concur. Ultima can speak for himself on this point, but I do know he has spoken in-passing about splitting up the proposed changes into more manageable chunks to handle on separate threads, which should hopefully allow us to make more tangible progress here.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Summaries should certainly come at the end, but before that, Ultima needs to start addressing Agnaa's points (and that of anyone else, in case anyone else wants to join in).

I certainly believe I have understood Ultima's proposals, but I don't see the value in continuing to interject with claims of what someone else thinks you or Ultima is saying.

I would actually see value in people saying in their own words what they agree with, because that helps to prevent misunderstandings on what is voted for. Not that I'm gonna force anyone to do so just to vote (when we reach that stage).
On the other hand, if one tells me my counterargument is wrong due to not addressing what is suggested, I feel like an explanation would be significant so that I can address what is suggested. There can be no debate based on saying that someone is wrong for reasons that are not explained.

---

Anyway, I will be busy until the end of the week and plan to enjoy Christmas, so expect the next proper reply on the actual subject matter sometime after that.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

On the other hand, if one tells me my counterargument is wrong due to not addressing what is suggested, I feel like an explanation would be significant so that I can address what is suggested. There can be no debate based on saying that someone is wrong for reasons that are not explained.

Nearly all your points boil down to something like "Ultima's interpretations of what R/F is are too high-end. Here are low-end ones that are just as valid" (And to be clear, they aren't just as valid, because [insert every reply I gave to you in this thread], but let me pretend they are). This dodges the core subject spectacularly because it doesn't clarify whether you think my assessment of the tiering of the """high-end interpretations""" is even invalid to begin with. You keep silent and don't even say if you think Type 2 BDE is 1-A or not, or if the exact conception of R>F that I outined is 1-A or not (Or, Tier 0, in the current system).

At the very best, you said "Well, tiering them as such would lead to undesirable consequences," which is also incorrect, but even if it wasn't, it wouldn't constitute an answer either, because you are still refusing to respond to the question of "What tier are those things that I am talking about, in the first place?". If you said "Yeah, by that reasoning they are indeed 1-A, but that leads to undesirable consequences, so let's not tier them this way" that'd be a better answer and a step towards progress, but your silence on the matter is what's making this thread so unbearably sluggish.

Frankly, if this doesn't get the point across to you, then nothing will, really. I could make a flowchart and you'd still be equally as confused. So I hope you get my meaning, here?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Well, it has been exactly 24 hours, and I've received no response on the question just above in spite of its brevity and DontTalk seemingly being active earlier today. As such, I'll simply move on to Agnaa. I'll reply to his posts from 1-2 pages ago and then personally notify him about it.