Possibly/Likely Definitions

[Agnaa]

Since The Impress was busy she wanted me to make a thread about this on her behalf.

I'll simply quote from her:

Our definitions for Possibly and Likely implies that they can just be added with little to no basis whatsoever i.e. I can 100% list Iceman as Likely or Possibly 1-A based off the Oblivion feat, or any God character as Tier 0, and hell, Saitama as Possibly High 3-A, and I do not have to care for either context, verse showcase or other's approval since it is a hypothetical tier, and there isn't a criteria for the basis of them.

They likely should be tweaked to include the ideas of "likelyhood of a feat existing" and "contextually this feat should be present" and "need of a solid basis". This I think is a topic that needs discussion prior as it is causing problems in this thread. I haven't really seen people add feats based off PURELY hypotheticals tbh

The definitions in question come from our Attack Potency page. To quote from it:

Likely should be used to list a hypothetical statistic for a character, but inconclusive due to lack of feats or viable power-scaling. Probability of said hypothetical statistic should be favourable.

Possibly should be used to list a hypothetical statistic for a character, but inconclusive due to lack of feats or viable power-scaling. Probability of said hypothetical statistic should also be indeterminate.

 

[Antvasima]

These sort of discussions should preferably be placed in the staff only forum. I will move it.

 

[DarkGrath]

Technically speaking, I highly doubt anyone has abused the definition of the "Possibly" rating for granting tiers based on no evidence.

At the same time though, the wording would allow this to happen, and this obviously isn't a good thing. Both definitions also have issues in the sense of the fact that a character still needs feats or power-scaling to get a Likely or Possibly rating, yet it implies otherwise. It wouldn't require more than a mild wording change, though.

Perhaps something along the lines of:

"Possibly should be used to list a statistic for a character with some basis, but inconclusive due to the justification being vague or non-definitive. Possibility of said justification being reliable should be notable, but mild."

and

"Likely should be used to list a statistic for a character with some basis, but inconclusive due to the justification being vague or non-definitive. Possibility of said justification being reliable should be favourable."

 

[Agnaa]

That rewording looks fine to me, but @Dargoo_Faust and @The_Impress were the main two pointing out this issue, so I'd like to have their input before we make a change.

 

[DarkGrath]

Of course. Preferably a few staff members should look over this thread.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that DarkGrath's suggestion seems fine.

 

[The_Impress]

I'll start the discussion with the topic that our current statistics should do away with it being hypothetical, moreso that it is more than likely to be possible, but either anti--feats prevent them or there isn't concrete proof for them i.e. most statements.

A valid use of "Likely/Possibly" for me is regarding world destruction statements. Many characters are stated to be able to destroy the world, but as we know destroying the world could entail many things. Therefore "possibly far higher" is valid in this situation if the character is below Tier 5.

Similarly this scenario was presented by me as well:

"In Hogwarts if there is a spell they're teaching to everyone, but let's say you never see Ron use it. You can make the argument that Ron may be too incompetent to remember the spell, but at the same time that's going off of headcanon reasoning and there are more alternatives where Ron does know the spell. A likely is valid here because while the character has possibilities contextually to not have it, a majority of possibilities would work if he has it. A "possibly" should be a scenario where the feat in question has "either/or" validities justifying them."

You may be thinking that "we already do this for a majority of verses" and we do, yes, the problem here is that our written standards for this don't properly note this and consist of vagueness. We RARELY ever list purely hypothetical information that just straight up isn't cemented or doesn't have enough of a basis, so the term "hypothetical" is wrong. These are usually statistics that have validity within the verse nearly on par with the rated statistics, and the difference ends up being subjective.

 

[Antvasima]

What do you think about DarkGrath's suggestions?

 

[The_Impress]

I disagree with DarkGrath's wording, it implies that we are allowing potentially invalid feats...which I don't think we are. I only presume the notion that "likely/possibly" should be used in regards to vague feats, and not wanked tiers based off feats that very likely may be incorrect, which straight up shouldn't be used :V

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Noted.

 

[DarkGrath]

I've edited my original comment to potentially fix Impress' issues with the wording. Would the current wording work better?

 

[The_Impress]

Seems fine, yes

 

[QuasiYuri]

Why do we have 2 words for the same thing tho?

It would be more logical for likely to be something like "Has some feats toward it but 1/2 contradictions (or equally valid feats on another tier)".

And for possibly to be used for one-time statements with enough credibility to be a possibility.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Oh and I agree with likely being used for "things that should be logic but weren't demonstrated" like Impress' example.

 

[The_Wright_Way]

Yeah, I got nothing to add here. This seems fine.

 

[Bobsican]

Technically speaking, I highly doubt anyone has abused the definition of the "Possibly" rating for granting tiers based on no evidence.

I'll add my two cents here and say that I've actually tried years ago, but thankfully the staff at the time just told me that it wasn't meant to work like that or so, I'm glad this issue is finally being taken now, as the current wording promotes having needless discussions.

Anyways, I find the current re-wording fine.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm not too sure how to put it in words for the likely and possibly differences. But I would say likely is generally used for characters who almost qualify for a solid tier, but not quite enough. Possibly is for more moderate examples. Likely 5-B is closer to being a solid 5-B than a possibly 5-B, but they're still not quite enough. But I would suggest that likely or possibly X tier should only be given if there are some decent texts such as certain statements could hint them destroying something or they're shown to be almost as strong as this character. But there doesn't seem to be enough context for a full solid rating.

I think DarkGrath makes sense mostly, as well as some parts in the OP.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @Promestein

What do you think about DarkGrath's suggestions?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@DarkGrath

I'd replace the word "possibility" there with "probability". I don't think it's usually vague whether or not a tier is possible when giving these ratings, rather there's an existing, good reason to give the tier, however it isn't probable (relative to the existing tier) that it applies to that character.

@Agnaa

I will note that nothing so far changes my opinion on the validity of these ratings for SBA. Like I've said before, these ratings are not alternative "versions" of a character, as SBA defines, but rather improbable statistics associated with a single version of a character.

However, the changes do make it acceptable, in my opinion, to use them on VS threads that may be applied to profiles, however it must be under the burden of the threadmaker to specify these ratings, not SBA.

 

[Antvasima]

So something like this then?

"Possibly should be used to list a statistic for a character with some basis, but inconclusive due to the justification being vague or non-definitive. The probability of the justification in question for being reliable should be notable, but mild."

and

"Likely should be used to list a statistic for a character with some basis, but inconclusive due to the justification being vague or non-definitive. The probability of the justification in question for being reliable should be favourable."

 

[The_Impress]

Seems fine to apply.

 

[DarkGrath]

Yeah, that justification looks good.

 

[AKM sama]

however it must be under the burden of the threadmaker to specify these ratings, not SBA.

I disagree. If they are accepted to be valid enough to be on profiles, then they should be used by default.

Maybe we could add something in there to suggest that these notations should only be used minimally in special cases, not every time when there is a potential of doubt.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

If they are accepted to be valid enough to be on profiles, then they should be used by default.

Even the updated standards places the original ratings as more solid/more likely by definition. To have our VS threads assume, by default, statistics that are outright less likely to apply to a single version of a character, makes very little sense to me.

The more reliable statistic should be used by default, not the higher statistic. This is all for a single version of a character, so SBA doesn't even specify what we assume in this case, since "Possibly" ratings aren't a "version" of a character.

 

[AKM sama]

My point is, if those ratings or abilities or whatever have made their way on to profiles, then we already consider them as valid. Since they are valid, they should be used by default. The probability of them being legit might be lower than all the other stats, but that only means that they can be restricted. What you are implying is that those stats have very low possibility of being accurate and in that case, they shouldn't be on the profiles in the first place.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

My point is, if those ratings or abilities or whatever have made their way on to profiles, then we already consider them as valid. Since they are valid, they should be used by default.

They are not equally valid to when compared to the non-likely, non-possibly rating. This is by defacto based on how we define it. If we are defining the rating without either moniker as having more solid backing and evidence, that should be used by default. That's my argument.

The probability of them being legit might be lower than all the other stats, but that only means that they can be restricted.

If they are less likely to be legit they should not be assumed to be the case in a VS thread. There's literally no argument to be made here for using them over the explicitly defined-as-more-accurate rating other than an argument from tradition of us having always just assumed a possibly rating is under SBA.

What you are implying is that those stats have very low possibility of being accurate and in that case, they shouldn't be on the profiles in the first place.

I'm implying exactly what we just defined the ratings as, and what you just defined them as yourself. "The probability of them being legit [is] lower than all the other stats". If it is a less reliable rating than another rating for the same version of a character, it should not be assumed in SBA, and the OP should specify if they are using the less probable ratings.

Even if we just want to argue from tradition, though, the principle that we "pick the highest tiers", again, only applies to the various versions of a character. A "possibly" rating is not a separate entity from the version of the character it describes, and this it's an entirely separate issue from that clause of SBA.

 

[Antvasima]

"Possibly should be used to list a statistic for a character with some basis, but inconclusive due to the justification being vague or non-definitive. The probability of the justification in question for being reliable should be notable, but mild."

and

"Likely should be used to list a statistic for a character with some basis, but inconclusive due to the justification being vague or non-definitive. The probability of the justification in question for being reliable should be favourable."

So should I apply these definitions to our Attack Potency page, or do they need to be further modified first?

 

[Agnaa]

I think the current version of the rules is acceptable, and the discussion about possibly/likely's usability in SBA belongs back in the old thread, but since Dargoo hasn't signed off on it it wouldn't hurt to have him clarify, imo.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the input. Feel free to tell me if anything should be improved for better clarity and/or language structure.

 

[AKM sama]

Maybe we could add something in there to suggest that these notations should only be used minimally in special cases, not every time when there is a potential of doubt.

I suppose something like this could also be specified if others think it's a good idea. Other than that, it looks fine.

 

[Antvasima]

AKM sama's suggestion is fine to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Is somebody willing to perform the edit, and include AKM sama's suggestion?

 

[The_Impress]

I'll do so.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. Do you need any page unlocked?

 

[The_Impress]

Just the Attack Potency page :V

 

[The_Impress]

Nevermind, I got it unlicked and applied.

This has been resolved.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. I will lock this thread then.

 

[Antvasima]

Never mind.

It seems safest if some other staff members check if the current definitions seem fine first:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/index.php?title=Attack_Potency&diff=6947021&oldid=6931839

 

[AKM sama]

Looks fine to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thanks for the reply.