Revising Marvel's Abstracts (Part 1 of ???) (STAFF ONLY)

[Ultima_Reality]

I have to leave for important real life commitments now, but I do not at all like that you are apparently trying to irresponsibly upgrade an entire verse to extremely ridiculously inconsistent extremes, so I do not at all appreciate that you have forced me into excessively wasting time on this instead of reaching an agreement in private by continuing our previous discussion.

I severely doubt that discussing this in private would've led to anything, or made that much of a difference, really, since you made this discussion into a staff-only thread very early on anyway. You keep saying the above is inconsistent but I and others have already explained to you that very little of what you're mentioning consists of actual issues, if that.

I am also not forcing you to do anything, really. Whether you input here or simply leave the discussion to people you deem better-suited to evaluate it is entirely your choice.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I apologise if I was too testy earlier. My greatest character flaw when trying to help manage this community is arguably that I am too easily stressed out, especially if I am mentally dragged in different directions at the same time, as was the case with this thread and having urgent commitments IRL above.

 

[Antvasima]

This seems like the worst possible take to me when it comes to Marvel, especially given how we treat Thor and Hercules at their peaks.

There's like 4 or 5 orders of infinity mentioned ever in Marvel (and two of them are quite shaky).

If that is all we are building our cosmological scaling on, and it has not been officially endorsed into a coherent hierarchy by Marvel's editorial department, why should we assume that it is consistent and well-known enough for the Marvel writers in general?

My guy, 4 normal planets allowed him to stomp 4 Celestials, and we consider that an amp by orders of infinity.

Just a single one of these planets was so special that it caused his armour and overall design to change drastically.

Well, maybe we shouldn't, as all of these "infinite degrees of infinity and above" interpretations do not seem official and consistent enough for something as vast in its story structure as Marvel Comics is.

 

[Deagonx]

If a character has 1-A and 2-A as two possible ends, and then is depicted in a storyline as struggling to perform, say, 3-C feats, we don't treat 2-A as the end that's "less contradicted" and thus the one we should go with. They're both equally contradicted.

I don't agree with this personally. I think that a good set of antifeats does justify leaning towards a lower possible end, even if the antifeats are themselves below the low end.

Overall I am inclined to agree with Ant about the various scaling issues that occurs when interpreting the characters as having such extreme levels of power.

 

[Deagonx]

Well, maybe we shouldn't, as all of these "infinite degrees of infinity and above" interpretations do not seem official and consistent enough for something as vast in its story structure as Marvel Comics is.

I agree with this as well. I think the concept of an outlier needs greater consideration here, and the implications it has downstream for various characters who are connected to them. You might call it "argument from incredulity" but I might also say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and the notion of an amp conferring infinite levels of higher infinity should be regarded with extreme skepticism just from the outset, and as I've said in regard to some of the statements and scans given in the OP, I do not feel that we have extraordinary evidence to scale the characters at the top to this extreme tier, and I think it bears serious consideration how many anti-feats there are to those notions.

 

[ByAsura]

If that is all we are building our cosmological scaling on, and it has not been officially endorsed into a coherent hierarchy by Marvel's editorial department

Let me ask, what exactly has been endorsed by Marvel's editorial department, aside from some elements just existing (like the Neutral Zone or the Superflow just being a thing)?

It seems like massive double standards to push this now of all times.

why should we assume that it is consistent and well-known enough for the Marvel writers in general?

Why should we regard it to this extent?

Obviously contradictions will arise given Marvel's long history. But you're basically just saying that because different writers may (since there was no real contradiction provided on a lore basis, if not a feat basis due to how shaky the examples were) have different opinions on subjects, we shouldn't establish a reasonably consistent cosmology.

By this logic, I don't think many writers at all regarded the multiverse as infinite-dimensional when the First Firmament was established. And I can just say that 'the Celestial weapons that broke it aren't stated to be infinite orders of infinite, infinite, etc infinities more powerful than the Celestials.' Is that actually a reasonable argument?

Also, you can retcon certain bits of information while accounting for previously established elements.

Well, maybe we shouldn't, as all of these "infinite degrees of infinity and above" interpretations do not seem official and consistent enough for something as vast in its story structure as Marvel Comics is.

Ok, then make a separate thread. Because this is how we treat Marvel currently. For example, I have some reservations about Marvel's infinite dimensional cosmology referring to spatial dimensions as a whole, but that's not the topic of the thread, just something we accept already.

Plus, you're literally just going to make characters High 1-C or 2-A via downscaling if you keep pulling this kind of stuff.

I don't disagree with you necessarily, but you A) don't really have a solid argument in any capacity, and B) are discussing issues that'd apply to the current profiles anyway.

 

[Antvasima]

Let me ask, what exactly has been endorsed by Marvel's editorial department, aside from some elements just existing (like the Neutral Zone or the Superflow just being a thing)?

It seems like massive double standards to push this now of all times.

I am just saying that Marvel writers regularly contradict each other about lots of issues regarding continuity, characterisation, power levels, and so onwards, so we need to know what is currently actually endorsed, rather than use obscure throwaway information, so something similar to Grant Morrison's multiverse map definitely wouldn't hurt.

It seems like what Al Ewing and Jonathan Hickman produced is sufficiently recent and prominently displayed to be official, but even Ewing's recent revelations in Defenders about the origins of the Beyonders was immediately completely retconned a few months afterwards in Avengers: Beyond, so who knows?

However, that just underscores/illustrates my point that wantonly stacking every single individual writer cosmology on top of each other, without most of them even mentioning any given degree of higher infinities, seems extremely unwise.

Why should we regard it to this extent?

Obviously contradictions will arise given Marvel's long history. But you're basically just saying that because different writers may (since there was no real contradiction provided on a lore basis, if not a feat basis due to how shaky the examples were) have different opinions on subjects, we shouldn't establish a reasonably consistent cosmology.

By this logic, I don't think many writers at all regarded the multiverse as infinite-dimensional when the First Firmament was established. And I can just say that 'the Celestial weapons that broke it aren't stated to be infinite orders of infinite, infinite, etc infinities more powerful than the Celestials.' Is that actually a reasonable argument?

Also, you can retcon certain bits of information while accounting for previously established elements.

The problem is that we don't allow calc-stacking because it ends up with heavily inflated results, and continuity-stacking, regardless if the writers in question ever intended anywhere near such an extreme scale, or even know about what the others were doing, or Marvel's editorial department acknowledged it, gives far more inflated results for this type of setting.

Ok, then make a separate thread. Because this is how we treat Marvel currently. For example, I have some reservations about Marvel's infinite dimensional cosmology referring to spatial dimensions as a whole, but that's not the topic of the thread, just something we accept already.

Plus, you're literally just going to make characters High 1-C or 2-A via downscaling if you keep pulling this kind of stuff.

I don't disagree with you necessarily, but you A) don't really have a solid argument in any capacity

Well, I just think that continuity-stacking over a span of many decades and hundreds of writers, regardless how obscure the used references are, will cause extremely inflated results that damage the reliability of our wiki as a whole. That is all.

and B) are discussing issues that'd apply to the current profiles anyway.

Please elaborate/explain further regarding what you mean.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, I have mentioned all of this many times before. It isn't like it is suddenly coming out of nowhere.

 

[KLOL506]

The problem is that we don't allow calc-stacking because it ends up with heavily inflated results, and continuity-stacking, regardless if the writers in question ever intended anywhere near such an extreme scale, or even know about what the others were doing, or Marvel's editorial department acknowledged it, gives far more inflated results for this type of setting.

Hold up, wait a minute, what the ****.

What the **** is calc stacking in Tier 2/1 realms? Like seriously, how the **** do you do calculations in Tier 2/1 other than just determine how many universes/dimensions are involved where there is no room for multipliers to even work? Also what the **** even is continuity stacking here?

 

[Antvasima]

I just meant that, for a hypothetical example, if we use one writer 40 or 30 years ago as a basis for a certain lower part of a shared setting cosmology existing up to a certain level, and then another writer independently establishes another part of said shared setting cosmology without acknowledging the scale of the first, and we then continue like this for any obscure reference through all of Marvel's 84+ years, hundreds of writers, and many tens of thousands of stories history, we will likely end up with results far higher than any writer or editor who was involved ever intended.

 

[ByAsura]

I am just saying that Marvel writers regularly contradict each other about lots of issues regarding continuity, characterisation, power levels, and so onwards, so we need to know what is currently actually endorsed, rather than obscure throwaway information,

I get your point, I'm just saying that should be a concern for another thread since that's not really what we follow currently, and Ultima is amending existing scaling.

so something similar to Grant Morrison's multiverse map definitely wouldn't hurt.

Until that exists, I really don't see a point in discussing this.

It seems like what Al Ewing and Jonathan Hickman produced is sufficiently recent and prominently displayed to be official, but even Ewing's recent revelations in Defenders about the origins of the Beyonders was immediately completely retconned a few months afterwards in Avengers: Beyond, so who knows?

It's also getting reconciled in July, so it's not a detail that's been entirely upheaved (unlike, for instance, The Beyonder himself). Hence my point about writers still taking other works into account.

or Marvel's editorial department acknowledged it

Cool, but, again, the scaling on this wiki isn't acknowledged by Marvel's editorial department any more than Ultima's new scaling is.

Ultima is just claiming that Universal variants of Eternity include Subspace and other realms like Asgard (which, to my knowledge, has only been outright contradicted once by an explanation that makes no sense, regardless).

Edit: There's a few 90s handbooks contradicting it as well.

Well, I just think that continuity-stacking over a span of many decades and hundreds of writers, regardless how obscure the used references are, will cause extremely inflated results that damage the reliability of our wiki as a whole. That is all.

I don't disagree. My point is that there's no actual contradictions in the multiversal lore Ultima has provided, or anything that concrete for us to reject this based on that.

Plus, as I just said, excluding orders of infinity without statements will do more damage because you're just going to be upscaling and downscaling characters to finite levels.

Please elaborate/explain further regarding what you mean.

I'm saying the contradictions and lack of orders of infinity statements you brought up are currently a problem, anyway. They're not something created by this revision, so I see no reason to dismiss it based on something that we already dismiss (of course, that'd be different if it actually changed the situation).

Also, I have mentioned all of this many times before. It isn't like it is suddenly coming out of nowhere.

Ok, then.

Maybe make an entirely new thread to air your grievances.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for your polite, reasonable, and rational post, ByAsura. I suppose that I will try to shut up and wait for @DontTalkDT to analyse if the scaling rationales in Ultima's first post here seem reliable then.

I would greatly appreciate community help with proper research for splitting the cosmology into the classic Mark Gruenwald/Roger Stern/Tom DeFalco version, and the modern Al Ewing/Jonathan Hickman version later on in any case. Possibly the J.M. DeMatteis version as well. Anybody who is interested, please send me a private message.

 

[ByAsura]

I wouldn't go that far.

I'm not interested in splitting the cosmologies as such, but I am interested in heavily revising them if this thread ultimately fails.

 

[KLOL506]

Plus, as I just said, excluding orders of infinity without statements will do more damage because you're just going to be upscaling and downscaling characters to finite levels.

I'm saying the contradictions and lack of orders of infinity statements you brought up are currently a problem, anyway. They're not something created by this revision, so I see no reason to dismiss it based on something that we already dismiss (of course, that'd be different if it actually changed the situation).

Honestly that's a Tiering System problem stuck within the confines of Tier 2 and 1. It is what it is.

 

[Excellence616]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

We are waiting for DontTalk to get the free time to evaluate this.

 

[Udlmaster]

We are waiting for DontTalk to get the free time to evaluate this.

I'm asking so the revision isn't stonewalled into the next millennium, but how long does DontTalk have to respond before it can only be assumed that he just isn't willing to talk?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

The closest thing I can find to a discussion rule that covers this is the following:

For verse-specific threads, if the only opposing party does not reply for over 2 weeks without any notice or known/suspected extenuating circumstances, then the moderators should try to get the thread to completion without them, assuming that they'd probably not reply. However, their points should not be discarded, and this should not be treated as that user conceding. Their arguments and votes should be kept in mind while the thread goes on and anybody else is free to argue in their stead.

But I'm not particularly sure if this applies to cases where we are not waiting for "the opposition" so much as we are waiting for someone who hasn't even commented, yet.

Regardless, while DontTalk is away, I think it's fair to try and gather more staff input.

 

[Antvasima]

I'm asking so the revision isn't stonewalled into the next millennium, but how long does DontTalk have to respond before it can only be assumed that he just isn't willing to talk?

DontTalk is busy IRL, and also has to deal with Ultima in our tiering system revision, which is more prioritised and likely also affects our scaling in this thread, so that has to be finished first anyway.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

which is more prioritised and likely also affects our scaling in this thread, so that has to be finished first anyway.

It doesn't really affect anything here, for the matter. That other thread has to do with verses qualifying for 1-A without infinite dimensions and/or layers or something similar. This is a case where infinite dimensions are already present.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. He is still busy there though, so that has to be finished first.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I suppose I'll go work on wrapping that up, then.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, that seems best.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

People who say "I agree" did not even read it them all

btw, I agree.

Can't be me.

Anyway I've read the whole OP and find it staggeringly thorough. Tad bit iffy on the "every depection of the Abstracts is an M-Body" bit but can't really form an argument against it.

A full agree from me.

 

[ByAsura]

On second thought, I'm also not very comfortable with the M-Body stuff, or the Slorioth scaling.

I'm putting my vote back to neutral.

Edit: Also, I'm abandoning this thread to do other Marvel stuff. Bye.

 

[Sir_sun_man]

bloody hell ultima coming out here and dropping a small novel worth of marvel facts on everyone out of nowhere.
Hell, the M body argument alone would make the little revision I was working on moot since it covers more aspects waaaay better anyway.
It’s a full agree for me let’s see how this pans out and can't wait for the other (3-4) novels you have cooking up for more details.

 

[Excellence616]

DontTalkDT come and evaluate this

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Uh you can't @ him Excel

 

[Excellence616]

Uh you can't @ him Excel

Yeah, i know

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Um, are we absolutely sure we need Dark's opinions on this. It feels similar to when we'd have to wait for Ultima to evaluate a high tiered thread (No offense to Ultima of course it's just a trend I see). We have a lot of mod and knowledgeable member approval.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

The revision is fairly controversial, so, I'm fine with waiting for more staff input.

 

[Scathan_The_Celestial]

This seems pretty straight forward tbh and seems very much supported by the members

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalkDT come and evaluate this

I will try to remind him again.

 

[Lewis]

Now someone needs to read the necronomicon to summon DT and I'll sacrifice reading the necronomicon myself. \0/

 

[Antvasima]

No derailing please.

 

[Slenderblak]

I cant wait until this debate concludes, how many agreements we have so far?

 

[Setsuna_tenma]

I cant wait until this debate concludes, how many agreements we have so far?

Maverick, Crimsonstar , Sir Oven and Marvel Champion

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I am neutral, as admittedly the 1-A stuff are over my head. But By Asura seems reasonable.

 

[MarvelFanatic119]

Seen have I been called here. Looked through the OP and I find that Ultima's proposals here make sense.

Count me as in agreement for Ultima's side.

 

[Theglassman12]

Ultima’s points make sense to me, I agree with the revisions.