• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

SMALL ADDITION TO THE LOW 2-C

Status
Not open for further replies.
QuasiYuri said:
Someone should likely ping staffs then.
Click to expand...
Can somebody write proper easy to understand explanations of both sides of the arguments here, so they will know what they need to evaluate, please? Both sides arguing should preferably do this.
 
Antvasima said:
Can somebody write proper easy to understand explanations of both sides of the arguments here, so they will know what they need to evaluate, please? Both sides arguing should preferably do this.
Click to expand...
There's actually been a misunderstanding between both sides.

The opposing side thought that we were asking to add a mandatory explanation for showing blatant "past-present-future" statements being required to be shown to qualify for Low 2-C, which, as we just concluded, is simply not the case.

The only reason it seemed that way is because OP didn't properly clarify that the past-present-future section is only there to define what a space-time continuum is and/or that these are the things a space-time continuum encompasses in full. Which led to this misunderstanding. And the fact that the thread was then severely derailed with Bleach-related topics.

TL;DR: It is not actually required to show additional statements for "past, present and future" being destroyed, the whole past-present-future thing was merely added to further describe what a spacetime-continuum is/what a spacetime-continuum encompasses. Normal sayings of "spacetime-continuum is being destroyed/affected" or "all of space and time will be destroyed" and so on and so forth will be more than enough to qualify for Low 2-C like it always has been, we don't need additional blatant statements like "past, present and future are being destroyed" word-for-word on top, since a spacetime-continuum by default already includes all of time itself (Including past, present and future).

Of course, some people find the need to add that meaning in the brackets as redundant due to the words space-time on the page already linking to the Spacetime article in wikipedia (Which additionally already mentions what a space-time continuum includes: past, present and future) and they think adding the past-present-future stuff again in the comments can get redundant (Which make sense IMHO), but some people also said to add it because people often times get confused regarding it (Despite there literally being a wikipedia link already there that does the same thing).

Basically, OP's justification needs slight re-tweaking so that the whole past-present-future thing doesn't sound mandatory. Gilver had some suggestions which were overlooked.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
Can somebody write proper easy to understand explanations of both sides of the arguments here, so they will know what they need to evaluate, please? Both sides arguing should preferably do this.
Click to expand...
Disagree side is basically that all this is already covered on the current explanation of the tier 2
 
KLOL506 said:
There's actually been a misunderstanding between both sides.

The opposing side thought that we were asking to add a mandatory explanation for showing blatant "past-present-future" statements being required to be shown to qualify for Low 2-C, which, as we just concluded, is simply not the case.

The only reason it seemed that way is because OP didn't properly clarify that the past-present-future section is only there to define what a space-time continuum is and/or that these are the things a space-time continuum encompasses in full. Which led to this misunderstanding. And the fact that the thread was then severely derailed with Bleach-related topics.

TL;DR: It is not actually required to show additional statements for "past, present and future" being destroyed, the whole past-present-future thing was merely added to further describe what a spacetime-continuum is/what a spacetime-continuum encompasses. Normal sayings of "spacetime-continuum is being destroyed/affected" or "all of space and time will be destroyed" and so on and so forth will be more than enough to qualify for Low 2-C like it always has been, we don't need additional blatant statements like "past, present and future are being destroyed" word-for-word on top, since a spacetime-continuum by default already includes all of time itself (Including past, present and future).

Of course, some people find the need to add that meaning in the brackets as redundant due to the words space-time on the page already linking to the Spacetime article in wikipedia (Which additionally already mentions what a space-time continuum includes: past, present and future) and they think adding the past-present-future stuff again in the comments can get redundant (Which make sense IMHO), but some people also said to add it because people often times get confused regarding it (Despite there literally being a wikipedia link already there that does the same thing).

Basically, OP's justification needs slight re-tweaking so that the whole past-present-future thing doesn't sound mandatory. Gilver had some suggestions which were overlooked.
Click to expand...
TOAAPRESENCE1 said:
Disagree side is basically that all this is already covered on the current explanation of the tier 2
Click to expand...
QuasiYuri said:
And the other one is that it's just a harmless precision/definition which would avoid the countless misunderstanding and questions on the subject.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the explanations.

@AKM sama @Promestein @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @SomebodyData @Dragonmasterxyz @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @DarkDragonMedeus @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @Shadowbokunohero @Crazylatin77 @Jvando @Zaratthustra @SamanPatou @Just_a_Random_Butler @ElixirBlue @Dino_Ranger_Black @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Crabwhale @Eficiente @GyroNutz @DarkGrath @The_Wright_Way @Moritzva @Firestorm808 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Everything12 @Duedate8898 @Planck69 (@KingTempest) @The_Impress @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @UchihaSlayer96 @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir @DMUA @Jasonsith @KieranH10 @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @Amelia_Lonelyheart @DragonGamerZ913

Would you be willing to help evaluate this please?
 
Okay. No problem.
 
So can somebody quote what bit of the tiering currently says & aims to be changed and quote what the new text would be?
 
Eficiente said:
So can somebody quote what bit of the tiering currently says & aims to be changed and quote what the new text would be?
Click to expand...
"Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums of a universal scale. However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either:"

basically Space-time continuum already covers past present and future
 
Eficiente said:
So can somebody quote what bit of the tiering currently says & aims to be changed and quote what the new text would be?
Click to expand...
Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[1], creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums of a universal scale. However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either blablabla

to

Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[1], creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums (the entirety of past, present and future) of a universal scale. However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either blablabla

Basically just precising this because a lot of people keep asking questions about it.
 
So we would have to just prove the character doesn't affect just time but past,present and future?
 
QuasiYuri said:
Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[1], creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums of a universal scale. However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either blablabla

to

Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[1], creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums (the entirety of past, present and future) of a universal scale. However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either blablabla

Basically just precising this because a lot of people keep asking questions about it.
Click to expand...
Once again people, this does not mean that it is actually required to actually show statements where it says "Past, present and future are being destroyed" (It's not mandatory at all), just a mention of "all of space and time is being destroyed" or "the entire space-time continuum is being destroyed" or similar should be more than enough, since a spacetime continuum by definition automatically includes all of the past, present and future, wikipedia article for space-time continuum states as much.
 
Well, to me the suggested change doesn't seem harmful to apply, but I am not a very good person to ask.
 
KLOL506 said:
Once again people, this does not mean that it is actually required to actually show statements where it says "Past, present and future are being destroyed" (It's not mandatory at all), just a mention of "all of space and time is being destroyed" or "the entire space-time continuum is being destroyed" or similar should be more than enough, since a spacetime continuum by definition automatically includes all of the past, present and future, wikipedia article for space-time continuum states as much.
Click to expand...
^
That's why we would only add the precision of what spacetime is and nothing more, to prevent any confusion.
 
Teezar said:
So we wouldn't have to just prove the character doesn't affect just time but past,present and future?
Click to expand...
No. You don't need additional blatant statements for "past, present and future are destroyed" word for word at all (Sure, it's one of the few ways you can qualify for Low 2-C, but it's not mandatory, never was, never will be). Just a "all of space and time is being destroyed" or "the space-time continuum will be destroyed" or similar statements will be more than enough, since they do the same job as a "past-present-future" statement due to space-time continuums by default already encompassing all of past, present and future.

The "past, present and future" is merely a definition of what a spacetime-continuum is and what it encompasses, nothing more, nothing less. Basically, nothing major really changes by this, just addition of a meaning.
 
QuasiYuri said:
Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[1], creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums of a universal scale. However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either blablabla

to

Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[1], creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums (the entirety of past, present and future) of a universal scale. However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either blablabla

Basically just precising this because a lot of people keep asking questions about it.
Click to expand...
I can see how this helps, I agree.
 
Know this is a staff thread so my bad but I wanted to ask a quick thing real quick for future reference and clarification

From what I got when reading this, mentioning the past, present and future being affected isn’t a mandatory factor since “space-time continuum” by itself already means this. This I understand.

But if we’re going with the latter and not making the former needed to reach tier 2, then wouldn’t we be even more demanding of evidence of space-time in its entirety being effected? And by that, I don’t mean in the sense of asking if all of time across the board is being effected, but if something specifically says the space-time continuum is getting effected, or all of time and space getting effected.
 
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
From what I got when reading this, mentioning the past, present and future being affected isn’t a mandatory factor since “space-time continuum” by itself already means this. This I understand.

But if we’re going with the latter and not making the former needed to reach tier 2, then wouldn’t we be even more demanding of evidence of space-time in its entirety being effected? And by that, I don’t mean in the sense of asking if all of time across the board is being effected, but if something specifically says the space-time continuum is getting effected, or all of time and space getting effected.
Click to expand...
Changing what makes you qualify for the standard is another subject entirely though.

Here it would just have the same standard it currently has. I wouldn't ask proof of all of it being affected (unless you can find an anti-feat with that) the same way we take "the universe was destroyed" as meaning the entire universe.
 
KLOL506 said:
No. You don't need additional blatant statements for "past, present and future are destroyed" word for word at all (Sure, it's one of the few ways you can qualify for Low 2-C, but it's not mandatory, never was, never will be). Just a "all of space and time is being destroyed" or "the space-time continuum will be destroyed" or similar statements will be more than enough, since they do the same job as a "past-present-future" statement due to space-time continuums by default already encompassing all of past, present and future.

The "past, present and future" is merely a definition of what a spacetime-continuum is and what it encompasses, nothing more, nothing less. Basically, nothing major really changes by this, just addition of a meaning.
Click to expand...
^I agree with this

If someone is said to be able to destroy all of of a Space-Time Continuum, that's enough for Low 2-C
 
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
But if we’re going with the latter and not making the former needed to reach tier 2, then wouldn’t we be even more demanding of evidence of space-time in its entirety being effected? And by that, I don’t mean in the sense of asking if all of time across the board is being effected, but if something specifically says the space-time continuum is getting effected, or all of time and space getting effected.
Click to expand...
Uh, what?

Statements of destroying "past, present and future" is equally as valid as statements that say "destroying a space-time continuum"/"destroying all of space and time" to qualify for Low 2-C, only that it's not mandatory to stack a "past-present-future" statement alongside an already-existing "spacetime-continuum bust" statement and vice-versa. It's like an "either one goes" scenario. I don't understand where you got this idea that you'd need more demanding evidence if any one of those statements are shown.

Also who on earth would consider "space-time continuum getting affected" statements as remotely different from "all of space and time being affected" statements?
 
KLOL506 said:
Uh, what?

Statements of destroying "past, present and future" is equally as valid as statements that say "destroying a space-time continuum"/"destroying all of space and time" to qualify for Low 2-C, only that it's not mandatory to stack a "past-present-future" statement alongside an already-existing "spacetime-continuum bust" statement and vice-versa. It's like an "either one goes" scenario. I don't understand where you got this idea that you'd need more demanding evidence if any one of those statements are shown.

Also who on earth would consider "space-time continuum getting affected" statements as remotely different from "all of space and time being affected" statements?
Click to expand...
Oh I wasn’t suggesting that one would be inferior to the other.
 
KLOL506 said:
No. You don't need additional blatant statements for "past, present and future are destroyed" word for word at all (Sure, it's one of the few ways you can qualify for Low 2-C, but it's not mandatory, never was, never will be). Just a "all of space and time is being destroyed" or "the space-time continuum will be destroyed" or similar statements will be more than enough, since they do the same job as a "past-present-future" statement due to space-time continuums by default already encompassing all of past, present and future.

The "past, present and future" is merely a definition of what a spacetime-continuum is and what it encompasses, nothing more, nothing less. Basically, nothing major really changes by this, just addition of a meaning.
Click to expand...
Agree with this.
 
I would like to suggest a slight revision to the slight revision:

Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[1], creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continua (the entire past, present and future of 3-dimensional space) of a universal scale.
Click to expand...

I also corrected the plural form of "continuum" in the description, if no one minds.
 
KingPin0422 said:
I would like to suggest a slight revision to the slight revision:



I also corrected the plural form of "continuum" in the description, if no one minds.
Click to expand...
Huh, guess you learn something new every day.
 
KingPin's wording mostly seems fine to me, but as far as I am aware, the plural form of continuum can be either continuums or continua, and the former is easier for our visitors to understand.
 
Pain_to12 said:
i am okay with this, its solid
Click to expand...
Question. Don't mean to derail or nun since this thread is basically finished. Wanted to know were u still gonna make another downgrade to low 2c bleach? Just wanted to know so i can be prepared to participate.
 
Kingcrim212 said:
Question. Don't mean to derail or nun since this thread is basically finished. Wanted to know were u still gonna make another downgrade to low 2c bleach? Just wanted to know so i can be prepared to participate.
Click to expand...
Wait for it..........................
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Low 2-C(Universal+) and 2-C(Low multiversal)
Replies
14
Views
472
Gp972
Wankbreaker
  • Locked
Tier 2 hotfix.
Replies
25
Views
5K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Sarah2020_45496
Space time
Replies
6
Views
327
Astral_Trinity439
Astral_Trinity439
Goshtama
Low 2-C | Finite or Infinite Timelines?
Replies
1
Views
1K
Richard5128pm
Richard5128pm
Reiner04
  • Locked
Time dimension standard elaboration and a bit of change (whatever guess yourself)
2 3
Replies
83
Views
10K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top