SMALL ADDITION TO THE LOW 2-C

[PrinceofPein]

I got permission from KingTempest to make this thread
THE MAIN POINT AND REASON WHY I MADE THE THREAD

My believe is that all of the wiki tiering pages and terms be explained in a way that even a layman can understand it with ease or little help, so here it goes
Currently for low 2-C on the Tiering Page we have this:

Low 2-C | Universe level+: 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:

While most people wont know what a space-time conitinuum means which in the case would be the past, present and future of a Space-time(Universe)
taking this from the FAQ page of the tiering system

The relationship between the spatial dimensions of a universe and the additional temporal dimension(s) may be visualized as something akin to the frames of a movie placed side-by-side. Basically, the time-like direction may be thought of as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the whole universe at any given moment, with the set of all such events comprising the totality of spacetime.

This structure can then be generalized to any amounts of dimensions, and is also the reason destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). So, for example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (Instead of just one) would have an additional time direction whose "snapshots" correspond to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime, and so on and so forth.

In simpler terms, if there is a set called "movie" that has "infinite(many) frames(Snapshot)" as members of the set, 3A or High 3A would be destruction of a single member of the set (i.e. a single frame (Present or a single point in time)) while low 2C would be destruction of the entire set(i.e. past, present and future).
also Ultima clarified it a bit when he said this

By the way, since a bunch of people both here and outside of the wiki expressed some confusion as to what exactly this thread's proposal is, I'll say this just for clarity's sake: We are not changing the actual definition of Low 2-C, just applying some stricter standards so characters have to meet the actual requirement to qualify for it, that being destroying all of spacetime, and thus the entire universe across past, present and future. So, if you destroy the universe, but there is no evidence that it was destroyed across past and future, then you are not Low 2-C.

So i propose that these should be the new low 2C section of the tiering page

Low 2-C | Universe level+: 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:

while this will downgrade a lot of low 2C, as i can think of a few off my head but i will not mention the said verses for peace to reign here.
jokes aside there are lots of verses this will affect.

A MINOR THING THAT I THINK SHOULD ALSO BE CLARIFIED ON THE FAQ PAGE
1. Due to what happened in a fairytail thread and also some other thread, how do we treat verses that erased a certain part of the universe i.e. erased 10 years of a universe or 400 years, what tier do they scale to as they are not low 2C and this feat is unquantifiaby higher than 3A or High 3A
2. on the FAQ page we have this

So, for example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (Instead of just one) would have an additional time direction whose "snapshots" correspond to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime, and so on and so forth.

Does this mean that destruction of a universe who has two different direction of time (2D time) or does it mean a universe that contains another universe with its own different time i.e. the other dimension time flows in a different direction.

Depending on answers for these two, it should be clarified on the FAQ page

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

I have taken permission from @Theglassman12 on discord to speak here.

I was going to make thread myself to include "past, present and future" into explanation for Tier 2, but I see Pain was faster than me.

Well I agree with inclusion of what was stated above but in a different way.

The Tiering Page is meant to be very technical and to the point....short, crisp and mathematical. So I don't think "past, present and future" is suited for insertion into Low2C definition. Its already good as it is, thus should be left as it is.

But rather this should be on FAQ thread, which gives a detail and verbose explanation of stuff on Tiering Page.

I recommend following edit.

Q: How do temporal dimensions impact on tiering?​

​

​

A: The relationship between the spatial dimensions of a universe and the additional temporal dimension(s) may be visualized as something akin to the frames of a movie placed side-by-side. Basically, the time-like direction may be thought of as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the whole universe at any given moment, with the set of all such events comprising the totality of spacetime. Time by its very definition contain past, present and future of all objects existing in it.

This structure can then be generalized to any amounts of dimensions, and is also the reason destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). So, for example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (Instead of just one) would have an additional time direction whose "snapshots" correspond to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime, and so on and so forth.

Simple way of attaining Low2C is destroying 3A or higher sized 3D structure accross past, present and future. Another method is by simply destroying entity/structure which is defined as atleast an universal or higher sized spacetime.

Bolded part is edits...and I also recommend linking definition of time in the "temporal dimension(s)".

 

[PrinceofPein]

I will let staffs decide where it should be but I think it being on the tiering page is the best and also on the FAQ page, also explain this

Another method is by simply destroying entity/structure which contain atleast single universal or higher sized spacetime.

You mean a universe sized structure that contains another universe sized structure?
If it's is that the destruction without temporal aspect will be just High 3A

 

[Nullflowerblush]

but i will not mention the said verses for peace to reign here

Stole my whole flow.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

You mean a universe sized structure that contains another universe sized structure?
If it's is that the destruction without temporal aspect will be just High 3A

Not really.

Let me give an example.
If I say there is a set X with elements A,B,C in it.. X={A,B,C}. And I told you I destroy Set X. The default fact it that X was destroyed...thus all elements encompassed by it are gone. You don't assume partial destruction by saying only one element was destroyed, cuz that'd be contradiction to the statement of its destruction.

If I say an entity/realm/character is an universal space-time, then destroying said entity/realm/character woulf be low2C, cuz they contain space-time within themselves..thus their destruction would encompass whats contained within them.

You mean a universe sized structure that contains another universe sized structure?

I'll edit it as..

Another method is by simply destroying entity/structure which is defined to be atleast an universal space-time.

Also edited my earlier comment.

I will let staffs decide where it should be but I think it being on the tiering page is the best and also on the FAQ page, also explain this

Moderators need to be tagged, this is fairly simple...DT, Ultima, Sysops and Ant should be enough to get this accepted.

 

[KLOL506]

Moderators need to be tagged, this is fairly simple...DT, Ultima, Sysops and Ant should be enough to get this accepted.

Way ahead of you pal, I already contacted DT, Ultima, Elizhaa and DDM. After they finish, I think we can contact Ant.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Scans or nothing Klol.

 

[KLOL506]

Scans or nothing Klol.

COPE, SEETHE AND MALD, YOU TOO SLOW UWU

 

[PrinceofPein]

Not really.

Let me give an example.
If I say there is a set X with elements A,B,C in it.. X={A,B,C}. And I told you I destroy Set X. The default fact it that X was destroyed...thus all elements encompassed by it are gone. You don't assume partial destruction by saying only one element was destroyed, cuz that'd be contradiction to the statement of its destruction.

If I say an entity/realm/character is an universal space-time, then destroying said entity/realm/character woulf be low2C, cuz they contain space-time within themselves..thus their destruction would encompass whats contained within them.

I think the problem with this is that all universe or dimension is a spacetime by default.
So a fiction work that referred to its universe as a spacetime will be right and if the said universe was destroyed later on it still wont prove it was destroyed across the entirety of past, present and future.
But what you said works if it was directly stated in the work that the character destroyed space and time e.g. "he destroyed space and time" or "he is destroying the whole.of space and time"
Then yes this is a solid low 2C.

Moderators need to be tagged, this is fairly simple...DT, Ultima, Sysops and Ant should be enough to get this accepted.

I messaged Ant

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @Promestein @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @SomebodyData @Dragonmasterxyz @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Saikou_The_Lewd_King @DarkDragonMedeus @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000

What do you think about this?

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I agree with adding the whole "past, present, and future" thing to either the Tiering System page or the FAQ page, whichever majority decides. This is something that needs to be done so we won't have any confusion regarding why a Low 2-C character got downgraded to 3-A or High 3-A despite destroying "space and time" without any further elaboration.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I personally don't think we really need to be stricter on what qualifies as Low 2-C than we already are and think some conditional branches in the requirement is more preferable as opposed to "Everything has to be 100% specific all in one sentence to qualify." Which there are some who seemingly are trying to push for exactly that. There are times where we don't really need to mention spacetime or past/future to reach Low 2-C for certain Low 2-C creation feats and what not. Such as "Giving birth to the universe from the chaos of creation" is the most simple example of a Low 2-C feat.

I also don't think an actual age of the universe whether it be 4004 BC or 6 Billion BCE or even Infinity as the beginning should be relevant to the Low 2-C status. Only some facts or at least strong hints that time and space are also being effected alongside "The entire universe". I agree that the 3-D space has to be at least observable universe sized and enough 4-D quantities to prove it's a timeline is the baseline. But I don't think we should be enforcing the uncountable infinite lines.

 

[Arceus0x]

yeah before low 2-C was the "cool" tier and now it's boutta become the "empty" tier

 

[DontTalkDT]

"Spacetime continuum" in the explanation already has a link that explains what spacetime means. Isn't that enough?

1. Due to what happened in a fairytail thread and also some other thread, how do we treat verses that erased a certain part of the universe i.e. erased 10 years of a universe or 400 years, what tier do they scale to as they are not low 2C and this feat is unquantifiaby higher than 3A or High 3A

IIRC the FT things problem was that it was a chain reaction of changing the past, not erasing a part of spacetime by brute force. I.e. no erasing the universe over a time-interval using the characters power happened. Chain reactions aren't really a unique situation, though. Does it need explanation that if you don't accomplish a feat using your own power, than it doesn't scale to you?

If a character erases a 4D spacetime structure of non-insignificant size by their own power then it is Tier 2 by regular definition.

2. on the FAQ page we have this

Does this mean that destruction of a universe who has two different direction of time (2D time) or does it mean a universe that contains another universe with its own different time i.e. the other dimension time flows in a different direction.

Depending on answers for these two, it should be clarified on the FAQ page

It means having two temporal dimensions, as the page says. It can have those two temporal dimensions in any way it wants, they just need to actually be two dimensions not just to timelines.

 

[Ogbunabali]

So i propose that these should be the new low 2C section of the tiering page

Seems redundant?

Especially since it says the same thing in the sentence prior to the new addition.

 

[AKM sama]

I remember someone also made a thread about it earlier. A spacetime continuum has always meant all of space and all of time. When you are destroying a spacetime continuum, you are destroying all of time as well, i.e. the past, present and future of the universe. The conclusion of the last thread was that we already follow these rules on the books, but we have been lenient with enforcing it in practice (which needs to be taken care of).

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

The issue is...if a universe in fiction is defined as space-time continuum then said universe destruction should be low2C.
Some people still think thats not enough.

 

[AKM sama]

The issue is...if a universe in fiction is defined as space-time continuum then said universe destruction should be low2C.

Every universe by default is a space time continuum though, even if nothing is said about it. It doesn't need to be defined as such. It's destruction is only 3-A by default, unless proof of time being destroyed is also there (it being called a space-time continuum in the same sentence that talks about its destruction would probably count as evidence in that case but it also depends on context). I don't see a problem with that.

 

[Arceus0x]

Every universe by default is a space time continuum though, even if nothing is said about it. It doesn't need to be defined as such. It's destruction is only 3-A by default, unless proof of time being destroyed is also there (it being called a space-time continuum in the same sentence that talks about its destruction would probably count as evidence in that case but it also depends on context). I don't see a problem with that.

yeah and that is what people are trying to argue against. They wanna make it so you need mention of destroying past, present and future and what not and it just makes things even harder.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Every universe by default is a space time continuum though, even if nothing is said about it. It doesn't need to be defined as such. It's destruction is only 3-A by default, unless proof of time being destroyed is also there (it being called a space-time continuum in the same sentence that talks about its destruction would probably count as evidence in that case but it also depends on context). I don't see a problem with that.

Lets give this particular universe sentience and give it name XYZ.

If I destroy Character XYZ what would that be??

 

[Scottycj256]

yea, its pointless to add "past, present, and future" when space time continuums dont necessarily need that level of context in the first place

 

[Scottycj256]

Lets give this particular universe sentience and give it name XYZ.

If I destroy Character XYZ and wiped him from existance what would that be??

Low 2-C

you're wiping the universe from existence outright rather than just destroying it

wiping from existence implies more than just destruction of all the matter and space inside said universe

 

[KingPin0422]

A spacetime continuum, by its definition, includes all of space and all of time. Space definitionally encompasses up/down, left/right, and forward/backward, and time definitionally encompasses the past, present, and future. There can be more directions than three spatial and one temporal, but the point is, the past-present-future of the universe is already covered under the spacetime continuum. No need to spell out something that should be obvious to most of our users.

 

[Scottycj256]

i know this is also a follow up to that dumb Low 2-C downgrade for bleach, so im going to say this once

get off of their dicks, the reason Yhwach is possibly Low 2-C is because his feat is undoing Soul King's creation entirely, which is a Tier 2 cosmology with its own space time continuums

there is no further evidence needed that Yhwach was going to destroy the cosmology when he wasn't doing that in the first place, he was just undoing what Soul King had created

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the evaluations to all staff members here. It seems like this has been rejected then.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

I pretty much fall on the side that needing specific mentions of past, present, future is overly strict and mentions of space-time are enough.

 

[KLOL506]

I pretty much fall on the side that needing specific mentions of past, present, future is overly strict and mentions of space-time are enough.

Consider me in the same room.

The mere mention of "spacetime", given enough context should be more than enough, we don't need to get overtly specific by also asking for mentions of "past, present and future".

 

[Agnaa]

That first addition of past, present, and future doesn't sound disagreeable.

Verses that erase a part of a universe, such as 10 years, would end up at High 3-A. Actually, it would just be put at Unknown.

I believe that quote from the FAQ page means two different directions of time, but containing another universe with its own different time may end up functioning the same way.

I don't really understand Gilver's proposed edit.

Such as "Giving birth to the universe from the chaos of creation" is the most simple example of a Low 2-C feat.

I wouldn't agree that that's Low 2-C. It could easily be 3-A.

I also don't think an actual age of the universe whether it be 4004 BC or 6 Billion BCE or even Infinity as the beginning should be relevant to the Low 2-C status. Only some facts or at least strong hints that time and space are also being effected alongside "The entire universe". I agree that the 3-D space has to be at least observable universe sized and enough 4-D quantities to prove it's a timeline is the baseline. But I don't think we should be enforcing the uncountable infinite lines.

The age shouldn't matter, but the entirety of space across the entirety of time should be effected, even if the timeline is only 3 years old. We absolutely should be enforcing uncountable infinity, that's why it's a separate tier in the first place.

If a character erases a 4D spacetime structure of non-insignificant size by their own power then it is Tier 2 by regular definition.

And we need a definition of what "non-insignificant" is, and afaik, our definition is currently "the entirety of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time", even if those dimensions are only finite.

yeah and that is what people are trying to argue against. They wanna make it so you need mention of destroying past, present and future and what not and it just makes things even harder.

I pretty much fall on the side that needing specific mentions of past, present, future is overly strict and mentions of space-time are enough.

Consider me in the same room.

I'm not sure if I'd want that, but I'd at least want a verse where it's demonstrable that the past/future weren't destroyed to not qualify, even if things like "timelines" are mentioned.

 

[KLOL506]

That first addition of past, present, and future doesn't sound disagreeable.

I'm not sure if I'd want that, but I'd at least want a verse where it's demonstrable that the past/future weren't destroyed to not qualify, even if things like "timelines" are mentioned.

Disagree, the term "space-time"/"space-time continuum" alone should already take the past, present and future into account by default as DontTalk and KingPin explained. There's no further need to complicate this.

Verses that erase a part of a universe, such as 10 years, would end up at High 3-A.

Pretty sure we stopped giving tiers for limited 4-D destruction like that a while back in a CRT.

 

[Agnaa]

Disagree, the term "space-time" alone should already take the past, present and future into account by default as DontTalk and KingPin explained. There's no further need to complicate this.

No. Space-time is any region of time and space. It is not necessarily the entirety of existent space for all of the past, present, and future. Not every feat of space-time manipulation is Low 2-C range.

Pretty sure we stopped giving tiers for limited 4-D destruction like that a while back in a CRT.

Oh right that's what we do, nvm, I'll edit that part out of my post.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

"Spacetime and spacetime continuum are two different things!"

No, spacetime can simply be another term used to refer to spacetime continuum.

 

[Agnaa]

Notice the word can. This means that sometimes they are different, and we need to account for that. I mentioned as such in my post:

It is not necessarily the entirety of existent space for all of the past, present, and future.

Although the wording on the tiering system page does say continuum, I don't think adding more clarification is a bad thing, especially with stuff that people seem to get tripped up on.

 

[KLOL506]

Disagree, the term "space-time" alone should already take the past, present and future into account by default as DontTalk and KingPin explained. There's no further need to complicate this.

No. Space-time is any region of time and space. It is not necessarily the entirety of existent space for all of the past, present, and future. Not every feat of space-time manipulation is Low 2-C range.

Forgot to clarify but "spacetime-continuum" should also be more than enough. I edited my reply.

Although the wording on the tiering system page does say continuum, I don't think adding more clarification is a bad thing, especially with stuff that people seem to get tripped up on.

Like Ogbunabali said, it's already redundant, since the term "spacetime-continuum" by default already accounts for past, present and future being included in that one single package.

 

[Agnaa]

We can just treat it as an enforcement issue ig.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Notice the word can.

It’s the first definition, ie the most common definition, aka what it means the vast majority of the time…

 

[Agnaa]

It’s the first definition, ie the most common definition, aka what it means the vast majority of the time…

Who gives a shit. We both know the word we're talking about, we both know there's multiple definitions, why are you trying to drag this out into a longer argument? It's literally pointless. By your definition, you're right. By my definition, I'm not. They're both used sometimes, so we're both kinda right and kinda wrong. This needs to go no further.

 

[KLOL506]

With that said, I've got no horses left in this race anymore. Carry on bois.

 

[Vietthai96]

With that said, I've got no horses left in this race anymore. Carry on bois.

Hmm, you can't escape, i will pull you back hehehehehe

 

[Agnaa]

Actually it'd probably be good to ask @Pain_to12

Since space-time continuum meaning all of space for all of the past, present, and future is already implied, why did you feel the need to make a thread for this? Is there a case where a feat was argued to be Low 2-C despite not affecting all of space and time, and the unclarified "space-time continuum" phrasing was used to make that argument in some way?

If we know why that came about, we can discuss ways to stop it, or explain to you why it qualifying is still acceptable.

 

[Teezar]

He wants to remove the possibly low 2-C teir from yhwach's profile since past,present and future wasn't mentioned.