(STAFF ONLY) EE AP revision

[ImmortalDread]

Okay so the agreement seems to be on only putting EE in the ap section only for tier 2 and above, correct?

Yap

 

[Omegabronic]

Can somebody write an easy to understand explanation post regarding what need to be evaluated here please? Including all of the staff-supported suggestions that have been mentioned here.

the general consensus of the staff is to not have EE listed in the AP section unless it is for things tier 2 and above, i will list who agreed and gave opinion on what in the staff tally, but for the side that is against listing for anything bellow tier 2, i think this comment by KingTempest sumarizes it pretty good:

Environmental destruction and creation both have an AP factor, which is why we put it in the AP section

Environmental destruction, destruction/AP on a wide area that can't be focused on one person.
Creation, AP generated depending on our mass from our creation table.

We do the same because they're completely different things.

EE has no AP component. EE is flat out durability negation dependent on range.

It won't be a double standard because they aren't nearly the same

TL;DR: basically since the AP section is to list values of potency, EE wouldn't clasify for 3D tiers since it has no joule value to it, however, since for tier 2 and above destruction has little difference between "Erasing" and "destroying" a universe, it would be better if we only allowed this type of listing for EE to be made only for tier 2 structures and above, dread was the one who reformulated my intial proposal, so i will try to rewrite it for it to follow to current consensus, altho someone can rewritte if mine becomes not as good written:

"Existence Erasure" can be included in a character's Attack Potency, depending on the circumstances. This is determined by the scope of the erasure and what is being erased. For instance, if a character were to erase an entire universal space-time with the "Existence Erasure" ability, it would be classified as "universal+ environmental destruction with Existence Erasure". While this does not scale to the character's Attack Power, it is still a form of damage inflicted on a specific area using a unique ability, similar to how creation feats are typically categorized. It is to be noted that this type of rating would not be listed for structures bellow tier 2 since Existence Erasure has no joule value and as such is not applying real energy, but in the case of tier 2 structures and above, there is little difference between "destroying" and "erasing" such structures, making Existence Erasure qualify for such tiers in "joule energy" per say"

again, mine may be a little rough, so if anyone has propositions for how to formulate it better, it would be apreciated

Also, can somebody write a full staff tally, including usernames, for this thread please?

pretty much every staff agreed with the above, but for the sake of the request, i will list the ones opinions:

The ones that agrees with the tier 2 and above listing of EE in the profiles, disagrees with it being listed for anything bellow tier 2:
@DarkDragonMedeus
@Maverick_Zero_X



The ones that agreed with the original proposal of listing:
@DontTalkDT
@LordGriffin1000
@ByAsura
@Elizhaa

The ones that disagrees with listing it at all in the AP section:
@Damage3245
@KingTempest
@DemonGodMitchAubin
@Mr._Bambu
@Crabwhale

 

[KingTempest]

The ones that agrees with the tier 2 and above listing of EE in the profiles, disagrees with it being listed for anything bellow tier 2:
@KingTempest

Idk who told you that. I disagree with it being for AP at all

 

[Omegabronic]

Idk who told you that. I disagree with it being for AP at all

oh ok, my mistake on that part, very sorry for that

 

[Reiner04]

Glad people spoke up. I'm in agreement with Tempest and Damage.

but honestly, it should just be the range level of EE and shouldn't even be listed in AP . But so long as it's stated to be through EE then I don't much have a problem.

Bambu agreed with kingtempesto and damage, Lordgriffin comment speaks that he originally and favourably wants it to not be listed in the AP.

 

[Reiner04]

Yeah I'm changing my vote, Bambu makes a lot more sense.

Then crabwhale agreed with bambu.

 

[Omegabronic]

Then crabwhale agreed with bambu.

Huh, okay then thank you

 

[Omegabronic]

Bambu agreed with kingtempesto and damage, Lordgriffin comment speaks that he originally and favourably wants it to not be listed in the AP.

Well grifin also states that as long as it is specified to be via EE that he doesn't have a problem with the proposal

 

[Reiner04]

Well grifin also states that as long as it is specified to be via EE that he doesn't have a problem with the proposal

Yeah, he is fine with both.

 

[Deagonx]

I agree with the OP. I am inclined to think of it in the context of ranged hax rather than AP.

 

[Omegabronic]

I agree with the OP. I am inclined to think of it in the context of ranged hax rather than AP.

what do you think of the current proposed note?
"Existence Erasure" can be included in a character's Attack Potency, depending on the circumstances. This is determined by the scope of the erasure and what is being erased. For instance, if a character were to erase an entire universal space-time with the "Existence Erasure" ability, it would be classified as "universal+ environmental destruction with Existence Erasure". While this does not scale to the character's Attack Power, it is still a form of damage inflicted on a specific area using a unique ability, similar to how creation feats are typically categorized. It is to be noted that this type of rating would not be listed for structures bellow tier 2 since Existence Erasure has no joule value and as such is not applying real energy, but in the case of tier 2 structures and above, there is little difference between "destroying" and "erasing" such structures, making Existence Erasure qualify for such tiers in "joule energy" per say"

 

[Deagonx]

Personally, I do not agree with that approach. I think it is best to keep it out of the AP section.

 

[Omegabronic]

Personally, I do not agree with that approach. I think it is best to keep it out of the AP section.

so instead just listing it in the range section instead?

 

[Deagonx]

I think it should be listed in the description of their EE ability.

 

[Reiner04]

I agree with the OP. I am inclined to think of it in the context of ranged hax rather than AP.

Just to give you note OP is not suggesting what you think so you have to be precise with your statement,

Do you agree with:

1. EE not scaling to AP at all but hax that has range?
2. EE scaling as Environmental destruction?
3. Tier 2 or above should be Environmental destruction AP but not below.

Can you choose from the points above? As staff votes are divided btw them.

Edit: Nvm, I was slow.

 

[Reiner04]

In light of recent arguments the consensus that EE shouldn't scale to AP below Tier 2 is fine.

The ones that disagrees with listing it at all in the AP section:
@Damage3245
@KingTempest
@DemonGodMitchAubin
@Mr._Bambu
@Crabwhale
@Maverick_Zero_X

Man read carefully, Mav has same opinion as DDM.

 

[Omegabronic]

Man read carefully, Mav has same opinion as DDM.

man, thank you very much for your help, i really put Mav on the wrong page even tho i saw her comment lol

 

[Omegabronic]

updated vote tally for staff:



The ones that agrees with the tier 2 and above listing of EE in the profiles, disagrees with it being listed for anything bellow tier 2:
@DarkDragonMedeus
@Maverick_Zero_X



The ones that agreed with the original proposal of listing it:
@DontTalkDT
@LordGriffin1000
@ByAsura
@Elizhaa



The ones that disagrees with listing it at all in the AP section but to list it in the description of the EE ability on the profiles:
@Damage3245
@KingTempest
@DemonGodMitchAubin
@Mr._Bambu
@Crabwhale
@Deagonx

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

the general consensus of the staff is to not have EE listed in the AP section unless it is for things tier 2 and above, i will list who agreed and gave opinion on what in the staff tally, but for the side that is against listing for anything bellow tier 2, i think this comment by KingTempest sumarizes it pretty good:

TL;DR: basically since the AP section is to list values of potency, EE wouldn't clasify for 3D tiers since it has no joule value to it, however, since for tier 2 and above destruction has little difference between "Erasing" and "destroying" a universe, it would be better if we only allowed this type of listing for EE to be made only for tier 2 structures and above, dread was the one who reformulated my intial proposal, so i will try to rewrite it for it to follow to current consensus, altho someone can rewritte if mine becomes not as good written:

"Existence Erasure" can be included in a character's Attack Potency, depending on the circumstances. This is determined by the scope of the erasure and what is being erased. For instance, if a character were to erase an entire universal space-time with the "Existence Erasure" ability, it would be classified as "universal+ environmental destruction with Existence Erasure". While this does not scale to the character's Attack Power, it is still a form of damage inflicted on a specific area using a unique ability, similar to how creation feats are typically categorized. It is to be noted that this type of rating would not be listed for structures bellow tier 2 since Existence Erasure has no joule value and as such is not applying real energy, but in the case of tier 2 structures and above, there is little difference between "destroying" and "erasing" such structures, making Existence Erasure qualify for such tiers in "joule energy" per say"

again, mine may be a little rough, so if anyone has propositions for how to formulate it better, it would be apreciated


pretty much every staff agreed with the above, but for the sake of the request, i will list the ones opinions:

The ones that agrees with the tier 2 and above listing of EE in the profiles, disagrees with it being listed for anything bellow tier 2:
@DarkDragonMedeus
@Maverick_Zero_X



The ones that agreed with the original proposal of listing:
@DontTalkDT
@LordGriffin1000
@ByAsura
@Elizhaa

The ones that disagrees with listing it at all in the AP section:
@Damage3245
@KingTempest
@DemonGodMitchAubin
@Mr._Bambu
@Crabwhale

Just a note, I was neutral with listing the ones less than Tier 2 but actually leaned towards agreeing. I only said I was fine if I was outvoted but still strongly thought Tier 2 and above was easily still AP.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the explanations.

Given that eradicating an entire universal space-time continuum is a form of existence erasure as far as I am aware, I also think that it should be listed for tier Low 2-C and above, so I seem to agree with Medeus here.

 

[Omegabronic]

updated vote tally for staff:



The ones that agrees with the tier 2 and above listing of EE in the profiles, disagrees with it being listed for anything bellow tier 2:
@DarkDragonMedeus
@Maverick_Zero_X
@Antvasima


The ones that agreed with the original proposal of listing it:
@DontTalkDT
@LordGriffin1000
@ByAsura
@Elizhaa



The ones that disagrees with listing it at all in the AP section but to list it in the description of the EE ability on the profiles:
@Damage3245
@KingTempest
@DemonGodMitchAubin
@Mr._Bambu
@Crabwhale
@Deagonx

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. It seems like there is insufficient staff consensus here for a proper conclusion then, unless we use a compromise solution.

 

[Omegabronic]

Hmm. It seems like there is insufficient staff consensus here for a proper conclusion then, unless we use a compromise solution.

Like what?

 

[Antvasima]

I am not sure. Medeus, Maverick, and I obviously took a compromise solution option, but I do not know it the others would find that acceptable to apply.

 

[Omegabronic]

I am not sure. Medeus, Maverick, and I obviously took a compromise solution option, but I do not know it the others would find that acceptable to apply.

Huh, pherhaps you could call them to hear their opinions?

 

[Antvasima]

Updated vote tally for staff:

The ones that agrees with the tier 2 and above listing of EE in the profiles, disagrees with it being listed for anything bellow tier 2:
@DarkDragonMedeus
@Maverick_Zero_X
@Antvasima

The ones that agreed with the original proposal of listing it:
@DontTalkDT
@LordGriffin1000
@ByAsura
@Elizhaa

The ones that disagrees with listing it at all in the AP section but to list it in the description of the EE ability on the profiles:
@Damage3245
@KingTempest
@DemonGodMitchAubin
@Mr._Bambu
@Crabwhale
@Deagonx

Hmm. It seems like there is insufficient staff consensus here for a proper conclusion then, unless we use a compromise solution.

Like what?

I am not sure. Medeus, Maverick, and I obviously took a compromise solution option, but I do not know it the others would find that acceptable to apply.

Huh, pherhaps you could call them to hear their opinions?

@DontTalkDT @LordGriffin1000 @ByAsura @Elizhaa @Damage3245 @KingTempest @DemonGodMitchAubin @Mr._Bambu @Crabwhale @Deagonx @DarkDragonMedeus @Maverick_Zero_X

What do you think about this?

 

[Deagonx]

If we narrow the point of contention to how we address it below tier 2, then we have a 9 to 4 vote against it.

For listing it Tier 2 and above, it's currently 6 to 3 against it. I understand the desire for a more convincing staff conclusion, but I would say that a 2 to 1 outvoting is sufficient.

 

[Omegabronic]

If we narrow the point of contention to how we address it below tier 2, then we have a 9 to 4 vote against it.

For listing it Tier 2 and above, it's currently 6 to 3 against it. I understand the desire for a more convincing staff conclusion, but I would say that a 2 to 1 outvoting is sufficient.

Well it is also 7 to 6 in favor of listing it in some way, we could wait and see if the staff in favor of listing it for bellow tier 2 to give their if they changed their opinions to either side

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Just lump me in with keeping it out of AP if we need a more decisive outcome.

 

[Omegabronic]

updated vote tally for staff:



The ones that agrees with the tier 2 and above listing of EE in the profiles, disagrees with it being listed for anything bellow tier 2:
@DarkDragonMedeus
@Maverick_Zero_X
@Antvasima


The ones that agreed with the original proposal of listing it:
@DontTalkDT
@ByAsura
@Elizhaa



The ones that disagrees with listing it at all in the AP section but to list it in the description of the EE ability on the profiles:
@Damage3245
@KingTempest
@DemonGodMitchAubin
@Mr._Bambu
@Crabwhale
@Deagonx
@LordGriffin1000

 

[KingTempest]

Pretty sure that settles it I'm assuming

 

[Omegabronic]

Pretty sure that settles it I'm assuming

teh difference is still of just 1 vote for the ones who agreed on listing in in the AP section and the ones who don't think it should, therefore i would imagine 1 more would be ideal to settle this

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Pretty sure that settles it I'm assuming

teh difference is still of just 1 vote for the ones who agreed on listing in in the AP section and the ones who don't think it should, therefore i would imagine 1 more would be ideal to settle this

Ant and DT, two bureaucrats, both voted against the majority, so I wouldn't consider this vote settled by a long shot.

 

[Reiner04]

Ant and DT, two bureaucrats, both voted against the majority, so I wouldn't consider this vote settled by a long shot.

They do have mor voting powers but, not by far exceeds them unless veto.

But in anycase, we still don't have proper consensus to reach a proper result.

 

[Deagonx]

Not everything needs to be unanimous. We can't simply not take any action until we begrudge every disagreeing staff member into agreeing.

 

[ImmortalDread]

The essence of a “split consensus” lies in the impossibility of implementing any changes in this scenario until additional staff members cast their votes.

 

[Omegabronic]

Ant and DT, two bureaucrats, both voted against the majority, so I wouldn't consider this vote settled by a long shot.

all three, bureacrats, admins and thread mods have the same vote "power" when it comes to threads

 

[ImmortalDread]

No, they don't.

 

[Omegabronic]

No, they don't.

yes they do, the rules says on nothing on someone having more voting power than the other anywhere

 

[ImmortalDread]

Although the evaluation of each staff member carries equal weight, the final decision regarding the approval of a content revision may be influenced by other factors such as the expertise and knowledge of the staff members involved, the complexity and controversy of the revision, and the popularity or prominence of the affected series verse. In terms of decision-making authority, bureaucrats are given the highest consideration, followed by administrators, and then thread moderators.

• Additionally, it is worth mentioning that Bureaucrats primarily have a lot of authority when it comes to major wiki policy changes, rather than regular content revision threads. Their authority in this regard may be restricted to specific areas.

You are arguing with the person who made the whole regulations.