• 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.

The commoners thread: Discussing Ultima's "On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System"

Ultima_Reality said:
The fact something as nebulous as "higher existence" (Judging by the Athena example you gave) is seriously in the domain of discourse for these things is a bit concerning, frankly, since it doesn't (Or at least, shouldn't) fly even in the current system. I think the question is ill-forned because you shouldn't need to distinguish between cases at all when the object of discussion is something so vague. It should just be rejected on sight.
Click to expand...
Well, help me out then, because given this description:
Outerverse level: Characters whose superiority over lesser realms is qualitative, rather than quantitative. This is to say that their transcendence over lower realms hinges on the very quality of their existence as opposed to mathematical quantities, and as such is completely beyond any and all extensions of the latter
Click to expand...
I am left unable to articulate a reason to eject it from the domain of discourse.

Seriously, I want to level with you here for a moment. I'm not trying to debate with you or prove you wrong, I am trying to understand. I do not know how to tell someone "the Athena example isn't enough" because I do not know what the criteria is. "Vague" is the opposite of "specific." If I tell someone something is too vague to warrant consideration I would have to justify that by explaining the specifics. I don't know what they are, hence the inquiry.

Ultima_Reality said:
Overall, as I see it, R>F and BDE are pretty much the two categories that fully exhaust 1-A, to the point you can say the two have the exact same essence and only differ in presentation. If you don't fall under the presentation of R>F, you'll fall under Type 2 BDE. I don't really know of any 1-A or potential 1-A that doesn't just find its place in that dynamic. And for BDE I believe we, of course, already got standards.
Click to expand...
Okay, so if I am understanding correctly, the only other way to get QS will be to transcend all forms of dimensionality.
So, I propose a scenario. A verse has a normal spacetime, with spatially 4-D beings that are more powerful than the 3-D beings. Above those 4-D beings are deities who are more powerful than the 4-D beings, and who are not spatial but instead conceptual or ethereal or etc. Are they 1-A? Or would we need to prove that they are infinitely more powerful than the 4-D beings rather than simply, say, 10,000x?
 
Deagonx said:
It's the most prominent example in recent memory of an unquestionably undeserved higher infinity being granted based on vague and unsubstantive evidence.
Click to expand...
And she got downgraded. You think that she'd get 1-A after this thread passes, and inevitably tightens the standards that she doesn't currently qualify for anyway? With no one arguing for it at that?

Geor's right, this example is nonsensical.
 
Deagonx said:
It's the most prominent example in recent memory of an unquestionably undeserved higher infinity being granted based on vague and unsubstantive evidence.
Click to expand...
Outerverse level: Characters whose superiority over lesser realms is qualitative, rather than quantitative. This is to say that their transcendence over lower realms hinges on the very quality of their existence as opposed to mathematical quantities, and as such is completely beyond any and all extensions of the latter
Click to expand...
Here the explanation 1-A is basically to have a higher existence than all the lower realms within the scope of existence and to transcend them.

Athena's case something very similar, but she has not R>F, BDE or anything like that.

Considering the contexts and statements, there is one thing to try, and I am already trying it. So there is no need to bring this R>F and BDE bullshit.
 
Planck69 said:
And she got downgraded. You think that she'd get 1-A after this thread passes, and inevitably tightens the standards that she doesn't currently qualify for anyway? With no one arguing for it at that?

Geor's right, this example is nonsensical.
Click to expand...
I don't think God of War has any R>F from what I've heard anyway
 
CloverDragon03 said:
I don't think God of War has any R>F from what I've heard anyway
Click to expand...
It doesn't. It never has lol.

Like, fair, the higher plane stuff didn't count and she lost that transcendence. But now, people are fighting ghosts cause Ultima's thread would pretty much nuke anything like that qualifying for higher tiers of accepted.
 
Planck69 said:
And she got downgraded.
Click to expand...
Right, on account of a great deal of legwork on my part getting people to help the thread pass despite ardent opposition in the complete absence of evidence, and several staff votes to that effect.

Planck69 said:
You think that she'd get 1-A after this thread passes,
Click to expand...
No, I think people would try to give her 1-A due to having a vague form of higher existence. My point to Ultima is that we need to be able to specify why it's insufficient, which means we need to know what exactly is required. The vaguer it is the more likely we will have bad upgrade threads, and the more likely it is that those bad threads will get bad FRAs.
 
Putting Athena aside, just from the phrase "higher existence" I am sure that no one will try either. Surely they would need more context about whether such things would be BDE, R>F or something else
 
Deagonx said:
Right, on account of a great deal of legwork on my part getting people to help the thread pass despite ardent opposition in the complete absence of evidence, and several staff votes to that effect.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, you went through a downgrade that wasn't unanimous. I'm sure it was harrowing.
Deagonx said:
No, I think people would try to give her 1-A due to having a vague form of higher existence. My point to Ultima is that we need to be able to specify why it's insufficient, which means we need to know what exactly is required.
Click to expand...
No one who gives a damn about her actually cares for that anymore, in my experience.

Like, sure, you can assume it'd happen but then you can assume someone would try the same for Goku since its a non-zero chance. This is genuinely nonsensical paranoia about the sort of threads that'd happen regardless of standards.

The standards Ultima proposes seem clear enough to me. Existing in higher planes and upscaling no longer count so that already guts a lot of unclear cases anyway.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
Overall, as I see it, R>F and BDE are pretty much the two categories that fully exhaust 1-A, to the point you can say the two have the exact same essence
Click to expand...
What about in context of layers. Perhaps its ignorance, but I don't think I have seen higher layers of BDE as I have with higher layers of reality?
 
I do have a feeling that this R>F stuff will eventually result in a rule being put that there has to be explicitly qualitative superiority based statements or some shit. Because a quantitatively superior R>F is indeed, pretty possible.
 
"Higher existence" is too vague for Low 1-C, let alone 1-A which will definitely have its own tighter set of requirements, so I feel like it'd be pretty easy to shut such attempts down
 
Deagonx said:
I am left unable to articulate a reason to eject it from the domain of discourse.
Click to expand...
Take the example above: I would certainly say I am a higher existence than a frog. Because I exist (And am therefore an existence) and I am superior to the frog. But the reason I am superior to the frog isn't anything metaphysical. It's just the fact I'm literally 20x its size and can just step on it if I want to. That involves mass and force, quantitative factors.

You could certainly try and say "Well, technically you are superior due to the frog due to having the quality of being bigger than it", but I think of this as needless nitpicking, pretty much, since it's not at all the same thing as "qualitative superiority" as defined for things like BDE and R>F. The explanation given presupposes that exact definition, after all, which is already something well-established.

Deagonx said:
Okay, so if I am understanding correctly, the only other way to get QS will be to transcend all forms of dimensionality.
So, I propose a scenario. A verse has a normal spacetime, with spatially 4-D beings that are more powerful than the 3-D beings. Above those 4-D beings are deities who are more powerful than the 4-D beings, and who are not spatial but instead conceptual or ethereal or etc. Are they 1-A? Or would we need to prove that they are infinitely more powerful than the 4-D beings rather than simply, say, 10,000x?
Click to expand...
That falls into the question of "Are you above the very definition of what a dimension is, or are you just a non-physical being that happens to have greater AP than characters who happen to be physical?". So, basically the difference between Type 2 BDE (The thing that the Tiering System currently says is Low 1-C at minimum) and Type 1 BDE + AP. I wouldn't consider your example to be a valid case of 1-A, but a realm that's depicted as the much "larger" container of a dimensioned reality and then described as above spatial dimensions entirely, would certainly be one.

So, all-in-all: I understand you have doubts, but these doubts are not really faults pertaining to the proposals, since they're answered by simply referring to how we define these concepts already. Scaling, not definitions, is what i aim to change.
 
Planck69 said:
Yes, yes, you went through a downgrade that wasn't unanimous. I'm sure it was harrowing.
Click to expand...
The point I'm making -- lest it go unnoticed -- is that correct conclusions do not just happen out of the ether. If I had not participated she would still have a completely undeserved upgrade. So the idea that we can leave our standards unspecific and trust that common sense and good reason will win the day is... provably false. We had multiple mods vote to keep a layer of qualitative superiority solely on the basis that the character had "higher existence" and was more powerful, with a complete absence of evidence that it was infinitely so.

So, yes, we need specific standards to avoid that sort of thing.
 
Deagonx said:
The point I'm making -- lest it go unnoticed -- is that correct conclusions do not just happen out of the ether. If I had not participated she would still have a completely undeserved upgrade. So the idea that we can leave our standards unspecific and trust that common sense and good reason will win the day is... provably false. We had multiple mods vote to keep a layer of qualitative superiority solely on the basis that the character had "higher existence" and was more powerful, with a complete absence of evidence that it was infinitely so.

So, yes, we need specific standards to avoid that sort of thing.
Click to expand...
As far as I remember, Ant has already said that he advocates taking things like R>F and BDE only with very specific and distinctive things and that it should be accepted as such.

So relax, it will probably become even more difficult than it is now to get R>F and BDE, let alone just a "higher existence" statement.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
That falls into the question of "Are you above the very definition of what a dimension is, or are you just a non-physical being that happens to have greater AP than character who happen to be physical?". So, basically the difference between Type 2 BDE (The thing that the Tiering System currently says is Low 1-C at minimum) and Type 1 BDE + AP. I wouldn't consider your example to be a valid case of 1-A, but a realm that's depicted as the much "larger" container of a dimensioned reality and then described as above spatial dimensions entirely, would certainly be one.

So, all-in-all: I understand you have doubts, but these doubts are not really faults pertaining to the proposals, since they're answered by simply referring to how we define these concepts already. Scaling, not definitions, is what i aim to change.
Click to expand...
We should rename BDE.

That aside, I feel as though you are trying to change Type 2 at least a little bit, as it currently reads:
Type 2: Characters whose nature is defined by lacking spatiotemporal features and being superior to them in nature. These characters aren't necessarily superior to spacetime on every level, but just within the scope which they are shown.
Click to expand...
Other than that it seems clear enough.
 
I mean tbf, while our standards definitely dictate that vague notions of "higher existence" aren't enough for Low 1-C (let alone 1-A), this notion of "correct conclusions" and "deserved/undeserved upgrades" is mostly subjective and not really something any of us can call for a fact. A lot of it also falls on interpretation, that's kinda what power scaling's founded on to a large degree
 
CloverDragon03 said:
I mean tbf, while our standards definitely dictate that vague notions of "higher existence" aren't enough for Low 1-C (let alone 1-A), this notion of "correct conclusions" and "deserved/undeserved upgrades" is mostly subjective and not really something any of us can call for a fact. A lot of it also falls on interpretation, that's kinda what power scaling's founded on to a large degree
Click to expand...
So relax, it will probably become even more difficult than it is now to get R>F and BDE, let alone just a "higher existence" statement.
Click to expand...
Regardless of any verse, it seems like it would be more difficult to qualify for R>F and BDE, let alone a simple "higher existence" statement.

At least what Ant wanted was to have more specific and distinctive statements for R>F and BDE.
 
Deagonx said:
We should rename BDE.
Click to expand...
The name reflects the energy of whoever came up with it.

Deagonx said:
That aside, I feel as though you are trying to change Type 2 at least a little bit, as it currently reads:
Click to expand...
I am, yes. But the tidbit you've bolded isn't really part of the definition of the ability. It's our stance on how to tier said definition, and that stance is what I am proposing a change for, not the definition.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
"Higher existence" is too vague for Low 1-C, let alone 1-A which will definitely have its own tighter set of requirements, so I feel like it'd be pretty easy to shut such attempts down
Click to expand...
You would think so, but my experience has run contrary to that. It can be very challenging to get even the most self-evident revisions passed depending on what verse its happening in.

CloverDragon03 said:
this notion of "correct conclusions" and "deserved/undeserved upgrades" is mostly subjective and not really something any of us can call for a fact
Click to expand...
Subjectivity has limits, which may sound outrageous but it's almost mandatory for a discussion to remain reasonable. If someone made the argument that Tony Stark was Kryptonian, are they objectively or subjectively incorrect? Does it really matter? Should we treat it as absolutely incorrect?

Many things are a matter of interpretation and ultimately come down to judgment calls, but that fact is abused in circumstances where the facts very blatantly do not meet the criteria. In the case of Athena the collection of evidence for the upgrade was that 1) she attained a higher existence and 2) was more powerful than the gods. This... very blatantly is not enough to meet our standards.

So, do I "know" that with absolute unwavering metaphysical certainty? No. Does that mean that the opposite conclusion (that these statements do meet our standards) must be treated as equally valid and respected as such? No, I don't consider that reasonable. The downgrade shouldn't have received any staff opposition. I was astounded that it did.

Ultima_Reality said:
I am, yes. But the tidbit you've bolded isn't really part of the definition of the ability. It's our stance on how to tier said definition, and that stance is what I am proposing a change for, not the definition.
Click to expand...
Very well.
 
Georredannea15 said:
Regardless of any verse, it seems like it would be more difficult to qualify for R>F and BDE, let alone a simple "higher existence" statement.
Click to expand...
I mean, people nowadays slap Type 2 BDE on the roof of any "Transcends space and time" statement. I'd say it's less "It will get stricter" and more "People misunderstand how strict the power should really be and misapply it everywhere." So that would, in fact, be less of a change and more of a call for action.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
I'd say it's less "It will get stricter" and more "People misunderstand how strict the power should really be and misapply it everywhere."
Click to expand...
I believe we should take steps to mitigate that. I'm aware it will never completely go away, but I think we can alleviate some of the problem by creating a more robust explanation page.
 
Deagonx said:
I believe we should take steps to mitigate that. I'm aware it will never completely go away, but I think we can alleviate some of the problem by creating a more robust explanation page.
Click to expand...
I agree. I would say the yawning gaps in the Tiering System, currently, are leftovers from a less matured era of the wiki. It's why some of our explanation pages are so lackluster compared to other ones. They're just older pages that need expansion.
 
Bro said
mhv4Ak9.png
 
All I care about is that the singular verse I scale on this wiki doesn't get downgraded and given how everything is worded it's gonna get upgraded cause Low 1-A is getting axed so hey, I get an extra layer of 1-A.

Time to sit back and watch and see how other verses react. Maybe people will try to argue 1-A MCU
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

demonwarrior2266
Application of Ultima's CRT
Replies
4
Views
923
Hypertornado099
Hypertornado099
  • Locked
VS Battles Is Nonsense / Delete My Account
Replies
6
Views
2K
Dragonite007
Dragonite007
The Boundless tier can be defined as "Transcending Modern Mathematics"
Replies
1
Views
620
demonwarrior2266
demonwarrior2266
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System
12 13 14
Replies
530
Views
155K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
How many of you guys believe in the tiering system?
Replies
14
Views
2K
Planck69
Planck69
Back
Top