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

[Deidalius]

I also find this scan from You Can Forget the Words funny

You know the author is just trying to sound smart when he added the monkey typewriter thought experiment to his schizo rant for no reason

More like apophatic theology if the author never contradicts themselves by accident. I doubt you can ever prove negation.


The author has to explain why incorporating a Carpenter most of us happen to know very crucial to their story development then. Just name the verse Byzantine's Heavenly Comedy or smtg, maybe that'd help.

I highly doubt they could do that. FC/OC is very strict with what they allow.

 

[Metalballrun]

From what I've heard, one of the main problems with tiering Suggsverse is numerous contradictions within itself. So it might be unfeasible to tier it rather than fun.

It was also just terrible, by any known metric. Not to mention the other issues derived from it and the author himself, which are really not worth discussing more than what has already been said here.
It's merely a relic of silliness in battleboarding history.

 

[Vietthai96]

From what I've heard, one of the main problems with tiering Suggsverse is numerous contradictions within itself. So it might be unfeasible to tier it rather than fun.

Because he actually doesn't know the "logic" behind the tiering system, on this site or other sites, unlike some cringe fanfiction where people who wrote them at least have basic knowledge and wrote their own stuffs, he mostly copypasted tier 0 description/justification of many tier 0 characters on this site or other sites, and made his character "stronger than these copypasted description/justification" or slap "omnipotent" words into them

 

[Grand_Astartes]

Suggsverse was like super garbage. Probably capped at Comp Multi or something after all was said and done. Truly one of the stories of all time.

 

[MrKerf]

I recall it capped at 1-S on ACF (Tiering system is a bit different and I won’t translate it for you, but as a reference point - Nemo ex Machina is 1-S+, while Featherine is High 1-S).

 

[Lord_Farquaad69420]

I recall it capped at 1-S on ACF (Tiering system is a bit different and I won’t translate it for you, but as a reference point - Nemo ex Machina is 1-S+, while Featherine is High 1-S).

what wiki?

 

[Iiliminal]

what wiki?

anime characters fight wiki

 

[GrathOfLux]

what wiki?

ACF. Aersus Cattles Fiki.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

My genuine question is: If Modal Realism is High 1-A+, then what would Extended Modal Realism be, which incorporates the idea that impossible worlds are just as real as possible worlds ? I'm asking because certain fictions incorporate EMR in it

 

[Karabach-barabach]

I recall it capped at 1-S on ACF (Tiering system is a bit different and I won’t translate it for you, but as a reference point - Nemo ex Machina is 1-S+, while Featherine is High 1-S).

The revision on the Wiki will get that deleted from existence shortly

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

That's not how the sentence read with the way it was worded.

You're right, I was making a mistake.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I was trolling Agnaa and it worked!

 

[Tdjwo]

Ugh, I'm getting tired of the back and forth on the Tier 0 thread. I know Deagonx very well. He's never gonna stop replying till the thread reaches 30+ pages. Ultima should just agree to disagree and put him om the disagree list. His vote doesn't count anyways. I expected DT and Agnaa to be the one commenting on the thread.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Ultima should just agree to disagree and put him om the disagree list.

Practical idea.

 

[Iiliminal]

sassy the Sasquatch will be high 1–A

 

[Executor_N0]

The current theological discussions around Tier 1 are the reason I'm taking so long with my immeasurable proposal (That and because I'm working on my University thesis and various personal projects...). If it gets accepted, I would be surprised.

 

[Bobsican]

BTW, how would liminality be tiered under the new system?

 

[Agnaa]

Ugh, I'm getting tired of the back and forth on the Tier 0 thread. I know Deagonx very well. He's never gonna stop replying till the thread reaches 30+ pages. Ultima should just agree to disagree and put him om the disagree list. His vote doesn't count anyways. I expected DT and Agnaa to be the one commenting on the thread.

Ultima, again, asked me not to until other people had commented.

I don't have a whole lot to say, anyway.

 

[Flowman777]

Why not comment right now? Deagonx agreed to call it a day and given DontTalkDT has other things like schoolwork that makes it hard for them to respond quickly, it might be fine talking now as your discussion with Ultima on the Incoherences thread was far quicker than DontTalkDT's discussion with Ultima on that thread.

 

[Isaiah_ZaMangaka]

I thought Aslan was gonna be High 1-A ngl

 

[Agnaa]

Why not comment right now? Deagonx agreed to call it a day and given DontTalkDT has other things like schoolwork that makes it hard for them to respond quickly, it might be fine talking now as your discussion with Ultima on the Incoherences thread was far quicker than DontTalkDT's discussion with Ultima on that thread.

@Ultima_Reality I do have a three paragraph/point post ready, whenever you are.

 

[Hasty12345]

If this tier 0 proposal fails, does anyone have any other ideas on how it should be handled?

 

[Agnaa]

If this tier 0 proposal fails, does anyone have any other ideas on how it should be handled?

Take the accepted High 1-A definition, redefine it as tier 0, and don't have a High 1-A any more.

Or do the same sorta thing we do now, where 0 is a rehash of High 1-A on a higher level.

 

[Vietthai96]

Or do the same sorta thing we do now, where 0 is a rehash of High 1-A on a higher level.

I think this route is better in case new tier 0 fail, but probably Ultima have back-up plan for this??

 

[Vietthai96]

what tier would the goddess of manifold and downstreamers be with the new system? shts kinda weird
high 1-A+ for GOM?

Low 1-A at best

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Why not comment right now? Deagonx agreed to call it a day and given DontTalkDT has other things like schoolwork that makes it hard for them to respond quickly, it might be fine talking now as your discussion with Ultima on the Incoherences thread was far quicker than DontTalkDT's discussion with Ultima on that thread.

Honestly a good idea. The circumstances behind this thread are way different, anyway (Much shorter OP, for one), so, no point in following the model of the previous one.

We ball. @Agnaa

 

[Deagonx]

If this tier 0 proposal fails, does anyone have any other ideas on how it should be handled?

Take the accepted High 1-A definition, redefine it as tier 0, and don't have a High 1-A any more.

Or do the same sorta thing we do now, where 0 is a rehash of High 1-A on a higher level.

I am largely of the same opinion. The only alternative I would have in mind, should we insist on a fixed endpoint, would just be omnipotence.

That comes with its own baggage, but would still be far preferable to classical theism, which is sophistry at best and complete nonsense at worst.

 

[Iiliminal]

Low 1-A at best

theres modal realism tho

 

[Deagonx]

As per your other tiering revisions, this gets a "myeh" (neutral leaning towards disagreeing) from me. It doesn't hold internal consistencies or objective issues (due to the rigid disqualifiers outlined), it's one of many plausible tiering systems, but takes quite a few steps from what I'd prefer to have in one.

Differentiation of Monad-like Descriptions​

It's a bit weird for omnipotence (the ability to do anything logically possible) and a Type IV multiverse (a multiverse containing everything mathematically describable) to be given such vastly different tiers. Since by default, omnipotence would be constrained by one form of logic, one set of underlying rules for reality, while Type IV multiverses can greatly vary in those. Similarly, I'm concerned that there's multiple similar ways of reaching these tiers which imply different qualities, but which you'd all just equalise to being a monad (omnipotence, holding all truth values, not being describable, being absolutely simple)

High Interpretation, and Proof by a Lack of Anti-Feats​

My general discontent comes with how this takes a very high interpretation of these concepts (in fact, the highest one possible, by not letting anything else reach these), one that less so needs to be proven, and more needs to not be disproven. I always took our system's lack of something like that as a point of pride; Rather than just saying "If they say these 5 words, we'll take them as being stronger than anything else, unless they're contradicted," we looked at the cosmologies established, and gave cosmologies that were established as containing more things to have higher tiers.

Enshrinement of Monads, Despite Cosmology & Quality​

I also find it a bit dissatisfying that it enshrines monads over all other forms of supreme beings. Such as two equal and opposite forces who come together to create the world as it is; I don't like how that sort of thing would be inaccessibly far below monads (as even with a description of their creation which fits High 1-A+, them not being monads would put them and their cosmology to High 1-A at best). Especially with how monads can make jumps (i.e. from a 3-A cosmology to tier 0) which these other types of supreme beings can't.

He cooked.

 

[Hasty12345]

Take the accepted High 1-A definition, redefine it as tier 0, and don't have a High 1-A any more.

Or do the same sorta thing we do now, where 0 is a rehash of High 1-A on a higher level.

I am largely of the same opinion. The only alternative I would have in mind, should we insist on a fixed endpoint, would just be omnipotence.

That comes with its own baggage, but would still be far preferable to classical theism, which is sophistry at best and complete nonsense at worst.

Personally, I think ending the system at high 1-A is more aesthetic than tier 0 should the idea of not having an endpoint be discarded.

 

[Deagonx]

Personally, I think ending the system at high 1-A is more aesthetic than tier 0 should the idea of not having an endpoint be discarded.

Perhaps, but "Tier 0" sounds f-ckin badass, so, we have to keep it. I dont make the rules.

 

[Vietthai96]

theres modal realism tho

Hmm, 1-A i think, but Modal Realism is broad

 

[Hasty12345]

Perhaps, but "Tier 0" sounds f-ckin badass, so, we have to keep it. I dont make the rules.

That is true, but it would be really weird to get rid of high 1-A and have a 1-A to 0 jump, not a fan of that idea, at least not from an aesthetic point of view, in principle it's whatever.

 

[Deagonx]

Eh, we are lacking a several "Highs" in the system. Tier 2 has no highs.

 

[Hasty12345]

Eh, we are lacking a several "Highs" in the system. Tier 2 has no highs.

of all the tiers that aren't sub 3D, tier 2 is the odd one out. I think we should bring high 2-A back purely because I think we should. no other reason.

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

Have tier 0 but make it entirely unattainable because I said so

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

of all the tiers that aren't sub 3D, tier 2 is the odd one out. I think we should bring high 2-A back purely because I think we should. no other reason.

Have tier 0 but make it entirely unattainable because I said so

Enough, already.

 

[Grand_Astartes]

Nothing wrong with a lil silliness 82 pages in tbh. I honestly would wonder what a "High 2" tier would be without making the other tiers above it needlessly verbose.

 

[Agnaa]

If anyone's missed it, I've edited my most recent post to include two more sections.

EDIT: After reading over the thread, and having a quick talk to Ultima off-site, I have a few more thoughts.

Is This Taking a Religious Stance?​

I do also find it a bit prickly that, while our previous systems could've claimed that we were largely lowballing religious claims due to relying on concrete demonstrations, rather than larger descriptions that have to be taken on faith, from a discussion with Ultima off-site, having these sorts of tiers starts to involve us taking definitive stances on arguments for the existence of God, which some people take as the sole justification of their beliefs, such as the Cosmological Argument and the Ontological Argument, since the justification for this tier's superiority is intertwined with the logic of those arguments.

I do think either presuming that one or both of these are true or false, rather than saying they're matters of faith that lie outside of demonstrated feats and thus aren't relevant, is a modestly worse state of affairs. And while I ultimately don't find this too important myself, I see why stuff like it can rile others up. And for clarity, I don't think Ultima's comment about any approach being a theological one is actually true.

Other Statistics​

While this may belong in another thread, since people mentioned here, I'd want to take a lot of care with our definitions of Tier 0 ratings for other stats. DarkGrath's definition for Irrelevant intelligence, for example, seems like something that people would argue non-0 characters as having.

I could not care less about whether we call such statistics "Irrelevant", "Unbound", or anything else not horribly offensive.

@DontTalkDT Since I've added more stuff to a post you've liked.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

I definitely agree with the whole monad above other variations of superior beings bit. Feels like a random cut-off point.