- 19,168
- 6,458
Option 4 is fine.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Pretty sure I already voted yes earlier.@DarkDragonMedeus @Everything12 @Qawsedf234 @Elizhaa @DontTalkDT @AKM sama @Firestorm808 Would you all be fine with the newly-added Option 4?
While tier 2 feats could be interpreted as reaching across some part of 5-D space (as infinitely large & long timelines would need an extra direction to be arranged on), since the timelines themselves have 0 size in this direction, they can all be included in an arbitrarily small amount of 5-D space.A question for @Ultima_Reality :
Can you please explain how or if splitting off 5-dimensional infinity to tier Low 1-C will affect the tier 2 multiverse statistics? I thought that all of these tiers are technically 5-dimensional feats to different degrees.
Uhm, may I ask did you got permission to comment?I can't believe nobody told me about this!
I think option 4 is pretty good. I have a question though and it's about why we can't do 10-D to 26-D. Often times the string universes that use such cosmology are paired with higher-D branes or other context which do fit our quantitative superiority guidelines and I think they are common enough.
One example of that is Ben 10 iirc.
I also think that it helps group more characters together since there are 12-D and 13-D characters that are kinda lost in that extremely wide tier of 1-B.
Afterwards, it's up to the supporters of each individual verse to revise them, if they believe the verses in question ought to be tiered differently with the new system. Most likely, I'll make a "hub" thread for all the CRTs that'll spawn out of these revisions.So after this thread, whose outcome is still up in the air, what is left to be done?
That sounds like a pretty wonky way to go about it. Making a bunch of CRTs for a Tiering System that isn't even formally applied and exists mostly in the form of sandboxes sounds like bad practice overall. Far better to go with the approach I pitched up there.Plus, it's probably best to not actually apply this until we've sorted out new placements for the verses involved, so our pages don't spend weeks being wildly inaccurate.
SCP is an exceptional case because it's also in the process of being moved somewhere else and deleted. If it bothers you, it doesn't take much to just write down a big note in the verse page saying the verse is about to get thrown out and that, by extension, its ratings aren't going to be up to date with the recently-applied Tiering System.Having SCP maintain its 30 tier 0s under a system that says there's a maximum of one per verse is far wonkier, imo.
It's also extremely impractical to go fishing for verses that may or may not be upgraded to 1-A due to these revisions, since they might well be spread through all of Tier 1. And if a verse is truly forgotten and no one on this site is knowledgeable on it, it's not like we'd be able to accurately assess the information about it, either. So what you seem to be suggesting isn't that good of an idea in comparison.Plus your idea of letting the supporters of verses decide whether they want to make revisions in line with this sounds like it'd leave tons of pages from forgotten verses with grossly incorrect ratings.
Not really against that, at least in theory. Tier 0 is a fairly homogenous tier, so, shouldn't be difficult.Couldn't we just do an evaluation thread where we go through every verse with a tier 0 and see if it qualifies or not? I did it with the Type 5 Acausals and Dimensional Manipulation users and that was able to kill all birds with one stone.
We've both been on the site for ages; isn't the thing I'm suggesting how every previous tiering system revision was done?It's also extremely impractical to go fishing for verses that may or may not be upgraded to 1-A due to these revisions, since they might well be spread through all of Tier 1. And if a verse is truly forgotten and no one on this site is knowledgeable on it, it's not like we'd be able to accurately assess the information about it, either. So what you seem to be suggesting isn't that good either.
Yeah, that's a fair enough way to assess it. But I don't think it's a good reason to just keep these pages un-applied, still, because either way some degree of confusion is bound to happen during this transition period. Even under what you are suggesting, for example, some verses will be upgraded to 1-A while the Tiering System pages still give information saying they should be Low 1-C at most. That'd be just as confusing as (To draw from your earlier example) SCP having 30 Tier 0s because of big cardinals while we simultaneously have a huge explanation page talking about how that's haram.That's why we rarely do minor tweaks to the tiers between 10 and 3; because doing so requires someone to go through every single character in the relevant tiers, to check their calculations and determine whether they should be moved up or down. I don't think "Just let the supporters tackle it" has ever been seen as a viable excuse to skip out on that work.
That's one of the justifications, but it's not the only one; the tiers would have enough metanarrative stuff to rest on even with the "cardinals" aspect invalidated. Tier 0 would have to become High 1-A on all those profiles, though.30 Tier 0's because of big cardinals
Which idea specifically? Since both Ultima and I have suggested ways of handling this revision.I'm against this idea
I don't think it'd be too impractical to keep a checklist of the relevant verses, and apply it once all/most are done (or once progress slows to a crawl on going through those). Not quite simultaneously, but within a few days rather than a few months.Yeah, that's a fair enough way to assess it. But I don't think it's a good reason to just keep these pages un-applied, still, because either way some degree of confusion is bound to happen during this transition period. Even under what you are suggesting, for example, some verses will be upgraded to 1-A while the Tiering System pages still give information saying they should be Low 1-C at most. That'd be just as confusing as (To draw from your earlier example) SCP having 30 Tier 0s because of big cardinals while we simultaneously have a huge explanation page talking about how that's haram.
Unless, of course, your plan is to make a CRT for each potential 1-A verse, but only apply them after they are all done, in a simultaneous fashion, at the same time as the application of the new standard pages. That'd be crazy impractical.
I'm fine with that.But if y'all don't think so then fair enough; update the relevant pages immediately, but I'd still want a checklist to be maintained and explored by invested members, rather than leaving everything to supporters.
Simply whether a verse has been evaluated under the new system. These could be split into various levels of priority:What specifically would be included in the check list? I can put something together when I have time.