" But new information is introduced because a new feat is added. That's the entire point of this conversation - if a new calc is created, accepting it as a higher value makes even higher values less likely to be considered outliers. "
Ok, then this is completely unrelated to the situation I mentioned them. I'm only speaking when 2 interpretations are equally valid in a vacuum. If you introduce new information, then it casts new light on which of the original feats is more valid, so the situation has changed and they (at least given the situation that you described) are no longer equally valid interpretations. Accepting a higher value doesn't make the higher values any less outliers than a lower interpretation makes it more likely that lower interpretations are considered outliers, and simply that more upgrades might spawn from choosing the greater isn't any worse, unless of course those higher interpretations (for unrelated reasons) happen to be incorrect, but that would again be due to an unrelated flaw in a judgement call.
" Yes, but accepting lower feats and making even lower feats less outlier-ish doesn't result in a spiral of downgrades, while the reverse leads to a spiral of upgrades.
Like I already said, adding a new 9-B feat doesn't make a character more likely to be downgraded to 9-C, those feats can coexist and the highest consistent value is taken, which would be 9-B. "
Ok, let me ask, why is it bad that choosing a higher end interpretation causes might cause iteration? You say that you aren't presupposing that the higher interpretations being taken are less accurate. We are speaking in a vacuum here, so we would be assuming that no outside errors would take place, right?
What kind of feat are you talking about here? Are we talking about an 8-C character who just so happens to destroy a fall in the fall out of their fight or are we talking an 8-C character struggling to destroy a 9-B brick wall or what?
" This feels extremely fallacious to me. Higher interpretations spawn further upgrades using that upgrade as the basis for other feats no longer being outliers. Higher interpretations do not spawn more "incorrect information" fixes. Even though both of those things fall under the umbrella term of "revisions", conflating the two as if there's a causal link between them is fallacious."
But, as I said, using an upgrade as the basis for another upgrade in and of itself should not be happening due to simply being not how outliers work, but on the other hand, if the introduction of new data to a set happens to pull feats that were once outliers into the range of validity, and no outside errrors were made, then why would that be a bad thing?
But, they do, just raw definitionally based on what you said. previously you said straight up that upgrades spawn more upgrades. Upgrades cannot happen without revisions, and what is a revision but trying to change a page to correct outdated or incorrect info (within the context that we are speaking)? If a revision or upgrade is not done for pushing for more correct information, then it is either done in bad faith or not a proper revision. All an upgrade is, is a revision that states that certain statistics should be higher, because those higher stats are more accurate. All a downgrade is, is a revision that stats that statistics should be lower, because those lower stats are more accurate. Therefore, assuming that no outside errors have been made, the spawning of more upgrade/revisions should be correcting information that has been found to be incorrect, assuming that the upgrades would only go through if the information they present is correct, more upgrades would naturally generate more correct information. A Higher interpretation that does not lead to more correct information should not go through, and if it does than that is an outside error, which is not what we am discussing. If an upgrade is raised and it does not go through, then the recursion stops and we have no issue, but if it does then it would be due to outside errors.
"To give an analogy for where increasing the number of revisions does not lead to correcting information, if I went around and replaced every profile's picture with new art and 90% of it was fanart, there would need to be a revision thread to remove it, since there's no easy automatic way to handle that. So my action would have objectively spawned further revisions, the negation of that being that not replacing them would have spawned fewer revisions. Using your logic, not replacing profile's pictures with fanart makes it less likely for incorrect information to be fixed, which it doesn't. "
Are you trying to negate that more revisions means more correct information? I'm not claiming that as a universal rule, I'm claiming that this is the case in this very specific context. It brings nothing to this conversation to negate it outside of the context in which we are speaking.
