Tier 1 Dragon Ball Is Finally Here, And Hypertimelines Are Back On The Menu! *Visible Groaning Ensues*

[Killerdrone123]

I don't understand.

You are linking two CRTs. One is for tier 2 and has nothing to do with tier 1 (low 1-C) and the other one is for suggesting abilities.

Lastly, you linked the exact scan I mentioned before. So I am right to assume, this is the single scan you are basing off your low 1-C proposal?

So my question still remains:

Before I choose my stance here.

Ok so let me try to clear it in previous db tier 1 thread people were arguing that the overarching timeline which contains all the 12 2c macrocosms is a higher dimension but it was found out that macrocosm need there own time dimension for an overarching timeline to be low 1c and it was closed in this thread the op is showing the two crts where the macrocosm was accepted to have it's own time dimension so now the overarching timeline would be low 1c basically the argument is 3 spatial + 2 temporal dimension

 

[Hasty12345]

what evidence would you need to agree with this CRT?

 

[SqubiNavrdx]

Extra justification for tier 2: The Room of Spirit & Time is stated to be a different dimension of time from the Kaioshin Realm. This proves that space-time separation does involve different time dimensions. So realms/dimensions that are their own Space-Times harbor their own dimension of time like the Kaioshin Realm and Living World.

I notice we use this scan to support our tier 2 ratings, so to increase the justifications a little (this won't change the tiering or anything), I compiled a few more scans to reinforce/recognize in this CRT that the Living World is a space-time that exists under its own time dimension.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

So,

Could you please provide all the relevant scans we are currently discussing? This will help clarify the specific scan you are referring to, allowing us to avoid any assumptions about your perspective.

Thank you.

From the Toeiverse cosmology page.

• The RoSaT is stated to have a different dimension of timecomparitive to realms like the Kaioshin Realm and Living World, which means their spatio-temporal separation involves distinct time dimensions.
• There is a room inside the Living World that creates all of space-time for it: confirming that it’s serviced by its own time dimension.

Please keep in mind that these justifications were accepted already in previous CRT’s.

 

[Hasty12345]

I don’t know why we’re playing these games, if dread would simply tell us what they want the evidence to say then we can get the evidence they need.

 

[ImmortalDread]

So to summarize;

• Creation of space-time
• "Different dimension of time" (tier 2 "increasing")
• Overarching timelines (main low 1-C reasoning)

This is all the scans that support low 1-C? I am currently not willing to read the comments from some staff members, reading the standards that I am already aware, I am trying to evaluate each piece of evidence you are using to give low 1-C.

Anything else I forget?

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

So to summarize;

• Creation of space-time
• "Different dimension of time" (tier 2 "increasing)
• Overarching timelines

This is all the scans that support low 1-C? I am currently not willing to read the comments from some staff members, reading the standards that I am already aware, I am trying to evaluate each piece of evidence you are using to give low 1-C.

Anything else I forget?

Again: keep in mind that the evidences and their justifications were accepted already, so any argument here will have to be done under a basis where both of the conclusions from them cited above are true.

 

[ImmortalDread]

So if the evidence and their justification are all accepted according to you, what is the point of the thread? Like, I feel there is some significant ambiguity in this thread and yet no one tries to explain to me, which stuff needs to be evaluated?

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

So if the evidence and their justification are all accepted according to you, what is the point of the thread? Like, I feel there is some significant ambiguity in this thread and yet no one tries to explain to me, which stuff needs to be evaluated?

If the accepted evidence is grounds for reaching tier 1 or not AFAIK.

 

[Deagonx]

Another reminder: A debate very rarely needs to be a team effort. Four people coming down on Dread for expressing her disagreement doesn't make the case for the OP better, it just makes it hard to follow what's going on, especially because most of what you are all saying is redundant. If you are not the main person Dread is debating with, it is better to not comment.

If this thread reaches 5 pages within 2 days, it doesn't matter how good your arguments were, there's a solid chance it simply never passes because no staff member is willing to read through it. If you are trying to support this thread, it is best to only comment if it's necessary.

 

[ImmortalDread]

If the accepted evidence is grounds for reaching tier 1 or not AFAIK.

This is not how it works. It is important to clarify that when justification and evidence are deemed “already accepted” for a specific tier or ability, they are accepted within the context of a previous tier or ability.

When one claims that the justifications and evidence have been “already accepted” for a specific tier/ability, they have been accepted for a prior rating/ability assessment.

Suggesting the use of the same sources for a different tier, be it higher or lower, does not automatically render them “accepted” at any point; such suggestions still require evaluation.

When I refer to "you," I am speaking in a general sense and not addressing any specific member.

The lack of efforts to clarify this ambiguity or the expectation for me to extract the answers independently is concerning, actually.

---

To the main discussion: Are all the scans/sources I mentioned the primary basis for the low 1-C rating? Specifically, the last scan. If there are additional elements missing (and no, arguments or comments from DT and Ultima cannot be considered evidence, as they do not provide substantial proof in any form), please send them for the sake of transparency.

 

[JJSliderman]

Seems fairly straightforward. Each timeline in Dragon Ball (aka the ones connected to time rings), contains 12 macrocosms minimum, each one having multiple distinct separate flows of time from the overarching timeline’s flow of time, making the overarching timeline’s time flow hierarchically superior and thus capable of adding another dimension to the 4D macrocosms, hence 5D.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

This is not how it works. It is important to clarify that when justification and evidence are deemed “already accepted” for a specific tier or ability, they are accepted within the context of a previous tier or ability.

When one claims that the justifications and evidence have been “already accepted” for a specific tier/ability, they have been accepted for a prior rating/ability assessment.

Suggesting the use of the same sources for a different tier, be it higher or lower, does not automatically render them “accepted” at any point; such suggestions still require evaluation.

When I refer to "you," I am speaking in a general sense and not addressing any specific member.

The lack of efforts to clarify this ambiguity or the expectation for me to extract the answers independently is concerning, actually.

---

To the main discussion: Are all the scans/sources I mentioned the primary basis for the low 1-C rating? Specifically, the last scan. If there are additional elements missing (and no, arguments or comments from DT and Ultima cannot be considered evidence, as they do not provide substantial proof in any form), please send them for the sake of transparency.

Knew that someone would go through the exact same thing that I did.

Premise of the thread as follows:

DB has multiple timelines. → Each timeline holds its own twelve universes. → Each of the twelve universes has their own universal timeline. → So the timelines in DB, where 12 universes exist in each, are Low 1-C.

OP uses the quotes from DT and Ultima to stake a claim that this interpretation (DB's timelines have an overarching, second dimension of time controlling the spatio-temporal flow + this dimension is Low 1-C for embedding and propagating the flow of 12 Universal Space Times) is already an accepted standard based on what they said. And thus that because these are already accepted standards of these forums, the Cosmology of DB must be acknowledged as 1-C.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Alright, I take it as a confirmation that only those are the relevant cosmological-related scans for the proposal low 1-C. I will write down my post addressing them.

Knew that someone would go through the exact same thing that I did.

The complexity of this thread has unnecessarily escalated due to an exclusive focus on the intricacies of standards. The discussion has delved into explaining the functioning of "standards," dissecting each comment made by the staff members in relation to these standards.

I want to clarify that my intention is not to divert the discussion off-topic. However, the excessive structuring of the conversation seems to depend heavily on scant and ambiguous evidence, relying more on interpretations of standards that “might” align with the evidence.

This intricate approach often prevents me from receiving a direct and clear response to my inquiries, leading to unwarranted accusations of playing games or engaging in some form of deception.

 

[Killerdrone123]

Alright, I take it as a confirmation that only those are the relevant cosmological-related scans for the proposal low 1-C. I will write down my post addressing them.

The complexity of this thread has unnecessarily escalated due to an exclusive focus on the intricacies of standards. The discussion has delved into explaining the functioning of "standards," dissecting each comment made by the staff members in relation to these standards.

I want to clarify that my intention is not to divert the discussion off-topic. However, the excessive structuring of the conversation seems to depend heavily on scant and ambiguous evidence, relying more on interpretations of standards that “might” align with the evidence.

This intricate approach often prevents me from receiving a direct and clear response to my inquiries, leading to unwarranted accusations of playing games or engaging in some form of deception.

Can you make it clear what more are you asking cause op gave you the scans which suggest that the macrocosm have there own time dimension it is already accepted

He is just bringing the standards here to be more clear and it is seen often in db threads that people can go completely against the standard of the wiki idk what is the problem with it and he is showing the accepted crts because in previous thread people were literally denying 2c macrocosms which is accepted here and making the thread more confusing.

He is saying this is the case for low 1c hypertimelines and why db fits the standard

 

[Magicomethkuon]

Alright, I take it as a confirmation that only those are the relevant cosmological-related scans for the proposal low 1-C. I will write down my post addressing them.

The complexity of this thread has unnecessarily escalated due to an exclusive focus on the intricacies of standards. The discussion has delved into explaining the functioning of "standards," dissecting each comment made by the staff members in relation to these standards.

I want to clarify that my intention is not to divert the discussion off-topic. However, the excessive structuring of the conversation seems to depend heavily on scant and ambiguous evidence, relying more on interpretations of standards that “might” align with the evidence.

This intricate approach often prevents me from receiving a direct and clear response to my inquiries, leading to unwarranted accusations of playing games or engaging in some form of deception.

No, I see what you mean. Just meant to condense things there. Like I said, when I first read through things just yesterday I went through the exact same thoughts and it took a while to confirm where the argument was going.

Far as I have observed, no new scans pending of being brought up yes. Currently my stance is neutral, on the one hand I get where the thread is going. On the other hand it's possible that somewhere, for any of those ideas (from DT and Ultima) there is one that wasn't interpreted as they intended, given the aforestated complexity of higher dimensions and the wiki's standards on them.

Just don't want to jump the gun myself until they confirm this is what they meant, especially when it was said that this proposal has some story here.

 

[CryoTheMayo]

To my understanding, the thread is about the already accepted cosmology of Dragon Ball and reexamining it to argue from the perspective of it being Low 1-C, due to a recent addition to the cosmology regarding the Time Chambers. This is done by defining what makes a cosmology 5D, noting the takes staff have had on Low 1-C (as they are the ones who decide whether or not this passes) and examining whether or not the cosmology fulfills these criteria.

The revision argues that the cosmology does fulfill the criteria for Low 1-C so we are waiting for staff (particularly the cited staff members) to elaborate on whether or not this is reasonable.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Can you make it clear what more are you asking cause op gave you the scans which suggest that the macrocosm have there own time dimension it is already accepted he is just bringing the standards here to be more clear and it is seen often in db threads that people can go completely against the standard of the db wiki idk what is the problem with it and he is showing the accepted crts because in previous thread people were literally denying 2c macrocosms which is accepted here and making the thread more confusing

This is now becoming circular.

I already got the relevant, cosmological-related scans that I am going to address. I wanted to confirm if those are the only ones, because frankly speaking, it is only two or three scans for an unnecessarily huge-structured thread.

He is saying this is the case for low 1c hypertimelines and why db fits the standard

Likewise, I don't think so, by myself. But hey! No worries, this is why this thread is being created, to discuss if the logic fits or not.

No, I see what you mean. Just meant to condense things there. Like I said, when I first read through things just yesterday I went through the exact same thoughts and it took a while to confirm where the argument was going.

Far as I have observed, no new scans pending of being brought up yes. Currently my stance is neutral, on the one hand I get where the thread is going. On the other hand it's possible that somewhere, for any of those ideas (from DT and Ultima) there is one that wasn't interpreted as they intended, given the aforestated complexity of higher dimensions and the wiki's standards on them.

Just don't want to jump the gun myself until they confirm this is what they meant, especially when it was said that this proposal has some story here.

I am glad, I am not the only who experienced this. Thanks for sharing this message, at least, I don't like being getting 10 accusations of playing some game or being somehow deceptive.

To my understanding, the thread is about the already accepted cosmology of Dragon Ball and reexamining it to argue from the perspective of it being Low 1-C, due to a recent addition to the cosmology regarding the Time Chambers. This is done by defining what makes a cosmology 5D, noting the takes staff have had on Low 1-C (as they are the ones who decide whether or not this passes) and examining whether or not the cosmology fulfills these criteria.

The revision argues that the cosmology does fulfill the criteria for Low 1-C so we are waiting for staff (particularly the cited staff members) to elaborate on whether or not this is reasonable.

Just to clarify, anyone can disagree or agree with the thread.

If it meant solely to wait for those aforementioned staff members to respond, then any comments under OP should be deleted and moved to staff discussion, but this is not the case here.

 

[CryoTheMayo]

I never implied otherwise. Hence saying I agree with the revision. I'm stating that the staff members cited are the ones we would be most interested in hearing from because they have commented on Low 1-C standards before. The arguments people make here as non-staff serve to sway staff members to a conclusion.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

To my understanding, the thread is about the already accepted cosmology of Dragon Ball and reexamining it to argue from the perspective of it being Low 1-C, due to a recent addition to the cosmology regarding the Time Chambers. This is done by defining what makes a cosmology 5D, noting the takes staff have had on Low 1-C (as they are the ones who decide whether or not this passes) and examining whether or not the cosmology fulfills these criteria.

The revision argues that the cosmology does fulfill the criteria for Low 1-C so we are waiting for staff (particularly the cited staff members) to elaborate on whether or not this is reasonable.

If the argument for each universe having a different and individual dimension of time comes from the RoSaTs (which as far as I remember aren't confirmed to be an Universal continuum rather than pocket dimensions but I could be lacking updates and sorry if that is the case). Regardless, if it's only the RoSaTs staff might eventually say that nothing about that proves the Universes themselves have each separate time dimensions to qualify for Low 1-C.

Also for clarity's sake, the argument about the RoSaT in that thread wasn't exactly accepted either. Lephyr was neutral and said that the part about cosmology should have been its own thread (if that was made afterwards and accepted somewhere else, I apologize). Some staff brought up how it's a small space-time, SamanPatou disagreed, LordGriffin said that he wasn't interested in discussing DB cosmology but that it looked alright so far.

Elizhaa and Lonkitt briefly gave a general agreement, which makes it uncertain how deeply they were in favor with the RoSaT situation. This has led us to a situation where the RoSaT argument of different space times further consolidating no less than the whole cosmology of all Dragon Ball got 2 staff agreements, and while it was said to be a minor revision passed among several other minor things when done. The results of that thread are now being used as part of anchor for an immense revision of the entire Cosmology's rating. I don't think I need to stress how much any cosmology changes for this verse take several staff looks before passing and how this feels like running over an old bridge.

There was 1 disagreement, 1 neutral and one that is unsure but said the thought was about alright. None of them heavily advocated and there was no debate. It makes me positive that if one sound argument is made they would change their mind. And then there's this DT quote which also worries me about the future of this thread.

In conclusion: In that thread it was barely, very barely agreed that a RoSaT will have its own time. But it was never agreed or brought up in that thread that RoSaTs having their own time also means that any and all individual universes have each their time x overarching timeline's time. I suggest that if there is more to support that argument (like a thread where such a proposal passed), it should be linked here post-haste since the entire premise crumbles if that is contested.

 

[GarrixianXD]

If the argument for each universe having a different and individual dimension of time comes from the RoSaTs (which as far as I remember aren't confirmed to be an Universal continuum rather than pocket dimensions but I could be lacking updates and sorry if that is the case).

Planetary in size.

Regardless, if it's only the RoSaTs staff might eventually say that nothing about that proves the Universes themselves have each separate time dimensions to qualify for Low 1-C.

Let’s just wait for them to respond.

Also for clarity's sake, the argument about the RoSaT in that thread wasn't exactly accepted either. Lephyr was neutral and said that the part about cosmology should have been its own thread (if that was made afterwards and accepted somewhere else, I apologize). Some staff brought up how it's a small space-time, SamanPatou disagreed, LordGriffin said that he wasn't interested in discussing DB cosmology but that it looked alright so far.

So it was accepted.

Elizhaa and Lonkitt briefly gave a general agreement, which makes it uncertain how deeply they were in favor with the RoSaT situation. This has led us to a situation where the RoSaT argument of different space times further consolidating no less than the whole cosmology of all Dragon Ball got 2 staff agreements, and while it was said to be a minor revision passed among several other minor things when done, the results of that thread are now being used as part of anchor for an immense revision of the entire Cosmology's rating. I don't think I need to stress how much any cosmology changes for this verse take several staff looks before passing and how this feels like running over an old bridge.

There was 1 disagreement, 1 neutral and one that is unsure but said the thought was about alright. None of them heavily advocated and there was no debate. It makes me positive that if one sound argument is made they would change their mind. And then there's this DT quote which also worries me about the future of this thread.

In conclusion: In that thread it was barely, very barely agreed that a RoSaT will have its own time. But it was never agreed or brought up in that thread that RoSaTs having their own time also means that any and all individual universes have each their time x overarching timeline's time. I suggest that if there is more to support that argument (like a thread where such a proposal passed), it should be linked here post-haste since the entire premise crumbles if that is contested.

Still agreed upon, which makes your argument is completely useless. Please wait till the staff respond before making such claims on their reaction, simple as that.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

First off, the HTC isn’t the only basis for this, as there was a second CRT with different arguments.

If the argument for each universe having a different and individual dimension of time comes from the RoSaTs (which as far as I remember aren't confirmed to be an Universal continuum rather than pocket dimensions but I could be lacking updates and sorry if that is the case). Regardless, if it's only the RoSaTs staff might eventually say that nothing about that proves the Universes themselves have each separate time dimensions to qualify for Low 1-C.

Also for clarity's sake, the argument about the RoSaT in that thread wasn't exactly accepted either. Lephyr was neutral and said that the part about cosmology should have been its own thread (if that was made afterwards and accepted somewhere else, I apologize). Some staff brought up how it's a small space-time, SamanPatou disagreed, LordGriffin said that he wasn't interested in discussing DB cosmology but that it looked alright so far.

Elizhaa and Lonkitt briefly gave a general agreement, which makes it uncertain how deeply they were in favor with the RoSaT situation. This has led us to a situation where the RoSaT argument of different space times further consolidating no less than the whole cosmology of all Dragon Ball got 2 staff agreements, and while it was said to be a minor revision passed among several other minor things when done, the results of that thread are now being used as part of anchor for an immense revision of the entire Cosmology's rating. I don't think I need to stress how much any cosmology changes for this verse take several staff looks before passing and how this feels like running over an old bridge.

This is taking things out of proportion. We had 3 staff agrees, 1 neutral, and one disagree. In organizing this, me and the other Dragon Ball supporters went out of our way to ensure that we had sufficient approval (some were suggesting we should implement it with 2 staff agrees, but I tried to prevent that). To claim that Lordgriffin saying “it looks all right” isn’t a true agree is extraordinarily disingenuous.

Also, the one staff disagree was based on a misunderstanding. We tried to have the HTC recognized and other realms recognized harboring their own time dimensions, and Saman’s reason for disagreeing was that the HTC was planetary in size. This is something different, as we weren’t trying to upgrade it to Low 2-C. Either way, we had sufficient staff votes, so it doesn’t matter.

There was 1 disagreement, 1 neutral and one that is unsure but said the thought was about alright. None of them heavily advocated and there was no debate. It makes me positive that if one sound argument is made they would change their mind. And then there's this DT quote which also worries me about the future of this thread.

In conclusion: In that thread it was barely, very barely agreed that a RoSaT will have its own time. But it was never agreed or brought up in that thread that RoSaTs having their own time also means that any and all individual universes have each their time x overarching timeline's time. I suggest that if there is more to support that argument (like a thread where such a proposal passed), it should be linked here post-haste since the entire premise crumbles if that is contested.

Again: the previous CRT’s were already accepted, there were not insufficient votes as you’re trying to claim, so any response to this CRT will have to accept the premises of those two posts as being true.

I also wonder why you’re ignoring the second CRT?

 

[TiltedFN]

If the argument for each universe having a different and individual dimension of time comes from the RoSaTs (which as far as I remember aren't confirmed to be an Universal continuum rather than pocket dimensions but I could be lacking updates and sorry if that is the case). Regardless, if it's only the RoSaTs staff might eventually say that nothing about that proves the Universes themselves have each separate time dimensions to qualify for Low 1-C.

You can also check the blog, there was a crt for it as well, that also explained why the living realm had its own time dimension, it wasn't just the rosat. And it won't matter if its a universal sized spacetime continuum or not, well it wouldn't matter for being on it's own time axis.

Also for clarity's sake, the argument about the RoSaT in that thread wasn't exactly accepted either. Lephyr was neutral and said that the part about cosmology should have been its own thread (if that was made afterwards and accepted somewhere else, I apologize). Some staff brought up how it's a small space-time, SamanPatou disagreed, LordGriffin said that he wasn't interested in discussing DB cosmology but that it looked alright so far.

Lephyr said he was neutral because of how controversial cosmology stuff is for dragon ball, but we said it would be fine if there wasn't a heated argument. SamanPatou disagreed under a misunderstanding in which we corrected him, but we did have enough staff to agree, with also agreements from other Dragon ball supporters.

Elizhaa and Lonkitt briefly gave a general agreement, which makes it uncertain how deeply they were in favor with the RoSaT situation. This has led us to a situation where the RoSaT argument of different space times further consolidating no less than the whole cosmology of all Dragon Ball got 2 staff agreements, and while it was said to be a minor revision passed among several other minor things when done, the results of that thread are now being used as part of anchor for an immense revision of the entire Cosmology's rating. I don't think I need to stress how much any cosmology changes for this verse take several staff looks before passing and how this feels like running over an old bridge.

We had like 3 staff. So I have no idea what you are getting on about here, with unanimous agreement from DB supporters, so it was accepted. This is derailing.

There was 1 disagreement, 1 neutral and one that is unsure but said the thought was about alright. None of them heavily advocated and there was no debate. It makes me positive that if one sound argument is made they would change their mind. And then there's this DT quote which also worries me about the future of this thread.

In conclusion: In that thread it was barely, very barely agreed that a RoSaT will have its own time. But it was never agreed or brought up in that thread that RoSaTs having their own time also means that any and all individual universes have each their time x overarching timeline's time. I suggest that if there is more to support that argument (like a thread where such a proposal passed), it should be linked here post-haste since the entire premise crumbles if that is contested.

In which we made extra justifications with profectus blog to explain that, at the least, the living realms of the macrocosms have their own time dimensions, even ignoring all the other stuff. I don't see the point of this comment. This stuff was already verified and accepted with no issues. This has no relevance here.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

Planetary in size.

Let’s just wait for them to respond.

So it was accepted.

Still agreed upon, your argument is completely useless. Just wait till the staff respond before making such claims on their reaction, simple as that.

It is worth noting that at the end of your sentence, @LordGriffin1000 seems to have agreed, but these things he mentioned don't help much here, so I recommend that a member of the team deletes it.

I guess the Room of Spirit and Time stuff is alright so far.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Since no one has expressed their disagreement in a proper manner yet (as @PrinceofPein may do so at the end of the weekend, as he mentioned), I will address the issue.

I am not attempting to refute the comments made by the staff members, as it is not within my purview in this thread, nor is it particularly relevant to the proposal itself. My role here is to assess whether the pieces of evidence presented should meet the required standards, and if the intentions and interpretations align accordingly.

There is no need to wait for my rebuttal, especially since you are not representing the individuals in question. In my experience, discussions where one argues on behalf of others tend to be never-ending and unproductive. We have official standards in place, and we adhere to them. External comments on these standards are unnecessary for supporting our argument.

Officially, my disagreement stems from the use of old sources/materials and the existence of multiple threads on this topic.

• On this post with my own reasoning
• Most of the comments/arguments somehow comes from here, which I disagree with based on opposition arguments

To the main evidence here:

I am still uncertain about the specific qualitative superiority being referred to in this context. To clarify, the parallel timeline discussed here exists in tandem with the current timeline, without introducing an entirely new time dimension perpendicular to the existing one. I fail to comprehend how this parallel “Future World” can be considered infinitely larger than the tier 2 structure or being qualitatively superior.

It is possible to encompass multiple lower structures and still remain within the tier 2 category. Moreover, the absence of evidence showing that hypertimelines are perpendicular to the existing ones renders their significance negligible.

To my main premise of the disagreement, that may change as long as the new evidence has been posted:

• There is no qualitative superior scan available for tier 1 for this verse, which is a fundamental requirement to pass the thread.
• There is no evidence indicating that the additional timeline, which includes smaller ones, contains an infinite and uncountable number of them or is perpendicular to it.
  • There is no any given evidence that additional time axis is orthogonal/perpendicular to the 4D spacetime continuum

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

There is no evidence indicating that the additional timeline, which includes smaller ones, contains an infinite and uncountable number of them or is perpendicular to it.

Are you… kidding me?

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Isn't this exactly what Deagon said not to do? Multiple people all responding to one post.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Since no one has expressed their disagreement in a proper manner yet (as @PrinceofPein may do so at the end of the weekend, as he mentioned), I will address the issue.

I am not attempting to refute the comments made by the staff members, as it is not within my purview in this thread, nor is it particularly relevant to the proposal itself. My role here is to assess whether the pieces of evidence presented should meet the required standards, and if the intentions and interpretations align accordingly.

There is no need to wait for my rebuttal, especially since you are not representing the individuals in question. In my experience, discussions where one argues on behalf of others tend to be never-ending and unproductive. We have official standards in place, and we adhere to them. External comments on these standards are unnecessary for supporting our argument.

Officially, my disagreement stems from the use of old sources/materials and the existence of multiple threads on this topic.

• On this post with my own reasoning
• Most of the comments/arguments somehow comes from here, which I disagree with based on opposition arguments

To the main evidence here:

I am still uncertain about the specific qualitative superiority being referred to in this context. To clarify, the parallel timeline discussed here exists in tandem with the current timeline, without introducing an entirely new time dimension perpendicular to the existing one. I fail to comprehend how this parallel “Future World” can be considered infinitely larger than the tier 2 structure or being qualitatively superior.

It is possible to encompass multiple lower structures and still remain within the tier 2 category. Moreover, the absence of evidence showing that hypertimelines are perpendicular to the existing ones renders their significance negligible.

To my main premise of the disagreement, that may change as long as the new evidence has been posted:

• There is no qualitative superior scan available for tier 1 for this verse, which is a fundamental requirement to pass the thread.
• There is no evidence indicating that the additional timeline, which includes smaller ones, contains an infinite and uncountable number of them or is perpendicular to it.

Timelines by definition are infinite dread. even a 1 second long timeline has an uncountable infinite amount of points.

 

[TiltedFN]

Officially, my disagreement stems from the use of old sources/materials and the existence of multiple threads on this topic.

• On this post with my own reasoning
• Most of the comments/arguments somehow comes from here, which I disagree with based on opposition argument

To the main evidence here:

I am still uncertain about the specific qualitative superiority being referred to in this context. To clarify, the parallel timeline discussed here exists in tandem with the current timeline, without introducing an entirely new time dimension perpendicular to the existing one. I fail to comprehend how this parallel “Future World” can be considered infinitely larger than the tier 2 structure or being qualitatively superior.

Okay let me explain this, the higher timeline is the timeline the time ring represents, everything sits under we call the "multiversal timeline". And it splits into a completely different parallel world when time is messed with. The point is that it is a higher time dimension that overarches lesser distinct time dimensions. And what is with these "perpendicular time" arguments? That isn't how it works, stop treating time dimensions like a spatial dimension. It's simply an additional time axis that overarches other lesser time dimensions, which is tier 1.

It is possible to encompass multiple lower structures and still remain within the tier 2 category. Moreover, the absence of evidence showing that hypertimelines are perpendicular to the existing ones renders their significance negligible.

Yes that would be if the tier 2 structures in question are only spatial temporally separate, and not distinct time dimensions. Or you are making it seem like we are arguing that simply the timeline holding tier 2 structures means the timeline is simply tier 1? Because if so, that is not the case. Also sorry if other people responded to you, i can't see if other people posted at the time of this message.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

Planetary in size.

So not universal, indeed.

Let’s just wait for them to respond.

Sure. That's what I'm also waiting for. I'm bringing this up in advance though.

So it was accepted.

It was ❝accepted❞, while being hidden under the name of a minor revision for a thread title. Drawing far less staff attention than if it was made its own thread, and ignoring the staff calls in the same thread where it all happened, to make the cosmology proposal its own thread. If you are trying to say that this is solid approval for something that impacts all of DB, I'm sad to say, it isn't.

Still agreed upon, which makes your argument is completely useless. Please wait till the staff respond before making such claims on their reaction, simple as that.

The answer above answers this also. Other than that, I'm just saying that the arguments for the thread in some places look unstable. I even recommended bringing up further evidence, and addressing things ahead of time makes it faster to answer anyone who has the same questions later. Let go of that tension.

 

[GarrixianXD]

It was ❝accepted❞, while being hidden under the name of a minor revision for a thread title. Drawing far less staff attention than if it was made its own thread, and ignoring the staff calls in the same thread where it all happened, to make the cosmology proposal its own thread. If you are trying to say that this is solid approval for something that impacts all of DB, I'm sad to say, it isn't.

No one contested it wasn’t a minor revision. Just because it’s a minor proposal doesn’t mean it won’t stem up further arguments.

I even recommended bringing up further evidence, and addressing things ahead of time makes it faster to answer anyone who has the same questions later. Let go of that tension.

Well said. Though, let’s not derail much and stick to the ones we have before staff comes.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Timelines by definition are infinite dread. even a 1 second long timeline has an uncountable infinite amount of points.

Yes, this is something by default.

Timeline (infinite time by default) = uncountable infinities of 3D space.

Hyperline of time = same thing as the previous one but exchanging 3D for infinite 4D, since low 2-C since 4D infinite, except that in the case of DB each universe is 2-C.

 

[Deagonx]

This is exactly what I'm talking about, we didn't need four different people to say "but it was accepted." Since Garrixian said it, and Magic was responding to Garrixian, I am going to delete the ones that weren't from Garrixian.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

This is exactly what I'm talking about, we didn't need four different people to say "but it was accepted." Since Garrixian said it, and Magic was responding to Garrixian, I am going to delete the ones that weren't from Garrixian.

Having seen this now, I'll follow suit and delete my reply that came afterwards as well.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I'm not. I am talking about what I saw in the thread. And what I saw was a pair of brief agreements, one disagreement, one neutral and several calls to separate the Cosmology point and make it its own thread.

2 votes are enough for non-controversial, non tier 1 arguments. blame the wiki's standards on voting.

Timeline (infinite time by default) = uncountable infinities of 3D space.

according to the current standards, yea.

Hyperline of time = same thing as the previous one but exchanging 3D for infinite 4D, since low 2-C since 4D infinite, except that in the case of DB each universe is 2-C.

Exactly. 2 timelines cannot exist in the exact same universe, except if that extra timeline is a hyper-timeline

 

[Deagonx]

2 votes are enough for non-controversial, non tier 1 arguments. blame the wiki's standards on voting.

Two votes are not enough for popular verses, such as Dragon Ball, and threads should not be passed if they are 2-1 agree-disagrees.

However, voting standards aside, whatever happened in that thread is not immune from being challenged here if the proposal depends upon that information.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

2 votes are enough for non-controversial, non tier 1 arguments. blame the wiki's standards on voting.

That had been deleted. This is a self-defeating argument, Dragon Ball cosmology is one of the most controversial things in this site. And the accepted revision is now being used in an effort to help prove that the verse is tier 1. So it was a controversial, tier 1 influencing revision.

 

[Deagonx]

I don't believe it matters much. If that information is crucial to this upgrade it is appropriate to question it here as part of the counter-argument. The fact that it may-or-may-not have been approved earlier doesn't render it immune from argumentation, nor does it make it "derailing" to bring it up if the OP is directly based on it.

Similarly, I don't believe it would be inappropriate for a staff member to vote "disagree" with the OP if they thought that this info wasn't valid, regardless of if earlier staff members agreed to it in a separate thread.

 

[ImmortalDread]

To all members who have responded to my post, I want to clarify that I am open to differing perspectives regarding the same scan. However, my approach is inclined towards the least-assumed viewpoint. As none of you have provided the specific evidence I requested, meeting the low 1-C requirement, my disagreement remains unchanged. It is not rooted in any misunderstanding and is based on the absence of the necessary evidence.

@OP, no, I was not joking. You could simply, instead of asking an ironic question, refute my stance by presenting the exact scan that goes against my premise.

 

[GarrixianXD]

As none of you have provided the specific evidence I requested, meeting the low 1-C requirement, my disagreement remains unchanged. It is not rooted in any misunderstanding and is based on the absence of the necessary evidence.

I’m sure everyone already given you the basis. I’m confused on what you’re trying to ask for lol.