Tier 2 Requirements and Examples Revision

[PrinceofPein]

Does this character even have a profile? You know there are millions of novels at the moment including my own novel and I myself broke logics in them and wrote PIS, our tiering system is not based of PIS.

No it is not PIS it was done multiple times, and that's not even what PIS is. That's simply it's my verse what I say it is is what it is. Or all ftl who are not creating black holes are PIS?
and yes this character has a profile

One is high 3a and another is L2C then.

That is not up for you to decide both were describe as infinite space.

Read it then, a quote from FAQ Says :-

Infinite amount of infinite multiverses = single one of them, multiverse containing infinite universes.

Destruction of a single multiverse containing infinite universe is the same as destruction of infinite multiverses containing infinite universes.
It's like saying destruction of a single 2-A structure is the same as destruction of a million or infinite 2-A structures.

And since that quote is misleading,
And you should read it fully you know, it again brought up the entire "fiction point" like I said and also the "case by case" point.
It all depends on how your verse illustrates you.
If you destroy one 2A structure you are baseline 2A, if you destroy two 2A structures you are a layer above baseline, that's how things have always been.

Based on FAQ answer above as this is the same case, it's 1:1 size, aleph 0 will always be aleph 0 there is no devisions possible because of continuum hypothesis, just say it to ultima that aleph 0 can have different sizes, like even numbers is smaller than natural numbers, he'll remove himself from existence.

Again we index characters not physics and most times infinite can have different sizes in this verses.
From a physics and maths stand point of course that's how it is, the moment we come here to fiction it is not always so.
And I don't need to really say anything to ultima, I read the section again and I still agree with it.

Anyway if your verse illustrates that destruction of an infinite universe is higher than the destruction of a smaller infinite universe.
You get a higher level in High 3-A, there is no other way about this

 

[Reiner04]

No it is not PIS it was done multiple times and yes this character has a profile

Then I don't know about this verse well so I can't guess, regardless, it breaks the logic.

It's like saying destruction of a single 2-A structure is the same as destruction of a million or infinite 2-A structures.

Yes it is and has been said in FAQ, so either we change it or accept it.

I think this is where it all ends.

Which one is misleading? FAQ or our current high 3a definition?

 

[Reiner04]

As per continuum hypothesis, I'll go with high 3a being misleading. As FAQ page follows continuum hypothesis.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Then I don't know about this verse well so I can't guess, regardless, it breaks the logic.

Every fiction breaks logic

Which one is misleading? FAQ or our current high 3a definition?

Certainly the FAQ. As like I said already

If you destroy one 2A structure you are baseline 2A, if you destroy two 2A structures you are a layer above baseline, that's how things have always been.

I will fix it a little later on.

 

[Reiner04]

Every fiction breaks logic

And our tiering system do not bend for that unless it's common case with all of fiction.

Certainly the FAQ. As like I said already

I don't, for the reason I said above.

I will fix it a little later on.

It's concerning high 3a definition either being wrong or right, it's your and my opinion that which one is incorrect so it is not valid and hence need to be discussed by staff members. It's need to be done here.

 

[KLOL506]

What the hell is going on here now

 

[Reiner04]

There are total of 3 arguements going on right now @KLOL506 on tier 3.

 

[PrinceofPein]

What the hell is going on here now

Destruction of 1 2A structure = destruction of a million 2A structure

It's concerning high 3a definition either being wrong or right, it's your and my opinion that which one is incorrect so it is not valid and hence need to be discussed by staff members. It's need to be done here.

The FAQ is misleading and not how we treat 2A feats. So I will fix it later on.
But currently the high 3A is good

 

[Reiner04]

Destruction of 1 2A structure = destruction of a million 2A structure

there is no set whose cardinality is strictly between that of the integers and the real numbers.

The FAQ is misleading and not how we treat 2A feats. So I will fix it later on.
But currently the high 3A is good

FAQ page is misleading and so high 3a definition is correct is an asserted opinion based of one accepted thing being wrong and other yet to be accepted being correct. Either our FAQ page is wrong or right or it's need to be fixed or stay same is not something upto one member to decide. Even after knowing that I am right, I am not asserting it or forcing it but just saying that it's need to be looked by ultima or donttalkdt.

 

[KLOL506]

Destruction of 1 2A structure = destruction of a million 2A structure

What

That makes no sense whatsoever

 

[Reiner04]

What

That makes no sense whatsoever

Our FAQ says it's make sense because of continuum hypothesis.

Anyway who have wrote FAQ page if it doesn't makes sense at all?

 

[PrinceofPein]

FAQ page is misleading and so high 3a definition is correct is an asserted opinion based of one accepted thing being wrong and other yet to be accepted being correct.

Check the current High 3A on the tiering system it is currently accepted. Not yet to be.

Either our FAQ page is wrong or right or it's need to be fixed or stay same is not something upto one member to decide. Even after knowing that I am right, I am not asserting it or forcing it but just saying that it's need to be looked by ultima or donttalkdt.

Again when I am ready, I will fix the FAQ page by creating a CRT, not editing it outright.
I am not going to be deciding solely.
It will be after the tier 2 thread one thing at a time. But yes the thread is coming, as that FAQ section is misleading, And not how we treat it at all

 

[Reiner04]

Check the current High 3A on the tiering system it is currently accepted. Not yet to be

It's in revision for a reason I suppose?

Again when I am ready, I will fix the FAQ page by creating a CRT, not editing it outright.

I am not going to be deciding solely.

Then let's not decide it solely that it's misleading/wrong and so our high 3a is correct. If one is incorrect means other is right and if other is incorrect means former is right. And hence here we are.

What

That makes no sense whatsoever

Correction it's not
1 2a structure = millions of 2a structure.

What FaQ page Actually says:-

It's infinite number of infinite multiverses = single one of them, infinite multiverse containing infinite universes.
Both are 2a and equal structures with one being not even little bit above other.

 

[PrinceofPein]

It's in revision for a reason I suppose?

That's not what the thread was about initially, it's for a different thing entirely, something like this, is still higher levels of high 3A.

Then let's not decide it solely that it's misleading/wrong and so our high 3a is correct. If one is incorrect means other is right and if other is incorrect means former is right. And hence here we are.

And I am saying it is misleading based on how we currently treat it on CRTs and vs threads.
We don't treat it the way it is on the FAQ

Correction it's not
1 2a structure = millions of 2a structure.

What FaQ page Actually says:-

It's infinite number of infinite multiverses = single one of them, infinite multiverse containing infinite universes.
Both are 2a and equal structures with one being not even little bit above other.

Which is still the same thing, and even worse
Since it means destructions of infinite 2A structures is the same as one 2A structure. Which is nonsense to say the least, I can't believe I missed it for so long.

 

[Reiner04]

I won't reply to other stuff as they are entirely unnecessary. This is tier 3 revision and that's it.

And I am saying it is misleading based on how we currently treat it on CRTs and vs threads.

Remember? You won't decide solely unless you do a crt? So let's forget about it being either misleading or not.
Now question since I started this argument which concerning high 3a definition:-

FAQ page is correct or high 3a definition is wrong?
Is large numbers of infinite universes = infinite universe?

NOTE: no derailing any further, one is free to give their opinions but forcing it to close the topic and apply this high 3a definition is wrong.

 

[PrinceofPein]

one is free to give their opinions but forcing it to close the topic and apply this high 3a definition is wrong

No one is forcing anything, the high 3A definition is valid, is simply what I am about. As there is always a distinction made in fiction.

 

[Reiner04]

No one is forcing anything, the high 3A definition is valid, is simply what I am about. As there is always a distinction made in fiction.

Ok I respect your opinion and disagree respectfully as because of continuum hypothesis and faq page.

More staff need to give their input on if FAQ page is misleading.

 

[PrinceofPein]

More staff need to give their input on if FAQ page is wrong.

It's misleading not wrong.
Maths and physics stand point. Yes it is correct
Fictional and the way we treat things, it is misleading

 

[Reiner04]

Fictional and the way we treat things, it is misleading

So faq page is misleading and should be changed or high 3a definition is misleading should be changed should be the argument? Got it.

I disagree, common thing in fiction is to treat infinity as it is, just because few franchises broke logic (countable on hands) doesn't mean we need to change our entire tiering system. Our tiering system is based off maths, we don't go around with loose ends on it and change it to fit fiction w/o discussion.

But that's my opinion. I would like to hear others opinion.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Again, your entire argument is based off an outdated section of the FAQ.
If we follow that FAQ section logic, then there is no need for anything higher than low 2C before tier 1, as destruction of 2 or ten or millions of low 2-C structures is one and the same since they are of the same size. Destruction of one infinite timeline and destruction of two infinite timelines are not different since adding the two together will still give infinity. So there is no distinction.

Again this is not hard, we no longer treat it that way, but anyway thanks for bringing it up, as I my mind never went to it, but it certainly needs to be edited.
@Firestorm808 please add it to the tier 2 thread, so it can be cleared up there

 

[Reiner04]

Nice, I respect your opinion that FAQ page is outdated, misleading. But as it's not on one sole person to decide I'll wait for opinions capable enough to decide that if our FAQ page is misleading or outdated and so need to be edited so that it can be clear if our high 3a definition is correct.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway if Ultima and DT won't reply here
The changes should be applied, this has gone on a long time.
At least we can start the tier 2 thread

The problem is that this is a tiering system change, so we need some go-aheads from knowledgeable staff members first.

Here is the merged draft:

3-A: Universe level​

Characters who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a finite 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion that covers the entire space, alternately create or significantly affect[1] a 3-D universe or a pocket dimension of comparable size, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time.

High 3-A: High Universe level​

Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D space. This extends to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for higher dimensions or time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, only count for a higher level of this tier. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.

So far, KLOL506 and KingPin0422 (Retired) have agreed to the new draft.

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Andytrenom @Mr._Bambu @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz

What do you all think about this intended revision for our Tiering System page?

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

This is fine.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[Elizhaa]

The problem is that this is a tiering system change, so we need some go-aheads from knowledgeable staff members first.

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Andytrenom @Mr._Bambu @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz

What do you all think about this intended revision for our Tiering System page?

The draft seems fine.

 

[Tanin_iver]

Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D space. {This extends to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for higher dimensions or time.} [Large numbers of infinite 3-D universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, only count for a higher level of this tier.] Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.

Regarding the proposed draft, the part in [ ] contradicts and is rendered redundant by the part in { }. Please look carefully.
The part in [ ] says that any infinite sized 3-D or a infinite sized structure that is subdivided into infinite sub-structures(universes or pocket dimensions) regardless of finite or infinite size qualifies for baseline High 3-A. But the part in { } contradicts it because -

Large numbers of infinite 3-D universes, unless ............ , only count for a higher level of this tier.

infinite sub-structures or universes qualify for above baseline when it is not the case as specified by the above line. It should still just be baseline High 3-A

I think we can correct this a bit, with something like this -

Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D space. This extends to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or higher dimensions. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, only count for a higher level of this tier and not any higher tier.

 

[Reiner04]

Regarding the proposed draft, the part in [ ] contradicts and is rendered redundant by the part in { }. Please look carefully.
The part in [ ] says that any infinite sized 3-D or a infinite sized structure that is subdivided into infinite sub-structures(universes or pocket dimensions) regardless of finite or infinite size qualifies for baseline High-3A. But the part in { } contradicts it because -

infinite sub-structures or universes qualify for above baseline.

Yeah, agree, I pointed this out but it's need staff check.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Regarding the proposed draft, the part in [ ] contradicts and is rendered redundant by the part in { }. Please look carefully.
The part in [ ] says that any infinite sized 3-D or a infinite sized structure that is subdivided into infinite sub-structures(universes or pocket dimensions) regardless of finite or infinite size qualifies for baseline High 3-A. But the part in { } contradicts it because -

infinite sub-structures or universes qualify for above baseline when it is not the case as specified by the above line. It should still just be baseline High 3-A

I think we can correct this a bit, with something like this -

Already addressed this, we dont do that. There can be higher levels of High 3-A.

 

[Reiner04]

Already addressed this, we dont do that. There can be higher levels of High 3-A.

No, actually, He is talking about "3D" being added in "the large number of infinite universes". The most initial arguement of this thread.

 

[PrinceofPein]

No, actually, He is talking about "3D" being added in "the large number of infinite universes". The most initial arguement of this thread.

check his edit, he removed that part again and also his version has so many wrong things and it is needless nitpicking.
also this is still a staff thread, and posting without permission is still a rule violation

 

[Tanin_iver]

Already addressed this, we dont do that.

Firstly I was correcting an obvious contradiction in the draft. Secondly, what u were stating regarding regarding 2A is kind of wrong.
It would have been correct in the old Tiering system pre-2019 but now it isn't.
Now, One Single Infinite Multiverse = Multiple Infinite Multiverses = Infinite Multiverses = 2A. At least according to the FAQ.
Scaling chains and other verse specific mechanics can put u above baseline 2A tho. This also applies to High 3-A, if I am not wrong.

 

[Tanin_iver]

also this is still a staff thread, and posting without permission is still a rule violation

Apologies for intruding in a staff thread without permission.

also his version has so many wrong things and it is needless nitpicking.

Could you specify and correct my mistakes please.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Firstly I was correcting an obvious contradiction in the draft. Secondly, what u were stating regarding regarding 2A is kind of wrong.
It would have been correct in the old Tiering system pre-2019 but now it isn't.
Now, One Single Infinite Multiverse = Multiple Infinite Multiverses = Infinite Multiverses = 2A. At least according to the FAQ.

Again the FAQ is misleading, we dont treat it that way.

Could you specify and correct my mistakes please.

The draft was perfect as it was, you reduced the quality of the post and removed distinct situations, also the post is perfectly fine as it is

 

[Tanin_iver]

The draft was perfect as it was, you reduced the quality of the post and removed distinct situations, also the post is perfectly fine as it is

You do realise, I just merged -

when not accounting for higher dimensions or time.

and

unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence,

into a single line, and just omitted "or existence"
Again observe -

Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D space. This extends to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions ......

contradicts

Large numbers of infinite 3-D universes, unless ............ , only count for a higher level of this tier.

Hence, what I was pointing out and removed the later line.
There is a contradiction in what both the lines are stating that's all.

 

[PrinceofPein]

You do realise, I just merged -

and

into a single line, and just omitted "or existence"
Again observe -

contradicts

Hence, what I was pointing out and removed the later line.

I read the two post and I still agreed with Firestorm posts, yours is just not it.
And yes the merging is unnecesary and two distinct things, or the fact that yours do not even account for the lack of time.
And nothing is contradicting or redundant. it is clarifying what the other stands for, which is simply higher version of High 3-A, not the next tier.
All in all your post is needless tbh

 

[Reiner04]

You do realise, I just merged -

and

into a single line, and just omitted "or existence"
Again observe -

contradicts

Hence, what I was pointing out and removed the later line.
There is a contradiction in what both the lines are stating that's all.

I'll suggest to let it be, it's of no use, everything is upto staff and it has got enough agreements to be applied, as you can see above that I've also said same thing but all that means nothing.

 

[Tanin_iver]

I'll suggest to let it be, it's of no use, everything is upto staff and it has got enough agreements to be applied, as you can see above that I've also said same thing but all that means nothing.

I understand and I am only pointing out a contradiction because of an obvious oversight. Its fine, let the staff come and handle it better. We have done our part.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

What do you all think about this intended revision for our Tiering System page?

I'd go for something a bit more general in place of the "who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a finite 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe," since, as KingPin pointed out, it is feasible for a lower-dimensional space to have physical quantities comparable to our own universe. Something like "who can generate energy sufficient to create or destroy a space of equivalent mass to the entire observable universe."

I also have no clue what all of this about the FAQ being wrong or outdated is about. Multiple infinitely large multiverses being, tiering-wise, the exact same as a single one (Unless stated otherwise by the verse) is something that has been decided a while ago, and not really anything that needs fixing. If people are indexing characters in opposition to these guidelines, then they are the wrong ones in this case, not the FAQ.

 

[Reiner04]

If people are indexing characters in opposition to these guidelines, then they are the wrong ones in this case, not the FAQ

True, I was saying the same thing that FAQ page is correct.

It's all started because of our High 3a definition implying for same size structures to have different levels which is misleading.

"Large numbers of infinite universes unless casually closed from one another by seprate spacetime or existence will only qualify for higher level of this tier".

Large number of infinite universes = infinite universe, so they are not different levels, If the structure themselves is of same size then they shouldn't be treated as different lvls of the same tier. Since the FAQ page is correct then I think it should be changed as per that.

 

[Reiner04]

@KLOL506 @Firestorm808 @Antvasima @Pain_to12 I guess as ultima has made it clear that FAQ is correct and is not outdated, changes in high 3a definition can be applied as per? Unless we want to treat same sized structures as different lvls of the same tier, 2>2?