Tier 5 Revision

[Epyriel]

So at the moment we have Dwarf Star level rated from x to y joules.

Some of the dwarfs aren't even stars.

Brown dwarfs are the lowest end.

I would prefer to not call the tier Brown Dwarf or etc since there are different kinds of dwarfs and larger than planet Gass giants.

Personally, substar/substellar seems the most appropriate for High 5-A.

It is not that “some of the dwarfs” in High 5-A aren’t stars, none of the objects in High 5-A are stars, and all of them are brown dwarfs. All the actual dwarf stars are in higher tiers. There also aren’t any planets in High 5-A, nothing but brown dwarfs.

Practically speaking it is already the ‘brown dwarf’ tier, we simply don’t call it that (yet). Its values are precisely defined by the GBE range of brown dwarfs, and brown dwarfs exclusively.

As for ‘substar’, such corresponds to any objects from tiny moons up to the largest brown dwarfs - it occupies all of Tier 5, not just High 5-A which is why it is part of the proposal to rename the entire tier from Tier 5: Planetary (which is inaccurate since it includes tons of objects that aren’t planets) to Tier 5: Substellar.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

It is not that “some of the dwarfs” in High 5-A aren’t stars, none of the objects in High 5-A are stars, and all of them are brown dwarfs. All the actual dwarf stars are in higher tiers. There also aren’t any planets in High 5-A, nothing but brown dwarfs.

Practically speaking it is already the ‘brown dwarf’ tier, we simply don’t call it that (yet). Its values are precisely defined by the GBE range of brown dwarfs, and brown dwarfs exclusively.

As for ‘substar’, such corresponds to any objects from tiny moons up to the largest brown dwarfs - it occupies all of Tier 5, not just High 5-A which is why it is part of the proposal to rename the entire tier from Tier 5: Planetary (which is inaccurate since it includes tons of objects that aren’t planets) to Tier 5: Substellar.

@Firestorm808

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Colonel_Krukov @GarrixianXD Would some of you please be willing to reconsider your vote? The main objection most of you had was that this change would be too much effort for too little gain, but a simple bot script could easily handle this in under an hour. As it stands, High 5-A's name is grossly inaccurate and would be incredibly simple to fix.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

That's not the only reason, "Brown Dwarf level" also sounds rather dumb. Also, it's not limited to brown dwarfs as the tier could include some dwarf stars that are slightly below the Low 4-C threshold that aren't brown as DontTalkDT laid out. Sure the baseline comes from the GBE of a Brown Dwarf star, but that's just being the baseline not the entire tier. We rejected the idea of our current baseline for 3-A being called "Observable Universe level" and renaming High Universe level and Universe level+ to Universe level and High Universe level. Or moved 3-A, High 3-A, and Low 2-C to Low 3-A, 3-A, and High 3-A respectively for similar reasons.

I still don't think Brown Dwarf level sounds any better than just regular Dwarf Star level for those reasons.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

That's not the only reason, "Brown Dwarf level" also sounds rather dumb. Also, it's not limited to brown dwarfs as the tier could include some dwarf stars that are slightly below the Low 4-C threshold that aren't brown as DontTalkDT laid out. Sure the baseline comes from the GBE of a Brown Dwarf star, but that's just being the baseline not the entire tier. We rejected the idea of our current baseline for 3-A being called "Observable Universe level" and renaming High Universe level and Universe level+ to Universe level and High Universe level. Or moved 3-A, High 3-A, and Low 2-C to Low 3-A, 3-A, and High 3-A respectively for similar reasons.

I still don't think Brown Dwarf level sounds any better than just regular Dwarf Star level for those reasons.

Dwarf Star level is an objectively incorrect name while Brown Dwarf level isn't, even if you don't think the latter sounds great; none of the celestial bodies covered by High 5-A are dwarf stars while nearly all of them are brown dwarfs. This issue isn't the same as the 3-A to Low 2-C thing at all; it's not technically incorrect to refer to the observable universe as the generic "universe" and it'd be presumptuous of us to rate the output of infinite energy as a generic "universal" feat when we don't know if the real-life universe is infinite or not.

 

[Epyriel]

That's not the only reason, "Brown Dwarf level" also sounds rather dumb. Also, it's not limited to brown dwarfs as the tier could include some dwarf stars that are slightly below the Low 4-C threshold that aren't brown as DontTalkDT laid out. Sure the baseline comes from the GBE of a Brown Dwarf star, but that's just being the baseline not the entire tier. We rejected the idea of our current baseline for 3-A being called "Observable Universe level" and renaming High Universe level and Universe level+ to Universe level and High Universe level. Or moved 3-A, High 3-A, and Low 2-C to Low 3-A, 3-A, and High 3-A respectively for similar reasons.

As I replied to DontTalkDT, the upper limit for the tier is defined by VB 10, one of the smallest known red dwarfs in existence. Its mass is 0.0881 solar masses, which is near the theoretical limit for the smallest possible star (~0.075 solar masses). The number of non-brown dwarfs inside the High 5-A Tier is far smaller than the number of moons in the Small Planet Tier, or the number of planets in the Moon Tier, or the number of islands in the Mountain Tier, or the number of mountains in the Island Tier.

I still don't think Brown Dwarf level sounds any better than just regular Dwarf Star level for those reasons.

What!? You reject ‘Brown Dwarf level’ in part because there might be an absolutely minuscule number of theoretically possible non-Brown Dwarf with masses under the cutoff of VB 10, yet you are fine with keeping a name that applies to less than a tiny fraction of a single percent of the objects within the tier? What kind of logic is that?

Tier High 5-A is over 99.99999% brown dwarfs and less than 0.00001% dwarf stars, how exactly is Brown Dwarf level not any better than Dwarf Star level??

 

[GarrixianXD]

@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Colonel_Krukov @GarrixianXD Would some of you please be willing to reconsider your vote? The main objection most of you had was that this change would be too much effort for too little gain, but a simple bot script could easily handle this in under an hour. As it stands, High 5-A's name is grossly inaccurate and would be incredibly simple to fix.

You know what, put me on neutral and I’ll come back to this soon.

 

[Elizhaa]

@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Colonel_Krukov @GarrixianXD Would some of you please be willing to reconsider your vote? The main objection most of you had was that this change would be too much effort for too little gain, but a simple bot script could easily handle this in under an hour. As it stands, High 5-A's name is grossly inaccurate and would be incredibly simple to fix.

You can put me as neutral, then.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Would some of you please be willing to reconsider your vote? The main objection most of you had was that this change would be too much effort for too little gain, but a simple bot script could easily handle this in under an hour. As it stands, High 5-A's name is grossly inaccurate and would be incredibly simple to fix.

@DontTalkDT @Qawsedf234 @Colonel_Krukov We still need your votes here.

 

[Qawsedf234]

We still need your votes here.

My stance hasn't changed

 

[Epyriel]

My stance hasn't changed

Still content to call an apple an orange?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Still content to call an apple an orange?

Yeah. Though in this case I don't think the comparison is apt.

 

[Epyriel]

Yeah. Though in this case I don't think the comparison is apt.

I suppose a better analogy would be calling a basket full of oranges an ‘apple basket’ despite already having two other appropriately named baskets full of apples.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Keeping my vote the same

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Keeping my vote the same

Why? What's your contention with making the wiki more accurate?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

• Agree: Antvasima, SamanPatou, LordGriffin1000, IdiosyncraticLawyer, CloverDragon03
• Disagree: DontTalkDT, DarkDragonMedeus, Qawsedf234, Colonel_Krukov
• Neutral: Everything12, Elizhaa, GarrixianXD

@Antvasima The thread seems to be at an impasse. Can we get some help here?

 

[Antvasima]

• Agree: Antvasima, SamanPatou, LordGriffin1000, IdiosyncraticLawyer, CloverDragon03
• Disagree: DontTalkDT, DarkDragonMedeus, Qawsedf234, Colonel_Krukov
• Neutral: Everything12, Elizhaa, GarrixianXD

@Antvasima The thread seems to be at an impasse. Can we get some help here?

Well, with such strong opposition, it doesn't seem like this suggestion will be accepted, at least not at this time, and we have another big tiering system revision also going on.

However, I can send a notification to all of our remaining administrators if you wish.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

Your evaluations and input would be highly appreciated here.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

I'm fine with the proposal. While I'm not particularly enthusiastic about it, I don't see any harm if it gets accepted. I'll even help out if it goes through.

I also share the same sentiment when it comes to the application of the substellar naming proposal.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[Planck69]

I share the same thoughts as Butler.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you to you as well.

 

[GarrixianXD]

After reading arguments from both sides, I’ll change my stance upon aligning with the OP.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you.

Here is our current tally then:

• Agree: Antvasima, SamanPatou, LordGriffin1000, Just_a_Random_Butler, Agnaa, Planck69, IdiosyncraticLawyer, CloverDragon03, GarrixianXD
• Disagree: DontTalkDT, DarkDragonMedeus, Qawsedf234, Colonel_Krukov
• Neutral: Everything12, Elizhaa

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Thank you.

Here is our current tally then:

• Agree: Antvasima, SamanPatou, LordGriffin1000, Just_a_Random_Butler, Planck69, IdiosyncraticLawyer, CloverDragon03, GarrixianXD
• Disagree: DontTalkDT, DarkDragonMedeus, Qawsedf234, Colonel_Krukov
• Neutral: Everything12, Elizhaa

The vote is currently 5-4 in favor. This thread is significant enough that I'd like to ask for a larger difference than that.

 

[Agnaa]

We might as well make these changes. They're readily implementable through bots, or by editing a few important pages.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

6-4 now.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@AKM sama @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @DarkGrath @Dereck03

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Antvasima Nobody seems interested in replying, so what should we do?

 

[Epyriel]

Could also use more input on the proposed Tier 5 change of Tier 5: Planetary -> Tier 5: Substellar.

Currently stands as:

Agree: Antvasima, GyroNuts, Everything12, Just_a_Random_Butler, Planck69, Agnaa, DarkDragonMedeus, CloverDragon03
Disagree:
Neutral:

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Could also use more input on the proposed Tier 5 change of Tier 5: Planetary -> Tier 5: Substellar.

Currently stands as:

Agree: GyroNuts, Everything12, Just_a_Random_Butler, Planck69, Agnaa
Disagree:
Neutral: DarkDragonMedeus

That's an overwhelming vote in favor. With no disagrees, I believe it can just be applied.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Yeah you can probably go ahead and apply that one. I personally support the change as well, though that's probably not of much help

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm alright with the change from "Planetary" to "Substellar"

 

[Epyriel]

That's an overwhelming vote in favor. With no disagrees, I believe it can just be applied.

Yeah you can probably go ahead and apply that one. I personally support the change as well, though that's probably not of much help

Alright, then we are going to need a staff member with sufficient permissions to edit the Tiering System page to implement this.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Alright, then we are going to need a staff member with sufficient permissions to edit the Tiering System page to implement this.

I could do it when I have time.

 

[Antvasima]

First we need to verify that a sufficient majority of staff members with voting rights who have responded to this discussion thread support the name change from "Planetary" to "Substellar".

Can somebody list all of them, so I can send a notification to them, please?

 

[CloverDragon03]

First we need to verify that a sufficient majority of staff members with voting rights who have responded to this discussion thread support the name change from "Dwarf Star level" to "Substellar level".

Can somebody list all of them, so I can send a notification to them, please?

The change would be to "Brown Dwarf level", not "Substellar level"

Edit: Ant edited his post, so now I realize he was talking about the Tier 5 change, not the High 5-A change

 

[Epyriel]

First we need to verify that a sufficient majority of staff members with voting rights who have responded to this discussion thread support the name change from "Dwarf Star level" to "Substellar level".

Can somebody list all of them, so I can send a notification to them, please?

Wait no, this is for changing the Tier 5 category from “Tier 5: Planetary” to “Tier 5: Substellar”.

For Tier High 5-A it is “Dwarf Star level” to “Brown Dwarf level”.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. My apologies. It was a head glitch that I corrected very quickly afterwards.