• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Tiering System FAQ correction

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eficiente

Eficiente

He/Him
VS Battles
Retired
Messages
15,456
Reaction score
5,050
Very simple, yet with big repercussions.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Tiering_System_FAQ#Q:_What_tier_is_transcending_space_and_time.3F

"However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is outright superior to a spacetime continuum in nature, then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions. The answer may vary depending on this factor."

This leads some people to interpret this as in "If a space is said to "transcend space and time" AND is superior/more complex to a regular spacetime continuum, then it is Low 1-C", without said space being a higher-dimensional one infinitely larger than a lower-dimensional space or seeing it as fiction. People even take it as in "If a space is said to "transcend space and time", then it is Low 1-C", somehow.

The text should instead say:

"However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is qualitatively superior to a spacetime continuum in nature, then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions. The answer may vary depending on this factor.

"Transcend" space and time can also refer to a spacetime continuum being different to a "regular" spacetime continuum or slightly more complex, but not infinitely so"
 
Last edited:
Unnecessary. A higher level of reality is by definition infinitely superior to everything beneath it, and the tiering system FAQ already highlights how "transcends space and time" is a nebulous statement with multiple possible meanings - time travel has been referred to as "transcending time and space," for instance. The examples you gave would fall under that clause and therefore not be considered a higher level of reality.

And just in case someone wants to say "but what if people don't know that higher levels are infinitely stronger?", that's covered under the very first section of the FAQ regarding the relationship of higher dimensions to lower dimensions. If a newbie reads it and still doesn't understand how levels of reality work, then that's on them.
 
KingPin0422 said:
And just in case someone wants to say "but what if people don't know that higher levels are infinitely stronger?", that's covered under the very first section of the FAQ regarding the relationship of higher dimensions to lower dimensions. If a newbie reads it and still doesn't understand how levels of reality work, then that's on them.
Click to expand...
A higher level of reality doesn't have to be infinitely superior.
Sure, it can be and most often is, but it isn't an actual thing in fiction that "higher levels of reality must be infinitely superior".
 
KingPin0422 said:
Unnecessary. A higher level of reality is by definition infinitely superior to everything beneath it
Click to expand...
That is dogmatism, there is no all-encompassing definition of a higher level of reality or of some random reality that we know is more complex than a regular one (Say, one exactly like our universe), it doesn't always has to be infinitely superior. Any writer can absolutely make a reality more complex than normal while only meaning that they're a bit bigger, or that the beings there are more powerful, or that it has nonsensical, fantastic laws that a more grounded universe doesn't. If you know that a reality is at a "higher level"/more complex than a regular one, then you do not know that it's infinitely superior to everything of the less complex realities.
KingPin0422 said:
and the tiering system FAQ already highlights how "transcends space and time" is a nebulous statement with multiple possible meanings - time travel has been referred to as "transcending time and space," for instance. The examples you gave would fall under that clause and therefore not be considered a higher level of reality.
Click to expand...
It by far doesn't grab readers by the hand well enough, given how "something that transcends space and time" can be thought of and accepted by many to be Low 1-C, more so if they know it's "more complex than space and time" or the like.
 
I agree, I've dealt with several CRTs in the past that have used the current wording to try and get a upgrade it shouldn't have by twisting the words in the ways described. I also think it should be "qualitatively superior to a spacetime continuum in nature by an Uncountable infinite amount"
 
Added. Small things like that help immensely.
 
Off the top of my head I can’t think of any other previous cases of twisting the wording of the rules to achieve a upgrade this new change wouldn't prevent.
 
Thank you for the reply.
 
The OP proposal looks fine, but I don't quite agree with Everything12's suggestion on "It has to say uncountably infinity times superior", if I'm reading what he's suggestion correctly. There should be a more elaborate specification and simply "Transcend time and space" isn't enough. But on a qualitively superior dimension sounds better at least.
 
Well, it works given everything said before in the page, but I don't find it as intuive myself, since "qualitively superior" can mean something being only a bit more complex, which is what we're saying is not enough. And sure, referring to a dimension being that can refer to it being superior as it mathematically should, but only if the word "dimension" is used properly, and that can be an issue.

So as a scenario I believe could happen: A random reader sees the text, sees that that "Transcend time and space" doesn't cut it, sees that the space has to be qualitively superior and decides that the space being greater or bigger than a regular universe makes it Low 1-C, ignoring the part saying that it can just be slightly more complex and not be Low 1-C.

Another way to see it is wonder "What does qualitively superior here mean to the average reader?", and the answer should be underwhelming.

As such I believe it should be more exact on the properties Low 1-C has.
 
Eficiente said:
"However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is qualitatively superior to a spacetime continuum in nature by an uncountable infinite amount, then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions. The answer may vary depending on this factor.
Click to expand...
Don't particularly like this description. A "qualitative superiority" is already supposed to indicative a difference that bridges the gap between any two levels of the Tiering Syetem, which I've already explained elsewhere, so adding "by an uncountably infinite amount" is redundant and potentially misleading.

I should also note that the complexity of a given reality isn't really a factor that impacts its tiering on its own, and I frankly have no clue of where you got that from. Fiction has no consensus on this, or whatever, and in fact I can even name a few verses where higher layers of reality that do qualify for the "qualitatively superior" standard are considered simpler in nature than lower ones.
 
Alright, only "qualitatively superior" it is then.
Ultima_Reality said:
I should also note that the complexity of a given reality isn't really a factor that impacts its tiering on its own, and I frankly have no clue of where you got that from. Fiction has no consensus on this, or whatever, and in fact I can even name a few verses where higher layers of reality that do qualify for the "qualitatively superior" standard are considered simpler in nature than lower ones.
Click to expand...
The issue came from other users misunderstanding that and warping the meaning of a sentence to claim being right.
 
Well, that is the exception, not the rule. It is called Staff Discussion, the description says "Board activity is allowed for VS Battles wiki staff members only", and certain specific users who preferably shouldn't comment wouldn't know the why of it themselves, which can be avoided by just not having non-staff users comment.
 
Forgot about this. Yes this was already resolved and really to be applied. We agreed on:

"However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is qualitatively superior to a spacetime continuum in nature, then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions. The answer may vary depending on this factor.

"Transcend" space and time can also refer to a spacetime continuum being different to a "regular" spacetime continuum or slightly more complex, but not infinitely so."
 
Last edited:
Said text would need to be added here: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Tiering_System_FAQ#Q:_What_tier_is_transcending_space_and_time.3F

Replacing "However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is outright superior to a spacetime continuum in nature, then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions. The answer may vary depending on this factor."

That's all.
 
Can we add an explanation for what "qualitatively superior" means as well then?
It's a term that we frequently use (although not much on the TIering FAQ page as of yet) and it is by far not self-explanatory.
 
Eficiente:

Okay. That seems fine to me then. Is that acceptable to you as well DontTalk?
DontTalkDT said:
Can we add an explanation for what "qualitatively superior" means as well then?
It's a term that we frequently use (although not much on the TIering FAQ page as of yet) and it is by far not self-explanatory.
Click to expand...
That is probably fine. Do you have any suggestions? To me it either means infinitely superior, a reality-fiction layer difference, or otherwise being superior to any lower-dimensional being in a completely unsurmountable way.
 
Eficiente said:
Forgot about this. Yes this was already resolved and really to be applied. We agreed on:

"However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is qualitatively superior to a spacetime continuum in nature, then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions. The answer may vary depending on this factor.

"Transcend" space and time can also refer to a spacetime continuum being different to a "regular" spacetime continuum or slightly more complex, but not infinitely so."
Click to expand...
Eficiente said:
Said text would need to be added here: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Tiering_System_FAQ#Q:_What_tier_is_transcending_space_and_time.3F

Replacing "However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is outright superior to a spacetime continuum in nature, then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions. The answer may vary depending on this factor."

That's all.
Click to expand...
DontTalkDT said:
Can we add an explanation for what "qualitatively superior" means as well then?
It's a term that we frequently use (although not much on the TIering FAQ page as of yet) and it is by far not self-explanatory.
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
Eficiente:

Okay. That seems fine to me then. Is that acceptable to you as well DontTalk?

DontTalkDT:

That is probably fine. Do you have any suggestions? To me it either means infinitely superior, a reality-fiction layer difference, or otherwise being superior to any lower-dimensional being in a completely unsurmountable way.
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Promestein @Agnaa @QuasiYuri

Would you be willing to help out with finishing this please?
 
DontTalkDT said:
Can we add an explanation for what "qualitatively superior" means as well then?
It's a term that we frequently use (although not much on the TIering FAQ page as of yet) and it is by far not self-explanatory.
Click to expand...
Would this suffice?:

In this context, a "qualitative" superiority refers to a difference in power between two characters or structures brought about by a difference in the "quality" of their being, rather than in measurable quantities. For example, a cube being twice as large as another object in terms of volume would be a difference based around a quantitative factor (In this case, cubic meters), while the difference between reality and fiction in most works that adopt a metaphysical stance on cosmology is often defined in terms of quality (It is not coherent, after all, to define the relationship between reality and illusion in terms of spatial units), namely the fact one element is "real" while the other is "illusory."
Click to expand...

Would probably be good if you could improve some of the wording for this, but the gist of the idea is already there.

For the OP's suggestion, I added another tidbit to it. Think it's important enough to clarify:

"However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is qualitatively superior to a spacetime continuum in nature, or in a way that requires higher-dimensional space to be at play (i.e Something that exists beyond the axis of time in its entirety), then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions. The answer may vary depending on this factor.


↓ This bit can be left out, for reasons I already outlined up there: Complexity is unrelated to tiering and whether or not a space is a 'regular' spacetime (Whatever that means) doesn't place a restriction on how high a tier it can be.

"Transcend" space and time can also refer to a spacetime continuum being different to a "regular" spacetime continuum or slightly more complex, but not infinitely so."
 
If we define it like that, would being higher dimensional (in a tiering applicable sense) qualify for qualitative superiority then or would it not since that is technically a quantitative difference?
You mentioned it separately in your draft, so I guess it would be a quantitative difference?
It sounds fine in any case

I think the "Something that exists beyond the axis of time in its entirety" might be confusing to readers. It sounds a bit like what you're saying is that transcending spacetime by existing outside of it would be Low 1-C, which is not what I think you're trying to say. I think you mean more something in the direction of "Something that grants power over space with more axis than those of spacetime" or something in that direction.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
For the OP's suggestion, I added another tidbit to it. Think it's important enough to clarify:

"However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is qualitatively superior to a spacetime continuum in nature, or in a way that requires higher-dimensional space to be at play (i.e Something that exists beyond the axis of time in its entirety), then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions. The answer may vary depending on this factor.
Click to expand...
That implies that something doesn't need to be qualitatively superior but simply be outside a timeline to be Low 1-C, which fiction often portrays as no different than being in it, for example the end of that awful Loki series having the characters in a mansion watching the timeline go, or in Kirby a series of parallel universes being in the space between dimensions/universes. It needs to clarify that it's outside the axis of time in its entirety and qualitatively superior, as the former alone is a low standard.
Ultima_Reality said:
↓ This bit can be left out, for reasons I already outlined up there: Complexity is unrelated to tiering and whether or not a space is a 'regular' spacetime (Whatever that means) doesn't place a restriction on how high a tier it can be.

"Transcend" space and time can also refer to a spacetime continuum being different to a "regular" spacetime continuum or slightly more complex, but not infinitely so."
Click to expand...
I disagree. You may have already outlined, but in this case recundancy helps, as Transcend is very, very commonly used to push into Tier 1 by users who have no idea of our standards. Case in point I still know someone trying to do so even after seeing this thread, having learned nothing.
 
DontTalkDT said:
If we define it like that, would being higher dimensional (in a tiering applicable sense) qualify for qualitative superiority then or would it not since that is technically a quantitative difference?
You mentioned it separately in your draft, so I guess it would be a quantitative
Click to expand...
Yeah, it would really not be. The point is moreso that a verse can qualify for Tier 2/1 in a bunch of different ways that don't always align with how a higher-dimensional space works. There are verses where higher dimensions are described in such terms, obviously, but those are more exceptions than rules.

DontTalkDT said:
I think the "Something that exists beyond the axis of time in its entirety" might be confusing to readers. It sounds a bit like what you're saying is that transcending spacetime by existing outside of it would be Low 1-C, which is not what I think you're trying to say. I think you mean more something in the direction of "Something that grants power over space with more axis than those
Click to expand...
Something along those lines. Some higher space that lies beyond the temporal dimension as a whole would obviously need to be 5-D (Or at least imply the existence of a 5-D space where it is located) or something analogous to it, at least, even if existing inside of that is not necessarily a feat. I was talking more in terms of the size of a cosmology than about characters, admittedly. Suggestions are welcome on that front.
 
Eficiente said:
I disagree. You may have already outlined, but in this case recundancy helps, as Transcend is very, very commonly used to push into Tier 1 by users who have no idea of our standards. Case in point I still know someone trying to do so even after seeing this thread, having learned nothing.
Click to expand...
The point was that the tidbit I excluded was bad and misunderstanding how Low 1-C and above works, to begin with. We already have a whole section on the FAQ talking about the word "transcendence," so, I think adding a note that is not only redundant but also inaccurate is very unnecessary.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
The point was that the tidbit I excluded was bad and misunderstanding how Low 1-C and above works, to begin with. We already have a whole section on the FAQ talking about the word "transcendence," so, I think adding a note that is not only redundant but also inaccurate is very unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Said section doesn't say the same, ""transcending space and time" can refer to things like time travel, dimensional travel, or even agelessness in some cases" and so if none are used then users try to have it have as the Tiering uses it. The point I wanted to make is very simple, "Transcend" can refer to a place being different or more complex, without being Low 1-C unless proven. The rest of the whole section on the FAQ talking about the word "transcendence" does not say this.
 
Eficiente said:
Said section doesn't say the same, ""transcending space and time" can refer to things like time travel, dimensional travel, or even agelessness in some cases" and so if none are used then users try to have it have as the Tiering uses it. The point I wanted to make is very simple, "Transcend" can refer to a place being different or more complex, without being Low 1-C unless proven. The rest of the whole section on the FAQ talking about the word "transcendence" does not say this.
Click to expand...
For reference, here are 25 users agreeing to something being Low 1-C due to thinking that the TS FQA accepts a realm superior to the pre-existing dimensions of a cosmology as Low 1-C, having transcendence/superiority over it. I even recently asked the guy who made the thread if he didn't see how this thread discarded his points and he was unable to see how.

Look, Ultima, the smartest way to word and explain things isn't the same as the smartest way to explain things to our public, I don't need to limit myself with euphemisms and subtlety to tell how much clarity they need, you should be able to understand it. Everything Tier 1 wise is fairly hard, the people reading that are mostly teenagers, if serious websites for social plans and the like can word things very redundantly and use literal illustrations to explain things to an adult public then recundancy for a common misconception should not be an issue for us.

Accuracy being an issue is something else, but that can be fixed without missing the "in your face" factor, which I can evidently say our wordings so far doesn't have, even if I myself get them.
 
Last edited:
 
Last edited:
If it clears up the problem, sure. Though I'm not well versed in the transcendence stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LordGriffin1000
Infinite Multiversal Space Container Tier Discussion
Replies
23
Views
5K
LordGriffin1000
LordGriffin1000
MightyFrogBeyond
Is Tier 2-C/2-B/2-A, technically 5D in personal cosmology?
Replies
11
Views
1K
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Wankbreaker
  • Locked
Tier 2 hotfix.
Replies
25
Views
5K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
DontTalkDT
Context is always important - Changing a bad formulation of the Tiering System
Replies
31
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Georredannea15
  • Locked
Re:evulation of temporal dimension standards
4 5 6
Replies
208
Views
29K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Back
Top