Tiering System Revisions - Part 3

[Sera_EX]

@Ant

Option 1 and 2 use different mathematical definitions to define 1-A. Option 1 used inaccessible cardinals while Option 2 used worldly cardinals. Mixing them together (Option 3), breaks the ordinal tiering metric being proposed in the first place.

 

[Antvasima]

To me, personally, the writing used to describe the Amaranth in Loveletter from the Fifth Era is a far more profound, meaningful, convincing and effective description of what a boundless god truly is. And it never once lays sight of what is truly important. It doesn't rely on any talk of layers, reality-fiction gaps, levels of infinity, or any other pretentious gooblygook. It just says what needs to be said.

And you are most likely correct in that The Elder Scrolls is a far deeper and artistically superior work compared to Ichiban Ushiro no Daimaou, but that doesn't change that the latter contains enormously superior hierarchies. That is all. Being rated lower in a tiering system doesn't invalidate your favourite characters and settings. If that was the case, Lionel Suggs would be the most acclaimed author who ever lived.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

That wasn't my point, Ant, my point is that it conveys the boundless of its supreme entity just as effectively. Arguing that one is superior to another simply because it repeats itself more is pointless, because both ideas are by and large, equivalent in what they represent and convey.

 

[Antvasima]

@Ant

Option 1 and 2 use different mathematical definitions to define 1-A. Option 1 used inaccessible cardinals while Option 2 used worldly cardinals. Mixing them together (Option 3), breaks the ordinal tiering metric being proposed in the first place.

Well, I seem to have misunderstood then. I just want a system that makes reliable distinctions between different degrees of hierarchies, as I have described elsewhere in this thread.

What would you suggest as a solution?

 

[Pritti]

Sera is right. It's on the first revision thread, too.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I would suggest we go by Option 2 because Option 4 breaks it apart. At least in terms of how cardinals are concerned.

 

[Antvasima]

@Matthew

But option 2 doesn't use what you last suggested.

 

[JackJoyce]

I agree with Matt

 

[Antvasima]

That wasn't my point, Ant, my point is that it conveys the boundless of its supreme entity just as effectively. Arguing that one is superior to another simply because it repeats itself more is pointless, because both ideas are by and large, equivalent in what they represent and convey.

Regrettably, Suggs is correct in that even boundlessness is relative. It is always possible to make the hierarchy even higher, and the 4 series that I mentioned were apparently more ambitious in this regard.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Ant

Option 1 and 2 use different mathematical definitions to define 1-A. Option 1 used inaccessible cardinals while Option 2 used worldly cardinals. Mixing them together (Option 3), breaks the ordinal tiering metric being proposed in the first place.

I'm not sure that's correct. My interpretation was the 2 options for the layout and the two options for defining outerverses were separate, i.e. you choose what 1-A and 0 means and apply that to one of two layouts proposed for arranging them, the OP even stated 1-A was the same in both options (layout)

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

@Matthew
But option 2 doesn't use what you last suggested.

Basically a modified Option 2, which is what Sera is also proposing.

 

[Sera_EX]

What would you suggest as a solution?

My suggestion isn't for this revision. I don't think this will solve the core issues with our unreliable stats. That's why I don't like either four options. It's like an unnecessary remodel of a restaurant. If your food is bad, you can remodel the restaurant a thousand times but the food will stay bad.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Our problem is always going to be people wanking Reality-Fiction as a universal thing across fiction and also wanking anything involving layers. Not any one Tiering System.

 

[SleepyTBubble]

Matt. Shit talking like "overhyping fans who exaggerates ratings through statents" doesn't ******* help you at all. You're only adding more fuel to fire and ignoring the whole point of "civil" discussions people are trying to follow. There's a way to state the problem you have with verses in a good manner without any showing or need for hostility. But good old you seems to like the agressive way and it's sad to see you not improving on it

 

[Nepuko]

You cannot have both. That was the mistake of Option 3. Either we have the "superior" outerversal classification system and compress the higher dimensional tiers into 1-C just to make room for it, or go with Option 2 and have a more balanced outerversal classification system and the higher dimensional tiers get left alone.
You can't have both. It doesn't work.

I'll just adress the point of you can't have both.....

I don't see why you can't have both. I don't see how decompressing the lower tiers in Option 1 suddenly make its outerversal tiers not working. Option 1 went from : "pseudo"-outerversal -> baseline to any finite transcendence -> infinitely transcending -> above that hierarchy -> above even that.

Roughly :

-Aleph-1 (from our perspective) for the "Pseudo-Outerversal Tier". (Low 1-B / High 1-B / High 1-B)

-Aleph-2 for the Baseline Outerversal till any finite number of transcendences. (1-B / Low 1-A / Low 1-A = Measurable [Finite])

-Aleph-omega and above for Infinitely transcending. (High 1-B / 1-A / Low 1-A+ = Measurable [Infinite])

-Teta (and above I guess) for being above Outerversal Hierarchy. (1-A / High 1-A / 1-A = Immeasurable)

-Ord or beyond is 0, for being above even that. ( 0 / 0 / 0 = Boundless)

Option 1 uses this for Outerversal, Option 3 as well. Heck Option 2 as well, it's just that it put put Aleph-2 and Aleph-Omega (and greater) in one tier, with a modifier for the last.

And the above explanation is exactly what the outerversal and above tiers of Option 3 represent as well.

Just adressing that point. Well, I myself could be wrong too, but anyway. That would mean Ultima is wrong as well.


But as I said before, honestly while I still prefer Option 3 and I think it's better suited for Tiering, if Option 2 can make everyone here move on and ignore the Democtratic Voting just choose it and be done guys.... T_T

 

[Nepuko]

"at the very least 33 characters from one of those verses"
This isn't Twin Peaks is it

if you come back I'll tell you~ owo

 

[Sera_EX]

I'm not for or against any option. I just want to make sure everyone is aware of what they're getting into. This is a massive revision so we cannot afford any mistakes. If it's Option 3 you want, it's Option 3 you'll get. Just don't change your mind later when we're already revising our files. It'll be too late by then.

 

[Lightbuster30]

Well, I'm all for option 2 now, or a modified version of it.

 

[Antvasima]

@Sera

Well, I am worried that I have misunderstood this after your comments, but hope that I have made clear roughly what I am looking for.

I would greatly appreciate if you could suggest a system that would work in accordance with that.

 

[ÆONS]

Our problem is always going to be people wanking Reality-Fiction as a universal thing across fiction and also wanking anything involving layers. Not any one Tiering System.

Your shitalking about people who have made no contributions to this whole discussion is gonna derail the discussion from what it was originally so I suggest that you keep your act together, remain on topic and follow whatever code of conduct is on the site (you are a staff member after all). Anyways, the point of this whole revision is to not make our tiering system perfect for organizing all verses and their cosmologies or Reality-Fiction interactions, it's just a way to make more accurate categorizations of extremely high tier characters, at least from most high level verses. It's for this reason why I think Option 3 is the optimal direction.

 

[Pritti]

I have a suggestion. Why not just apply the higher-dimensional stuff first since that's the majority of the revision anyway, or do a separate trial thread to figure out where 1-A verses fall?

 

[Sera_EX]

@Antvasima

I don't think suggesting more options would make the situation any less worse. I'm going to assume good faith and trust Nepuko's words about Option 3.

 

[Nepuko]

I'm not for or against any option. I just want to make sure everyone is aware of what they're getting into. This is a massive revision so we cannot afford any mistakes. If it's Option 3 you want, it's Option 3 you'll get. Just don't change your mind later when we're already revising our files. It'll be too late by then.

Same, and thanks for your continuous help as well (and future as well ). Tho as I said I really don't care too at this point...

 

[Nepuko]

Can someone call Ultima to review that tho? I was basically retyping what he explained to me, but we honestly never know with this...and I suddenly feel a lot of pressure

Or as I said before, if it makes everyone feel at ease and move to the next phase, just do Option 2...

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

A modified version of Option 2 or 3, honestly I don't care. I just don't want four separate 1-A / 0 levels. Just three is more than enough, as both I and Sera have discussed.

 

[Nepuko]

While I believe most of us here are...starting to get tired of this, the goal is still to reach a consensus I believe, as seemingly tiring as it is, it is a core aspect of pretty much the whole wiki, as @SeraEx implied. Ant and other staff members prefer 3....others 2, then others 2 or 3 but modified (modified how). Arguments were made for both sides, but I believe it's still rather important that if not all, at least most of those present here are satisfied/convinced, or at least truly get what's going on, since misunderstandings still seem to be the case here. I believe it's important to have a neat, peaceful consensus not only for the aforementioned reasons, but also to avoid blaming one side or the other when a decision is made : "Told you you should have went with 3, they're all confused af", "you guys ignored the majority vote it's your fault", "2 was obviously the best from the beginning, it's you guys' fault that X happened now", etc.

Whatever the outcome I just hope no one gets toxic at each other.

^

 

[ÆONS]

Option 5: Kill the tiering system, silence any opposition and destroy all wankers. :triumph:

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Just nuke the wiki uwu

 

[Sera_EX]

Enough derailing guys.

 

[Nepuko]

@SeraEx about the "Aleph" stuff I wrote above and to what tiers it corresponds, I just confirmed with Ultima right now on discord that that should be correct. I hope that was of help.

 

[GojiBoyForever]

Tbf he was joining in with the others.

 

[Antvasima]

@Antvasima

I don't think suggesting more options would make the situation any less worse. I'm going to assume good faith and trust Nepuko's words about Option 3.

Okay. I hope for the best then.

However, again, we shouldn't rush with these revisions, and should preferably have a good grasp of what we are doing before proceeding,

 

[Sera_EX]

@SeraEx about the "Aleph" stuff I wrote above and to what tiers it corresponds, I just confirmed with Ultima right now on discord that that should be correct. I hope that was of help.

Option 3 seems fine then.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

@Matt

I should clarify that treating Reality-Fiction Hierarchies as Universal and what all of fiction should be based on is the absolute last thing the new tiering system is trying to do. It's just trying to measure powerscalling on an 1-A level, and for all intents and purposes it's treated just like we treat the different levels of 1-B and 1-C, except using a different metric.

In short, it's ultimately measuring nothing but power, and the pretentious shit you find in a few Visual Novels is just a way this can be demonstrated. This just loops back to what I've been saying since day one: You don't really need to have a layered cosmology on this scale to reach higher into 1-A, much like you don't need infinite dimensions for your verse to be 1-A in the current system. I am well aware that just going full [ ] with your Supreme Being takes you much farther than spamming of infinities does.

I should note that, while I agree with you in some points, I don't really agree with this glotification of 1-A you described where "lmao beyond powab and mathematics" shit starts to appear. This is precisely the kind of shit I am trying to get rid of, nothing is beyond power or some shit like that.

 

[Sera_EX]

I agree with Ultima.

 

[Nepuko]

I agree as well.

@SewaEx thanks, but as you know that was for that point I adressed, specifically. If you or anyone here still have some misunderstanding, and/or misgivings about whatever option, please feel free to point it out. As much as we'd all like to move, as said above I'd prefer to be sure that most agree on the final choice, and reach a consensus . If not just that point but the whole thing truly seems fine, and with no further objections (with reasonable objective(?) proof/counterarguments), I'm all for moving to the next stage.

Better be safe than sorry :/.

I hope enough staff members replied, for that matter.....the number seemed few owo

 

[Lightbuster30]

@Matt
In short, it's ultimately measuring nothing but power, and the pretentious shit you find in a few Visual Novels is just a way this can be demonstrated. This just loops back to what I've been saying since day one: You don't really need to have a layered cosmology on this scale to reach higher into 1-A, much like you don't need infinite dimensions for your verse to be 1-A in the current system. I am well aware that just going full [ ] with your Supreme Being takes you much farther than spamming of infinities does.

It'd be nice if we covered as many of these alternative ways as possible then.

 

[Sera_EX]

@SewaEx thanks, but as you know that was for that point I adressed, specifically. If you or anyone here still have some misunderstanding, and/or misgivings about whatever option, please feel free to point it out. As much as we'd all like to move, as said above I'd prefer to be sure that most agree on the final choice

But I'm not for or against any option...

 

[Nepuko]

I know that owo. Dosen't change the fact you could still have some misunderstandings~ (as previously shown uwu). Also lol I was waiting for that answer, seems I was right XD

 

[Agnaa]

@Sera "Staircase analogy"

I don't think this is accurate, I'm pretty sure it would be...

First step = Baseline Low 1-A

Any higher finite number of steps = Low 1-A

Infinite steps = Baseline 1-A

Any extension upon infinite steps = 1-A

Beyond the stairway (cannot be accessed by extensions upon infinite steps) = High 1-A

Sees High 1-A as High 1-A sees Low 1-A = 0

@Matt "You don't need composite hierarchies to be strong, I find the lack of them elegant."

"That wasn't my point, my point is that it conveys the boundless of its supreme entity just as effectively. Arguing that one is superior to another simply because it repeats itself more is pointless, because both ideas are by and large, equivalent in what they represent and convey."

We cannot function as a site unless we use "Can affect this size" as a measure of AP. And composite hierarchies happen to be an easy to write yet inelegant way of establishing large sizes. Amaranth and Overvoid may be written well as boundless beings, but we can't just shove them at tier 0 because they were written to be boundless if they lack the feats to back that up.

God-Ma is very clearly written to be boundless and omnipotent, but since the author didn't bog down the jokey comic with dozens of pages of uninteresting metaphysical bullshit the character's only 2-C, this is how the site should function. Najimi Ajimu is my favourite representation of an omnipotent character in fiction - a bored god looking for impossibility who won't spoil the ending for herself despite knowing the answer. But being well-written and being intended to be omnipotent should not auto-grant tiers.