Tiering System Revisions

[Tony_di_bugalu]

What are the conclusions here exactly? I mean, most have accepted the new system but to what option are we going?

 

[Maxnumb231]

What are the conclusions here exactly? I mean, most have accepted the new system but to what option are we going?

basically, some memebrs and staff dont want option 3 that has high 1-A

 

[Agnaa]

Yes, but as I've stated, we are going to drop this practice with the new system, so it is only proper we put more emphasis on how tiering is about affecting area, rather than being higher-dimensional alone. These two things go hand-in-hand in the current system because we assume higher-dimensional things are uncountably infinitely larger, and since this isn't going to be valid anymore, we just make it clear tiering is strictly about AP, as opposed to anything else.

This statement is fine. Your earlier one of "Essentially, what this new system aims to do is primarily rank characters based on the area of space they can affect: The sheer size of their sphere of influence, as opposed to whatever it is that we do now." wasn't. I'm fine with this new explanation.

It is a false equivalence because Omnipotence and existing beyond dimensionality are not at all comparable, since the former is mostly a theological concept that is pretty much unusable and completely unprovable in an indexing context, while the latter is actually possible to prove in a fictional setting and can be inferred from proper evidence. No character in fiction is Omnipotent in the first place, and the term itself is ill-defined as all hell.

Sure but in this case the "beyond-dimensional" characters you're talking about haven't been proven to be beyond-dimensional, that's why they're below outerversal. But imo the point I'm making can apply to any sort of NLF claims that we put a ceiling on, "you're saying this sword that can cut through anything can't cut through a R ^ 5 being???" and that sort of thing, omnipotence is just an easy one to point at that we all understand.

Again, this is another false equivalence. Existing "beyond mathematics" is fundamentally unprovable and as a concept is basically unusable within an Indexing context, much like Omnipotence is, since by trying to prove it through hard facts and logic you'd actually be disproving it.

Meanwhile, existing beyond dimensionality is perfectly acceptable and can be proved like any other feat.

I think by this same token I could say that any sort of "beyond dimensionality" is fundamentally unprovable, we just have a point in our system that we equalize those sorts of characters to. You can always construct new, higher dimensions out of basically anything. People in our world write fictional characters who are "beyond dimensionality" yet still constrained by our reality's 3 dimensions.

 

[Nepuko]

What are the conclusions here exactly? I mean, most have accepted the new system but to what option are we going?

I dunno, for now the majority seem to like Option 3, some are against it and choose others, so it's better to wait and count the votes at the end I suppose.

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

They look the same with the exception of having High 1-A (3) and Low 1-A (1) and merging 1-C with 1-B (2), what is the problem with having a tier between 1 and 0?

Also, add me to Myeh, leaning on option 3.

 

[Maxnumb231]

They look the same with the exception of having High 1-A (3) and Low 1-A (1) and merging 1-C with 1-B (2), what is the problem with having a tier between 1 and 0?
Also, add me to Myeh, leaning on option 3.

Because 1-A in itself is already in the same description of transcending or being beyond the hierarchies which is strong limit K. The main problem is the arrangement of the tiering will just have controversial as it would change the arrangement

 

[Nepuko]

Because 1-A in itself is already in the same description of transcending or being beyond the hierarchies which is strong limit K. The main problem is the arrangement of the tiering will just have controversial as it would change the arrangement

That problem you're talking about isn't just about one option anymore, it's about all of them.


@tony aight I'll add you.

 

[Malomtek]

All this super-duper galaxy-brained hyper-pedantic mathematics over fictional character indexing is less than meaningless, especially when it comes from non-mathematicians.

Just have:

Planes of Existence (from Tier Low 1-C to High 1-B) = Degrees of Infinity (I.e. the aleph/beth number hierarchy)

Layers of Transcendent Existence (Low 1-A to High 1-A) = Degrees of whatever transcendental meta-infinity hierarchy will be used (whether its worldly or inaccessible cardinals or somesuch bullshit)

The Boundless (0) = the top of the transcendental meta-infinity hierarchy

The difference between High 1-A and 0 will be the different between a guy with trivial or minor weaknesses, or some other subtlety or nuance, and a guy with no weaknesses at all.

 

[Maxnumb231]

here we go again with "minor weakness" this new tiering imo is about existence and your power rather than just "if this guy has some weakness then he cant be tier 0.

 

[Udlmaster]

I think it depends on what we define as a weakness and what is a state of being.

For example, Azathoth has a weakness, he's always asleep, but this is a state of being giving him the weakness rather than him possessing one.

 

[Maxnumb231]

then again this weakness is not neccessary in the new tiering specifically as this turns out to be a power based or existence or whatever.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Off topic, but this thread gave me the answer to the continuum hypothesis.

On topic, couldn't we define 1-A as inaccessible cardinals?

 

[Maxnumb231]

high 1-A is the inacessible cardinals or in short strong limit K, but if u dont want high 1-A to be that then u can change to option 2

 

[Antvasima]

Given that the description for option 3 above now seems to match what Nepuko and Sera defined, and is almost identical to option 2 with a minor improvement regarding replacing Low 1-A+ with just 1-A, I now support it.

 

[Maxnumb231]

well i would like if high 1-A isnt in option 3 at all as nepuko was the one made it and sera disagreed with introducing high 1-A in option 3

 

[Nepuko]

Here we go again......

Sera disagreed with that in all options.......not specifically option 3.......She dosen't really like the whole thing.

Also from her own words above :

Option 3 only exists because people wanted the 1-A stuff from Option 1. Most people also want Option 2 because it doesn't screw over and lump together the lower echelon of Tier 1 just to make space for more outerversal tiers. Option 3 is Option 2, it just also has the superior outerversal classification of Option 1. Quite literally the best of both worlds.

And since this is exactly what option 3 above shows, I'm pretty sure she normally agrees with how it is.

And agai, the equivalent of option 3's High 1-A is present in all options. Whatever option you choose you'll have that High 1-A, it's just under a different name in Option 1 (High 1-B) since lower 1-C tiers were compressed. In Option 2 it's called Low 1-A+. Option 3 and 4 High 1-A.

So basically by saying "well i would like if high 1-A isnt in option 3 at all" you're asking we remove a tier from all options, not just option 3. So I'd appreciate if you stopped making it seem like an option 3 poblem only...

 

[Maxnumb231]

yeah and that's where im getting at she never introduced high 1-A but rather the combination of both option 1 and 2 which both options dont allude to having high 1-A. if we compare all options 3 in itself is problematic when arranging things (although option 4 may be the contender). her words does not specifically state we should add high 1-A in option 3 but rather make what accurate arrangement from two options and combine them. So what high 1-B is a thing in option 1 and 2? it literally does not make it problematic, but when having to put an arrangement inbetween 1-A and tier 0 that's where it gets messy

 

[Nepuko]

No, we did. When I introduced Option 3, I made it specifically clear it's a combination of Option 1's higher tiers and Option 2's lower tiers, which is why there's a High 1-A in the first place. The above Option 3 is the one that was talked about. High 1-A was there literally all along.


To let you understand, let me explain things to you in another way :

-Option 2 has 6 lower tiers, and 3 Outerversal and above tiers(or 4 depending on whether you include the "+" or not. But I heard it's AP-only so I guess not). 9 (or 10) in total.

-Option 1 has 4 lower tiers (due to compression of 1-C with 1-B), and 4 higher tiers. 8 in total.

-Option 3 is the fusions of Option 2's lower tiers, and Option 1's higher tiers. Which means it'll get the 6 lower tiers of 2, and the 4 higher tiers of 1. So 10 in total.


Option 2's Lower Tiers stop at High 1-B, which is for the ucountably infinite higher dimensions/planes.stuff. So that means, Option 3's lower tiers would be Option 2's tiers till High 1-B. That makes 6.

Then, it also takes the 4 higher tiers of Option 1. And these 4 are obviously coming after High 1-B. So then you have : Low 1-A, 1-A, High 1-A, 0. Which makes 4.

10 in total.


Again, it pretty much is Option 2, just with Option 1's better Outerversal tiering (or basically just changing Option 2's Low 1-A+ to straight out 1-A). If you say it has a bad arrangement, seeing you're talking about the higher tiers, then Option 1 and 2 are as much of a bad arrangement, whatever bad arrangement there is.

Again, you have no arguments for Option 3 "arranging things badly", unless if in your opinion keeping the 1-C tiers decompressed is a bad arrangement. Because, again, it has the same arrangement Outerversally as Option 1, and lower tier-wise as Option 2. It's literally the best of both worlds.

Or maybe you do have them, which again would actually not target only Option 3 but all Options.


And y'know, you can just simply say "I don't like the return of the High 1-A tier in the first place(whether it's different than the old one or not) so I'll go with either 1 or 2" if you want.....

 

[Andytrenom]

From what I can see option 3 high 1-A isn't option 2 low 1-A+, its the 1-A of the other options

That is the problem I have with option 3's arrangement, it makes the sub tiers represent distinct mathematical concepts while making the core tier just an expansion the idea used for its sub tier (Low 1-A represents going beyond the hausdroff metric, high 1-A represents strong limit cardinal). It is more ideal having 1-A have its own identity and have the sub tiers expand upon it than the other way way around, and while I understand it comes down to opinions in the ends, acting as if the outerversal arrangement in option 3 is undebatable is not right in the slightest

 

[Nepuko]

@Andy

That was a typo. Option 3's High 1-A is Option 2's 1-A.

I'm not saying Option 3's (and hence 1's) arrangement is undebatable, I'm basically saying it's present in all options. So it basically comes down to aestethical reasons to judge between the 3 Options' Higher Tiers. Like what you say above for exemple.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that Nepuko seems to be correct. Option 2 and 3 are almost the same, with a minor naming change for the latter.

 

[Sage_Extermination]

And as @SeraEx said :

Option 3 only exists because people wanted the 1-A stuff from Option 1. Most people also want Option 2 because it doesn't screw over and lump together the lower echelon of Tier 1 just to make space for more outerversal tiers. Option 3 is Option 2, it just also has the superior outerversal classification of Option 1. Quite literally the best of both worlds.

Again. The options are just supposed to be about how the tiers are arranged, not what they are inherently.

Why? Just why are people arguing about Option 3 being messy when it's tiers are the same as Option 1 and 2s, just in a different place???

 

[Sera_EX]

The options being treated as if they're fundamentally different is the entire problem here.

Andy's reply is why I don't think 1-A should be mathematically explained to that extreme of a degree (I'm not saying it shouldn't be at all). If we're going to argue that Option 1 is superior because it separates outerversal from "stratoversal" via cardinal means, I'm strongly against that.

1-A should have its own identity? Outerversal is Outerversal. Being beyond dimensionality and all forms of time space is what outerversal is all about. Clearly sub tiers should denote the magnitude as they do for every other tier.

Yes Option 1 has the superior outerversal classification system. We just don't need to separate them across 1-B and 1-A, at the expense of putting all the higher dimensional tiers in 1-C. That's why Option 3 exists.

I'm tired of outerversal being prioritized over the rest of the System as if it's more important than the rest of the system. It's not. We don't need to be that damn specific.

But if Option 3 is so bad, then screw it. They're all bad imo anyway.

 

[Antvasima]

@Sera

Do you have suggestions for better options/constructive modifications?

 

[Sera_EX]

Also, High 1-A in Option 3 is 1-A in Option 1. So if High 1-A is removed from Option 3, 1-A is likewise removed from Option 1.

So please relax and don't just start wailing about Option 3 just because you see the tier "High 1-A".

 

[Nepuko]

Also, High 1-A in Option 3 is 1-A in Option 1. So if High 1-A is removed from Option 3, 1-A is likewise removed from Option 1.
So please relax and don't just start wailing about Option 3 just because you see the tier "High 1-A".

Hello.

Since I'm counting votes right now, did you choose an Option, so I can include you in whatever one you chose? Or still refraining?

 

[Andytrenom]

@Sera It's less about 1-A specifically having its own identity and more about core tiers representing the main idea. The option 3 makes it feel like 1-A is an expansion of low 1-A, rather than the other way around. Low 1-A presents the main principle of going beyond hausdroff dimensionality through a certain expression, while 1-A is an unbelievable extreme of it, whereas normally it is the core tier that establishes an idea or represents a typical situation regarding a level of power, while the sub tiers represent the extremes

This does applies to 1-B as well and I may concede on my point if the need for 1-B being the infinite tier is considered to be too great, but that is the overall reason for my uneasiness, not having to do as much with the use of maths in 1-A as the use of sub tiers in general

 

[Sera_EX]

@Ant

I have a suggestion, but it has nothing to do with any options. And since Ultima kindly suggested I don't tread those waters, I won't.

@Nepuko

No. I'm not choosing an option. Again, I don't like this revision at all, for multiple reasons. Hopefully this doesn't offend those who have been working on this for so long, it's just how I feel. I'm just here to help others choose an option. Whatever option chosen in my eyes, however, is merely the lesser of two evils.

@Andy

The core idea of Outerversal should not be changed. The core idea is the same that it is on the Tier System page. The bedrock of Outerversal is "beyond all dimensional forms of space and time". The math is just schematics for CRT and debating purposes.

@All

The only thing that needs to be changed in these revisions are the schematics behind the tiers, not the bedrock principles of those tiers.

That's like my fourth time saying that...

 

[Andytrenom]

"The core idea of Outerversal should not be changed. The core idea is the same that it is on the Tier System page. The bedrock of Outerversal is "beyond all dimensional forms of space and time"."


It would still be better tho, if 1-A (the core tier) represented a typical situation of that "beyond all dimensions of time space" concept rather than being an extreme, like how it is for practically all tiers that have their own sub- categories

That's pretty much what I wanted to get across, i don't have intentions of arguing extensively but I want to clarify where my issues come from, it doesn't have to do with the specific maths, they were just brought up to show which tiers represent the core idea and which tiers expand on it, the actual problem stems from a core tier being treated like a sub-tier, that's all

 

[Sera_EX]

Then what do you suggest we do? Go with Option 1?

 

[The_Empyrean]

Option 3 for me.

 

[Andytrenom]

Option 2 without infinite dimensions in 1-B would have been ideal, or maybe separation between 1-A as beyond hausdroff dimensionality and high 1-A the strong limit cardinal

I'm probably just going to make this more messy if I argued for either of them legitimately tho, so I'm just going to stick by current option 2

 

[Nepuko]

The Vote Counting Comment here was reposted further below.

 

[Antvasima]

The core idea of Outerversal should not be changed. The core idea is the same that it is on the Tier System page. The bedrock of Outerversal is "beyond all dimensional forms of space and time". The math is just schematics for CRT and debating purposes.

@All

These are very valid points. Now I am getting considerably more uneasy about these revisions again. It might be best if we continue to rate Outerverse level as being beyond all degrees of time and space. Wouldn't this also qualify such characters as being beyond stacking infinities, as is the current suggestion?

 

[Daoist_kon]

ill vote for nepukos option (option 3)

 

[Yobo_Blue]

After looking this over I agree with Option 4

 

[FanofRPGs]

What is this option 4

 

[Nepuko]

Something Ultima kinda just added. Probably to mess with us. He's evuuul after all owo

 

[Sera_EX]

Ultima also confirmed on Discord that Outerversal and Tier 0 are mechanically different between Options 1 and 2. Saying that Option 1s Outerverse classification cannot work with Option 2 and thus Option 3 is null and void.

 

[FanofRPGs]

I like that 1-A is baseline in option 4, so I might switch my option (I will maintain 2 if Option 4 doesn't get traction), still a fan of option 1 ;-;