The fact that he wrote the page doesn't exist in a vacuum, this is a very important page that affects the whole wiki and its content was evaluated and agreed on by many notable users to stay as it is. If the interpretation those users had on that bit isn't necessarily the same as the interpretation Ultima gives here then it doesn't mattar how he made the page, his interpretation would be incorrect. I concluded that, therefore I expressed that, which is something that can happen regardless of him being the one who made the page. I'm sure Ultima intended the same uses & mechanics for that wording the same day he first proposed it as he does now.
I didn't know you can invoke Death of the Author on wiki policy pages to support your own point.
As far as I can tell, no notable changes have been made to that section of the page since Ultima wrote it, and he wrote these words on purpose to convey the information he speaks in this thread. Thus, it was accepted under his interpretation by multiple other staff members. You can't just invalidate the interpretation that was used when making the page to suit your own interpretation.
YOU are the one that has to change the standards to fit your interpretation, the page is already under Ultima's interpretation. Just disagreeing with the wording of the standards or the standards in general doesn't mean that they automatically correct to you.
The player is protrayed as some unknown, mysterious entity with unclear control over Frisk and time powers, with the player's obsession manifesting as a (self-proclaimed) demon that is a character in the game. It's not called the player in-game, it's portrayed simply as the function they saw them do, being an anomaly in the space-time continuum (Deltarune further backs this by portraying them as an esoteric being, and paranormal in a sense that doesn't require them at all to be Low 1-C).
This doesn't contradict anything, really. I think the argument for the Player is that it requires basic sense of storytelling to realize that the Player is a stand-in for you. But this is a lesser counterargument as there are far worse things wrong with your post than this.
Also, the player can move on with their life in the pacifist end, that consecutive time for them being consecutive time the cast spends enjoying their happy ending, the player may even erase the game right after the pacifist end, as it is perfectly reasonable to do due to a Reset being bad for the beings it would be healthy for the anomaly to empathize with. Did you catch 2 issues with the last sentence? The "Low 1-C Player that exists outside Undertale" is reasonably erasing UT and society keeps moving on in Undertale. The (good version of the) Low 1-C real Player that is qualitatively superior to the fictional UT cares for Frisk and the monsters of the game
The Player being able to move on with their life has no bearing on their ontology. The Player having an emotional attachment to UT characters has no bearing on their ontology. The UT world being able to exist without the Player has no bearing on their ontology.
You need actual points my dude. Nothing about this goes against a higher state of existence. You have a life outside of a book, you can have an attachment to characters in a book, and the book can exist without you.
If the infinite 4-D construct that is UT was a finite 3-D object, why would a being outside it be even larger still (1st take) rather than there really being an infinite 4-D construct in a finite 3-D object, with everything around it being just as 3-D (2nd take)? The math checks out in the 1st take and the player would be Low 1-C, but I don't find this to be the most logical. I don't see our rules as binding us to use the 1st take, so it's a manner of logic, and I see the 2nd take as taking the least amount of speculation, just like in other cases with better context I would agree that seeing an infinite 4-D construct as a finite 3-D object would be Low 1-C, and just like I would easily see how a big space inside a small space would only apply to itself, and not be telling to the size of everything else in the outside.
????????
A 4-D object cannot be "inside" a 3-D object without said 3-D object just being a representation for a higher layer of existence. Assuming that's what you're arguing, I can hardly tell.
Quoting myself from the upgrade thread, in which I believe I was sufficiently legible: "Even
if the "player" had
a transcendence like this over Undertale, why would the player be Low 1-C and Undertale as a whole Low 2-C rather than the player being just some regular human in stats and Undertale a fictional game? What makes Undertale real when the argument is that it portrays itself as a game/fiction?
Reality Equalization could be used to validate calc's for the Undertale characters, but it wouldn't need to be used on the player to give them a Low 1-C stat."
"The world outside the baseline world would not have applied the same generosity the baseline world would to get for match-ups and their calcs validated.
Sword Art Online,
The Matrix and
Yume Nikki are the examples the page gives and all have their real worlds with characters there with regular stats, not Low 1-C, because why would the "equalization" of reality reach there. Nothing would make natural and intuitive for the anomaly to be Low 1-C."
That is to say,
let's say the premise of the upgrade is correct, ok, the player would not be Low 1-C as he would be as real as we are, whereas Undertale would be less real; Yes, Reality Equalization makes it so all Undertale profiles for monsters & humans and the calcs remain the same, there is no issue there, but the player would have regular human stats, they would not be Low 1-C. Similar to those other verses that use Reality Equalization.
Ultima's last reply to it was: "Not particularly familiar with our treatment of those three cases. I could hazard a guess that they either fall under the above clause in the Reality Equalization page, or that the "real" and "fake" worlds are equally prominent, story-wise, in a way that makes it impossible to treat one as transcendent over the other (I know this is the case in Matrix and Yume Nikki, at least, with the aforementioned tidbit in our article for RE applying especially to the former), but I'd be speaking out of turn here.
Since he seems to have written the Reality Equalization page to begin with, I suppose we could ask Saikou about it?"
But then that never happened on the thread, the thread was applied dismissing that issue and my discussion with Ultima.
Lucky for you, I did ask Saikou about it. Let me quote him.
"anyway the difference is that those verses very clearly establish the real world as being made out of regular humans
they aren't treated as being transcendent being with control over the virtual world
tiering them as if that was the case is silly
but UT's player is seen and treated exclusively from the perspective of the in-game characters
We don't even really knows what the player is like from their perspective, just that the characters sees this entity as this weird thing beyond the scope of the game"
"We never see anything written or shown from the player's perspective
It makes no sense to tier it that way
It's like making DC Writer Tier 10-B or some shit
the Writer's role as the top god of DC is a lot more important and central to it
than as some dude in the real world"
Note that Saikou doesn't agree with tier 1 UT, so no bias here. Just asking him in the theoretical.
To rephrase it, it's a matter of perspective. The Player is treated as a being that exists outside of the game, not a normal human. In SAO, the real world is established to be made out of normal people without any form of transcendence or control. Thus, they get tiered as such.
The Player is treated as a mysterious figure outside of the game, thus we would tier it as such and not 10-B.
