• 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.

New profile posts

Could you close this

Hi. These threads need some input from lookism supporters. Wanna join in?
Hello Ultima and sorry for bothering you. How would characters that interact with reality be viewed in this new system? Like Popeye can jump out of the cartoon and fight the writer. Of course that is a gag feat but generally such feats would be 1-A or just antifeat for reality?
Hi Ultima, I have a question about the thread revision issue you created. this


1. If a fiction applies type 4 multiverse in its story as a cosmological structure without further explanation, will this downgrade its tier from 1-A to High 1-B?

2.Just by having proof of qualitative superiority and that qualitative superiority only applies to 12 layers, is that enough to tier 1-A?

3. If there is a verse that has a transcendence of reality>fiction that is very clearly visible in the story of that verse, such as Demon King Daimao, The Unwritten, Marvel Comics, etc, will it have a big impact if this revision is accepted?
I assume a well defined or proper context Absolute Infinity would now be 1-A instead of high 1-A if the thread were to pass?
Wow.... I have question how would we give tier to a verse like The Unwritten, if all thing in your thread went through?
From recent The Unwritten Downgrade thread, the justification for Hierarchy of Stories is suggested to be changed, and there was one feat at the end of the "The Unwritten Apocalypse" where Wilson Taylor to save the world turn the whole "The Unwritten" into a Stories that he write, which made it that a Writer in The Unwritten could add an Hight 1B R>F hierarchy in their books.

This thread is what I need some input in.
Can I have your attention, please?
Are you interested?
Could you restore my comment, if you checked the very top of the message you would see i'm already authorized to post inside that thread.
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
You have permission, but based on mod's comment it was deleted because you responded to stuff Ultima already responded to.

I can restore it if you want, but that's why it was deleted in the first place.
BasedNecoScaler69
BasedNecoScaler69
Ah, it seems like I got ninjad by ultima while writing it.
If you feel like its relevant enough, you can restore it
Permission to talk in the tiering system thread, I got pinged there by lawyer but the thread topic changed to a staff discussion
Dereck03
Dereck03
Sure, but make sure to stay on topic and remember to mention that i gave you the permission.
Interesting matchup if you're interested.
Could I get permission to speak in the staff thread? i got called by lawyer to comment on there, but it got changed to a staff thread afterwards.
Could you allow me permission to post here? I was asked by Lawyer to post on your thread, however it got transformed into a staff discussion, and content mods have no perms to grant rights.
Good evening, you seem to be one of the go-to staff members when it comes to potentially higher dimensional content. Would you help with evaluating this?
Excellent write-up on the perceived issues with the tierlist. As I am busy at the moment, I couldn't read it entirely (I stopped on Counterpoint 3) and I plan to resume my reading after I conclude some work. It really reminds me of several years ago when those questions were very much a concern for the nascent Liber Proeliis, a brazilian wiki I helped start - although in a much less complex situation and manner, of course - and makes me miss a bit on the discussions I had.

I really thank you for the insight you provided, and I hope that the discussion, if nothing else, promotes debate and reflection on the tiering. There is nothing I can add onto the discussion, so I'll just say I am in full agreement with the points made. What little contention there may be, as far as I read, were very minor.
  • Like
Reactions: Ihsjihahxu
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
Eu tenho lembranças da Liber Proellis também. Queria poder ter ajudado naquela época em retrospectiva, sabendo o que eu sei hoje.

Mas enfim, fico feliz que você achou a argumentação convincente.
Needs some help to get out of bump limbo with this
IMG_5578.jpg
4. In the Dr. slump universe, Dr. mashirito is an author avatar and has Acausality type 4. Shouldn't beerus, the god of destruction who destroyed Dr. mashirito, have Acausality tüpe 4 negativity?
Ss3micah
Ss3micah
Not on this VBW in the least sadly.

For 1.
Mashirito doesn’t have a profile so it’s a coin toss on whether he’d be treated as an avatar or not. He likely would be treated as such but still he doesn’t have a profile as of yet.

And 2.
Erasing a being with Acausal 4 doesn’t grant Acausal 4 negation. As of now, Acausal 4 beings have no innate resistance to EE nor any protection to EE so erasing a being with Acausal 4 would be just as impressive as erasing someone who doesn’t have Acausal 4.
Matrixxxx
Matrixxxx
So will there be a profile of Dr. mashirito?
Ss3micah
Ss3micah
At some point yeah
But on the list of things to priority
He’s quite low so expect his profile to take a while
Hello. Could you check out my CRT? I believe it only needs one more staff vote.
Thanks

can this thread be reopen?
1. it didnt even reach the disagreement limit to be closed and
2. I had a grandtotal of 10 minutes to create a counterargument before closure, which is not enough
DarkGrath
DarkGrath
Out of respect to your case, I've decided to take a thorough look through the thread, including the scene in which the feat occurs and your arguments regarding it.

Nothing about this is tier 1. Even if we take the scene itself as valid canonicity, filing a bug report to ask the developer to make a new ending is manifestly just a 4th wall break. We don't scale characters off of scenes like this, and this was clearly established on the thread itself. Unless you have genuinely novel input to provide regarding the feat, I would suggest this topic is dropped.
BasedNecoScaler69
BasedNecoScaler69
DarkGrath
Out of respect to your case, I've decided to take a thorough look through the thread, including the scene in which the feat occurs and your arguments regarding it.

Nothing about this is tier 1. Even if we take the scene itself as valid canonicity, filing a bug report to ask the developer to make a new ending is manifestly just a 4th wall break. We don't scale characters off of scenes like this, and this was clearly established on the thread itself. Unless you have genuinely novel input to provide regarding the feat, I would suggest this topic is dropped.
valid concern, except there is no developer-like character in Ciel-sensei. Neco arc says "I" have to get this patched stat. Developers can file their own bug reports that they encounter to fix later. Ciel even says if you want to make a choice that leans towards arcueid, thats fine, but i cant guarantee what happens to the town afterward. Neco instantly goes to try and choose arcueid, implying no gap of time at all.
DarkGrath
DarkGrath
With all due respect, my message wall is not a debate platform. My investigation of the thread, the sources, and the arguments for and against the change were not done with the intention to continue this debate here - it was to express the fact that I will not be reopening the thread, as it was closed for manifestly valid reasons.

If you believe that there is genuinely more to discuss, and that there are novel arguments which were not made on the original thread, you are allowed to make a new thread to express these arguments. Making multiple threads on the same refuted topic can constitute a rule violation, but this is almost exclusively enforced in cases of users essentially quoting their last arguments verbatim - if you have new information to provide that wasn't on the original thread, no trouble of this sort should occur.
I noticed you liked horror stuff, I think I would like that
Eseseso
Eseseso

Just needs 1 more staff.
Back
Top