Deleting/Completely Rewriting the Reality-Fiction Interactions page

[Jinsye]

This page sucks and needs to go.

That's the pretty blatant gist of it. The page is either redundant to the Tiering System FAQ, or it doesn't explain anything about R>F differences and why they grant certain tiers.

I would like to propose a general rewriting of the page at the very least. Give a general guideline on what could qualify for R>F or qualitative superiority. Split it into multiple sections maybe? If I had to outline an exact proposal.

Introduction: Introduces the concept of R>F, notes that characters can reach tier 1 based on seeing things as fiction.
Explanation: Explains why R>F grants a higher tier.
Potential Qualifications: Give examples for qualifications.
Potential Disqualifies: Give examples for stuff that won't count for R>F.
Examples: Give examples.
Notes: Author avatars don't = tier 0 boundlessness.

Someone can probably write an in-depth explanation on the thread, but right now the current page practically explains jack shit.

 

[Antvasima]

I am fine with if the page in question is rewritten and expanded on. It is a leftover from early during my time in the wiki when our members recurrently tried to automatically upgrade any real life author avatars or even Bugs Bunny to our highest tier due to perceiving fiction as fiction.

That part should remain, but the page should also turn more useful and instructive, yes.

 

[Antvasima]

I am fine with if the page in question is rewritten and expanded on. It is a leftover from early during my time in the wiki when our members recurrently tried to automatically upgrade any real life author avatars or even Bugs Bunny to the highest tier due to perceiving fiction as fiction.

That part should remain, but the page should also turn more useful and instructive, yes.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Andytrenom @Ultima_Reality @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Agnaa

Would any of you be willing to help out with this please?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'd rather we not get rid of it, because the last time someone attempted to delete it, we literally just had someone immediately try to do the number one thing commonly unwanted by points pointed out by our various Bureaucrats and Dimensional Tiering experts. I'm fine with expanding the definition or examples, bet getting rid of it outright has turned out to be a really bad idea at each and every time someone proposed its deletion.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, very strongly agreed.

Adding some useful instructions and explanations seems like a good idea though.

 

[PrinceofPein]

This page sucks and needs to go.

That's the pretty blatant gist of it. The page is either redundant to the Tiering System FAQ, or it doesn't explain anything about R>F differences and why they grant certain tiers.

R>F don't grant tiers
It is N+1D, not a certain tier

I would like to propose a general rewriting of the page at the very least. Give a general guideline on what could qualify for R>F or qualitative superiority. Split it into multiple sections maybe? If I had to outline an exact proposal.

It is usually case by case and based on contexts
The most direct form is well "A views B as fiction or something similar" or "A views B world as words on a book or screen"
There is no general guideline aside that, anything else would still be case by case, as being Higher dimensional does not mean you view the lower Dimensions as fiction.
So aside the direct method the rest will be case by case.

Introduction: Introduces the concept of R>F, notes that characters can reach tier 1 based on seeing things as fiction.

It is there already, aside that we need to look at it based on their respective feat.
But something that should be on the page is the "N+1D, without further context"

Explanation: Explains why R>F grants a higher tier.

Dimensionality

Potential Qualifications: Give examples for qualifications.

Above, it is something really direct.

Potential Disqualifies: Give examples for stuff that won't count for R>F.
Examples: Give examples.
Notes: Author avatars don't = tier 0 boundlessness.

Agree with this part.


Anyway I disagree with the deletion but the page can be made to be better than it currently is.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway I disagree with the deletion but the page can be made to be better than it currently is.

Yes. I would appreciate help in this regard.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Would any of you be willing to help out with this please?

I mean, we shouldn't get rid of it. But I'm not sure how to reword it or anything. We should probably section it out I guess, so the page can delve into different topics and explanations.

 

[Andytrenom]

It should probably be reworked yeah

 

[PrinceofPein]

If I can get few examples of what don't qualify, I can rework the page in a sandbox based on what we have there already.
While I can name what qualify, I can't seem to remember any example that does not

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you to everybody who are willing to help out here.

 

[Jinsye]

If I can get few examples of what don't qualify, I can rework the page in a sandbox based on what we have there already.

A few ones that I had in mind for disqualifiers

Earth-33 from DC Comics: A realm that only sees the superheroes of other worlds and the worlds they live in as fiction. However, they have no demonstrated sense of transcendence and the world is on an equal level of existence to the worlds where superheroes do exist.

Metaverse Enterprise Solutions' World from Doki Doki Literature Club: A world where Monika's world is simply a simulation. It's stated here that the simulation in which Monika lives in is as real as the real world. Thus, they cannot be Low 1-C as the realms have no existential difference.

The Real World from Sword Art Online/The Matrix: According to the Reality Equalization page, we would treat Sword Art Online as the base reality. Anything depicting it as fiction would be tier 1 under R>F, but we make exceptions if they are never treated as being a transcendent force outside of the game. Since from the perspective of the series, both are treated as equally significant and prominent to the settings, we can't apply R>F here.



Qualifications for R>F should be very straightforward. If you view a cosmology as fictional in any way, it would generally lead to you being one existential level higher.

This would include viewing it as a story, a thought, a dream, a simulation, a game, or a book.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Bumping this thread. Seems to be a bit inert for one dealing with such an ancient page.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. Suggestions for how to improve the page according to what I, Pain_to12, and our staff members stated above, would be very appreciated.

 

[Jinsye]

If Pain doesn't, I could try and write my own version of the draft to be edited

 

[Antvasima]

That would be appreciated of course. Thank you for helping out.

 

[Jinsye]

This is a rough draft.

It may be a little bit clunky, so input on how to improve it would be much appreciated.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I agree with the draft.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

This is a rough draft.

It may be a little bit clunky, so input on how to improve it would be much appreciated.

If you need another very good straight forward example. There's BB from Fate/Extra CCC.

It goes into detail how her higher dimensional mind views time as a flat piece of paper, and can view any event in time.

BB (Fate/Extra CCC)

BB is an AI created from Sakura Matou's suppressed feelings for Hakuno Kishinami. After having her behavioral constraints removed by Kiara Sessyoin, BB decided to rebel against the system of the Moon Cell in order to save Hakuno from their untimely death, creating the Sakura Labyrinth and the...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Antvasima]

This is a rough draft.

It may be a little bit clunky, so input on how to improve it would be much appreciated.

@DarkDragonMedeus @Qawsedf234 @Andytrenom @Ultima_Reality

What do you think about this?

 

[Antvasima]

Also, thank you for helping out, Jinsye.

 

[Reiner04]

Draft seems to have a problem, just viewing a story as fiction doesn't qualify for any kind of superiority, one can view A story of one universe as fiction in another universe while still being a part of the whole multiverse, one's life in one world can be story for another. There is need to be a superiority gap established.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with Reiner

 

[Jinsye]

Draft seems to have a problem, just viewing a story as fiction doesn't qualify for any kind of superiority, one can view A story of one universe as fiction in another universe while still being a part of the whole multiverse, one's life in one world can be story for another. There is need to be a superiority gap established.

This was explicitly addressed for cases like Earth-33 in DC Comics.

 

[Reiner04]

This was explicitly addressed for cases like Earth-33 in DC Comics.

I read that and it is being treated as more of an exception in the draft rather than something that should be pretty obvious.

The draft states that very clearly that "viewing a story as fiction or video game means they are superior", they're not and will be not. In the multiverse of possibilities anything is possible. It should have qualitative superiority defined rather than just viewing something as story is no evidence for qualitative superiority. Viewing a story as fiction is a one from many properties of R>F rather than something that defines it entirely.


A Qualitative transcendence that is.

 

[Jinsye]

It should be noted that there are ways to view reality as fiction in a way that does not constitute an R>F difference, however it would generally require more logical leaps that should be specified rather than just assumed by default. A clear indication of transcendence/superiority however is necessary in order for qualify, as vague statements should not be inferred to this interpretation.

Is what I wrote for cases like Earth-33.

Generally, when a verse views a thing as fiction without a qualitative difference, it's made very clear that it's not qualitatively superior. This is what I mean by specification.

 

[Reiner04]

Is what I wrote for cases like Earth-33.

Generally, when a verse views a thing as fiction without a qualitative difference, it's made very clear that it's not qualitatively superior. This is what I mean by specification.

I have no problem with the explanation that has been given in the said draft but with the very definition of it.

Reality-Fiction is a state where a being views a sufficiently 'real' world as fiction, thus naturally being qualitatively superior and 'more real' than said world

It states that just viewing something as fiction "naturally" means they are qualitative superior to that said verse and so contradicting the explaination itself.

“Reality fiction state is a state of being Qualitative superior to that said "world" he views as fiction”, rather than “that that said "world" to be viewed as fiction and so naturally giving a transcendence unless proven otherwise”.

 

[Bobsican]

However, this is not the case for every setting. In certain situations, we would not grant a R>F Transcendence to those who exist in the 'real world' compared to the game. Whether we do or not, it has to do with the perspective of the story.

...perspectives in what sense/criteria exactly?

For the R>F transcendence to be indexed, the portrayal of the transcendence must be taken into account. If the transcendence is treated as sufficiently portrayed and is important to the story (i.e. being the literal author of the world with complete control over it). If it is not sufficiently portrayed as transcendence compared to the fictional world, then we would not index it as such and would simply tier it as if no R>F transcendence was involved.

This part is weirded weird, generally you add a claim after stating a condition (aka, what's within the "if"), from what's implied, maybe something like this:

For the R>F transcendence to be indexed, the portrayal of the transcendence must be taken into account. If the transcendence is treated as sufficiently portrayed and is important to the story (i.e. being the literal author of the world with complete control over it), then it's valid. If it is not sufficiently portrayed as transcendence compared to the fictional world, then we would not index it as such and would simply tier it as if no R>F transcendence was involved.

On another note I think it'd be good to also specify what'd be among the minimal criteria of being "sufficiently portrayed as transcendence (shouldn't it be "trascendent" going by the wording context?) compared to the fictional world", this may also be related to the first question I'm doing in the post. I recall on previous talks I've had with Ant this falls as just plot relevancy, so we could just keep this in a case by case basis, and probably also mention that this is to avoid a good amount of otherwise non-notable verses on this regard being rated as tier 1 or above.

RIP my legitimate argument for High 1-B Hello Kitty

 

[Reiner04]

Also, @Jinsye This is minor but I guess important, adding "Qualitative superiority" or "Qualitative transcendence" which has been indexed in our FAQ will be better explainatory than just "transcendence" or "superiority".

 

[Jinsye]

It states that just viewing something as fiction "naturally" means they are qualitative superior to that said verse and so contradicting the explaination itself.

"Naturally" was supposed to mean if they indeed qualify for R>F transcendence then their existence would be 'naturally' a higher level. Like how a person naturally breathes air.

I can change the wording if you find it confusing but 'naturally' wasn't supposed to mean 'obviously'.

 

[Reiner04]

"Naturally" was supposed to mean if they indeed qualify for R>F transcendence then their existence would be 'naturally' a higher level. Like how a person naturally breathes air.

I can change the wording if you find it confusing but 'naturally' wasn't supposed to mean 'obviously'.

I meant something along the lines/idea of

“Reality fiction state is a state of being Qualitative superior to that said "world" he views as fiction”, rather than “that that said "world" to be viewed as fiction and so naturally giving a transcendence unless proven otherwise”.

I wrote it in hurry, so you can choose your wording to write more explainatory or better definition.

 

[Roachman40]

the draft looks good so far

 

[Jinsye]

...perspectives in what sense/criteria exactly?

I've talked with Saikou (the author of the Reality Equalization page) about this and it's a little bit hard to put into words.

Like, there's a pretty blatant difference between Swann's Proposal being a bunch of redditors in a "real world" thus getting tier 1 vs. SAO just having a bunch of people in a "real world" and but them not counting.

The 'perspective of the story' basically just implies that it's not really relevant to index SAO as tier 1 because they are never treated that way and thus shouldn't be assumed to be, unlike Swann. It's a case-by-case basis.

 

[Antvasima]

I asked DontTalk to comment here again. That seems safest.

 

[Reiner04]

Rather than following the idea of being author or having control over said fiction (as I have seen both cases w/o the author transcending that said fiction), being qualitative superior to said "world/setting" that has been viewed as fiction such that vandalising the "that entire world/setting" to nothing or "existentially inferior" Seems more appropriate.

 

[Bobsican]

I've talked with Saikou (the author of the Reality Equalization page) about this and it's a little bit hard to put into words.

Like, there's a pretty blatant difference between Swann's Proposal being a bunch of redditors in a "real world" thus getting tier 1 vs. SAO just having a bunch of people in a "real world" and but them not counting.

The 'perspective of the story' basically just implies that it's not really relevant to index SAO as tier 1 because they are never treated that way and thus shouldn't be assumed to be, unlike Swann. It's a case-by-case basis.

Well, technically it's not an assumption to begin with, but rather a declination of rating them like that to avoid countless silly arguments like tier 1 to any display of fiction within a verse of this kind, although this isn't much different from only rating a character as how an author sees them over what they've actually done, but on the other hand I suppose this is a compromise to have a remotely usable tier 1 at all over misleading nearly every character as being tier 1, in fact the last part should be mentioned if that's the case to make it clear to visitors how we're indexing stuff on that area.

That being said, I think it'd be worthwhile to make some argumentable space for cases where the "main" baseline reality has the intent to be portrayed as a relevantly trascendental structure to some fiction at a later point in the plot in regards to tier 1. I've talked with Ultima Reality on this before, and apparently our current standards prevent any argument on that regardless of lore or statements only because of Reality Equalization being applied in such cases regardless of context (more specifically, the "lower" reality just being tier 11), so I'd appreciate if that could be addressed, as while in one extreme disallowing any main setting that happens to have any kind of fiction to be tier 1 is good in paper, on the other hand some leeway for authors should be given in particular circumstances without straight up requiring direct mathemathical terms over trascending dimensions or the like, especially when a similar argument can be done to downgrade several verses currently at tier 1 out of such realities getting more spotlight than the "baseline".

 

[Jinsye]

Kingdom Hearts is not tier 1 Bob.

I frankly have no idea what your other examples are, so if you could list them that would be nice.

 

[Bobsican]

Nothing else really comes to mind, but examples aren't the main focus here anyways as otherwise it quickly devolves into arguing those specific cases and thus derailing.
At the same time, it appears inappropiate to rate a "main baseline" reality as 3-D regardless of context in relation to a "lower" reality, especially if the only criteria to consider is plot spotlight (in fact, as said before, plenty of currently tier 1 series could be downgraded out of the "higher-d" space they scale to getting more focus than the 3D one, or in more extreme cases downgrading a character to tier 9 as anything above isn't made a big deal), semantics brought up in relation to the two should be considerable in context as well to determine if such cases would be considerable of tier 1.

 

[Reiner04]

I can agree with this, rather than examples, the definition itself and what R>F is, should has to be enough to scale character or verse as per, when we are giving examples to describe the relation or establishing restrictions then we are generally binding the definitions to said small range relations when there is abundance of that kind of relation. It should be self explainatory in its own with examples being nothing but just clarifying the definition rather than being part of it.

 

[Jinsye]

At the same time, it appears inappropiate to rate a "main baseline" reality as 3-D regardless of context in relation to a "lower" reality, especially if the only criteria to consider is plot spotlight (in fact, as said before, plenty of currently tier 1 series could be downgraded out of the "higher-d" space they scale to getting more focus than the 3D one), semantics brought up in relation to the two should be considerable in context as well to determine if such cases would be considerable of tier 1.

"Plot spotlight" is not the only consideration.

Perspective can mean if they are portrayed as supernaturally powered beings with R>F compared to this 'real' lower world such as with Umineko, then they can get tier 1.

The spotlight standards is only really in consideration when dealing with stuff that has no clear difference, such as with SAO.

Even then, I asked you to bring up examples as to what would be downgraded if you went this route regardless, it makes for a clearer understanding.