Random
Source Code
Random
Multidimensional consciousness of sapience, sentience, and sophonce.
Capable of experiencing and making conscious instances.
A monad (whole unit) of consciousness.
Also perhaps can be worldly of most kinds of advanced worlds and more.
A high-form high-consciousness.
Has an adequate rating of omniquotience (intelligence, sensory, social, emotional, creative, energy, and more quotients).
A post-exponentia of consciousness kind scale that can also be attributed to clear humans and isn't necessarily restricted to only extradimensionals, however might be expected of them.
A complete (holistically complete*) consciousness of a dimensional level.
A consciousness of a full scale.
Some tried transcending the levels of consciousness to attain full scale consciousness and many were helped by many full scale consciousnesses too, and not only through generative drugs and astral travel and multidimensional downloads of varying moderate andor high success.
Can be used for many different things, such as earthquakes, games, other people and stuff like that. For example, Baldi registers 11 on the Richter Scale.
The Principal Of The Thing registers 14 on the Richter Scale, the highest ever measured in gaming history.
This is an amended version of the 1-4 scale. This scale removes almost all subjectivity from measuring your attraction to someone. Posts on this site have done their best to set out this scale, but this is the definitive, amended version.
The Basic 1-4 Scale (as already noted by Howie440):
1. I wouldn't and I don't see why anyone would.
2. I wouldn't buy I can see why someone would.
3. I would but I can see why someone wouldn't.
4. I would and I can't see why anyone wouldn't.
A New Addition (the 1-5 scale):
5. I would, I can't see why anyone wouldn't, and I'll be happy if I can just get with them.
Amendments & clarifications:
i) Who can really be considered a 4? - To avoid any subjectivity, keep in mind that: if everyone in the group says they're a 3, they're a 4. This is because if everyone calls them a 3, then everyone would and, therefore they're a 4.
ii) The 5 - More of a theoretical idea than a reality. The 5 is someone whom you would be completely satisfied to get with (make out with) once and never see again. They are so attractive to you that you would happily take the one opportunity and never try to talk to them again.
However - this means that if you do try to talk to, message, or get with them again, they are now by default a 4.
iii) It should also be noted that much like how any 4 must already be an agreed 3, any 5 must already be an agreed 4. This is continuous scale.
Me: "Hey, how was the club last night?"
Roommate: "Pretty good, I met someone."
Me: "Nice, good looking?"
Roommate: "I'd say 8/10."
Me: "How am I meant to know what that means, use the 1-5 scale."
Roommate: "Oh like a solid 3."
Me: "Glad to hear it mate."
The retro version of the female rating scale where an actual 2 is a 10
Bill "Man she's a 10"
Henry *looks at girl with a butterface who would have an average rating or a 2 or less* "yea a 10 on the Mully girl scale"
The hardest scale in the world. On this scale if you get a 5 that is a 10 on any regular scale. Anytime you are rated on the Trent Scale you know it will be a harsh rating.
“How do I look?”
“Probably a 4 on the Trent Scale.”
“Yay, that’s like a 8 on a real scale!!”
Scale used at Susquehanna university to determine the rating of an individuals appearance. It is an automatic +2 to what the individual would be rated out of 10 due to the lack of attractive people on campus
She is a susky scale 7. (This means she is a real life 5)