Powerscaler Alignment Chart

 I wanted to share the alignment chart I think of when I think of different types of powerscalers

Open Scientific	Neutral Scientific	Skeptical Scientific
Open Neutral	True Neutral	Skeptical Neutral
Open Narrative	Neutral Narrative	Skeptical Narrative

There are two spectrums here to explain. It's not so much anyone in particular is at the extreme end, but a spectrum where some people tend more one way then other people.

Open vs. Skeptical: Open people are people who tend to have higher balled interpretations, and are more open to evidence. In general they are more open to considering unorthodox positions on characters and matchups. Their strengths are they are not prone to appeals to incredulity or tradition, they are relatively good at just removing all pre-existing assumptions about characters. Their downside is their positions can seem absurd to people with higher evidentiary standards. Skeptical people are people who tend to have lower balled interpretations, and generally higher standards of evidence. They are less likely to change their positions on how strong characters are in general. Their strengths are they are very discerning and good at dissecting bad evidence. They are very good at going over a list of evidence and finding leaps in logic or alternative explanations that don't require extraordinary conclusions. However on the other hand they are more likely to make unfalsifiable claims about how a character can't be x strong or fast, or be stubborn in the face of evidence that doesn't corroborate their current position. People who are neutral tend to be roughly in the middle. They can have very strong senses on how strong characters they know well are, but can be convinced to go higher or lower, especially if it's not by that large a margin by looking at the evidence. Most people on both spectrums will tend towards the middle, this is again more of which way you lean.

Scientific vs Narrative: Scientific Powerscalers are ones who probably either towards fictional realism (that is to say thinking that fiction has a kind of reality unto itself) or Death of the Author (where the meaning of a text is not determined by an author.) They tend to be most concerned with empirical data about a series, and tend to be the types that think there is a "right answer" as to for instance how fast a character is. Not that it's written down somewhere, but if you look at their showings you should be able to discern it. Their strength is they are more focused on evidence and proof rather then their intuition however their weakness is they can seem somewhat removed from the "spirit" of a story judging solely by empirical data. I think Scientific Powerscalers are more common at least on sites dedicated to such things, and I will give an example of the three kinds in my different alignment descriptions. Narrative Powerscalers are ones who care more about what they think the story is trying to say, and probably tend more towards fictional anti-realists (thinking of fiction as more a mental exercise then having a reality onto itself.) They don't tend to think of characters as having a specific level but instead numerous interpretations based on your understanding of the story. They are the ones who tend to care more about showing why their interpretation is more consistent with the lore or themes of the story, rather then just focusing on the feats themselves. People far on the Narrative side won't even debate a series they haven't experienced themselves. Their benefit is they tend to be more willing to understand why people disagree with them as they view it as another interpretation of the story, and they can be seen as more respectful to the source material, especially to non powerscalers. On the other hand, Narrative Scalers are not strictly focused on falsifiable empirical data and so can be rather floaty in their interpretation and not focused on evidence, which is arguably against the spirit of debate.

The Nine Alignments of Powerscalers as I see it:

Open Scientific: People who are Open Scientific Powerscalers are ones who are mostly just looking for do characters have feats of a certain level. They're not really concerned with if those feats have counter-examples or if they tie into a deeper narrative, they view powerscaling in probably the most direct way which is "these are the impressive things the character has done, so that's how they strong they have to be." They'd probably agree with the notion that if a character has done something, then you trying to say they can't do that thing is just silly regardless of your interpretation of the text, and tend to have more open scaling where they don't mind scaling characters much higher then most do if they think the feats are clearly there. I have found them to be very common on Youtube. 

Neutral Scientific: People who are Neutral Scientific are most concerned with what a characters's showings are but don't tend to have as out there interpretations and do tend to consider anti-feats a little bit. Their interpretations of a characters' strength might be a little higher then what most people think or it might be about where most people think but their primary mode of evidence is empirical showings and they are generally convinced by either just enough feats at a certain level or by a systemic explanation for why each feat is untenable. I have found them to be very common on most Battleboarding Sites.

Skeptical Scientific: People who are Skeptical Scientific put a great deal of stock into things like expressed limits or anti-feats, with some suggesting that they have equal importance to feats. They tend to interpret characters as being either roughly as strong as common consensus where they debate, or a bit weaker. They do prioritize feats but will either argue that a very high end feat is an outlier or try to discuss the internal logic of the feat and express why they don't think it applies. Because they are more on the Scientific Side they probably do still consider things like calcs, but because they are Skeptical they are very discerning on if any part of the calc it at all assumed, and are very conservative about what calcs can be applied, and if the number seems very high they may consider it an outlier. I have found them to be very common on Reddit WhoWouldWin.

Open Neutral: People who are Open Neutral can have very eclectic views on how strong a character is and be willing to consider any perspective that is meant to showcase their true strength whether it be in the form of direct feats or in the form of narrative implications. These are probably the most open minded scalers in one sense as they are eager to look at characters and series from new perspectives. I feel like a lot of the bigger Youtuber Powerscalers are here as mixing narrative elements into an Open Scientific Approach allows appealing to a wider audience and giving more interesting takes on series.  I am not on them much but I feel like r/powerscale and tik tok powerscaling do seem to trend in this direction.

True Neutral: The True Neutrals of the Powerscaling community are people who want to consider hypothetical matchups in all kinds of different ways. While Open Neutral is the most open minded in one sense, True Neutrals are probably the most open minded in another as while they may not consider a character radically different in power then most people they seem very open to people having different opinions without them being just wrong. These kind of scalers can be more casual and are seen pretty much anywhere powerscaling happens, from wikis to subreddits to video sites, especially more casual ones. I don't mean to suggest they're all casuals, just that if someone is casual they're likely here because they don't have very strong opinions on the matter.

Skeptical Neutral: Skeptical Neutrals are Powerscalers who are neutral on Scientific vs Narrative, they're willing to consider different types of evidence equally, but they are equally skeptical on both. To be totally honest, this seems to be the rarest type as I see them the least. There are certainly some bad actors who play Skeptical Neutral when it's only dealing with a series they don't like but people who truly are Skeptical Neutral on all series seems rare. With that said when I do see them, they like Skeptical Scientifics care on keeping consistent the limits of a character, however with a broader focus on what would "break the plot" as opposed to just what feats should not apply. 

Open Narrative: People who are more Narrative Focused are those that care more about how strong a character is meant to be portrayed but when they're more Open they're much more willing to considering different interpretations of the narrative, including more out there ones. They tend to be less impressed by quantifiable things like dimension count and more by things like characters representing or effecting concepts, religious ideas, or other more abstract types of scaling with some expressing that those are inherently above the quantifiable. As a Narrative Focused Scaler they are more interested in making sure the power is consistent with the lore but as an Open Scaler they are more willing to consider more esoteric views on the Lore as opposed to more grounded views. Broadly Narrative Scalers in general tend to more focused in fandom specific spaces rather then powerscaling specific spaces. 

Neutral Narrative: People who are Neutral Narrative are almost more fanfiction writers than they are traditional powerscalers, though they are still trying to be consistent with the series they're using. These type of scalers view the characters AS their narratives or what they represents or the persona and the appeal of powerscaling is the interaction of these narratives. They are the most concerned with sticking close to the lore and spirit of the series the characters come from and when discussing feats they have the most care to say "this is why this level of power is the most consistent with the lore of the series."

Skeptical Narrative: People who are Skeptical Narrative even more then Skeptical Neutral are the most likely to be concerned with whether or not a proposed level of power would "break the plot." They are very concerned with maintaining the internal consistency of a world's worldbuilding. While an Open Narrative Scaler might be more concerned with what a character represents and how strong that could be, and a Neutral Narrative Scaler might be more concerned with what they believe the spirit of a series is and if that is being expressed correctly, a Skeptical Narrative scaler is most concerned with the actual plot and if any scale breaks that plot. 

Now speaking for myself, I think I am pretty neutral on Open vs Skeptical. When I'm on more Skeptical Powerscaling Forums I am considered very Open, and when I'm on more Open Powerscaling Forums I'm considered very Skeptical. I feel like I am around the average scaler. I consider feats more then I do anti-feats but I don't totally ignore anti-feats and I consider a number of characters stronger then most people do, a few even much stronger but only because I believe I have a LOT of evidence for it, and hard to argue evidence at that. In terms of Scientific vs Narrative I feel like I tend towards Narrative. My background for this hobby is as a fanfiction writer, and while I do try to get really into feats to appeal to the broader powerscaling community, I do care a lot about trying to express the spirit of what a character is meant to represent if you can't tell by my blogs. That said I think all the alignments are valuable in what they can express in terms of critical thinking skills and debate skills.