Biggaversal debates and threads have become worse than ever as people never debate the characters themselves anymore. Now it's all based on the setting cosmology: if one character has the bigger cosmology, they win.
Is your universe more infinite than the other guy's? Are there more pocket dimensions, timelines, or bigger-on-the-inside rooms in your universe than the other guy? Is there some vague way you can say "actually this place they're in is probably a universe and not just a space room" or something? Then you win.
There's no more debate on what the other guy can do anymore. Character A can have some more hax, better showings, or what have you, but character B's setting has an extra layer in his universe, therefore he wins.
Is scaling involved to reach these conclusions? Of course they are, blowing up a bigger universe is going to be more impressive than blowing up a smaller one. Is it technically correct? I mean, it's certainly a sound reasoning, I'd put my money on the guy who hits harder. Does it matter more than what the characters can do themselves? Absolutely. Which is what I'm getting at.
I'm not saying all biggaversal stuff should be treated as equal, nor am I saying we should abandon biggaversal debates or conclusions altogether. And I'm definitely not saying we should ignore or cherrypick scaling, don't get it mixed up. I'm just saying that, especially with the overall power creep (of which I have some thoughts on but that's for another time), there aren't that many threads involving uni+ and above characters and verses as there used to be. Especially considering most of them are decided by what character scales to the bigger cosmology. It's boring, that's my issue.