-
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.
VSBATTLE WIKI REVISION: "INCONSISTENT SIZES"
- Thread starter Arnoldstone18
- Start date
-
- Tags
- calculation guide
- Status
- 29,883
- 25,031
Seems best.
- 19,666
- 16,031
A month bump here, but I would say "Large Size Calculations" or list it as a tab in the Calculations page. It being a guide line rather than a hard rule (I think that was the conclusion?) it would probably be better for the latter.
So it would just be a section about standard regarding calcing size of big stuff through an artistic medium.
- 9,197
- 6,593
- Thread starter
- #85
Yes absolutely
- 13,776
- 14,175
I will not specifically label such as large size calculations as similar situations can be applied to small size calculations too.
Putting it as a paragraph / chapter in the "calculation guide" page can be good.
And yes list it as a guide rather than a hard rule.
- 15,609
- 11,926
There's more than ten staff members agreeing, do all of us together not count as much as DT? I find that pretty insulting.
- 29,883
- 25,031
DT isn't the only person disagreeing.
Personally I'm extremely wary about the whole proposal. The idea of making a rule so that certain panels can be outright ignored as "unacceptable for scaling" doesn't sit well with me. Yes, on a case by case basis some panels and some art styles are not going to be reliable for pixelscaling... But we don't need a rule for that if the issues are already self-evident.
- 15,609
- 11,926
It's 11 vs 2, safe to say you're pretty outvoted.
- 29,883
- 25,031
Sure, just wanted to make the correction.
- 18,393
- 14,311
Hold up, it is 3, Ant also disagrees.
- 15,609
- 11,926
He is uncomfortable because DT disagrees, he hasn't stated reasons of his own for disagreeing.
- 29,883
- 25,031
If a proposal is detrimental to the wiki, then a democratic vote isn't going to make it beneficial.
A proposal that makes certain forms of legitimate evidence disallowed by the rules is a bad precedent to set.
A proposal that makes certain forms of legitimate evidence disallowed by the rules is a bad precedent to set.
- 10,674
- 9,813
- 29,883
- 25,031
You're entitled to your opinion of it, of course, but I do think that it is the case.
- 29,883
- 25,031
I don't understand how it's not?
Taking this example given in the OP:
Using "smaller objects" would be against the rules now and certain panels forbidden from being used, leaving the only option to be the one panel that boosts the feat up drastically. If those other panels were admissable then the cloud split panel would be an outlier. With them being forbidden, it is now no longer an outlier because there is nothing else to compare it to.
Evidence is being dismissed out of hand.
- 29,883
- 25,031
That's a pretty bad faith interpretation. I could just as easily say that now users will be able to wank all the feats they want as they've banned counter-evidence.
If the evidence proposed is evaluated to be inconsistent, contradictory, unreliable, etc. then fair enough. I'm cool with that. Because it's been taken into account and evaluated. See the myriad arguments over sizes in Bleach. The panels brought up weren't dismissed out of hand, they were evaluated and deemed less reliable than the statements which we currently use.
If this rule is in place and users can just say "Sorry, according to the rules you can't include those panels", then that's messed up IMO.
- 10,674
- 9,813
Damage, we both have a very good relationship on how we help each other on this wiki and how we agree with some stuff. But this thread is the definition of bad faith. This thread's whole existence is due to you not liking how people pixelscaled this one specific cloud split feat.
What's so complicated about this? Like **** do people lack basic comprehension skills to go "hmm, this size isnt that consistent, but this other size is, so the second probably better to use" or "hmm, this ultra detailed shot focusing on the object's size is a bit different than a following less detailed panel, but the first one was more focused so it's probably more accurate". Making rules about this shit is dumb, just use your brain and figure it out depending on the context.
Literally 11 people DO NOT SEE ANY ISSUE with this proposal, but you, the person why this thread exist, do see an issue with this. Sorry, but this is one of the "VSBW Episode" where one change stuff because it upgrades a verse he doesn't like or simply doesn't see the verse with that rating.
What's so complicated about this? Like **** do people lack basic comprehension skills to go "hmm, this size isnt that consistent, but this other size is, so the second probably better to use" or "hmm, this ultra detailed shot focusing on the object's size is a bit different than a following less detailed panel, but the first one was more focused so it's probably more accurate". Making rules about this shit is dumb, just use your brain and figure it out depending on the context.
Literally 11 people DO NOT SEE ANY ISSUE with this proposal, but you, the person why this thread exist, do see an issue with this. Sorry, but this is one of the "VSBW Episode" where one change stuff because it upgrades a verse he doesn't like or simply doesn't see the verse with that rating.
- 10,502
- 11,574
I can see cases like that, but one has to compare to what the alternative measuring stick is.
I think the uncertainty involved in scaling from cloud height for example (clouds vary greaty and can ultimately have virtually every thickness and height. We only know average values) is a greater concern than whether or not maybe size was adjusted due to having to show some small object.
Meanwhile, Sage Centipede can be consistently scaled directly from large objects, giving it an equally good other measurement stick to consider besides scaling from the humans.
I.e. such considerations should only be valid if the measurement method suggesting the larger size in the first place is at least equally good.
- 29,883
- 25,031
That's exactly what I'm saying M3X, though not quite in those words.
- 165,215
- 72,195
@Damage3245 @DontTalkDT
Can each of you explain the relevant issues and potential resulting problems here to me please?
Can each of you explain the relevant issues and potential resulting problems here to me please?
- 9,197
- 6,593
- Thread starter
- #106
I already agreed for this not to be a hard rule but to be a guideline or tip to improve the quality of calcs and so that threads can go a lot smoother.
- 29,883
- 25,031
So things will essentially be the same as what they are now?
Because what I'm against is a hard rule. If it's not a hard rule, then this thread is fine with me because that's how we currently treat things.
- 9,197
- 6,593
- Thread starter
- #108
Yes, we were even about to conclude this thread with that.
- 29,883
- 25,031
I just think evidence shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
It's got nothing to do with upgrades or downgrades as M3X insinuates.
- 11,500
- 17,917
Reading the more recent posts… All I’m saying is that if such a massive amount of agreement could be nope’d out of existence by a few people with fancier titles, then there’s no reason for a thread to have been made to begin with
Except the way we currently do things is to just ignore the feat altogether, or to go with an arbitrarily lowballed assumption… which also dismisses evidence out of hand
Last edited:
- 29,883
- 25,031
Clover, a decision being made that results in a lowballed outcome (or even a highballed outcome), after evaluating all the evidence is not dismissing evidence out of hand. That's the opposite of dismissing evidence out of hand. I don't think I need to explain this to you.
- 18,393
- 14,311
Are you sure? Because the premise of the thread is to dismiss the feat, which @Damage3245 and DT disagrees.
- 165,215
- 72,195
I would still appreciate summaries here, as I do not remember this thread well.
- 29,883
- 25,031
Perhaps @Arnoldstone18 can resummarize exactly what they want out of this thread if it was to be accepted. How different would things be compared to how they are now?
- 4,780
- 7,390
Close up/detailed shots are usually the author's intentions. If more detailed/closer shots are available and show a certain size of comparaison, those are usually the go-to. The further ones are only for visibility for the reader for us to know someone/something's location near something much bigger, because comic artists don't do pixescaling.
While I agree with the OP, I dunno if it needs a whole rule tbh
While I agree with the OP, I dunno if it needs a whole rule tbh
- 18,393
- 14,311
Yap, I believe this is a fair request, because his last comments seem to be confusing what he is actually requesting, from looking in the OP.
- 9,396
- 8,197
Yeah, this is what I agree makes the most sense to follow in cases like these, is it necessary to make rules or guidelines? Maybe because we have members like Damage who refuse to follow accuracy in exchange for unnecessary low-balls.
And with all due respect Damage, you are the only reason this thread was created in the first place, so we either go with the majority which is only trying to make the most sense, or let you and DT choose all the decisions concerning the wiki, and I'm not even counting Ant because these days he doesn't seem to have an opinion of his own anymore and relies entirely on DT, which I find worrying.
- 29,883
- 25,031
@Therefir; if I am alone in my opinions then a rule is entirely unnecessary as I'll just be outvoted in CRTs.
I understand you think you're just doing what makes sense, but from my perspective it looks like what is being proposed is to get rid of any contradictory evidence in order to lock down a narrow-viewed perspective on feats. That's not accuracy, that's cherrypicking.
While you're at it, why not just pass a rule that says "Damage3245 can't contribute to threads"? That'll solve the issues too and you can ban any counter-evidence when it comes to CRTs.
I understand you think you're just doing what makes sense, but from my perspective it looks like what is being proposed is to get rid of any contradictory evidence in order to lock down a narrow-viewed perspective on feats. That's not accuracy, that's cherrypicking.
While you're at it, why not just pass a rule that says "Damage3245 can't contribute to threads"? That'll solve the issues too and you can ban any counter-evidence when it comes to CRTs.
- 165,215
- 72,195
Well, I usually try to read all staff viewpoints, but I promoted DontTalk to a bureaucrat position for very good reasons. Except for myself he has likely been the most longterm important member when building the structure of this wiki, and I consider him to usually have the most sensible analytical views in general. I have disagreed with him sometimes, but not often. Also, I have much less available time for helping out in our forum nowadays, so I have to try to speed things up/be efficient.
- 11,500
- 17,917
Pretty much my opinions exactly. What does it say if after all this support, the proposed thread doesn’t go through? To me, it says that our opinions are pretty much irrelevant and only like… Damage’s and DT’s actually matter.
- Status
Similar threads
