- 31,193
- 27,380
@CloverDragon03 If we had a thread proposed to delete the wiki and the majority of staff members who posted on it voted Yes to that, should it go through?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I just think evidence shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
I'll probably stay out of the thread, but surely you can see how dumb that seems. You can't seriously be considering to close a thread that 10 staff members have agreed on just because one dude disagrees. It doesn't matter if you consider him reliable, you also consider the other staff members reliable, that's why they're staff members to begin with. Like, at least let them discuss this stuff.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.
It's not "cherry picking" when we are using the panels in which the author put the most work into to measure the size of the objects, is just basic first grade elementary school logic.@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.
I remind you that you thought measuring a giant's hand, using that hand to measure an inconsistent laser, using that inconsistent laser to extract its height from the ocean, and then finally getting the ocean height, was actually a better idea than just using the average ocean floor, knowing well that the scene it's taking place in the Pacific Ocean.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.
Nothing has been negated yet. Thread is still open.@Damage3245 Be realistic, that wouldn’t happen
But with the way things are now, you two can just negate a perfectly fine decision with large amount of staff support simply because you can. And at that point, what’s the point of having other staff? We may as well have you two and Ant make all the decisions for us
If the majority of staff wanted calc stacking rules deleted than that should be done, yes, that's how the site works, and clearly we'd have some good reason for doing it given that we aren't the total bumbling morons you seem to regard us as. The fact that such a thread hasn't been made is evidence of that, even.But at the end of the day there has to be some level of safeguarding for the wiki to ensure that not just everything that gets proposed gets automatically applied. Deleting the wiki is unrealistic, sure, but what if a few staff members wanted to get rid of the rules on Calc Stacking? It's not impossible. And it would unironically ruin the wiki.
Using evidence from the manga over an assumption made by us? Yes, I think it could be a better idea. Doesn't mean I'd 100% vote on the outcome in a thread when it comes to it, I was just considering it as an option Therefir. Because that's the difference between us, I actually try and investigate multiple options and look for accuracy. It seems to me that a huge amount of people only care about finding the highest result.It's not "cherry picking" when we are using the panels in which the author put the most work into to measure the size of the objects, is just basic first grade elementary school logic.
I remind you that you thought measuring a giant's hand, using that hand to measure an inconsistent laser, using that inconsistent laser to extract its height from the ocean, and then finally getting the ocean height, was actually a better idea than just using the average ocean floor, knowing that the scene it's taking place in the Pacific Ocean.
I don't believe you are unbiased enough to make a genuine vote in this particular thread.
And you haven't really made a compelling argument for why we shouldn't make a guideline for this (which I remind you would only exist to stop you from stonewalling threads), just that the other lower quality panels should take precedence over the higher quality ones. higher quality, why? Because low-ball equals accuracy in your world, of course.
I don't understand what the problem is. Type A uncertainty always exists even if we don't take multiple measurements to assess it. It all makes sense from metrological standpoint if we can consider the author an uncertainty contributorI 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.
Nothing has been negated sure, but we’re pretty close.Nothing has been negated yet. Thread is still open.
But at the end of the day there has to be some level of safeguarding for the wiki to ensure that not just everything that gets proposed gets automatically applied. Deleting the wiki is unrealistic, sure, but what if a few staff members wanted to get rid of the rules on Calc Stacking? It's not impossible. And it would unironically ruin the wiki.
Is “accuracy” really to be defined as finding the lowest results possible and ignoring feats we don’t like? That doesn’t sound very accurate to me…Using evidence from the manga over an assumption made by us? Yes, I think it could be a better idea. Doesn't mean I'd 100% vote on the outcome in a thread when it comes to it, I was just considering it as an option Therefir. Because that's the difference between us, I actually try and investigate multiple options and look for accuracy. It seems to me that a huge amount of people only care about finding the highest result.
Do we really wanna get into a talk about biases…? It seems very unproductiveI don't believe you're entirely unbiased either when you're one of My Hero Academia biggest supporters on the wiki. Let's not get into biases here Therefir.
Okay I genuinely don’t understand why people are saying it’s because of you when this thread was founded on something completely unrelated to this MHA cloud split stuffIf you're admitting that the sole reason this guideline exists is to target another user on the wiki, then this loses all credibility. You can't just add rules to the wiki to attack another user.
I’d appreciate it yes but this is a pressing matter given all our votes could quite literally be snuffed out by a mere two. For both this thread and others to come, that is concerningHow about we talk about the actual topic, gentlemen?
I have been earlier in the thread, but I can't deny being frustrated when the whole thing can be deflected as "Damage3245 is biased", "Damage3245 stonewalls threads." Like how am I supposed to address that post?How about we talk about the actual topic, gentlemen?
Do we really wanna get into a talk about biases…? It seems very unproductive
Yeah I’d say make a DM or something to hash this out. Honestly I’d love to as well because I got my own opinions on this whole thing that I really feel I need to express. That said, moving on is probably bestGuys, Damage and Arnold agreed. I'm not saying this isn't a conversation to be had, but I think this isn't the place.
Go on his wall, that's way funnier
I gave my two cents, using humanoid characters to measure giants when said humanoid characters are the focus and not the giant itself? Please don't do that.How about we talk about the actual topic, gentlemen?
Sorry I only saw his comment after making my own, I don't have the best internet.@Therefir; Listen to Armorchompy.
I’m in agreement with this, as usualI gave my two cents, using humanoid characters to measure giants when said humanoid characters are the focus and not the giant itself? Please don't do that.
Using panels where the giant is the focus and is drawn in excellent detail? Grossly recommended.
So what are staff votes currently?
I mean, if you have 10 images and 9 show one thing but the detailer one show another, than the accurate depection would be the group of nine rather than one.Damage who refuse to follow accuracy
It's Not going to be 100% correct but a quick summary is something likeI would still appreciate summaries here, as I do not remember this thread well.
We do this for outlier feats thoIf 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.
We do this for outlier feats tho
That is usually correct, yes, but Damage3245 told me that this thread could have bad consequences for our wiki as a whole, so I asked for clarifications here, since I am not properly informed.@Antvasima I hope it goes without saying that problems that specifically concern members of the calculation group should be decided by said members, just as you said that problems concerning CRTs should be decided and fixed by the Thread Moderators, with Calc Group members having no vote on those ones.
The only concern he had (to my knowledge) was if this was made into a hard rule, which Arnold has expressed will not be the case. Rather, it'll simply be a guideline for calculationsThat is usually correct, yes, but Damage3245 told me that this thread could have bad consequences for our wiki as a whole, so I asked for clarifications here, since I am not properly informed.
That is correct.The only concern he had (to my knowledge) was if this was made into a hard rule, which Arnold has expressed will not be the case. Rather, it'll simply be a guideline for calculations
My concerns have been put to rest by the OP.That is usually correct, yes, but Damage3245 told me that this thread could have bad consequences for our wiki as a whole, so I asked for clarifications here, since I am not properly informed.
Thanks dad.I suppose that I can leave you all to sort this out on your own then.
I disagree with thisI mean, if you have 10 images and 9 show one thing but the detailer one show another, than the accurate depection would be the group of nine rather than one.
There is a huge difference between frequency and consistency yeah; where one is more of a purely quantitively aspect where as the other is quality over quantity. I think ones intended to be informative and/or details tend to take priority over images that we simply "See more".I disagree with this
A lot of authors usually use 1 big scan to showcase the design and detail of a specific creature, place, or concept, in hopes of attempting to fully cram all the detail needed in one frame.
For example, this picture of Konohagakure
Showcasing the detail of all of the buildings, hills, mountain, landmarks, and more.
Now if we get random pictures in a different angle, but instead of it focusing on something else
Why would we use the second ones?
When did "more" become "main"?
I disagree that all because there's more means that there's more accuracy in it.
Now if you said there was multiple shots focusing on Konohagakure like these below
Then that's where we can start bringing up "more is better".
But focusing on random scans that don't focus on a certain item to calc the size of the item doesn't even make sense.