- 31,192
- 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?
-
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
- 9,385
- 6,679
- Thread starter
- #122
Even if it’s a rule. I don’t think this will dismiss evidence out of hand. I aim to dismiss the use of (for lack of better words rn) flimsy counter evidence to dismiss more concrete evidence.
This CRT and potentially future guidelines is for us to know which is concrete evidence and what is a flimsy counter point.
I only agreed for it not to be a hard rule because all the comments from CGM have shown me that they know what they are doing already.
This will also not affect counter evidence that uses other ways to argue inconsistency aside bad panels (less focused, less detailed shots).
- 13,106
- 20,825
@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
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
- 1,178
- 407
I agree with the AP there. All measurements are acurate to a degree and every measured value has an uncertainty. Taking multiple measurements to calculate the average actually does reduce type A uncertenty/stardart error hence making our final result more accurate.
- 4,523
- 2,242
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.
- 9,628
- 8,663
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 well 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, because there's absolutely nobody else in those threads who thinks this method is a good idea to follow), 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.
Last edited:
- 31,192
- 27,380
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.
But it seems like Arnold is saying that he's not proposing a hard rule on this topic, which is fine with me.
- 16,083
- 12,557
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.
- 31,192
- 27,380
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.
I 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.
If 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.
- 9,628
- 8,663
@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.
- 1,178
- 407
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 contributor
- 31,192
- 27,380
@Therefir; you drastically misunderstand me if you think this is all about some personal bias to keep 1 verse out of thousands at a lower rating.
If tomorrow a feat was dropped that solidly upgraded My Hero Academia to Country level, and the cloud feat was entirely obsolete and would never affect the ratings, and no matter what the outcome of the thread was it wouldn't matter, I would still argue just as strongly against what I think is an inaccurate proposal because I don't give a care what rating it actually is, I care about how it is found and the consistency of it.
I've helped verses get upgraded (even if I personally thought they should be rated lower) because I've pointed out corrections in calcs that resulted in an increase in the ratings.
If you want me to just stop contributing to the wiki, then be upfront and tell me that Therefir. But don't accuse me being biased and attacking my character on the forum.
If tomorrow a feat was dropped that solidly upgraded My Hero Academia to Country level, and the cloud feat was entirely obsolete and would never affect the ratings, and no matter what the outcome of the thread was it wouldn't matter, I would still argue just as strongly against what I think is an inaccurate proposal because I don't give a care what rating it actually is, I care about how it is found and the consistency of it.
I've helped verses get upgraded (even if I personally thought they should be rated lower) because I've pointed out corrections in calcs that resulted in an increase in the ratings.
If you want me to just stop contributing to the wiki, then be upfront and tell me that Therefir. But don't accuse me being biased and attacking my character on the forum.
- 16,083
- 12,557
How about we talk about the actual topic, gentlemen?
- 13,106
- 20,825
Nothing has been negated sure, but we’re pretty close.
This thread was getting to the point of potentially being closed despite only you and DT disagreeing and literally everyone else agreeing. That’s not a “safeguard.” That excuse only goes so far. It’s a gross imbalance of power that tells staff like me that my opinion doesn’t actually matter
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…
And no this isn’t for a specific verse, this is generally what I see. We could continue this sorta shit flinging but it won’t take us anywhere
Do we really wanna get into a talk about biases…? It seems very unproductive
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 stuff
- 13,106
- 20,825
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 concerning
- 31,192
- 27,380
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?
If anything I say can dismissed with that, then it seems pointless for me to even say anything on here.
I just said let's not do that.
- 16,083
- 12,557
Guys, 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
Go on his wall, that's way funnier
- 31,192
- 27,380
- 13,106
- 20,825
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 best
- 9,628
- 8,663
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.
Using panels where the giant is the focus and is drawn in excellent detail? Grossly recommended.
- 9,628
- 8,663
Sorry I only saw his comment after making my own, I don't have the best internet.
- 31,192
- 27,380
@Therefir; and my belief is that that's fine to have as a perspective. If you have that viewpoint and you vote accordingly because you believe it to be most accurate, then that's fair enough.
All I was against was a hard rule forcing me to agree with your perspective and forcing me to ignore what I consider to be valid pieces of evidence which could affect my judgement on evaluating feats.
But Arnold has made it clear that is not the case in his proposals.
All I was against was a hard rule forcing me to agree with your perspective and forcing me to ignore what I consider to be valid pieces of evidence which could affect my judgement on evaluating feats.
But Arnold has made it clear that is not the case in his proposals.
Last edited:
- 13,106
- 20,825
I’m in agreement with this, as usual
- 18,393
- 14,323
So what are staff votes currently?
- 11,387
- 13,139
While my ass don't be knowing much about calcs, I do think that dismissing some peeps' concerns through the seniority of higher ranked members ain't a very good thing to do.
If I was saying stupid shit (not that I'm trying to imply DT or Damage are saying stupid shit in this particular instance, just providing an example) in regards to say, a thread moderating guideline, I sure as shit except thread mods to call me out on it and prevent my reasoning from passing, admin or no admin.
But enough about hypothetical scenarios. Focusing on this specific example, and forgive me for giving my perspective on a topic I have limited understanding on, both the method we use and the method proposed appear to have their drawbacks and advantages. In this case, historically and as is the case with many of the wiki systems we use, subjective judgement comes into play. And if the subjective judgement of most of our calc group members is that the new method is better, that's what we go with.
Thems be my two cents.
If I was saying stupid shit (not that I'm trying to imply DT or Damage are saying stupid shit in this particular instance, just providing an example) in regards to say, a thread moderating guideline, I sure as shit except thread mods to call me out on it and prevent my reasoning from passing, admin or no admin.
But enough about hypothetical scenarios. Focusing on this specific example, and forgive me for giving my perspective on a topic I have limited understanding on, both the method we use and the method proposed appear to have their drawbacks and advantages. In this case, historically and as is the case with many of the wiki systems we use, subjective judgement comes into play. And if the subjective judgement of most of our calc group members is that the new method is better, that's what we go with.
Thems be my two cents.
- 9,385
- 6,679
- Thread starter
- #146
13 - 1
only Don’tTalk is against any proposed rule or guidelines in place. Damage was only against a hard rule but is fine with guidelines.
- 20,514
- 17,417
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.
For the thread, if the focus is just "If there's conflicting evidence a dedicated panel to the size of X is better than other shots" is fine. But if we're saying "This thing is notably inconsistent so we're taking one arbitrary panel over the others based on subjective detail" then it's probably not a good guideline.
Either way though the majority of staff and calc members are for making guidelines regarding what to use and not to use to get giant sizes.
It's Not going to be 100% correct but a quick summary is something like
- CRT Argument: For large characters or objects, a guideline for scaling should be done when they're in the focus of the panel rather than the background. Due to deadlines and art inconsistencies a detailed panel should be taken over other panels. Examples include Beefcake or Sage Centipede from OPM shifting sizes due to art irregularities or some large areas like the cities in Bleach. In those cases then the panels used for getting size is when the creature is the clear focal point or a scene where it's size is conveyed into intentionally. Also from what I understand the guideline would also intend to say that for scaling we should focus on the big thing in question and not let smaller objects in the panel greatly effect the size due to how artist will make things bigger or smaller to convey focus or scale
- Anti Side: From my rough reading the arguments are: This is basically going to end up cherry picking scenes that will get the result the person wants and give them the ability to dismiss counter claims through a rule or guideline due to arguments regarding detail or focus. Alternatively sometimes the thing is legitimately just not consistent and picking a definitive size might just not work out (such as using cloud scaling).
I am missing a lot of nuance here and someone else can explain their points better. Most calc members are in favor of adding a guideline giving priority to focused panels than mid-ground or background panels to avoid things like city block sized Sage Centipede.
- 31,192
- 27,380
@Qawsedf234 I think that's a fair summary of both sides.
- 21,468
- 30,790
We do this for outlier feats tho
- 31,192
- 27,380
The evidence given for a feat is still allowed. Whether it is deemed an outlier or not happens after the evidence for it has been evaluated.
- 167,667
- 76,234
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.
- 13,106
- 20,825
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
- 31,192
- 27,380
- 11,387
- 13,139
Thanks dad.I suppose that I can leave you all to sort this out on your own then.
- 18,393
- 14,323
Hold up-
- 21,468
- 30,790
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.
Last edited:
- 31,341
- 34,071
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.
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,221
- 3,916
Bump.
- Status
