Calculations

[Vzearr]

Premise​

There isn't a calculation, I can't debunk. If I can debunk every accepted calculation, then there is a problem with those who are accepting these calculations.

Is what I would say if I could actually debunk every calculation , but, I can debunk about 70 percent of them on the wiki and I'm sure many more people can debunk calculations I can't debunk, which is a problem.
​

The Problem​

Calculations are accepted too easily. That's why everyday, there is a new downgrade thread. This is a problem, that we need to fix.
​

Solution​

I'd like to pose a few solutions.

1. Require more than 1 calc group member to accept a calculation.

2. Require calculations to follow a formula so that there is less margin for error:​

• Statement of assumptions the calculation has
• Step by step breakdown
• Sourcing for all values, no matter what
• Potential uncertainties in the calculation.

The format can be seen in this blog post.

3. Up to the community.

​

 

[Vietthai96]

@KLOL506 @Damage3245 @Agnaa @DontTalkDT

Sorry for the ping, but you guys are experts on this matter

 

[Agnaa]

First point was rejected days ago, trying to rehash it now is ludicrous.

Third point is literally nothing.

Second point does not follow from the problem ("I can debunk a bunch of calcs, therefore we should standardise their format" is not a logical connection), and something similar is currently being discussed.

I see no reason to keep this thread around.

 

[Vzearr]

First point was rejected days ago, trying to rehash it now is ludicrous.

It's a potential solution

Third point is literally nothing.

It's valuable as it allows for discussion regarding another possible solution

Second point does not follow from the problem ("I can debunk a bunch of calcs, therefore we should standardise their format" is not a logical connection), and something similar is currently being discussed.

1. That is not similar at all.
2. The logic here is sound, syllogism:

Premise 1: I, and others can debunk a bunch of calcs, that's why there is a new thread of downgrades daily.
Premise 2: Standardizing their format make's it easier for calc group members to evaluate a calculation and leads to less margin of error.
Conclusion: Standardizing their format leads to less downgrade threads.

 

[Vietthai96]

I see no reason to keep this thread around.

Alright should i lock this now, or wait for OP to say something?, since i don't feel like locking a thread before OP could say something or at least replied

Edit: Oke OP has replied lol

 

[Agnaa]

It's a potential solution

One that was widely and swiftly rejected.

It's valuable as it allows for discussion regarding another possible solution

The nature of a thread existing allows people to discuss solutions. If you wanted to fish for ideas, make a Q&A.

1. That is not similar at all.

They're both about reformatting calcs for ease of reading.

2. The logic here is sound, syllogism:

Premise 1: I, and others can debunk a bunch of calcs, that's why there is a new thread of downgrades daily.
Premise 2: Standardizing their format make's it easier for calc group members to evaluate a calculation and leads to less margin of error.
Conclusion: Standardizing their format leads to less downgrade threads.

You're skipping a lot of steps that make this far from ironclad.

But really, my contention is with Premise 2; the idea that your suggested fixes would lead to any noticeably improvements in this regard.

How many of these calcs you can debunk are due to unstated assumptions that the CGMs would reject if they were accepted? Or are due to slip-ups in the step-by-step process that CGMs would have picked up on if they were spelled out more clearly? Or due to invalidly-sourced values that CGMs would have picked up if their source was provided? Or due to unstated uncertainties that the CGMs would have rejected if they were stated?

I posit that they're more due to measurement errors, inappropriate formulas/values for the feat in question, errors in number processing that went unnoticed due to CGMs not carefully combing through the calculation, violations of our calculation standards.

I think CGMs should already be going through calculations, recreating every step of it in their own calculator. This would let them pick up unstated assumptions and slip-ups in the step-by-step process. But if they're already glossing over that, adding a few extra lines about that would not make it easier for them to notice it, since they're not paying attention anyway.

 

[Vzearr]

One that was widely and swiftly rejected.

Wrong, it was rejected by few staff, you can't make the claim "widely"

The nature of a thread existing allows people to discuss solutions. If you wanted to fish for ideas, make a Q&A.

It can be discussed here more effectively.

They're both about reformatting calcs for ease of reading.

Yet they're still fundamentally different.

You're skipping a lot of steps that make this far from ironclad.

But really, my contention is with Premise 2; the idea that your suggested fixes would lead to any noticeably improvements in this regard.

How many of these calcs you can debunk are due to unstated assumptions that the CGMs would reject if they were accepted? Or are due to slip-ups in the step-by-step process that CGMs would have picked up on if they were spelled out more clearly? Or due to invalidly-sourced values that CGMs would have picked up if their source was provided? Or due to unstated uncertainties that the CGMs would have rejected if they were stated?

I posit that they're more due to measurement errors, inappropriate formulas/values for the feat in question, errors in number processing that went unnoticed due to CGMs not carefully combing through the calculation, violations of our calculation standards.

I think CGMs should already be going through calculations, recreating every step of it in their own calculator. This would let them pick up unstated assumptions and slip-ups in the step-by-step process. But if they're already glossing over that, adding a few extra lines about that would not make it easier for them to notice it, since they're not paying attention anyway.

I hold a different opinion.

Calc's are accepted and debunked mainly due to false premises, which would be accounted for in my blog.

 

[Agnaa]

I hold a different opinion.

Calc's are accepted and debunked mainly due to false premises, which would be accounted for in my blog.

But why are those false premises accepted? Usually because either broader information from the piece of fiction discredits that assumption, because the CGM thought it was reasonable, or because the CGM didn't think about its validity.

Those first two obviously wouldn't be solved by this, and I think the kind of CGM who would ignore

25,700 / 3 = 8,566 m/s

Would also ignore a portion at the start of the calc saying

Assuming standard timeframe of 3 seconds

 

[Vzearr]

But why are those false premises accepted? Usually because either broader information from the piece of fiction discredits that assumption, because the CGM thought it was reasonable, or because the CGM didn't think about its validity.

Cgm's would inherently think more about it's validity if it's stated directly in the blog with broad information regarding it.

 

[Agnaa]

Cgm's would inherently think more about it's validity if it's stated directly in the blog with broad information regarding it.

On the contrary, perhaps they'd think less coherently about its validity, since all the assumptions are chucked into a bundle at the start, rather than being introduced slowly when relevant, where CGMs can immediately evaluate their likelihood with the help of context.

Ultimately, we don't have studies for this sort of thing. The only objectively discernible effect is that adding this requirement would increase the size of relevant rule pages, and add administrative overhead in enforcing it.

 

[Testarossa002]

Premise 1 doesn’t really hold up.

Downgrades (and upgrades) happen here daily — the site functions on making solid arguments for or against ratings. Calculations shouldn’t be treated any differently. You’re also putting too much weight on downgrade frequency; the Calc forum is actually one of the least active boards (only News and Announcements gets less traffic).

Premise 2 is even weaker.

It feels like you’re circling around your actual concern — negligence or incompetence from CGMs. If that’s your point, it’d be better to just say it directly instead of dancing around it.

From what I’ve seen, most active CGMs ask for sources on every value in a calc and even require you to add them in if they aren’t included. The only exceptions are self-evident constants (e.g., speed of sound, standard destruction values, baseline mountain height, Earth’s circumference). Sure, calcs can get debunked, but usually for broader reasons not tied to the calc itself. For example, One Piece is notorious for size inconsistencies. If a CGM accepts a calc that uses a cited size which is contradicted by other, unmentioned sizes, adding your blog formula wouldn’t really fix that.

Your recent calc threads read like they’re skirting around your real issue, and offering fixes that don’t actually address it isn’t helpful to anyone.

Got permission from @Vietthai96

 

[Vzearr]

On the contrary, perhaps they'd think less coherently about its validity, since all the assumptions are chucked into a bundle at the start, rather than being introduced slowly when relevant, where CGMs can immediately evaluate their likelihood with the help of context.

Ultimately, we don't have studies for this sort of thing. The only objectively discernible effect is that adding this requirement would increase the size of relevant rule pages, and add administrative overhead in enforcing it.

That make's no sense agnaa, they'd be forced to think about it's validity and come to a conclusion, if they're chucked where relevant, you could forget about something 5 assumptions ago, because the blog has multiple assumptions, where as if it's all stated at the start, the likelyhood of forgetting decreases.

 

[Vzearr]

Premise 1 doesn’t really hold up.

Downgrades (and upgrades) happen here daily — the site functions on making solid arguments for or against ratings. Calculations shouldn’t be treated any differently. You’re also putting too much weight on downgrade frequency; the Calc forum is actually one of the least active boards (only News and Announcements gets less traffic).

The calc forum and crt forum both hold downgrade threads.

Premise 2 is even weaker.

It feels like you’re circling around your actual concern — negligence or incompetence from CGMs. If that’s your point, it’d be better to just say it directly instead of dancing around it.

From what I’ve seen, most active CGMs ask for sources on every value in a calc and even require you to add them in if they aren’t included. The only exceptions are self-evident constants (e.g., speed of sound, standard destruction values, baseline mountain height, Earth’s circumference). Sure, calcs can get debunked, but usually for broader reasons not tied to the calc itself. For example, One Piece is notorious for size inconsistencies. If a CGM accepts a calc that uses a cited size which is contradicted by other, unmentioned sizes, adding your blog formula wouldn’t really fix that.

This just isn't true. Also, your second point literally can't be fixed, but it also undermines my solution that fixes a fair bunch of problems. So I believe your "debunks" here are flawed and dont hold up.


Regarding negligence or incompetence from CGMs. I do agree with it, but the point of this thread is to limit that, as being a cgm is hard, and it's understandable to breeze through calculation evaluations. However, my solution poses an interesting question, would breezing through a calculation be a lot harder if everything is explained in detail at the start.

 

[Agnaa]

That make's no sense agnaa, they'd be forced to think about it's validity and come to a conclusion, if they're chucked where relevant, you could forget about something 5 assumptions ago, because the blog has multiple assumptions, where as if it's all stated at the start, the likelyhood of forgetting decreases.

Assumptions are generally independent. They're values about how the feat operates, things like the temperature a fire should reach, the size of a certain object, the duration of the feat, the destruction value that should be used, etc.

These are better placed throughout the calc, in context, so one can evaluate whether they make sense where it is being used.

 

[Vzearr]

Assumptions are generally independent. They're values about how the feat operates, things like the temperature a fire should reach, the size of a certain object, the duration of the feat, the destruction value that should be used, etc.

These are better placed throughout the calc, in context, so one can evaluate whether they make sense where it is being used.

If placed at the beginning, the chance of mistaking an assumption and forgetting another assumption, or evaluating something incorrectly is reduced.

As a former cgm, I believe placing all assumptions at the beginning fundamentally provides for a more stable reading experience, not filled with having to scroll back up to remember another assumption and whether it affects this assumption, or just plainly forgetting.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't know of any cases where disjointed assumptions would affect each other like that. I can craft some arbitrary ones, but they seem unrealistic.

And they would also be situations where derived values would run into the same issues.

 

[KLOL506]

Not this again, Vzearr.

A similar thread like this already got rejected swiftly and with some authority. This is the most surefire way of not only ruining our trust in you further, but also further increasing the enmity and animosity staff in general have towards you. You want us to treat you properly, yet if you keep squandering your chances like this, then how exactly are we supposed to help you? Doesn't help that I've gotten reports that you are pestering some of our CGMs to get your feats through, further driving them to the point of annoyance and making them straight up ignore you altogether.

At this point I feel like you are just making these threads out of desperation, not out of a genuine need to improve the wiki.

Alas, I disagree with the thread and its contents. Creates way more problems than it solves and completely disrespects a CGM's capability of reasoning and making proper assumptions and completely disregards the usage of basic common sense. We still reserve the right to reject calculations if we feel they are not done properly, as is expected of us. Your proposal just needlessly puts more work on our plate in a realm where we are already severely short-staffed.

 

[KLOL506]

@Mr. Bambu @DMUA @CloverDragon03 @Therefir @Migue79 @Dark-Carioca @Executor_N0 @Dalesean027 @Armorchompy @SeijiSetto @DemiiPowa @Flashlight237 @SunDaGamer @Psychomaster35

 

[FinePoint]

@Vzearr
Did you even receive permission to create this thread?

 

[KLOL506]

Premise​

There isn't a calculation, I can't debunk. If I can debunk every accepted calculation, then there is a problem with those who are accepting these calculations.
​

Also, kindly lay off of these kind of sentences, it makes you appear arrogant and condescending and just outright dismissive, and only serves to show that you haven't changed since your ban.

 

[Antvasima]

No bickering please.

 

[Vietthai96]

@Vzearr
Did you even receive permission to create this thread?

Here, he made the thread, then he said he forgot to ask for permission; he asked me for it. since he already made the thread, i don't feel like shutting him down like that so i gave him official permission

 

[FinePoint]

Here, he made the thread, then he said he forgot to ask for permission; he asked me for it. since he already made the thread, i don't feel like shutting him down like that so i gave him official permission

The Discussion Rules say the following: "Authorization to create staff threads will be granted by administrators or bureaucrats."

Therefore, you can't technically grant them permission.

Since this is also essentially a rehash of a proposal which was already rejected recently, I will close this thread for now.

If an admin or above wants to retroactively grant permission, feel free to re-open it.

 

[Vietthai96]

The Discussion Rules say the following: "Authorization to create staff threads will be granted by administrators or bureaucrats."

Therefore, you can't technically grant them permission.

Since this is also essentially a rehash of a proposal which was already rejected recently, I will close this thread for now.

If an admin or above wants to retroactively grant permission, feel free to re-open it.

Sorry, my mistake. I will be careful from now on. thank you for reminding me