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.
Seems best.From what I see
We just raised several guidelines instead of setting any hard rules.
Just add some notes on relevant pages should suffice.
What do you think?
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.What should the notes say, and where should we place them?
I will not specifically label such as large size calculations as similar situations can be applied to small size calculations too.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.
DT isn't the only person disagreeing.There's more than ten staff members agreeing, do all of us together not count as much as DT? I find that pretty insulting.
It's 11 vs 2, safe to say you're pretty outvoted.DT isn't the only person disagreeing.
Sure, just wanted to make the correction.It's 11 vs 2, safe to say you're pretty outvoted.
Wich isn’t the case here.If a proposal is detrimental to the wiki, then a democratic vote isn't going to make it beneficial.
Wich isn’t the case here, again.A proposal that makes certain forms of legitimate evidence disallowed by the rules is a bad precedent to set.
You're entitled to your opinion of it, of course, but I do think that it is the case.Wich isn’t the case here.
Wich isn’t the case here, again.
I don't understand how it's not?How so?
Let's say we intend to measure the size of this cloud split, It should be wrong to use shots that focus on smaller objects compared to the cloud split to undermine a shot that focuses on the cloud split itself.
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.All I understand was that you wouldn’t be able to downplay this feat anymore.
I can see cases like that, but one has to compare to what the alternative measuring stick is.The only reason human-sized characters are still visible compared to supergiants like Sage Centipede is because of visibility, it would look extremely weird if an unrecognizable dot was fighting a massive creature that can dwarf cities.
So the author has no choice other than shrinking the monster/making the human-sized character much bigger in the panel, even if the creature dwarves cities and islands like Sage Centipede and the Dragons from Black Clover.
That's exactly what I'm saying M3X, though not quite in those words.Making rules about this shit is dumb, just use your brain and figure it out depending on the context.
That's exactly what I'm saying M3X, though not quite in those words.
So things will essentially be the same as what they are now?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.
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.
I just think evidence shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.Yes, we were even about to conclude this thread with that.
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 handI just think evidence shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
It's got nothing to do with upgrades or downgrades as M3X insinuates.
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.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
Are you sure? Because the premise of the thread is to dismiss the feat, which @Damage3245 and DT disagrees.Yes, we were even about to conclude this thread with that.
I would still appreciate summaries here, as I do not remember this thread well.@Damage3245 @DontTalkDT
Can each of you explain the relevant issues and potential resulting problems here to me please?
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?I would still appreciate summaries here, as I do not remember this thread well.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.