VSBATTLE WIKI REVISION: "INCONSISTENT SIZES"

[Damage3245]

@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?

 

[Arnoldstone18]

I just think evidence shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

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).

 

[CloverDragon03]

@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

 

[Ugarik]

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.

 

[Tarang123]

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.

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.

 

[Therefir]

@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.

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.

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 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.

 

[Damage3245]

@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

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.

 

[Armorchompy]

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.

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.

 

[Damage3245]

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.

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.

 

[Therefir]

@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.

 

[Ugarik]

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.

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

 

[Damage3245]

@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.

 

[Armorchompy]

How about we talk about the actual topic, gentlemen?

 

[CloverDragon03]

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Do we really wanna get into a talk about biases…? It seems very unproductive

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.

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

 

[CloverDragon03]

How about we talk about the actual topic, gentlemen?

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

 

[Damage3245]

How 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?

If anything I say can dismissed with that, then it seems pointless for me to even say anything on here.

Do we really wanna get into a talk about biases…? It seems very unproductive

I just said let's not do that.

 

[Armorchompy]

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

 

[Damage3245]

@Therefir; Why the hell are you trying to debate me on a completely different My Hero Academia feat in this thread? Listen to Armorchompy.

I've deleted the above post for going off-topic drastically. Save it for another thread.

 

[CloverDragon03]

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

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

 

[Therefir]

How about we talk about the actual topic, gentlemen?

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.

 

[Therefir]

@Therefir; Listen to Armorchompy.

Sorry I only saw his comment after making my own, I don't have the best internet.

 

[Damage3245]

@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.

 

[CloverDragon03]

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.

I’m in agreement with this, as usual

 

[ImmortalDread]

So what are staff votes currently?

 

[Crabwhale]

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.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

So what are staff votes currently?

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.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Damage who refuse to follow accuracy

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.

I would still appreciate summaries here, as I do not remember this thread well.

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.

 

[Damage3245]

@Qawsedf234 I think that's a fair summary of both sides.

 

[KingTempest]

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.

We do this for outlier feats tho

 

[Damage3245]

We do this for outlier feats tho

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.

 

[Antvasima]

@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.

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.

 

[CloverDragon03]

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.

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

 

[Damage3245]

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

That is correct.

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.

My concerns have been put to rest by the OP.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is good. I suppose that I can leave you all to sort this out on your own then.

 

[Crabwhale]

I suppose that I can leave you all to sort this out on your own then.

Thanks dad.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Hold up-

 

[KingTempest]

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.

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.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

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.

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".

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

What are the staff conclusions here so far?