Calc Stacking Issue (Regarding Speed)

[Qawsedf234]

Disagreeing with the proposal without a concrete reasoning as to why isn’t what’s flying, and doing otherwise is the typical appeal to authority.

For a policy change to pass a majority of staff users need to agree with it. Every staff user that has commented on if they accept this or not has disagreed with its implementation. Its not an apply to authority, its just a rejected proposal.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

For a policy change to pass a majority of staff users need to agree with it.

Yes and in order to disagree with it, you need a valid reasoning to give that was not countered by me or someone else in this thread.

You have not done that, and are now seemingly only using the “still staff and still say no, so it’s rejected” shield.

You can’t reject a proposal without a valid reason to reject.

 

[Qawsedf234]

You can’t reject a proposal without a valid reason to reject.

We have given valid reasons, you just don't consider them as such.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

We have given valid reasons, you just don't consider them as such.

Using circular points and points I've countered, that you then have yet to re counter, is not valid reasoning.

And I guarantee that all of the "scale infinitely upward" points from before didn't even at all consider my suggestion to give this similar treatment to multipliers (since that would throw that concern out the window and make it perfectly fine).

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I will say that I do understand ProfessorKukui4Life's argument to a degree, but I myself am neutral regarding the addition of case by case calc stacking.

 

[Qawsedf234]

that you then have yet to re counter

We have replied to them, you just don't accepted as valid reasonings.

Its been rejected due to massive potential issues in regards to what we calculate vs what is depicted in the material. If you want to redo it feel free to make a staff thread on it.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

We have replied to them, you just don't accepted as valid reasonings.

You literally didn't. Ive countered every single counter argument you've presented to this thread, which some of those points were circular by renaming reasoning im targeting with this thread, and have had to re-clarify my threads proposals since some of you have ether misinterpreted it or ignored it.

Its been rejected due to massive potential issues in regards to what we calculate vs what is depicted in the material. If you want to redo it feel free to make a staff thread on it.

And had you actually read the whole thread, and not some TLDR, you'd see why this isn't as problematic as your trying to make this out to be, with all due respect.

I don't see a reason for me to have to remake the same exact thread when this one has yet to be properly countered.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

You keep saying you've countered them. If by counter you mean, argued against, then sure. However I believe you're saying you have proven these concerns wrong- which I would say you have failed to do. Our issues with your proposal remain regardless of these counters. Thus the votes stand.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

However I believe you're saying you have proven these concerns wrong- which I would say you have failed to do.

Except, that assumes that these concerns would actually exist in the first place, and they really don't. Especially since I've also suggested a way to prevent my proposal from abusing the use of calc stacking, which I guarantee that you missed or did not see in this thread.

Votes no longer mean a thing when the opposition's argument doesn't hold up.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Matter of fact, I will re-quote that suggestion just so you don't miss it this time:

In my opinion, my thoughts on this to prevent calc-stacking chains is that the burden of proof for the calc to be added just goes higher and higher the more you calc stack.

For instance, if you take a characters calculated MFTL speed to get MFTL reactions or attack speed for other characters, and the verse already has a pre established history of MFTL existing, that makes the calcs more reasonable since this isn't something new for them and the scaling would support it.

However, if you were to take the calculated speed of the other characters and tried using their speeds to get even better speeds for other characters, the verse would then have the burden of proof of requiring better MFTL feats in the chain in order to support the newer calc's being accepted. Like, did they get considerably stronger? Did they demonstrate better feats than before? Things of that nature.

Basically, the more you calc stack, the higher the burden of proof increases on your part to make the newer calcs acceptable. Thats what I think anyway.

Now that you should see this, tell me how your concerns from earlier still exist with this? If we raise the burden of proof the higher someone tries calc stacking, and we only allow calced speeds in an instance where characters can be explained to use their normal speeds, then what issues remain? What more is needed?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

While you're wrong in saying that these concerns don't exist in the first place (don't even know how this can be possible tbh), you're right- I did not see a post from you that somehow alleviated this. If you'd be so kind as to link it, I'll read it, and give my views on it.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

While you're wrong in saying that these concerns don't exist in the first place (don't even know how this can be possible tbh), you're right- I did not see a post from you that somehow alleviated this. If you'd be so kind as to link it, I'll read it, and give my views on it.

I posted it a nano second after your response actually, so it's just right above you.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Matter of fact, I will re-quote that suggestion just so you don't miss it this time:


Now that you should see this, tell me how your concerns from earlier still exist with this^? If we raise the burden of proof the higher someone tries calc stacking, and only allow calced speeds in an instance where characters can be explained to use their normal speeds, then what issues remain? What more is needed?

Okay. This does not sufficiently solve the issues I foresee, but I appreciate that you did attempt to offer a way around them. Burden of proof is already needed, simply saying "more" does not do it for me. Calcs will slip through, verses will progressively become less accurate. There are already scenarios where evaluators lack proper knowledge of a verse, or are not shown the full picture. Allowing this to happen will cause these to become yet more common, I feel, and while the suggestion sounds good on paper, it hardly deals with this issue in its entirety.

If that's the only current suggestion, then my vote remains "against".

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Okay. This does not sufficiently solve the issues I foresee, but I appreciate that you did attempt to offer a way around them. Burden of proof is already needed, simply saying "more" does not do it for me. Calcs will slip through, verses will progressively become less accurate. There are already scenarios where evaluators lack proper knowledge of a verse, or are not shown the full picture. Allowing this to happen will cause these to become yet more common, I feel, and while the suggestion sounds good on paper, it hardly deals with this issue in its entirety.

I think you may have misunderstood this somewhat. I never said burden of proof was never needed in the first place, just that the need of evidence would increase the higher and higher you try calc stacking a feat to get higher results.

You first need evidence of the character using their normal speeds when another character blitzes, reacts, or dodges them (ex: are they in a battle? are they not purposely holding back? are they still at full strength? Etc etc.) in order to use the character's calced speed

Then of course, you need to prove / explain the result isn't inconsistent for the given characters or the verse it's for (as I suggested already)

And then after that, if you try using the new results to get even better results, the burden of proof is raised higher than before and requires new evidence to substantiate the new speed tiers you're aiming for.

Doing all of that, how does this not deal with the issue?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think you misunderstood. I'm saying burden of proof is already expected. Asking for "more of that please" doesn't properly fix the issue.

I don't feel it fixes the issue because, again, while it sounds nice on paper, I assure you what will actually happen is that an assortment of statements will be strung together just convincingly enough to fool someone unfamiliar with the verse (e.g., a staff member evaluating the thread). Thus, it remains my belief that in the name of keeping accurate profiles, we refrain from allowing calc stacking- even under the conditions you suggest.

That's my vote.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I don't see how that's an argument. No matter what standards we have in play here, people on this public forum all the time will always find loopholes and ways to bring in ratings they want that may or may not be supported in the verse it's for. That happens when adding a never before seen or unknown series here too. That's just simple common sense as none of us know all the series on the site. We just have to do a better job of managing this to the best of our ability. People will find cracks in the system no matter what we do, so I fail to see why that would invalidate my proposal.

If anything, since this matter is directly dealing with calcs (which, as you know, have to always be analyzed by the calc group no matter what), why not even required new feats for higher results? New feats that need to match the results of higher calc stacking your attempting to do? That should definitely make things easier under these conditions, and I wouldn't be opposed to that.

 

[Agnaa]

@Bambu How would you feel if the standards were essentially just "Give calc-stacked results the same scrutiny as Multipliers"? Substituting "It has to be a statement from a reliable source" with "There cannot be anything indicating they're slower (holding back, being fatigued, lacking a powerup, etc.)"

Low increases won't require much scrutiny except for the character with the higher result actually being shown as stronger/faster. While higher increases (over 100x) will start requiring supporting feats on that level not achieved through calc-stacking.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

@Bambu How would you feel if the standards were essentially just "Give calc-stacked results the same scrutiny as Multipliers"? Substituting "It has to be a statement from a reliable source" with "There cannot be anything indicating they're slower (holding back, being fatigued, lacking a powerup, etc.)"

Low increases won't require much scrutiny except for the character with the higher result actually being shown as stronger/faster. While higher increases (over 100x) will start requiring supporting feats on that level not achieved through calc-stacking.

^This pretty much. What I suggested in my last response, but explained better.

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalk makes sense to me above. Should we close this thread?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Should we close this thread

It should have probably been a staff thread I the first place, considering the proposed policy change. If not closed and redone it should be moved if nothing else.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will move it to our staff forum.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Okay. I will move it to our staff forum.

Would you like me to re-summarize what my proposal is here again Ant? Because I want to make sure that I’m not giving the wrong impression with what I’m trying to do with my thread as some people have missed here from before.

 

[Antvasima]

You can write a summary if you wish, yes.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

You can write a summary if you wish, yes.

Okay. So, to summarize my entire proposal here.

The Issue With Our Calc Stacking Rule ​

As written on the calc-stacking page currently, this is the reason why we don't allow the use of calced speed for other feats:

Using speed of characters or attacks calculated at other instances can't be used, as characters and attacks can vary in speed. This is the case regardless of whether the character is seriously trying to do his best or anything similar.

Like I said in the beginning, the general idea of this is still fine with me for us to use here. My proposal is not to remove this rule. My proposal, however, is for us to change the way we apply this rule to the site. Here is why this is a problem.

THE ONLY reason why our site considers using calced speed for other feats calc stacking for high results, is because of this idea that a character and their attacks can have varying speeds. Or in other words, character's magically move slower than they normally move at, even when they are serious. Not only was this never given a proper explanation of why this would happen, this literally makes no sense and is inherently flawed logic to an extreme.

Statistics like speed are not assumed to be at distinctly different levels across instances here, under normal circumstances. In other words, when a character is serious in the middle of battle, doesn't lack a power-up, doesn't purposely lower themselves, doesn't have their stats altered, and has otherwise no reason to be moving at slower speeds, we take them to move at the same levels of speed they always move at. Speed isn't something disproportionate like this.

Because speed isn't disproportionate like this, and will not normally change across different instances a character is involved with in their series, there is no legitimate reason to say a character's calculated speed from one instance couldn't ever apply to the character in another instance. How we generally treat a character's speed completely goes against what the calc stacking page says, and gives no real justification to ban the use of calced speed for characters. This is why I advocate for this rule to not be removed, but changed.

My Proposal To Fix This Issue​

My proposal is simple. To fix this, we should allow the use of a character's calculated speed, on a CASE BY CASE basis.

If the Character who has a calced speed is getting blitzed, reacted to, or dodged has a justified reason to be using their normal speed, that character should be allowed to have there calced speed applied, as they won't be moving slower in this instance to make us think it can't be applied.

At the same time, we can still ban their calced speed from being used if the character has a justified reason to NOT be using their normal speed. Such as, are they fatigued? Are they purposely moving slower? Did they lack a power-up? Did they have their stats altered? Reasons like this would still allow us to restrict calced speed from being used.

Hence forth, we make this rule case by case.

How We Can Restrict Calc-Stacking Under These New Conditions (PLEASE READ!!!)​

On top of making this case by case, I also have a proposal on how to restrict the use of accepted calc stacking. PLEASE READ THIS, as this was said earlier but has only now been noticed.

To prevent someone making chains of calc stacking when using a character's calced speed, we can give calc stacking exactly the same scrutiny we give Multipliers. We give parameters that need to be met for a character's calced speed to be applied, and then, we increase the burden of proof the higher someone tries calc stacking feats. @Agnaa summed this up in a great way higher above:

"How would you feel if the standards were essentially just "Give calc-stacked results the same scrutiny as Multipliers"? Substituting "It has to be a statement from a reliable source" with "There cannot be anything indicating they're slower (holding back, being fatigued, lacking a powerup, etc.)

Low increases won't require much scrutiny except for the character with the higher result actually being shown as stronger/faster. While higher increases (over 100x) will start requiring supporting feats on that level not achieved through calc-stacking."

For this reasoning, the solutions given and the parameters set to still safely keep it under control, calc stacking should be able to be accepted on a case by case basis.

 

[Qawsedf234]

As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm against this on the principle that it assumes that series has consistent levels of speed and that authors always write characters under a consistent level of speed. All this does is either covered by our current system or lead to barely acceptable levels of reaction scaling.

We can have another vote on this in couple days.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm against this on the principle that it assumes that series has consistent levels of speed and that authors always write characters under a consistent level of speed. All this does is either covered by our current system or lead to barely acceptable levels of reaction scaling.

And as I addressed this before on the other page as well, we don't need to assume the author would do that, because it's common sense. In a battle or scenario that has the character use their actual statistics, why assume the character is going to be magically moving slower than they usual can? That makes no sense.

 

[Qawsedf234]

And as I addressed this before

Yes. I'm not here to debate you anymore, just reiterating my main point. Other staff members can read through and weigh in on it when they get the chance.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Yes. I'm not here to debate you anymore, just reiterating my main point. Other staff members can read through and weigh in on it when they get the chance.

Okay and with all due respect, you choosing not to debate me anymore on this doesn't mean you can make a point that I've countered and not...address the counter.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Okay and with all due respect, you choosing not to debate me anymore

But we weren't really going to have another debate. Every staff user that previously commented rejected it. I just asked it to be moved here for a revote so it would be fairer.

If it's still rejected it's just rejected and I have nothing more to add on the subject.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

But we weren't really going to have another debate. Every staff user that previously commented rejected it.

For flawed circular reasons that I debunked every time they gave their disagreement and then dipped from the thread without coming back to address them.

 

[Armorchompy]

I also still reject this.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Again, for what reasons?

 

[Armorchompy]

Same reasons as everyone else's. I still don't think you understand the kind of fallout this would cause.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Same reasons as everyone else's.

So the reasons I debunked before? Got it.

I still don't think you understand the kind of fallout this would cause.

First of all, I guarantee you 9/10 that literally all of the disagreements from before were based on thinking I want calc stacking without restrictions put on it, which I obviously am not for.

Second of all, what fallout? Verses getting an upgrade? You're over-dramatizing how much of a "problem" this is if that is the case. We have a legitimate basis and reason to allow calced speed. We have parameters set forth to keep that from being abused. What more is needed to make this okay?

 

[Armorchompy]

So the reasons I debunked before? Got it.

You can believe that. Matter of fact this is an opinion-based debate so you can not objectively "debunk" my disagreement. And no, I understood your arguments from the first post, my stance on them hasn't changed.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

You can believe that. Matter of fact this is an opinion-based debate so you can not objectively "debunk" my disagreement.

You know this take can just be flipped directly back at you the same way, yes? But either way, I highly doubt this being opinion based when your arguments are ones I've given counters to and you have yet to re address.

You've given no reason as to why we can't apply calced speed in a scenario where speed isn't lowered from normal.

You've given no reason why treating this case by case isn't a suitable option.

You've given no reason as to why the parameters set to keep this from being abused are not suitable either.

You're whole issue with this from the start has pretty much just been "inflated!" despite these parameters putting a stop to that. This is why im increasingly getting frustrated with these circular points brushing past my arguments.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

@Bambu How would you feel if the standards were essentially just "Give calc-stacked results the same scrutiny as Multipliers"? Substituting "It has to be a statement from a reliable source" with "There cannot be anything indicating they're slower (holding back, being fatigued, lacking a powerup, etc.)"

Low increases won't require much scrutiny except for the character with the higher result actually being shown as stronger/faster. While higher increases (over 100x) will start requiring supporting feats on that level not achieved through calc-stacking.

Hey, I was out all day.

I don't think it can function as well as multipliers. Multipliers tend to have very solid/exact statements ("wow I'm 87x more powerful now") which I can't imagine works out for calc stacking. Rather, I feel the issue is open-ended and thus vulnerable to abuse. Not that I particularly agree with how we handle multipliers, either, but eh.

So I remain as against.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Hey, I was out all day.

I don't think it can function as well as multipliers. Multipliers tend to have very solid/exact statements ("wow I'm 87x more powerful now") which I can't imagine works out for calc stacking.

Why wouldn’t it though? Unlike multipliers, calc stacking would have to rely on the need for justifying that the character isn’t moving any differently from how fast they normally move. Which should be extremely reasonable enough as a starting point.

Simply put, if a character is getting blitzed, dodged or reacted against, we would provide evidence or explanation as to why the character would be moving at their normal speeds when that happens.

So as it is for multiplier statements, this should also be very solid and exact.

EDIT: I’m @ work rn also so if I respond late, this is why.

 

[Agnaa]

Hey, I was out all day.

I don't think it can function as well as multipliers. Multipliers tend to have very solid/exact statements ("wow I'm 87x more powerful now") which I can't imagine works out for calc stacking. Rather, I feel the issue is open-ended and thus vulnerable to abuse. Not that I particularly agree with how we handle multipliers, either, but eh.

So I remain as against.

Sure it won't come from statements, but there'd be exact numbers in the calculation itself. We can look at the new speed value, and compare it to the next-highest speed value for that character which doesn't come from multipliers/calc-stacking (I feel like both should be considered together so they can't self-reinforce and spiral out of control that way). At that point it's a simple manner of division.

 

[Antvasima]

As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm against this on the principle that it assumes that series has consistent levels of speed and that authors always write characters under a consistent level of speed. All this does is either covered by our current system or lead to barely acceptable levels of reaction scaling.

We can have another vote on this in couple days.

Same reasons as everyone else's. I still don't think you understand the kind of fallout this would cause.

Hey, I was out all day.

I don't think it can function as well as multipliers. Multipliers tend to have very solid/exact statements ("wow I'm 87x more powerful now") which I can't imagine works out for calc stacking. Rather, I feel the issue is open-ended and thus vulnerable to abuse. Not that I particularly agree with how we handle multipliers, either, but eh.

So I remain as against.

I agree with the above sentiments.