Onigashima, Flower Capital and the Bajrang Gun

[Dalesean027]

He disagreed with some arguments. That doesn't mean disagreeing with the entire proposal. He also said here that the arguments were pretty convincing

I was originally going to give a much bigger complete response going over my full thoughts so I do apologize for the long wait for very little in return but I'm usually very busy so I'll leave it at this

I do believe the 2 of the 4 points made here were mostly convincing aside the bajrang gun stuff which just was not remotely right at all but that's been dropped. Bajrang gun aside I would say 3 points made by damage are sound for lack of counter arguments but if I'm being 100% honest I do believe we shouldn’t be ignoring lots of the larger scale establishing shots for smaller focused panels of individuals alongside the terrain. Again though all of this can be remedied here if recalcs are made but since they are not I'll just say what I have a problems are that remain. I'll just say once more I am open to recalcs that do reach some form of middle ground because I do see the merit in some of the points Damage and Nami have brought up even if I don't fully agree with their reasoning. Very much don't like point 2 that damage made in his breakdown and that's the big one that affects everything else at that it alone kinda defeats the entire notion of points 1 and 3 as they are almost entirely reliant on it since if point 2 doesn't hold up which i believe it doesn't then the entire scale of the island shifts drastically.

Imma be honest I'm not gonna have time to keep up with this thread so just move forward

 

[YmTheSuper]

I'll just say once more I am open to recalcs that do reach some form of middle ground because I do see the merit in some of the points Damage and Nami have brought up even if I don't fully agree with their reasoning

Would you say these recalcs could work? (There are 3/4 different ends)

 

[Damage3245]

Maybe it's because I've just woken up but I'm having a hard time parsing this. It seems like you're saying that the majority of arguments in favour of the proposal are convincing?

Also, issue 1 is independent of issue 2, and I'm not sure why you dislike issue 2. Disliking something doesn't make it incorrect. You haven't explained why it doesn't hold up.

 

[Damage3245]

@Dalesean027 All we need to know is if you agree, disagree or are neutral on removing the currently used calculation. If sounds to me like you've said that the majority of arguments pointing out its flaws are sound. If there's no solid counter-argument, then the current calculation isn't reliable to use, right?

 

[Dalesean027]

@Dalesean027 All we need to know is if you agree, disagree or are neutral on removing the currently used calculation. If sounds to me like you've said that the majority of arguments pointing out its flaws are sound. If there's no solid counter-argument, then the current calculation isn't reliable to use, right?

I've literally said only arguments 1 and 3 are sound but 2 and 4 I don't agree with and mentioned how 2 is important to noth 1 and 3 as well since it changes Wanos size drastically I do fully disagree for points 2 and 4 but for points 1 and 3 there have been no other sound counters so they are fine.

Again as I said move forward without me please

 

[Damage3245]

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

Since that was the last thing holding up the thread, I believe we can move on to the next one soon.

 

[Agnaa]

Well, I think it's an odd choice from Dale, but yeah that is a retraction, leaving it at 3-1, so ahead the thread goes.

 

[Damage3245]

Thank you. Re-opening the other thread: https://vsbattles.com/threads/one-piece-wano-country-arc-calc-removals.181550/

 

[Antvasima]

Wait a little please. Can each side explain their arguments here to me first please?

 

[Antvasima]

Never mind. I just noticed that this was a calc group forum thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Agree: Damage3245, Therefir, TheRustyOne

Neutral: Dalesean027

Disagree: CloverDragon03

On second thought, I would much prefer a much stronger consensus for so drastically revising the most popular comicbook story of all time. My apologies.

@Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Mr. Bambu @Ugarik @DMUA @Armorchompy @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @KLOL506 @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @Agnaa @DemiiPowa @Flashlight237 @SeijiSetto @SunDaGamer

I would greatly appreciate your input here.

 

[Damage3245]

On second thought, I would much prefer a much stronger consensus for so drastically revising the most popular comicbook story of all time

Antvasima. This changes the justifications of a couple profiles and updates Lifting Strength for a few more. I think you're overestimating this being a drastic revision.

I also think it's a bit ridiculous that one Calc Group Member is all that is needed for a calculation to be evaluated and accepted in the first place, but three Calc Group Members aren't enough to overturn a calc if another one disagrees?

 

[Antvasima]

Given that this will logically lead to a massive downgrade of the verse as a whole, due to that if we rip away the mid-level calculations, and as such the highest ones will likely be rationalised as outliers, I think that we should at the very least treat it with regular content revision thread standards regarding consensus for extremely popular verses.

 

[Agnaa]

I think it's hard to have those same vote requirements, since only CGMs would count for this.

But I also don't think it'd hurt too much to wait a few days for other CGMs that have now been contacted to comment.

So I'm fairly torn.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. I want to make certain that this is a reliable revision.

 

[Damage3245]

Given that thIs will logically lead to a massive downgrade of the verse as a whole, due to that if we rip away the mid-level calculations, the highest ones will likely be rationalised as outliers, I think that we should at the very least treat it with regular content revision thread standards regarding consensus for extremely popular verses.

Isn't that a Slippery Slope argument?I

Also, our standards for extremely popular verses just says that you need at least three staff members to approve which is the case currently. It doesn't say you need three more than there are disagreeing staff members.

@Agnaa You're a Calc Group Member too. Do you think the arguments that have been brought up are enough to put doubt in the current calcs?

 

[Agnaa]

Isn't that a Slippery Slope argument?I

Slippery Slope's only a fallacy in that the argument is only as strong as its weakest link. Arguments having chains is fine (and sometimes necessary) as long as those links are solid.

"The removal of these calculations could lead to higher ratings being deemed outliers" is supported by people already saying that.

@Agnaa You're a Calc Group Member too. Do you think the arguments that have been brought up are enough to put doubt in the current calcs?

I haven't read the entirety of the arguments in detail. I've mostly been paying attention to procedural details.

 

[Damage3245]

Slippery Slope's only a fallacy in that the argument is only as strong as its weakest link. Arguments having chains is fine (and sometimes necessary) as long as those links are solid.

"The removal of these calculations could lead to higher ratings being deemed outliers" is supported by people already saying that.

Fair enough. I'm not sure that 'this important verse is at risk of being downgraded if we allow this to go through' is a good reason to hold up a thread, but it is what it is I guess.

I haven't read the entirety of the arguments in detail. I've mostly been paying attention to procedural details.

Would you like me to grab some summary posts of the arguments?

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not interested in evaluating the substance of this thread. Just shepherding procedural points along.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, our standards for extremely popular verses just says that you need at least three staff members to approve which is the case currently. It doesn't say you need three more than there are disagreeing staff members.

I thought that we revised our rules to clarify that we need a strong consensus for such cases? In any case, I think that passing such an important change on such a slim margin, especially given that one of the votes, yourself, have personally repeatedly tried to severely downgrade this verse for years if I have understood correctly, seems too unreliable, so I would much prefer to see what other calc group members think as well first.

 

[Damage3245]

I thought that we revised our rules to clarify that we need a strong consensus for such cases? In any case, I think that passing such an important change on such a slim margin, especially given that one of the votes, yourself, have personally repeatedly tried to severely downgrade this verse for years if I have understood correctly, seems too unreliable, so I would much prefer to see what other calc group members think as well first.

I don't believe you're seriously trying to say that if a staff member has history with a verse than their votes are worth less for it than other staff members. Would you say the same if I had made several upgrade threads for One Piece too?

And the rules currently say this which may be what you're thinking of:

• In cases where the series verse has a significant following or a large amount of material has been published based on its content, it may be necessary to seek approval from a minimum of three staff members to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed revisions (Examples: Naruto, Marvel Comics, DC Comics, Dragon Ball, Devil May Cry, God of War, One Piece, Bleach).
  • It is important to note that this requirement should not be interpreted as a guarantee that the proposed revisions will be approved if a minimum of three staff members have given their approval. In cases involving big or controversial changes, or in situations where a verse is one where many of our staff members are knowledgeable, it may be advisable to involve as many staff members as possible in the review and approval process. This requirement is in place to ensure that revisions to popular or widely-recognized series verses are thoroughly reviewed and approved by a sufficient number of individuals with the necessary expertise and knowledge.

I don't think this falls under "big or controverisal changes". I don't know of precedent where three staff votes aren't enough to overrule a single dissenting staff vote.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that this is a big and controversial change, given that it will likely lead to downgrading the entire One Piece verse, likely the most popular comicbook story of all time, from Low 5-B to around 6-B or so, so I think that we need to make absolutely certain that this is reliable, yes.

Also, you have generally reliable in other areas by my experience, but the issue is that you have seemed so relentlessly deadset to downgrade this particular verse over the years that it may or may not have affected your ability to evaluate the reliability of these calculations in a completely unbiased manner, so again, I want to make certain that this revision is reliable for that reason as well. My apologies.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

I don't understand why is this given such an important role as if this will actually downgrade the verse. even if this thread is accepted there will be another calc which will have a lower value but not erasing the feat at all, also the moon explosion calc is highe than this one and even then a third calc is the one that is actually used for scaling. So there are still at least 2 other "calc debunks" before One Piece is actually significantly affected.

I also would like to note the OP mentions that the current calc uses an outdated value which assuming that it's right it will downgrade the calc anyways.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't understand why is this given such an important role as if this will actually downgrade the verse. even if this thread is accepted there will be another calc which will have a lower value but not erasing the feat at all, also the moon explosion calc is highe than this one and even then a third calc is the one that is actually used for scaling. So there are still at least 2 other "calc debunks" before One Piece is actually significantly affected.

I also would like to note the OP mentions that the current calc uses an outdated value which assuming that it's right it will downgrade the calc anyways.

Please explain how great the downgrades would likely be.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

Please explain how great the downgrades would likely be.

I'm not a calc group member but the calc uses 67 meters for the gate size and use it to scale other images to reach the size of onigashima, so I think around half?

The current calculation also uses outdated information, which is Hatcha's height being 67.80 meters. However he was retconned to being 36.75 meters tall.

 

[Antvasima]

Oh. That is far less extreme than what I thought. I thought that all of these calculations would be thrown away. My mistake then. Thank you for the information.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

Oh. That is far less extreme than what I thought. I thought that all of these calculations would be thrown away. My mistake then. Thank you for the information.

No I mean the outdated value should reduce by half if all the calcs related to onigashima are taken down there should be a new value that should dowgrade the calc to at least around a 1/6 of the current one for now nothing will be affected other than LS which will go from Class Z to P, but AP scaling wise I think pretty much nothing changes.
This thread covers what changes even if this calc is completely removed which is very little.

 

[DaReaperMan]

On second thought, I would much prefer a much stronger consensus for so drastically revising the most popular comicbook story of all time. My apologies.

Abaddon isn't staff anymore

Also, the fact you have this much attention on this thread when I know for a fact many staff outright refuse to touch Holy Shounen Trio threads with a ten-foot barge pole is a miracle. Seriously.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I don’t really like the precedent this is setting with “appease the patriarch’s whims”. Getting more staff interaction is one thing. Re-opening a thread after a month that has 5 CGM (6 if you count Agnaa shepherding along) interactions, a decisive conclusion, and checks the box on 3 agreements minimum (not to mention getting more than 1 CGM to even comment on a HST thread…)? It just reeks of ignorance, especially when a driving motivation is “One Piece big comic”, one big middle finger to anyone who works on verses that aren’t the most popular in the world. Idk I guess I’m lucky Ant hates Bleach lmao, won’t have to deal with this. That being said, what’s done is done, doesn’t hurt to wait a little longer for any of the peeps pinged to see if they even want to comment.

 

[KingTempest]

I don’t really like the precedent this is setting with “appease the patriarch’s whims”. Getting more staff interaction is one thing. Re-opening a thread after a month that has 5 CGM (6 if you count Agnaa shepherding along) interactions, a decisive conclusion, and checks the box on 3 agreements minimum (not to mention getting more than 1 CGM to even comment on a HST thread…)? It just reeks of ignorance, especially when a driving motivation is “One Piece big comic”, one big middle finger to anyone who works on verses that aren’t the most popular in the world. Idk I guess I’m lucky Ant hates Bleach lmao, won’t have to deal with this. That being said, what’s done is done, doesn’t hurt to wait a little longer for any of the peeps pinged to see if they even want to comment.

Decisive conclusion my butt.
Not a single staff who agreed with Damage saw the other points in the thread. They literally saw Damage's points and left, then when Agnaa reopened it for more evaluations, I dropped my point, but after Dale said his argument after being heckled for days, that's when it closed.

If we want it to be open for longer at least tell the ppl evaluating to look at both sides

 

[CloverDragon03]

Fair enough. I'm not sure that 'this important verse is at risk of being downgraded if we allow this to go through' is a good reason to hold up a thread, but it is what it is I guess.

It's more so that it's clear what the underlying agenda is in doing this revision I'd say

I don't believe you're seriously trying to say that if a staff member has history with a verse than their votes are worth less for it than other staff members. Would you say the same if I had made several upgrade threads for One Piece too?

Damage I'm ngl the problem is that I've seen is that you will at times accept a downgrade simply on the premise of it being a downgrade. And the concept of an upgrade being accepted simply for being an upgrade is rightfully frowned upon, so why shouldn't the reverse be?

I've seen you accept mathematically wrong calcs simply for being lower and then they get fixed and end up higher and you suddenly take issue with them. I've seen a calc revision thread for this verse result in a higher calc and you raging over the fact that a higher calc came about. To a degree, you care more about the result being lower. Personally, I think Ant isn't wrong in his reservations.

 

[Damage3245]

Damage I'm ngl the problem is that I've seen is that you will at times accept a downgrade simply on the premise of it being a downgrade. And the concept of an upgrade being accepted simply for being an upgrade is rightfully frowned upon, so why shouldn't the reverse be?

I've seen you accept mathematically wrong calcs simply for being lower and then they get fixed and end up higher and you suddenly take issue with them. I've seen a calc revision thread for this verse result in a higher calc and you raging over the fact that a higher calc came about. To a degree, you care more about the result being lower. Personally, I think Ant isn't wrong in his reservations.

I don't know what situations you're referring to but it's not possible that I just mistakenly thought the wrong calc was correct? People make mistakes.

I've also corrected other calcs that had issues which resulted in higher results, like correcting a Relativistic calc for Renji from Bleach to FTL - just because it was the more correct method.

Nobody is immune from accusations of bias. You yourself Clover have professed to hate being involved in HST threads and would rather stay out of them from my experience discussing with you; but when a downgrade thread for One Piece comes along then you jump in and disagree with it. I would be happy to actually go through the arguments with you in depth and see if either of us can actually convince the other, but for the most part in this thread you've just agreed with the opposition then ducked out.

But if we resort to ad homimen attacks of "You have a history of preferring downgrades/upgrades so your vote is suspect" then we'll never get anything done here. IMO the arguments speak for themselves; you shouldn't care at all who is one making them.

EDIT: If anybody else has any personal issues with me then take them to my wall or to the wiki's Human Resources. I want to keep this thread focused on the issue at hand so we can make some progress, so any derailing posts will be deleted.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I don't know what situations you're referring to but it's not possible that I just mistakenly thought the wrong calc was correct? People make mistakes.

I've also corrected other calcs that had issues which resulted in higher results, like correcting a Relativistic calc for Renji from Bleach to FTL - just because it was the more correct method.

Nobody is immune from accusations of bias. You yourself Clover have professed to hate being involved in HST threads and would rather stay out of them from my experience discussing with you; but when a downgrade thread for One Piece comes along then you jump in and disagree with it. I would be happy to actually go through the arguments with you in depth and see if either of us can actually convince the other, but for the most part in this thread you've just agreed with the opposition then ducked out.

This will be my last response on the matter out of respect for the thread. My honest answer is that I don't have the patience usually to deal with a drawn-out argument, I think the last time I did so was your proposed Star and Stripe calc downgrade. Nowadays I do more things so I have less patience to give to any one thread, you yourself should know I take issue with some of OP's scaling, but I just think going against establishing shots and stated sizes and using something like the 6 km figure for the ocean when Sea Kings by themselves are 5 I'm just doesn't add up to me

What I'll give you is that HST threads are like Twitter for me. I really shouldn't come back, but I just can't help myself despite swearing then off

EDIT: If anybody else has any personal issues with me then take them to my wall or to the wiki's Human Resources. I want to keep this thread focused on the issue at hand so we can make some progress, so any derailing posts will be deleted.

You couldn't have known but it's hard to just accept that considering I tried and they did nothing idk

 

[Damage3245]

but I just think going against establishing shots and stated sizes and using something like the 6 km figure for the ocean when Sea Kings by themselves are 5 I'm just doesn't add up to me

The 6 km figure isn't something made up by the OP or I as an assumption. That's using a figure from the manga itself. And there's a whole lot more to the argument that just that. This summary has many different arguments for why the current calc has issues.

And Sea Kings may be generally 5 km long, but that's just their length; the rest of their body proportions are smaller than that.

You couldn't have known but it's hard to just accept that considering I tried and they did nothing idk

You're right that I didn't know. They didn't contact me about it. If they thought what I was doing was an issue I'd have been happy to take advice from them.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Decisive conclusion my butt.
Not a single staff who agreed with Damage saw the other points in the thread. They literally saw Damage's points and left, then when Agnaa reopened it for more evaluations, I dropped my point, but after Dale said his argument after being heckled for days, that's when it closed.

If we want it to be open for longer at least tell the ppl evaluating to look at both sides

I didn’t know you were the deciding authority on what the other CGM’s read how full of yourself are you that you can handwave all opposition with “they didn’t read my points”? Like……..? You’re not going to get anywhere if you always approach the opposition in poor faith and just assume they’re ignoring your points and only looking at Damage’s. I simply cannot understand this level of delusion. No wonder CGM hate the HST, if they disagree with anything they have their own Thread Mods accusing them of not doing their jobs

Every evaluating CGM knows to read both sides of the argument, I’m sure they’re intelligent enough to understand that. If you don’t trust the evaluating body (as a majority body) to do its job, then why even be on the wiki, you’re just going to assume bad faith for everything anyway.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I can take a look again, though I don't care for the Flower Capital point at all because I think that calc is wrong for other reasons (perspective making pixel scaling unviable)

 

[Damage3245]

I can take a look again, though I don't care for the Flower Capital point at all because I think that calc is wrong for other reasons (perspective making pixel scaling unviable)

No problem, not expecting a response to that point as we're in agreement on the pixelscaling there.

If you can evaluate the arguments in the first two issues, I would appreciate it.

 

[Damage3245]

@Arc7Kuroi My apologies but that post is derailing from the point of the thread so I suggest you take it elsewhere.

 

[KingTempest]

I didn’t know you were the deciding authority on what the other CGM’s read how full of yourself are you that you can handwave all opposition with “they didn’t read my points”? Like……..? You’re not going to get anywhere if you always approach the opposition in poor faith and just assume they’re ignoring your points and only looking at Damage’s. I simply cannot understand this level of delusion. No wonder CGM hate the HST, if they disagree with anything they have their own Thread Mods accusing them of not doing their jobs

Every evaluating CGM knows to read both sides of the argument, I’m sure they’re intelligent enough to understand that. If you don’t trust the evaluating body (as a majority body) to do its job, then why even be on the wiki, you’re just going to assume bad faith for everything anyway.

They weren't here when I dropped my points.
I'm not saying I'm the deciding authority, I'm saying the thread reopened and new points were brought up. That's it.
Nobody disagreed with me, they didn't see my points. They left before I came.

Damage dropped a point. The CGM said "his points make sense". I said I wasn't gonna debate it cause I was busy.
The thread closed.
Agnaa reopened the thread cause there was a 1 point difference.
I dropped new points.
They didn't return to the thread.

Nobody is saying "awwww they ignored me", I'm saying NEW POINTS WERE MADE AFTER THEIR EVALUATION WAS PUT IN.

Not everybody is a grown baby, I'm literally saying that we made points after they made their evaluations.
My first sentence was
"So I'm back and since this thread is still going I'll just drop my points for Therefir and TheRustyOne and maybe Agnaa to see since they only got 1 side before everyone else conceded."

If you didn't read the thread and the contents of it then you don't need to be here casting judgement on views when the entire thing was "It is a logical point that THEY DIDN'T SEE POINTS MADE AFTER THEY LEFT". That's not accusations it's literally the fact that they left before new points were made.

@Arc7Kuroi My apologies but that post is derailing from the point of the thread so I suggest you take it elsewhere.

It's on topic

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

They weren't here when I dropped my points.
I'm not saying I'm the deciding authority, I'm saying the thread reopened and new points were brought up. That's it.
Nobody disagreed with me, they didn't see my points. They left before I came.

Damage dropped a point. The CGM said "his points make sense". I said I wasn't gonna debate it cause I was busy.
The thread closed.
Agnaa reopened the thread cause there was a 1 point difference.
I dropped new points.
They didn't return to the thread.

Nobody is saying "awwww they ignored me", I'm saying NEW POINTS WERE MADE AFTER THEIR EVALUATION WAS PUT IN.

Not everybody is a grown baby, I'm literally saying that we made points after they made their evaluations.
My first sentence was
"So I'm back and since this thread is still going I'll just drop my points for Therefir and TheRustyOne and maybe Agnaa to see since they only got 1 side before everyone else conceded."

If you didn't read the thread and the contents of it then you don't need to be here casting judgement on views when the entire thing was "It is a logical point that THEY DIDN'T SEE POINTS MADE AFTER THEY LEFT". That's not accusations it's literally the fact that they left before new points were made.

It's on topic

I gotchu. I was speaking more on the thread as a whole, because there’s been lots of back and forth in its entirety. In my defense you did say “other points” plural which sounded like thread in totality. But if you’re talking about your specific most recent post, I apologize. Go ping em again so they can see the post :Usopp_laugh: