Shinobi World Geography 101

[Damage3245]

I don't think that is necessary because the addition of the old the last planet shot updated the konoha suna size to 1000km ish, so this updating to 5040km already replaces that with the agreement of several thread mods and an active CGM.

It'd involve replacing one accepted calculation with another, so a Calc Group thread would still be needed.

Just because I may agree that a calculation is legit doesn't mean agreeing it automatically overwrites other previously accepted calculations.

EDIT: Look at it this way, there might be unforeseen issues that arise from updating and replacing the calcs. Laying out the re-calcs side by side with the previous versions of the calcs enables us to see if there's anything wrong with the proposal rather than just blindly substituting in a new calc.

 

[Saqphire]

as indicated by the scans showing she could begin the project at her discretion and is given a free reign on deicing the trip’s schedule

Nvm now I disagree due to minorspellingmistakeshadowthehedgehog.gif

EDIT: Actually, reading through the blog once again, the only part I kinda disagree with here is using CM1 Sasuke as a support point for fodder Shinobi travel speed. Not only do you mention that it's combat speed, CM1 Sasuke is already insanely faster than people like Neji who needed four top tier Jonin at this point of the series to stop his travel speed

 

[Ghostimuscrime]

It'd involve replacing one accepted calculation with another, so a Calc Group thread would still be needed.

Just because I may agree that a calculation is legit doesn't mean agreeing it automatically overwrites other previously accepted calculations.

EDIT: Look at it this way, there might be unforeseen issues that arise from updating and replacing the calcs. Laying out the re-calcs side by side with the previous versions of the calcs enables us to see if there's anything wrong with the proposal rather than just blindly substituting in a new calc.

atp you're just being a goon

the calcs are based on accepted distances, if the distances are updated and validated (this thread), that is grounds for recalcs by default

 

[Damage3245]

atp you're just being a goon

the calcs are based on accepted distances, if the distances are updated and validated (this thread), that is grounds for recalcs by default

Oh, I'm not saying that you can't make re-calcs. I'm just saying that the re-calcs don't automatically replace the previous calcs. We still need to discuss it out.

 

[Ghostimuscrime]

Oh, I'm not saying that you can't make re-calcs. I'm just saying that the re-calcs don't automatically replace the previous calcs. We still need to discuss it out.

discuss what? the discussion is in this thread by itself, if a calc relies on x thing and i change x thing, then the calc is to be updated by default

like sure I'll get a cgm to evaluate every recalc I do make but there isn't much to do past that or required past that

 

[Damage3245]

discuss what? the discussion is in this thread by itself, if a calc relies on x thing and i change x thing, then the calc is to be updated by default

like sure I'll get a cgm to evaluate every recalc I do make but there isn't much to do past that or required past that

Ghost, this isn't just a calc update; it's replacing one currently accepted method with a different method for calculating multiple feats. I don't doubt that you have good arguments for it and it will probably get accepted, but what happens in situations like this is you make a calc group thread linking to the old calc and the new calc, explain the differences and then other people can detirmine if the new method is better to use or not. That's standard practice for years and we have numerous threads exactly like this in the calc group section.

Also, for "The discussion is in this thread by itself", this thread doesn't have anything in the OP about profile changes or calc replacements. It's just about getting one distance calc accepted. You can't hide changes to profiles in threads.

 

[Damage3245]

If you won't believe me without a rule being cited, this is the discussion rule:

• If there exist conflicting accepted calculations for the same feat, the calc group members should discuss which ones that are most reliable to use in their own forum. The calc group is free to ask for relevant information from reliable members, by using the knowledgeable members list for verses or the associated verse page list of supporters. After a decision has been reached, and the most reliable calculations have been selected, a discussion should be started in the content revision forum to decide which characters that should scale to the feats.

The previously used calculations are still accepted; there still needs to be a discussion about which method is the most reliable.

 

[Ghostimuscrime]

This is for isolated feats, we did not do this the last time these feats got recalculated (yes I read all 20+ pages of the old thread)

"the conflict" you're citing is resolved here in this thread, a newly accepted country size invalidates calcs that use old sizes by default, all I would be doing is wasting everyone's time

 

[Damage3245]

I've cited the rule that specifically covers this. I'll ask for additional staff members to weigh in here since you don't seem to accept my word on that.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Neutral on outcome, but Damage is correct that there should be a discussion among Calc Group members to discuss which is most reliable.

 

[Samlex1234]

If you won't believe me without a rule being cited, this is the discussion rule:

• If there exist conflicting accepted calculations for the same feat, the calc group members should discuss which ones that are most reliable to use in their own forum. The calc group is free to ask for relevant information from reliable members, by using the knowledgeable members list for verses or the associated verse page list of supporters. After a decision has been reached, and the most reliable calculations have been selected, a discussion should be started in the content revision forum to decide which characters that should scale to the feats.

The previously used calculations are still accepted; there still needs to be a discussion about which method is the most reliable.

This is not the same thing. Of course there would be Calc revisions for Feat based calcs but what the OP is tackling right now is narrative based which is focused on determining the Country size. Please don’t derail.

 

[Damage3245]

Thank you for commenting, DarkDragonMedeus.

 

[Samlex1234]

Neutral on outcome, but Damage is correct that there should be a discussion among Calc Group members to discuss which is most reliable.

Unfortunately it’s not the same thing DDM. This revision is not a feat based calc that is a different Revision that is bound to come. What the OP is currently tackling is Narrative based replacing one Distance/ size with the other.

 

[Agnaa]

If you won't believe me without a rule being cited, this is the discussion rule:

• If there exist conflicting accepted calculations for the same feat, the calc group members should discuss which ones that are most reliable to use in their own forum. The calc group is free to ask for relevant information from reliable members, by using the knowledgeable members list for verses or the associated verse page list of supporters. After a decision has been reached, and the most reliable calculations have been selected, a discussion should be started in the content revision forum to decide which characters that should scale to the feats.

The previously used calculations are still accepted; there still needs to be a discussion about which method is the most reliable.

Neutral on outcome, but Damage is correct that there should be a discussion among Calc Group members to discuss which is most reliable.

It seems like this thread is revising the distance of a particular location, and Ghost is asserting that, because calculations rely on the previous value of that distance, once a new distance is accepted it should be applied to those other calculations.

I think that the distance should be automatically applied to all of those calculations after a calc group thread on that topic. This is merely a CRT, so it won't be sufficient for that.

Really, I think this should've been a calc group thread all along.

That rule isn't intended to be used every time there's any kind of update to any calculation, no matter how much that update has been discussed/confirmed already. It's more for if someone decides to take a slightly different approach. If we had a calc group thread changing the destruction value for fragmentation of concrete, then we wouldn't need an individual calc group thread on every single calc that would be updated; those calcs would simply be updated and have an ordinary evaluation.

 

[Damage3245]

Unfortunately it’s not the same thing DDG. This revision is not a feat based calc that is a different Revision that is bound to come. What the OP is currently tackling is Narrative based replacing one Distance with the other.

This would impact multiple feat-based calcs which is what I'm referring to.


Also, thank you as well Agnaa for commenting.

 

[Ghostimuscrime]

Man CGTs are Ghost Towns, it'll take ages to have so many feats re-evaluated especially when damage is there auto disagree over the simplest shit at every step

That rule isn't intended to be used every time there's any kind of update to any calculation, no matter how much that update has been discussed/confirmed already. It's more for if someone decides to take a slightly different approach. If we had a calc group thread changing the destruction value for fragmentation of concrete, then we wouldn't need an individual calc group thread on every single calc that would be updated; those calcs would simply be updated and have an ordinary evaluation.

So we already have one cgm vote in this thread, would it be fine if I just got another one to agree to it? that we don't have to do a new CGT for every single feat (and we have a lot of feats that need recalcs)

 

[Agnaa]

I think it's important for it to be in the right subforum for people to stumble across it.

As I said, I don't think you need a different one for every single feat, just one thread for the entire idea of updating the distance, mentioning which calcs would be affected.

I would offer to move this one to that subforum, but the OP isn't really set up for that rn.

 

[Samlex1234]

This would impact multiple feat-based calcs which is what I'm referring to.

The OP already clarified this isn’t a CRT for feats it’s a narrative-based replacement. We are only updating the country size for now, not changing the feats that were scaled from the previously accepted size.

The blog literally says

“Konoha to Suna Distance Explanation Blog”

 

[Damage3245]

The OP already clarified this isn’t a CRT for feats it’s a narrative-based replacement. We are only updating the country size for now, not changing the feats that were scaled from the previously accepted size.

The blog literally says

“Konoha to Suna Distance Explanation Blog”

Except for when Ghost says this:

discuss what? the discussion is in this thread by itself, if a calc relies on x thing and i change x thing, then the calc is to be updated by default

like sure I'll get a cgm to evaluate every recalc I do make but there isn't much to do past that or required past that

Showing that other calcs will be impacted and he doesn't think a Calc Group thread is necessary.

 

[Ghostimuscrime]

I think it's important for it to be in the right subforum for people to stumble across it.

As I said, I don't think you need a different one for every single feat, just one thread for the entire idea of updating the distance, mentioning which calcs would be affected.

I would offer to move this one to that subforum, but the OP isn't really set up for that rn.

Sure No Problem, We have one CGM agreeing, I'll request another one to vote on this as well as list the affected calcs and reword some of my proposals for it to make sense calc wise, I'd prefer having this stay as a CRT because much of the things necessary to be evaluated here is lore and in-verse information based argumentation

 

[Samlex1234]

Except for when Ghost says this:


Showing that other calcs will be impacted and he doesn't think a Calc Group thread is necessary.

Like he mentioned “sure I'll get a cgm to evaluate every recalc I do make”, please kindly don’t derail this CRT thank you .

 

[Damage3245]

Like he mentioned “sure I'll get a cgm to evaluate every recalc I do make”, please kindly don’t derail this CRT thank you .

Samlex; my job as an Administrator informing you of the rules is not derailing the thread.

Two Administrators and Super Moderators at that have agreed with me on this thread, so until you can find some staff members who disagree with me and agree with you, you're in the wrong here.

 

[Lilybitdun]

Why is the location of the thread being argued about when it's just a logistics thing which doesn't effect the premise at all.
Just move it to calc group discussion so we can discuss what actually matters

 

[Damage3245]

Why is the location of the thread being argued about when it's just a logistics thing which doesn't effect the premise at all.
Just move it to calc group discussion so we can discuss what actually matters

The other re-calcs haven't even been made yet from what I can tell. Moving the thread wouldn't solve anything right now.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It seems like this thread is revising the distance of a particular location, and Ghost is asserting that, because calculations rely on the previous value of that distance, once a new distance is accepted it should be applied to those other calculations.

I think that the distance should be automatically applied to all of those calculations after a calc group thread on that topic. This is merely a CRT, so it won't be sufficient for that.

Really, I think this should've been a calc group thread all along.

That rule isn't intended to be used every time there's any kind of update to any calculation, no matter how much that update has been discussed/confirmed already. It's more for if someone decides to take a slightly different approach. If we had a calc group thread changing the destruction value for fragmentation of concrete, then we wouldn't need an individual calc group thread on every single calc that would be updated; those calcs would simply be updated and have an ordinary evaluation.

Very well then. Seems fine to apply the new stuff with the official distance update accepted.

 

[Agnaa]

imo, the necessity of a calc group thread is to discuss the merits of the change in methodology.

I think a calc group thread could be made (or this thread could be moved to one) with an OP that establishes exactly which calcs would have this distance update, and a brief explanation of why, without having all the calcs remade already.

If the remakes end up not being good (i.e. the numbers get crunched incorrectly), that's something more to handle in the comments of those blogs; the sort of evaluation those calcs should get anyway.

 

[Lilybitdun]

The other re-calcs haven't even been made yet from what I can tell. Moving the thread wouldn't solve anything right now.

Why would re-calcs be made already if we have to discuss if it's consistent with the other feats first

So the initial issue corresponding with utilizing the size of the Konoha-Suna run was that it conflicted with a lot of the war arc feats, where people (of similar caliber) were crossing relative distances in the span of hours instead of several days like the Konoha distance, so things like across the land of lightning and such.

It then became an argument of consistency, and we (back then) agreed to just compare Konoha to the planet using the shots from The Last.

Now, it seems like Boruto added onto the consistency points (good job with the blog), so I think that previous point is moot, it just needs to be formally addressed. Something like "prior we used to utilize the planet to calculate the size of the continents due to inconsistencies with the statement of traveling konoha, but due to boruto enforcing these distances years after the resolution of the initial series, these arguments can be considered moot".

Basically, just address the old thread and you should be good to go.

Now, I'll let those who disagreed with the ninjas' speed disagree with it, but I think the statement is workable, just needs to address what's already in place.

it's not like checking the math requires a whole blog either, it's just swapping one value and seeing how the math changes. I've seen CGM threads before where the math is checked in the thread itself and after it's accepted is when the recalcs are done

 

[Damage3245]

imo, the necessity of a calc group thread is to discuss the merits of the change in methodology.

I think a calc group thread could be made (or this thread could be moved to one) with an OP that establishes exactly which calcs would have this distance update, and a brief explanation of why, without having all the calcs remade already.

If the remakes end up not being good (i.e. the numbers get crunched incorrectly), that's something more to handle in the comments of those blogs; the sort of evaluation those calcs should get anyway.

Not to nitpick, but I do not think that it could be properly made without have the re-calcs ready. The discussion rule mentions that these threads are for in cases of conflicting accepted calculations. If the re-calcs haven't been made, then they haven't been accepted yet by a CGM.

 

[Samlex1234]

Samlex; my job as an Administrator informing you of the rules is not derailing the thread.

Two Administrators and Super Moderators at that have agreed with me on this thread, so until you can find some staff members who disagree with me and agree with you, you're in the wrong here.

Whew Damage the Administrator please read the rule below again.

“If there exist conflicting accepted calculations for the same feat, the calc group members should discuss which ones that are most reliable to use in their own forum.“

you literally said this
“Look at it this way, there might be unforeseen issues that arise from updating and replacing the calcs. Laying out the re-calcs side by side with the previous versions of the calcs enables us to see if there's anything wrong with the proposal rather than just blindly substituting in a new calc.”

What does this even mean? The entire CRT is literally currently Narrative based, why would he bring in other calcs derived from previous accepted Narratives for the Country size, that literally makes no sense of cause there is bound to be a change in Calcs if size/distance of the country is changing and he already mentioned that he will tackle that in another thread simple. And no Agnaa did not really agree with you this is what he said and I quote,

“That rule isn't intended to be used every time there's any kind of update to any calculation, no matter how much that update has been discussed/confirmed already. It's more for if someone decides to take a slightly different approach. If we had a calc group thread changing the destruction value for fragmentation of concrete, then we wouldn't need an individual calc group thread on every single calc that would be updated; those calcs would simply be updated and have an ordinary evaluation.”

 

[Agnaa]

Not to nitpick, but I do not think that it could be properly made without have the re-calcs ready. The discussion rule mentions that these threads are for in cases of conflicting accepted calculations. If the re-calcs haven't been made, then they haven't been accepted yet by a CGM.

It indeed mentions conflicting accepted calculations.

It says nothing about when a methodology change is discussed/accepted before a new calculation is written up. I could be a stickler and say that the rule doesn't apply at all because of that, but I'm just trying to work out what a reasonable application of that would be, in line with what I said up here:

That rule isn't intended to be used every time there's any kind of update to any calculation, no matter how much that update has been discussed/confirmed already. It's more for if someone decides to take a slightly different approach. If we had a calc group thread changing the destruction value for fragmentation of concrete, then we wouldn't need an individual calc group thread on every single calc that would be updated; those calcs would simply be updated and have an ordinary evaluation.

And with my previous experience revising calcs for multiple verses at once, such as when I've found a calculation method to be invalid.

Surely, you wouldn't expect that if I found a method was incorrect, that I would have to recalculate every feat which used that bad method first, and then make a thread about it?

My core reading is that changes to accepted calculations require a calc group thread to discuss the merits. I don't think the new versions need to be written up beforehand simply to discuss the proposed change.

 

[Damage3245]

Surely, you wouldn't expect that if I found a method was incorrect, that I would have to recalculate every feat which used that bad method first, and then make a thread about it?

The difference in this case is that in the currently used calculation for a distance value "A" that is the basis of multiple other calculations, nothing has been found wrong in the method for that.

What this situation is here is that a different method is used to calculate a difference distance value called "B". Based on that new distance value, an alternative value for "A" can be found via pixelscaling which would lead to re-calcs of those multiple other calculations mentioned above.

The currently used calc is still an accepted calc, just because the result of it is called into question as a consequence of this new calc doesn't mean it is automatically invalid.

 

[Agnaa]

I think this topic is essentially arguing that B is a more accurate value than A; that A is wrong in light of newer information.

It's not automatically invalid, ofc, we would need a calc group thread about this topic to judge that.

I just think it's a massive waste to recalc two dozen things first if we might discuss it and find out that the old distance is better.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with Agnaa's most recent post. The focus should be that Calc Group should decide what most accurate version of the country size, which in turn effects every other calculation dependent on it.

 

[Ghostimuscrime]

The difference in this case is that in the currently used calculation for a distance value "A" that is the basis of multiple other calculations, nothing has been found wrong in the method for that.

What this situation is here is that a different method is used to calculate a difference distance value called "B". Based on that new distance value, an alternative value for "A" can be found via pixelscaling which would lead to re-calcs of those multiple other calculations mentioned above.

The currently used calc is still an accepted calc, just because the result of it is called into question as a consequence of this new calc doesn't mean it is automatically invalid.

you're going in circles

The distance value A in general is being argued to be replaced by B as the new size basis for calculations, if that is validated we can update all the calculations with regular evals, Damage you have your own revisions to work on, I have my own as well and we also have our IRL duties, let us not make shit harder for both of us, you requested other staff to chime in and they've both said yes to this new method so let's just proceed with that

 

[Damage3245]

I think this topic is essentially arguing that B is a more accurate value than A; that A is wrong in light of newer information.

It's not automatically invalid, ofc, we would need a calc group thread about this topic to judge that.

I just think it's a massive waste to recalc two dozen things first if we might discuss it and find out that the old distance is better.

Okay, I understand that. My point was just that a Calc Group thread is warranted in a situation like this. I don't think we'd necessarily know the full ramifications for it if we didn't examine how it would impact the relevant calcs but I also get your point about not wanting the OP to waste their time.

I don't want to create more problems for people; I'm just also looking out for how to avoid problems in the future.


EDIT: With the new note in the OP, I'm changing my vote to neutral as I cannot give a blanket approval to replacing the value for all of the calcs without examining them further. (There's already a sizable number of approving staff members so this won't change much. I just had to note it)

 

[Ghostimuscrime]

After having a private discussion with Damage regarding this issue I have decided I am okay with doing a calc group thread when I recalc these feats, mainly because I wanna rework a few of them entirely if that itself requires that I make CGTs I might as well hit 2 birds with one stone

The rest of this CRT will be focusing on the Konoha-Suna distance establishment.

 

[MattaGrimm]

Everything here seems solid and seeing damage confident in this me gives me the feeling this is 100% accurate I agree very well researched

 

[BlackeJan]

So if anything in the OP gets accepted with the new method, what’s going to change? also yall blowing this out of proportion, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with changing the method here but yeah we can also just get cgm since majority of people are agreeing with it so there’s nothing much wrong with what Damage is asking

 

[Nierre]

Did you even read two messages above your own?

 

[BlackeJan]

Did you even read two messages above your own?

No cause it must had been when I was sending a message