Are Stated Speeds/Timeframes For Characters Calc Stacking?

[Agnaa]

I hold that they are. Despite the Calc Stacking page not explicitly saying anything on this, it does say some things which I think imply it:

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.

I think the concern of characters and attacks varying in speed, and thus not using speeds from other instances, still applies to these.

Using a reliable stated timeframe and reliably stated speed something travels during that timeframe one can calculate the distance travelled. Said distance can then usually be used for calculations. (Take heed that paths don't need to be straight and that speed reliably has to be constant)

Here it says that stated timeframes and speeds can be used to gather a distance, which can then be used for calculations. It does not say that stated speeds can generally be used, particularly across separate instances.

However, others argue that since it's a statement, it's not a calc, and it's not calc stacking. To that, I'd say that it generally falls under the same principle, with the term "calc stacking" being misleading shorthand.

It may also be worth determining whether this is allowed in limited cases. Such as, if it's only allowed if the statement is explicitly about the character performing the feat to be calced (and not if it's about a character they scale to), whether it's only allowed if the character is "going all out" or has had an increase in speed since the statement, whether only timeframes are allowed for blitzing and only speeds are allowed for outspeeding, how explicit the statements have to be (i.e. if a timer being shown on-screen ticking up is treated as a statement of them moving/reacting in those intervals), whether speeds and timeframes can be converted between, etc.

@Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Mr._Bambu @Therefir @DMUA @Damage3245 @TheRustyOne @DemonGodMitchAubin @Jasonsith @Wokistan @Migue79 @Armorchompy @Psychomaster35 @CloverDragon03 @KLOL506 @M3X_2.0 @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @Dalesean027 @DemiiPowa @Flashlight237 @SeijiSetto

---

Is being in a different scene disqualifying?​

Yes: 2 (Agnaa, DMUA)

Unclear: 0

No: 10 (DontTalkDT, TheRustyOne, Flashlight237, Psychomaster35, DemonGodMitchAubin, CloverDragon03, Daleseaon027, M3X_2.0, KLOL506, SunDaGamer)

---

Is affirmative evidence that they're going at their top speed needed?​

Yes: 2 (Agnaa, DontTalkDT)

Unclear: 3 (DMUA, Psychomaster35, DemonGodMitchAubin)

No: 7 (M3X_2.0, KLOL506, TheRustyOne, CloverDragon03, Flashlight237, SunDaGamer, Dalesean027)

• It depends on the context of the speed statement, and the feat being calculated; the latter can't be more casual than the former: 3 (Flashlight237, SunDaGamer, Dalesean027)

---

Is evidence that they're not going at their top speed disqualifying?​

Yes: 8 (Agnaa, DontTalkDT, TheRustyOne, M3X_2.0, KLOL506, CloverDragon03, SunDaGamer, Dalesean027)

• Unless their stated speed is for when they're not going at their top, and they're holding back to a similar extent: 3 (CloverDragon03, SunDaGamer, Dalesean027)

Unclear: 4 (DMUA, Flashlight237, Psychomaster35, DemonGodMitchAubin)

No: 0

---

Is an on-screen timer during a scene where a character reacts considered a statement that the character can react in that timeframe?​

Yes: 6 (CloverDragon03, Armorchompy, TheRustyOne, Flashlight237, SunDaGamer, Dalesean027)

Unclear: 5 (TheRustyOne, DMUA, Psychomaster35, DemonGodMitchAubin, M3X_2.0)

Case by case: 1 (KLOL506)

No: 2 (Agnaa, DontTalkDT)

---

Is one step of scaling disqualifying?​

Yes: 3 (Agnaa, DontTalkDT, M3X_2.0)

• Unless they're stated to have the exact same speed/reaction time: 1 (M3X_2.0)

Unclear: 2 (DMUA, Psychomaster35)

Case by case: 1 (KLOL506)

No: 6 (Flashlight237, TheRustyOne, CloverDragon03, SunDaGamer, DemonGodMitchAubin, Dalesean027)

---

Are multiple steps of scaling disqualifying?​

Yes: 6 (Agnaa, DontTalkDT, Flashlight237, CloverDragon03, M3X_2.0, SunDaGamer)

• Unless they're stated to have the exact same speed/reaction time: 2 (M3X_2.0, SunDaGamer)

Unclear: 5 (DMUA, Psychomaster35, DemonGodMitchAubin, Daleseaon027, KLOL506)

No: 1 (TheRustyOne)

---

Is it okay to convert a stated timeframe to an implied speed, or a stated speed to an implied timeframe, for use in another calculation?​

Yes, on a case-by-case basis: 2 (CloverDragon03, M3X_2.0)

Unclear: 4 (DMUA, TheRustyOne, Psychomaster35, DemonGodMitchAubin)

No: 7 (Agnaa, Flashlight237, DontTalkDT, Damage3245, KLOL506, SunDaGamer, Dalesean027)

• However, it can be converted if an appropriate distance/timeframe can be found: 1 (Flashlight237)
• However, that sort of thing, when not being used in another calculation, is still valid: 2 (KLOL506, Agnaa)

 

[Psychomaster35]

I’m thinking that statements of someones speed can be used for calcs only if they are reliable (IE. The person A who stated B’s speed is because A used a device to read B’s speed). If they aren’t reliable, they shouldn’t be used.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Personally I’ve never seen anything implying that statements would fall under calc stacking as the page doesn’t mention it.

And I also don’t think they should.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I definitely don’t think they are. To begin with, I don’t think the part you claim implies a ban on using stated speeds/timeframes/etc. in calcs actually implies that. It explicitly specifies calculated ones, meaning stated ones are fair game. In addition, these are some of the most reliable ways we can ascertain values in calcs that involve the relevant characters. I don’t think it’s right to list these as calc stacking

 

[Agnaa]

I definitely don’t think they are. To begin with, I don’t think the part you claim implies a ban on using stated speeds/timeframes/etc. in calcs actually implies that. It explicitly specifies calculated ones, meaning stated ones are fair game. In addition, these are some of the most reliable ways we can ascertain values in calcs that involve the relevant characters. I don’t think it’s right to list these as calc stacking

As I said, while it specifies calculated ones, the reason why it's not allowed to be used still applies to stated speeds/timeframes.

But ig I'll put all of you down as "It's allowed, as long as statements are reliable, in any case, even through scaling or without clear indications that the character is performing at their peak."

 

[DontTalkDT]

It's technically not calc stacking, but there is certainly room for debate on whether stated timeframes on one occasion apply to another.
Characters are not going top speed 100% of the time, especially not consistently. (insert rant about terrible writing of speedsters here)

 

[Agnaa]

I've edited in some other considerations to the OP

whether only timeframes are allowed for blitzing and only speeds are allowed for outspeeding, how explicit the statements have to be (i.e. if a timer being shown on-screen ticking up is treated as a statement of them moving/reacting in those intervals) etc.

I'll assume y'all agree with the most lenient interpretations of those questions for now, so correct me if I'm wrong on that.

 

[KLOL506]

Personally I’ve never seen anything implying that statements would fall under calc stacking as the page doesn’t mention it.

And I also don’t think they should.

I am in agreement with this statement. At least with regards to perception timeframes, which are a lot less variable than say, movement speed of any kind (Combat, dodging, etc.), which one can hold back on.

 

[DontTalkDT]

At least with regards to perception timeframes, which are a lot less variable than say, movement speed of any kind (Combat, dodging, etc.), which one can hold back on.

They can somewhat vary based on focus.
There is also the question of time they can react in vs speed they can react to, seeing as, at a certain point, things become faster than eye even in the usual perception timeframe. Probably should be kept in mind as well.

I've edited in some other considerations to the OP

I'll assume y'all agree with the most lenient interpretations of those questions for now, so correct me if I'm wrong on that.

My opinion on speed and timeframes are basically the same. One has to see that they're consistent and that the equivalence actually makes sense. As said, don't think everyone always does peak performance.

Just a timer without context probably is no statement... I guess.

 

[DMUA]

Yes, they are. Hiding Calculations is pretty clear cut about how it's still inflationary to use really big superhuman values from entirely different scenes for the sake of numbers. I am fine if said timeframes are directly within the calculated feat, but beyond that, no

 

[M3X_2.0]

Hiding Calculations says nothing about stated timeframes and speeds.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Yes, they are. Hiding Calculations is pretty clear cut about how it's still inflationary to use really big superhuman values from entirely different scenes for the sake of numbers. I am fine if said timeframes are directly within the calculated feat, but beyond that, no

“Hiding Calculations”

What calculation is being hidden?

 

[Jasonsith]

It is less about hidden calculations and more about straight up assumptions or some speed values derived from purely WOG or "guide books".

E.g. "XXX attack" being stated to be light speed or lightning speed or electricity speed through conductive metals despite having no other depiction to be speed at such rates.

 

[Agnaa]

It is less about hidden calculations and more about straight up assumptions or some speed values derived from purely WOG or "guide books".

E.g. "XXX attack" being stated to be light speed or lightning speed or electricity speed through conductive metals despite having no other depiction to be speed at such rates.

I haven't reflected this in the OP since I'm not sure exactly what position it's backing.

 

[TheRustyOne]

They can somewhat vary based on focus.
There is also the question of time they can react in vs speed they can react to, seeing as, at a certain point, things become faster than eye even in the usual perception timeframe. Probably should be kept in mind as well.

My opinion on speed and timeframes are basically the same. One has to see that they're consistent and that the equivalence actually makes sense. As said, don't think everyone always does peak performance.

I pretty much agree with this.

 

[Flashlight237]

The way I see it, I personally think all reliable statements/showings of speeds and timeframes (that is officially stated/shown, not calculated by us) should be allowable as they are gotten right from the source. We didn't calculate any of that, why gatekeep it? How much room there is for it I believe depends on what is done.

If you only got the time frame yet not distance, it would fall under this.: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Reactions_and_Perceptions

Reactions and perceptions are basically as basic as speed and timeframes can get. No movement is required, and no prerequisite calculations are done. As such, they really shouldn't fall under any calc-stacking nuances and they got nothing to hide.

Now, if a timeframe is given yet not a speed figure, then I'd say only the reaction/perception time frame would be viable here as the speed calculation gotten from the feat would be calced. If the speed feat is calced, then yeah, I'd say using that figure is considered calc-stacking. Only use the stated reaction/perception timeframe.

If both the timeframe and speed are given, then the way I see it, if a character is explicitly going toe-to-toe with the character whose speed figure is given, then you probably shouldn't have anything to worry about, but outside of that, yeah, that's where it would be considered calc-stacking.

It all comes down to how attached to the source it is. Basically...

For Reactions/Perceptions:

Character A has an officially stated reaction time. Character B doesn't. Character C doesn't.

Character B directly went up against Character A. Character A's reaction time is usable for calculations. Character A's speed is not.

Character C went up against Character B instead of Character A. Character A's reaction time is NOT usable.

Character C went up against Character A. Character A's reaction time is usable.

For Speed:

Character A has an officially stated speed figure. Character B doesn't. Character C doesn't.

Character B directly went up against Character A. Character A's speed is usable, guaranteed.

Character C went up against Character B instead of Character A. Character B's speed is not usable.

Character C went up against Character A. Character A's speed is usable guaranteed.

Basically, if you're up against the primary source of any speed, reaction, or perception feat, then it should be allowable regardless. Any secondary or tertiary nonsense shouldn't.

Speaking of sources, if it came straight from the medium itself, then the figure should be usable no doubt. From secondary sources like guidebooks and such? Yeah... Maybe scrutinize that a bit.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I'm basically in agreement with Clover

I think it's weirdly illogical to consider someone's stated/canon speed rating valid to put on a profile for their speed rating that scales to other people and then not be ok with using that as someone's reactions/speed in a calculation

 

[Agnaa]

Since this was something that Flashlight mentioned, I should probably also get everyone else's opinion on; do you think that stated speeds and timeframes can be crossed over?

Is it valid to take a stated speed, divide 1 meter by that, to get a timeframe to use when being blitzed?

Is it valid to take a stated timeframe, divide 1 meter by that, to get a speed to use when another character visually moves more distance than them?

 

[Dalesean027]

Yup I also shared the same sentiments as Clover regarding this topic

Is it valid to take a stated speed, divide 1 meter by that, to get a timeframe to use when being blitzed?

Is it valid to take a stated timeframe, divide 1 meter by that, to get a speed to use when another character visually moves more distance than them?

Not sure about doing this for general usage but going by case by case for something like this would probably be only the secondary at best as far as options go behind actually just upscaling the person like we normally would, that is if I'm understanding your meaning correctly

 

[KLOL506]

I don't see why not in all honesty. Just keep it as case-by-case (Usually a bit easier with perception timeframes).

 

[Agnaa]

"Case-by-case" doesn't mean much without direction on which cases would qualify, and which ones wouldn't, but alright, I'll put that down.

Clover, given your likes of those, I'll assume you share the same view in that regard.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Yeah, I think it depends on what the context is in question. Admittedly, that's not the most ironclad answer, but to me it honestly does come across as a case where I'd know if I think it qualifies if I see it

 

[M3X_2.0]

Put me with Clover and Dale please

 

[Agnaa]

Put me with Clover and Dale please

Done.

Yeah, I think it depends on what the context is in question. Admittedly, that's not the most ironclad answer, but to me it honestly does come across as a case where I'd know if I think it qualifies if I see it

Blech, just makes it hard for me, as someone who disagrees, to be able to apply that standard. Would we just have to defer to y'all for cases of conversion?

We could do that, and work off precedent, it's just not ideal.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Done.

Blech, just makes it hard for me, as someone who disagrees, to be able to apply that standard. Would we just have to defer to y'all for cases of conversion?

We could do that, and work off precedent, it's just not ideal.

I do agree it's not ideal, so what I'll do instead is take some time to work out what I think the standards on that should be and get back with you on that.

Just don't expect it anytime too soon because well, Christmas

 

[KLOL506]

Put me in for agreement with Clover and M3X

And no, before anyone asks, I won't change my mind on this

 

[Arnoldstone18]

I highly doubt Calc Stacking/ Hidden Calculation is the word to use but I see where Agnaa is coming from

Case by case basis is more reasonable option especially when it comes to timeframes.

Based on experience, Speed of an ability is often clear cut and can be consistently used except literally contradicted. Timeframes are more often used in one time special scene unless said timeframe is treated like speed (i.e. often related to the workings of an ability/technique or machinery). If these things are related to a character's broader movement speeds and not a specific ability/technique/machinery then its gonna become a bit fucky due to a lot of factors that can affect the character's movements such as physical injury, mentality, acceleration towards top speed. This can be circumvented if the character is blessed with narrator or any other reliable statements always telling us when said character has reached top speed, it saves us the headache.

So yeah its a case by case thingy. I suggest guidelines to help us understand cases where its cool and when it aint cool.

and yes i know im not staff so dont embarrass me on christmas day

 

[DontTalkDT]

Is it valid to take a stated speed, divide 1 meter by that, to get a timeframe to use when being blitzed?

Is it valid to take a stated timeframe, divide 1 meter by that, to get a speed to use when another character visually moves more distance than them?

I mean, definitely not the timeframe? Like, perception/reaction just have nothing to do with speed without a specific distance.
The former is a calculation as well, so that would be calc stacking by definition.

I will also add that I'm definitely against scaling speeds to other people and then using them for those people. That are hidden calculations.

I think it's weirdly illogical to consider someone's stated/canon speed rating valid to put on a profile for their speed rating that scales to other people and then not be ok with using that as someone's reactions/speed in a calculation

What if it's contradicted on one (or several) occasion(s)?
I.e. we have an actual showing of the character not just doing consistent peak performance at all times?

 

[M3X_2.0]

What if it's contradicted on one (or several) occasion(s)?
I.e. we have an actual showing of the character not just doing consistent peak performance at all times?

Then you make a note about this on the character profile. As for calculations, this character is the exception and should be analyzed on a case by case basis.

If at the moment of the feat, the character wasn’t operating at full capacity, don’t use the statement.

 

[Agnaa]

I've revamped the way votes were tallied, separating out each individual aspect of the new standards that would come from this.

Almost everyone has an unclear view on at least one of these issues, so please clarify if you've got a view you want to express.

I should also mention that I'm not counting "Like"s as determining opinion, so certain staff members (@Damage3245) will need to comment if they want me to count them alongside someone else's view.

Is being in a different scene disqualifying?​

Yes: 2 (Agnaa, DMUA)

Unclear: 0

No: 9 (DontTalkDT, TheRustyOne, Flashlight237, Psychomaster35, DemonGodMitchAubin, CloverDragon03, Daleseaon027, M3X_2.0, KLOL506)

---

Is affirmative evidence that they're going at their top speed needed?​

Yes: 3 (Agnaa, DontTalkDT, TheRustyOne)

Unclear: 7 (DMUA, Flashlight237, Psychomaster35, DemonGodMitchAubin, CloverDragon03, Daleseaon027, M3X_2.0, KLOL506)

No: 1 (M3X_2.0)

---

Is evidence that they're not going at their top speed disqualifying?​

Yes: 4 (Agnaa, DontTalkDT, TheRustyOne, M3X_2.0)

Unclear: 7 (DMUA, Flashlight237, Psychomaster35, DemonGodMitchAubin, CloverDragon03, Daleseaon027, M3X_2.0, KLOL506)

No: 0

---

Is an on-screen timer during a scene where a character reacts considered a statement that the character can react in that timeframe?​

Yes: 3 (CloverDragon03, KLOL506, Armorchompy)

Unclear: 7 (TheRustyOne, DMUA, Flashlight237, Psychomaster35, DemonGodMitchAubin, Dalesean027, M3X_2.0)

No: 2 (Agnaa, DontTalkDT)

---

Is one step of scaling disqualifying?​

Yes: 2 (Agnaa, DontTalkDT)

Unclear: 8 (DMUA, TheRustyOne, Psychomaster35, DemonGodMitchAubin, CloverDragon03, Daleseaon027, M3X_2.0, KLOL506)

No: 1 (Flashlight237)

---

Are multiple steps of scaling disqualifying?​

Yes: 3 (Agnaa, DontTalkDT, Flashlight237)

Unclear: 8 (DMUA, TheRustyOne, Psychomaster35, DemonGodMitchAubin, CloverDragon03, Daleseaon027, M3X_2.0, KLOL506)

No: 0

---

Is it okay to convert a stated timeframe to an implied speed, or a stated speed to an implied timeframe?​

Yes, on a case-by-case basis: 4 (CloverDragon03, Dalesean027, M3X_2.0, KLOL506)

Unclear: 4 (DMUA, TheRustyOne, Psychomaster35, DemonGodMitchAubin)

No: 3 (Agnaa, Flashlight237, DontTalkDT)

 

[M3X_2.0]

Is being in a different scene disqualifying?

No.

Is affirmative evidence that they're going at their top speed needed?

Unnecessary. Should be the standard assumption unless said or implied otherwise.

Is evidence that they're not going at their top speed disqualifying?

Absolutely. We need to know if characters are below their optimal capability, and if they are, the statement cannot be used.

Is an on-screen timer during a scene where a character reacts considered a statement that the character can react in that timeframe?

Depends on how the work treats these things.

Is one step of scaling disqualifying?

I don’t know what you mean by this.

Are multiple steps of scaling disqualifying?

Same as above.

Is it okay to convert a stated timeframe to an implied speed, or a stated speed to an implied timeframe?

Case by case basis.

 

[Agnaa]

Already had you down for most of those, so I didn't record any changes.

Depends on how the work treats these things.

In what ways do you think it could depend?

I don’t know what you mean by this.

Same as above.

Character A has a stated speed. Character B scales to Character A. Can Character A's stated speed be used for a calc involving Character B?

 

[KLOL506]

Saw M3X reply so I'll do the same.

Is being in a different scene disqualifying?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say no.

Is affirmative evidence that they're going at their top speed needed?

No, and I'm with M3X on this one that people going top speed in a serious fight should be a default. Ask yourself this, how many to-the-death fights are ever gonna be done holding back or not putting some elbow grease onto it where it could be considered more or less on par with their base stats?

Is evidence that they're not going at their top speed disqualifying?

Yeah.

Is an on-screen timer during a scene where a character reacts considered a statement that the character can react in that timeframe?

Depends on how the work shows it. Before you ask me "In what ways do you think it could depend?" as well, show me a feat like this first, and even then, there's no guarantee other feats in fiction will be exactly like those feats. Every situation is different, and for situations like these I'd rather we be open-minded than restrictive.

Is one step of scaling disqualifying?

Elaboration requested.

Are multiple steps of scaling disqualifying?

Same reply as above, I need further elaboration.

Is it okay to convert a stated timeframe to an implied speed, or a stated speed to an implied timeframe?

Same as M3X: Case-by-case basis.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Already had you down for most of those, so I didn't record any changes.

In what ways do you think it could depend?

Character A has a stated speed. Character B scales to Character A. Can Character A's stated speed be used for a calc involving Character B?

No. Unless they’re stated to be exactly the same in speed/reactions.

In what ways do you think it could depend?

I think the timer from OPM is fine. I wouldn’t say all timers are fine to use, because I don’t know the context. So it depends.

 

[Agnaa]

Generally added these.

Depends on how the work shows it. Before you ask me "In what ways do you think it could depend?" as well, show me a feat like this first, and even then, there's no guarantee other feats in fiction will be exactly like those feats. Every situation is different, and for situations like these I'd rather we be open-minded than restrictive.

I think the timer from OPM is fine. I wouldn’t say all timers are fine to use, because I don’t know the context. So it depends.

I genuinely don't understand what other information could possibly be relevant in a piece of fiction that shows a character reacting/fighting while a timer ticks up on-screen. That wouldn't obviously disqualify things for other reasons (occurring in a dream or something like that).

I'm not asking y'all to commit to literally anything remotely like that, it's just a general question. Like "If a character creates a fireball, can that be calculated using the equation 'E = 1130 * 0.27 * V * 1006', where V is the volume of the fireball?" You don't need to consider possibilities like "What if they thought they were creating a fireball, but it was later revealed that another character was secretly creating it for them?"

Elaboration requested.

Same reply as above, I need further elaboration.

Character A has a stated speed. Character B scales to Character A. Can Character A's stated speed be used for a calc involving Character B?

 

[TheRustyOne]

Is being in a different scene disqualifying?​

I'd say no, just being in a different scene isn't enough to disqualify it.

Is affirmative evidence that they're going at their top speed needed?​

Should be standard to assume they are at their "top" speed unless we have good reason to assume they aren't. Being caught off guard, holding back, or ect.

Is evidence that they're not going at their top speed disqualifying?​

Yes it would.

Is an on-screen timer during a scene where a character reacts considered a statement that the character can react in that timeframe?​

It heavily depends on context. However, going by what you're saying, it should be alright as long as they really reacted in that timeframe.

Is one step of scaling disqualifying?​

No, but only as long as it's very clear the character really does scale to or above the one with the stated timeframe/speed.

Are multiple steps of scaling disqualifying?​

The same as the above.

Is it okay to convert a stated timeframe to an implied speed, or a stated speed to an implied timeframe?​

Uncertain, I imagine it'll depend on the situation.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Gonna put my thoughts on each question Agnaa's OP poses

Is being in a different scene disqualifying?​

No, I don't think it should be

Is affirmative evidence that they're going at their top speed needed?​

No, I feel that this should be the default assumption in the absence of any evidence of the contrary

Is evidence that they're not going at their top speed disqualifying?​

Definitely yeah, unless for some reason their stated speed is for when they're holding back or something of the sort (though in practice, this is just about never a thing).

Is an on-screen timer during a scene where a character reacts considered a statement that the character can react in that timeframe?​

Yes, it's pretty much telling you at face value that they're reacting in that timeframe

Is one step of scaling disqualifying?​

I think we need to be careful when it comes to scaling steps, but for my money, one step shouldn't be disqualifying - since that's far less prone to a lot of muddied discussion about different factors being at play and such

Are multiple steps of scaling disqualifying?​

Case in point: Yes, multiple steps of scaling should be disqualifying. One is the most that should be reasonably allowed

Is it okay to convert a stated timeframe to an implied speed, or a stated speed to an implied timeframe?​

As has been noted in the OP: Yes, I think it should be okay on a case-by-case basis. Most notably, I think that in terms of getting reaction time from a stated speed, it should be fine if the character is demonstrably able to consistently react to those comparable to them at close range.

 

[Damage3245]

Is it okay to convert a stated timeframe to an implied speed, or a stated speed to an implied timeframe?

I'll vote No on this for the reasons DT has mentioned above.

 

[KingTempest]

Is this thread trying to use statements of speed for feats solely where the speed statement is stated?

 

[Agnaa]

Is this thread trying to use statements of speed for feats solely where the speed statement is stated?

The first question in the OP is about that. Currently 9 CGMs think the calc shouldn't have to be in the same scene as the statement, as opposed to 2 who think it should.