Calc Stacking Issue (Regarding Speed)

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

We're rather lenient actually. If something has a stated speed we use that. If multiple feats occur in the same thing we can use that. If a known distance is involved via dialogue we can again use that.

I don't know what the first link's verse is or what it was supposed to prove, but again, you keep recycling back to the "occur in the same thing requirement" that this thread is attempting to overturn.

A character's speed will not randomly fluctuate, so there's no legitimate reason to limit it only to when the feat happens. That's the point im trying to make here.

It really shouldn't. Because it leads to a massive ouroboros for speed scaling. Because you get things like Basil reacting to a kick then upscaling people based on them blitzing Basil, which can then be stacked later on. It creates more layers of calc stacking rather than fixing anything and will lead to inflated stats.

Read above again. "Inflated" is not a counter argument. Nor is using specific verses. I've explained why multiple times now.

 

[Qawsedf234]

A character's speed will not randomly fluctuate

They do by their own showings. On site we treat them as operating at their peak capacity but that's not how they actually work in the thing itself. Luffy has anti-feats suggesting a racecar can outrun him, the Flash has been shanked by Deathstroke and has been knocked out by whales and people firing bows can consistently tag people who can react to much faster things.

"Inflated" is not a counter argument

It totally is.

Nor is using specific verses.

It also is. Pretending its not doesn't change the fact that this will lead to massively increased speeds across the board for every single franchise this gets approved over. To the point where there will be calcs of close range dodges that will get people's speed ratings to be multiple degrees above every other thing they've been shown to do.

 

[Agnaa]

Or or or, im suggesting that our take on calc stacking isn't to be so restrictive that we deny anything within a 1 ft radius of our sites profiles just because of "high results" being a thing and double standards.

With that comment I was primarily interested in clarifying whether you wanted this to apply to JUST speed, despite similar arguments being able to me bade for all other statistics.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

They do by their own showings. On site we treat them as operating at their peak capacity but that's not how they actually work in the thing itself. Luffy has anti-feats suggesting a racecar can outrun him, the Flash has been shanked by Deathstroke and has been knocked out by whales and people firing bows can consistently tag people who can react to much faster things.

First of all, unless I read your latter example the wrong way, you just debunked yourself. "Consistently tag people who can react to much faster things" isn't an anti feat against them, but a feat for the given projectiles.

Secondly, this is also not a counter argument against speed not fluctuating, because this argument is just aimed at the speed rating as a whole and suggesting the character is never that fast in the first place. Luffy being outrun by a race car wouldnt mean his speed varies on a whim, it would just mean Rel+ was never accurate for him from the beginning and he was never that fast (then again, I don't know One Piece or it's context at all, so im just going off this for the sake of example). Same thing with the Flash.

And this point ignores potential context as to why the character was put into those situations too (ex: was Luffy fatigued? Did he purposely lower his speed? etc etc.; again, for the sake of example generally speaking).

It totally is.

It isn't. It's not up to you to claim a rating is inflated, it's up for the verse to decide that when proving it is or isn't.

It also is. Pretending its not doesn't change the fact that this will lead to massively increased speeds across the board for every single franchise this gets approved over.

Then again, let those verses provide their own cases on what can or can't be proven to make a result consistent and fit with that verse's scaling. So long as a series is able to do that, I could care less about the number of series effected or what series get's effected.

To the point where there will be calcs of close range dodges that will get people's speed ratings to be multiple degrees above everything else they've been shown to do.

See above.

 

[Qawsedf234]

. It's not up to you to claim a rating is inflated, it's up for the verse to decide that when proving it is or isn't.

And your idea will just lead to those inflated results. Please, give a verse where your suggestion of calcs would be consistent with their feats

So long as a series is able to do that

What series can do this then

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

...I believe your kinda missing the point here Qawsed.

The point is, something being inflated or not isn't up to any one of us to assume first (especially for people who have 0 knowledge on a verse when looking at it). The series itself should be given the opportunity to prove a result is consistent, and otherwise not inconsistent or outlerish, for them. Hence, a case by case basis suggestion. A verse who can do that doesn't make a result inflated.

And if they can't do that, then you are more than welcome to claim inflation among their feats.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Hence, a case by case basis suggestion.

I'm asking what verse would pass under a case by case basis.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I'm asking what verse would pass under a case by case basis.

Any verse that has supporting feats, supporting scaling, lack of anti-feats, and otherwise supporting details and context to substantiate higher results being safe for them to use?

Or are you asking me for specific verses that do any / all of the former?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Or are you asking me for specific verses

I'm directly asking you to provide a verse that fits your stated proposition. I want an example of something that would pass in your proposed system.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I'm directly asking you to provide a verse that fits your stated proposition. I want an example of something that would pass in your proposed system.

Okay, but can I ask...why? Im not seeing why me doing or not doing that would change my point here (and I kinda don't know every verse on this site...).

 

[Qawsedf234]

Okay, but can I ask...why?

I work better when I have an example to work off of. I want to know what would pass in your system and what would not. I can give a better weigh in that way.

So please, I want to know what would pass in your system.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I work better when I have an example to work off of. I want to know what would pass in your system and what would not. I can give a better weigh in that way.

Oh. Well if you want one, from my guess, maybe Dragon Ball? It was mentioned here before and someone above already expressed issues about something being called calc-stacking when it should be acceptable.

The feat being Goku traveling from the other side of Namek in a second (but @Meganova_Stella would have to be the one to go into more details in defending the feat than me).

 

[Qawsedf234]

If you meant this

when frieza is blocked by goku who was ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET

That was because he wasn't on the other side of the planet. That was just the back of the Viz manga. In the story itself they were still pretty close to Frieza's space ship.

But Dragon Ball until Super would be more consistent. Though everything regarding their flight speed is pretty awful compared to how we scale their combat speed.

 

[Agnaa]

With that comment I was primarily interested in clarifying whether you wanted this to apply to JUST speed, despite similar arguments being able to me bade for all other statistics.

Bumping this since it looks like you missed it @ProfessorKukui4Life

 

[Urshani]

If you meant this

That was because he wasn't on the other side of the planet. That was just the back of the Viz manga. In the story itself they were still pretty close to Frieza's space ship.

But Dragon Ball until Super would be more consistent. Though everything regarding their flight speed is pretty awful compared to how we scale their combat speed.

and what distance is 'pretty close', especially by the standards of superhuman beings

 

[Qawsedf234]

and what distance is 'pretty close'

Something like 10 - 100 kilometers away from Goku.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Bumping this since it looks like you missed it @ProfessorKukui4Life

Ah sorry. To answer, while im not really too focused on revising other stat standards like I am here for speed under these same merits for calculations, if similar arguments can be made for them like they're being made for speed here, and if we generally do the same for same as what's being done for speed now, then maybe we should do this for other stats as well.

That being said, other stats operate on different mechanics for calcs than speed does, and this would be a larger discussion to have involving them that im not putting focus on at the moment.

 

[Urshani]

Something like 10 - 100 kilometers away from Goku.

uh huh...and would it be calc stacking if i mathed out the speed goku would have to be to travel that distance before another FTL character (Frieza) kills another FTL character (Vegeta) using the last two's previously calced speeds?

 

[Urshani]

wait no he was already dead by then ****

i think

i need to REWATCH dragon ball

 

[Qawsedf234]

and would it be calc stacking if i mathed out the speed goku would have to be to travel that distance before another FTL character (Frieza) kills another FTL character (Vegeta) using the last two's previously calced speeds?

Yes. Because you're using the speed granted from multiple degrees of scaling to determine the speed of a unverified distance.

Also this assumption is off, because Frieza didn't throw a strike nor was he mid-strike when Goku arrived. He was just getting ready for one.

wait no he was already dead by then ****

Vegeta died after Goku came to the fight since that;s when Frieza laser beamed him.

 

[Urshani]

Yes. Because you're using the speed granted from multiple degrees of scaling to determine the speed of a unverified distance.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I worded that poorly

Yes. Because you're using the speed granted from multiple degrees of scaling with to an unverified distance to determine speed.

But the second part is the key factor, since Frieza wasn't throwing a strike at the time and just strolled to Vegeta.

 

[Urshani]

I worded that poorly

But the second part is the key factor, since Frieza wasn't throwing a strike at the time and just strolled to Vegeta.

i concede for now since i remember that scene wrong

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Im not too well versed into Dragon Ball when it comes to their calced feats, but given the series popularity on this site, im sure there are other calced feats that have been branded as calc stacking before.

Does anyone know of any besides the one talked above?

 

[Agnaa]

If you're, in general, looking for feats that were branded as calc stacking, there's this one. It originally used the tennis balls blitzing someone who'd dodged bullets before to say that they were thrown at supersonic speeds, getting a result 5x higher (since normal humans can throw tennis balls at 73 m/s anyway) but still in the same speed value (Sub-Relativistic).

Given how this feat comes from episode 2 of the show, and since then there's a decently long chain of speedblitzing, allowing speed to be used between scenes would get results even higher. Although those calcs haven't been made yet.

 

[Urshani]

If you're, in general, looking for feats that were branded as calc stacking, there's this one. It originally used the tennis balls blitzing someone who'd dodged bullets before to say that they were thrown at supersonic speeds, getting a result 5x higher (since normal humans can throw tennis balls at 73 m/s anyway) but still in the same speed value (Sub-Relativistic).

Given how this feat comes from episode 2 of the show, and since then there's a decently long chain of speedblitzing, allowing speed to be used between scenes would get results even higher. Although those calcs haven't been made yet.

another example of why calc stacking shouldn't exist

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I was given a TL;DR, forgive me if the topic has moved past this point.

I agree that in a few select situations, calc stacking seems logical. However, this is an extremely slippery slope. Every verse will believe they are the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah, I worry that especially with statements like "Ratings being inflated isn't a counterargument", and the context that this thread seems to have come from (this thread about scaling flight speed to reactions, where one of the main issues was that assuming flight speed was constant across scenes would be calc stacking, which itself came from this thread, which has MFTL+ combat and reaction speeds around 500 quadrillion c sourced from scaling reaction speed to flight speed; in the absence of which the verse appears to only have peak human reactions) that something like this would slip all the way down the slope.

I brought up a similar thing in the flight speed thread, where it doesn't feel like the proposition is "We'll only allow calc stacking in line with standards similar to Multipliers, where anything above 100x requires excessive supporting evidence", instead it feels like things will nearly be allowed to run wild, only with the minor safeguards of "If they're obviously holding back or missing a powerup you can't do it" and "If there's more completely inarguable anti-feats than calc stacked high-ends, they'll be downgraded", safeguards which will still let 99.9% of verses run wild, getting speeds 10^25 times higher without anyone batting an eye.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I was given a TL;DR, forgive me if the topic has moved past this point.

I agree that in a few select situations, calc stacking seems logical. However, this is an extremely slippery slope. Every verse will believe they are the exception rather than the rule.

Okay and while I understand this and agree people will try and make some things that definitely won't be acceptable slip through the cracks, this is not a reason for full rejection when there are logical cases and nothing problematic happens for the series it's for.

Being a slippery slope just means we need to be very careful with judging this, which is an obvious given, and then weed out cases that don't apply to this.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Being a slippery slope just means we need to be very careful with judging this, which

I can't see this honestly. It sounds good on paper but it's to easy to get something by if you aren't familiar with a series and are asked to pass judgement on it or make a calc off of an unfamiliar series.

I'm just not for it, even if there's theoretically one series that would fit this criteria and maybe get consistent results from it, it actively hurts everything else.

 

[Urshani]

I was given a TL;DR, forgive me if the topic has moved past this point.

I agree that in a few select situations, calc stacking seems logical. However, this is an extremely slippery slope. Every verse will believe they are the exception rather than the rule.

slippery slope fallacy

 

[Agnaa]

slippery slope fallacy

Slippery Slope's not actually a fallacy. Hence why it's not on our fallacy page, and not in serious lists of logical fallacies (in fact, many point out that it isn't a fallacy). It's a coherent argument that's only as weak as the weakest link in the chain of events.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I can't see this honestly. It sounds good on paper but it's to easy to get something by if you aren't familiar with a series and are asked to pass judgement on it or make a calc off of an unfamiliar series.

Then there is a simple solution for this: we need to do a better job at managing our pages then.

Inconsistent ratings get put on the pages all the time on this site no matter what, yet that isn’t any legitimate reason to put up a gate and put to stop to any and all cases where some can be applicable to this just fine.

No argument other than “too easy for many series to qualify” and “inflates everything else@ keeps being reiterated here again and again when, again, that really isn’t your call to make. Especially for a series you don’t know.

 

[Urshani]

Slippery Slope's not actually a fallacy. Hence why it's not on our fallacy page, and not in serious lists of logical fallacies (in fact, many point out that it isn't a fallacy). It's a coherent argument that's only as weak as the weakest link in the chain of events.

proof? source? Scan?

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I don’t think saying, random regular user may try and abuse this, is a solid argument. There’s bound to be people looking to abuse standards for upgrades/downgrades everywhere, it’s a byproduct of having a public forum filled with different agendas.

 

[Damage3245]

proof? source? Scan?

You want a scan that it isn't on the Fallacy page?

 

[Urshani]

You want a scan that it isn't on the Fallacy page?

it should be there. anyway i looked it up on wikipedia which basically says 'in most cases this is a fallacy, but in some with lots of evidence it's not'

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I don’t think saying, random regular user may try and abuse this, is a solid argument. There’s bound to be people looking to abuse standards for upgrades/downgrades everywhere, it’s a byproduct of having a public forum filled with different agendas.

So much this^

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It is not a fallacy to be concerned for a vague change that affects many things. The suggested revision would be one that is capable of frankly wrecking immense amounts of work and quality control done by users and staff since this site has gone up, and creates the precedent that calc stacking is A-okay if you can argue for it long enough. I fail to see a fallacy. If you'd like to prove it as one, do so at your own leisure, rather than citing a fallacy type that does not exist.

My vote remains "no", if/when we're counting them.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Then there is a simple solution for this: we need to do a better job at managing our pages then.

Inconsistent ratings get put on the pages all the time on this site no matter what, yet that isn’t any legitimate reason to put up a gate and put to stop to any and all cases where some can be applicable to this just fine.

No argument other than “too easy for many series to qualify” and “inflates everything else@ keeps being reiterated here again and again when, again, that really isn’t your call to make. Especially for a series you don’t know.

Quickly, I'll also parrot a sentiment I heard some time ago- I forget the source so forgive me.

We can't get better, for the most part. We have a good level of quality at the moment, it is reasonably improving over time. Your suggestion massively hurts that, with the only solution to the issue it makes being "get better". We can't. We have a finite amount of staff expected to oversee multiple CRTs in which they have no knowledge of the verse itself. Verse experts often cannot provide enough context and in almost all scenarios the staff member isn't expected to go through the entire verse just to find the problem presented.

Because your suggestion harms the wiki to such an insane, mind-boggling extent, I simply cannot approve it, even if it seems logical for one verse. That is my stance, that will remain my stance.