Calc Stacking problems

[Firephoenixearl]

Well supersonic via bullet thing is still a calc that gives that much. It's just that it's a widely known calc so we know it's result by heart. Not the same as it being stated.

 

[Andytrenom]

It's hardly a calc. Supersonic is a value associated with bullets and it's what gets compared to a character, who shows to be comparable or faster to it. It's not a well known calc anymore than MHS+ via matching lightning is a well known calc

 

[N_Kardashev]

The thing is The World's Nuclear Weapon Stockpile / Arsenal was also derived from calc stacking by taking the yield of nukes and multiplying it by the estimated total number of them. The only difference is the yield of nukes was already given, because somebody else did the calc for it. Only if we had to calc the individual yield of nukes ourselves only then it will be considered calc stacking and thus be rejected. It's all about not stacking the result of your own calculations, but someone else' is ok.

 

[Andytrenom]

Dude, calc stacking specifically does not apply when dealing with real world things. It's a concept only used for indexing fiction

 

[Wokistan]

Calc stacking doesn't apply to irl because physics (hopefully) actually work properly.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Still though calling "calc stacking" from statements or true calcs (example kept up with the bullet of a desert eagle) seems illogical. The whole point of calc stacking is because the amount of assumptions increases allowing for wank. But in this case it really is no different from a single calc.

 

[RatherClueless]

I honestly dont get the issue with this calc specifically. The only thing thats being "assumed" is that they are moving at speeds they were stated many times to be capable of moving at, which isnt much of an assumption to begin with. There are way more assumptous calcs here on the wiki, like this one, which has many logic flaws in its assumptions, but was accepted anyways.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

That's because at Earl's admission this isn't about calc stacking. This is about someone telling him it is. So this entire thread is immediately invalidated and is seemingly an attempt to prove a point by jeopardizing a sizable amount of verses by allowing calc stacking.

Lovely. I'm gonna close this now since this was effectively just a waste of time.

 

[Agnaa]

Now that the thread's back open...

While Earl doesn't think it's calc stacking (because he made a calc using this type of scaling in the first place) other calc group members think it's calc stacking under the current rules.

That is the purpose of this CRT. To change the rules so that something like this isn't considered calc stacking so it can be used in calcs.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

Changing the rules is good and all, but my main problem is if a change of rules is actually justified for cases like this.

 

[Antvasima]

Didn't the staff and calc group members who replied disagree with this, and shouldn't the thread be closed in that case?

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

Agnaa said he wanted to reopen it to discuss about a change in rules, if I remember his words right, since he just doesn't agree with the rules applying to calc stacking in cases like this and others obviously don't as well.

 

[Agnaa]

Didn't the staff and calc group members who replied disagree with this, and shouldn't the thread be closed in that case?

The weird thing's that there's disagreement but not consensus.

Some staff are saying "Nothing should change, but this isn't calc stacking" (1, 2, 3) while other staff are saying "Nothing should change, and this is calc stacking" (1, 2).

So while they both think that the rules shouldn't change (because they don't like the idea of allowing calc stacking), they can't agree on what the current rules are. So I think something has to change here.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

That's a better explanation, there we go.

 

[RatherClueless]

If both parties think they are in the right because of the rules, then there must be something off with them and it'd be good if theyd at least get specified so ppl cant interpret them both ways

 

[RatherClueless]

@Agnaa I'd probably link to the calc itself, where actual calc members said "this is calc stacking", rather than to andy...

 

[Agnaa]

Alright.

Here's two calc group members saying it's calc stacking (Spino, Aide).

I didn't include them in the above list since they made no comment on whether the standards should be changed or not - just that it's calc stacking under the current standards.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I suppose that you can ask DontTalkDT and the calc group members to comment here if you wish.

 

[Agnaa]

Bump. I've asked DT.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thanks.