Calculations, Requests, and Evaluations: Standard Format and General Rules

[Assaltwaffle]

After the creation of my thread pointing out the heavy clutter of calcs, it has been agreed upon that the process needs to be streamlined. Two changes are suggested. The first is a priority system in which requests and evaluations are listed on a priority level, allowing for the group to more effectively do the most important calculations. Second is a standard format for Calculations themselves, Requests, and Evaluations.

For example, we can give a format in which the requester must follow an order and description of the request... e.g...

• Insert Importance/Priority Here (Once agreed upon and implemented)

• Verse/Character Name

• Feat Brief Descriptio ("Mountain Bust", "Tank Explosion", "Planet Bust", ect.)

• Feat Video/Picture When Applicable (Picture inserted/video linked; no manga or other laggy/hard to navigate sites)

• Feat Description and Context (A full explanation of what is going on. Any unusual circumstances or justifications for destruction values, assertion of real lightning, ect. stated here)

Having a system in which we can know exactly what we are getting into instantly as well as how important it is would streamline, direct, and drastically improve our ability to calc quickly. With plenty of good description we can immediately know what is going on instead of having to ask "what is going on" or "how big is *insert object here* after the request is posted.

The calcs themselves would have rules established as to format and requirements (important numbers/formulas bolded, outside-wiki values cited, scientific notation used, ect.) to make the calc easier to read and quickly understand.

Evaluations would just need the same as the request, but without the feat video/description, as both of those should be in the calculation itself.

Of course this is all just what I came up with; this is open to all of the Calc group members and staff: What should be required for the format?

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I believe that I have posted on all active calc members walls. Let's do good work, gentlemen.

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

I don't think imposing a standard for calculations themselves is a good idea. As long as the blog is readable, it's fine. Encouraging users to make more organized calcs that explain context and steps is a good thing to do.

As for the form you made for requests and evaluations, I think that's a great idea and I'm all for it.

 

[Golden_Void]

-drops my text from the other post-

I think there should be something like a 3 tier system.

Tier 1- Verse dependent, immediate and important calcs that affects the standing of the majority or a good portion of a verse (e.g Yhwach elevating the Vandenreich, Soul Society size, a good bit of the Pain Arc)

Tier 2- Calcs that affect a portion of the top and mid tiers of a verse, or ask for the revision of a particular statistic (ex. speed), that scales to a few characters.

Tier 3- Affects a single character, or otherwise doesn't contribute in a significant way to any standing pages at all.

So as far as what you have goes, the first three points should be used for requests and evaluations, the last two should be used for actual calc blogs, however people can format the blogs themselves however they like. It's rare that you see a completely terrible outline.

 

[FanofRPGs]

I am in agreeance in Rice and Assaltwaffle

I think in some format we need to have this template for use, whether it be in a request, evaluation, or in the blog itself. Makes stuff easier for the content revision thread. I also agree we rate calcs by the scope at which they change characters and too the urgency they are to be evaluated.

I actually wrote up some rules on evaluating calculations, though admittedly even my friends admitted they were much too authoritarian. Anyways, rule 5 is a lot like what you are suggesting. Though I also believe one must too state the chapter/episode/volume/section of the media boasting the feat

 

[ArbitraryNumbers]

I personally think newcomers to the wiki already have a lot of stuff they need to be aware of before they jump in; they've got to educate themselves on the tiering system, speed ratings, our terminology, the policies we go by (including the entire combined list of rules), the standard assumptions we tend to make when evaluating feats, etc.

Yes the more organization, the better. But I don't want to make it a chore for newcomers to join in. The process is already long enough.

That being said, I do think it would make it easier to examine the request thread if the OP simply posts the standard format in the original post.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

So right now we are against putting rules on the calcs themselves, but support a standard format (currently suggested to use my example in the original post) for requests and evaluations.

What about the use of media? If someone uses an image should it be uploaded to the site? It is an almost instant "nope" for me if a calc links to an unaltered panel of a manga site.

 

[Antoniofer]

We generally use some standard for calc blogs, just that they not strictly necesary: is the blog itself miss from info then generally we say that in the comments, like screenshot, scaling, context, etc. The only thing necesary is that the blog should be readable.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Being readable is pretty subjective. Is there anything uniform that would increase general readability?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I think that we have to allow uploading a few individual manga pages, in lack of better options, as othervise plenty of calculations will not be possible to perform.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I don't want to ban manga pages, but I don't understand why the panel can't be uploaded to our Wiki rather than only viewed on the manga site.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, linking to a manga site might be better to avoid the Fandom staff starting to delete our pictures due to copyright reasons. I just don't think that we should forbid it outright.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Hmm. Alright. I'll yield to your judgement on this; I didn't think about copyright laws. Well, I guess I'll just avoid calcs that can only be shown via those sites.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, again, there is nothing wrong with linking to manga sites, or uploading the images here, but the former option seems safer.

 

[Liger686]

I agree with the standard format for evaluations and requests, and I think Unite's tiering system is fine. However, I don't agree with a standard format for calculation blogs.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I like UMR's tiers, but I think there should be a tier 4. Tier 3 should be a calc that changes one character. I'd add tier 4 for supportive or unnecessary calcs, since these are not as important as calcs that have real impact on a character.

 

[RadicalMrR]

Making a system seems helpful. UMR and Assalt's suggestion for the tiers might work.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

So, to summarize what we have discussed thus far.

We have agreed to make a standard format for Requests and Evaluations, but NOT the calculations themselves. The Request format is as follows.

Importance/Priority:

Verse/Character Name:

Feat Brief Description:

Feat Video/Picture When Applicable:

Feat Description and Context:

Evaluations would leave off the bottom two, as they should both be present in the calculation itself.

We have also agreed on a tiering system based off of UMR and my suggestions. In its current state, it reads as follows:

Tier 1: Verse dependent. Affects the majority of the standing cast within the verse.

Tier 2: Scales to a decent number of characters. Can put characters into different tiers within the verse (mid to high, low to mid, ect.), but does not affect the majority of the characters within the verse.

Tier 3: Gives an important rating that will be commonly used in battles (Durability, Attack Potency, Speed) to a single character.

Tier 4: Gives an unimportant or supportive rating to a character or verse; recreational and un-needed calcs.

Does this sound good so far, any opposition to the current suggestions?

 

[Golden_Void]

"Importance/Priority:

Verse/Character Name:

Feat Brief Description:

-------------------------------Actual calc blog----------------------------------

Feat Video/Picture When Applicable:

Feat Description and Context:"

The rest looks good tho.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that UMR's latest suggestion seems good, and easy to understand.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I thought we weren't imposing a format on the actual calc blog?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, these would be very limited, and seemingly helpful, format suggestions.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Alright. Should we give everyone 24 hours or something to speak against anything here?

 

[Golden_Void]

Yeah, I'd repost this link back in the other thread to get everyone's attention.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Could you do that for me UMR? I'm away from my computer and navigating the mobile wiki is a pretty big pain.

Edit: Thanks.

 

[Golden_Void]

No prob :^)

 

[Antvasima]

Here is the current text for the calculation evaluations thread. It needs to be modified by incorporating the new information:

"This thread is intended for users to link to new blog post calculations, to relay them to the community, and have them evaluated by the calculation group, without contacting the members individually.

To evaluate important off-site calculations, kindly create a separate thread in the content revision forum section, and then post a link to it here.

In the event that this fails to garner attention, users may politely remind the calculation group members to take a look.

Any further discussion should not continue here, but rather strictly take place in the linked blog posts or content revision threads, with the exception that calc group members should note which calculation blogs that they have responded to. Also, users should preferably post the name of the verse that a calculation refers to, in order to generate interest.

All members of the calculation group are requested to follow, bookmark, and regularly inspect this thread.

If a calculation has been performed and accepted, please add it to this page.

Also, when writing a calculation blog, always inform about the exact episode/chapter that the feat occurs in, as well as the time when the feat occurs, if it happens within a video segment. This makes it easier for the calc group members to verify if the calculation has been done correctly."

Here is the current text for the calculation requests thread. It also needs to be modified accordingly:

"This is the official thread for requesting calcs to be done by the members of the Calc Group and other senior editors.

However, this help is entirely optional, and the people who do the requesting cannot expect that anybody will somehow be automatically interested in doing the requested calcs.

It is not allowed to complain about delays in producing calcs. It is also strictly prohibited to spam the message walls of Admins and the members of the Calc group to have a look at the thread.

The calc group will have a final say as to whether a calc is feasible or not, and will discuss internally who is to do the calc.

If a calculation has been performed and accepted, please add it to this page.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

This thread is only for posting requests, and for the calculation group to respond to said requests. Off-topic discussion is absolutely not allowed, and will result in the posts being deleted, and the ones responsible possibly receiving a block. However, you are allowed to answer questions from the calculation group members."