Discussion about a certain Kirby calc

[Eficiente]

From this other thread, this thread here had to be to better evaluate this calc. We accepted it as a "likely", but I believe that to be a very rushed decision that would change with better communication.

The premise of the feat is: This explosion happens in space, Kirby & co. escape it while passing by stars and a galaxy from a lateral point of view, then as they keep moving away we see from a frontal point of view another galaxy in the background and that the explosion is expanding onto Kirby & co., there's a cut and next thing we know they're all off the vehicle they had with Kirby unconscious, being thus implied that they were reached by the explosion and therefore it having reached those 2 galaxies, as well as the other galaxies seen in the area where the fight took place (where the explosion happened).

Or, it maybe didn't reach the first galaxy but had to cover an area of a higher size, as it was expanding omnidirectionally while it moved passed that galaxy.

Less of that was said in the calc, so I can see how that causes an issue. The users who evaluated the calc have this opinions:

• Psychomaster agreed with the math but is neutral on whether or not the galaxies were enveloped
• Therefir agrees with everything
• Migue79 asked for the evidence of 2 galaxies being engulfed but didn't reply after that.
• Dragon gamer made the calc and obviously agrees with it, for what that counts.

The is some debate about it in the calc, but one wouldn't need to study graphic design to know that it's a bit of a mess. If we use a calc then one should just go to see it, see it accepted and that's it, not go through all that stuff just in case, and nor can real conversations happen in the way blogs are made, that's what we use threads for.

So I call in @Psychomaster35 @Therefir @Migue79 @DragonGamerZ913 and whoever knowledgeable users may want to comment about the calc.

 

[Antvasima]

@Psychomaster35 @Therefir @Migue79 @DragonGamerZ913

What do you think about this?

 

[CloverDragon03]

Well as the one who made the calc, yeah I agree with it, surprise surprise. I think there is enough evidence to warrant the idea that the galaxies were encompassed by the blast.

Of course, as the person who made the calc, my opinion isn't as pertinent as the opinions of other calc group members.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you anyway.

@Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Mr._Bambu @Therefir @DMUA @Damage3245 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Jasonsith @Wokistan @Armorchompy @KieranH10 (@Migue79) @Psychomaster35 @Amelia_Lonelyheart

What do you think about this?

 

[Psychomaster35]

As I said, I am neutral.

 

[Eficiente]

Can you explain how so?

 

[Eficiente]

@Psychomaster35

 

[Antvasima]

He probably just has a hard time to make up his mind in this case. There is no need to pressure him.

 

[Antvasima]

@Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Mr._Bambu @Therefir @DMUA @Damage3245 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Jasonsith @Wokistan @Armorchompy @KieranH10 @Migue79 @Amelia_Lonelyheart

We would appreciate your input here, so we can make some progress. Thanks in advance for any help.

 

[Therefir]

I don't really understand the issue, why make another thread? Because it was rushed? My opinion hasn't changed and I don't see anything here that would change it.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that Eficiente simply wants more calc group member input, after which we can continue with the other thread, but am not sure.

What is your previous and remaining opinion here?

 

[Eficiente]

I don't really understand the issue, why make another thread? Because it was rushed? My opinion hasn't changed and I don't see anything here that would change it.

Some reasons

• We were going to add the calc only as "likely" when I'm pretty sure that it should be plain correct, but in case valid reasons are given to only used it as "likely" then that's to be evaluated by the other people who accepted the calc. I'm just playing fair in that sense.
• This can have repercussions on similar calcs, so it's better to not have some users accept them and others being unsure.
• There would be too many profiles I would need to edit and fix if we have the calc as "likely" now but change our mind later in the future.
• Hypothetically, if Psychomaster doesn't give valid reasons but insists on being neutral, I would be no one to say "Well, we need to ignore that and use the calc as plain correct anyway", users on the calc group would be to evaluate so. Not that I think this will happen, just that it could.

 

[Therefir]

I see, yeah, there's no reason to use a "likely" rating, the galaxies that Kirby passed by are simply not there anymore after the explosion occurred.

 

[Jasonsith]

Can we calculate the distance between Kirby and co and the epicenter? (Something inverse square law)

 

[Eficiente]

I see, yeah, there's no reason to use a "likely" rating, the galaxies that Kirby passed by are simply not there anymore after the explosion occurred.

Well, to be fair that's because they're back into their universe. They were in some dimension that had green galaxies, and retired from there while flying through the place until presumably reaching the portal back to their universe, which had no green galaxies.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I see, yeah, there's no reason to use a "likely" rating, the galaxies that Kirby passed by are simply not there anymore after the explosion occurred.

The "likely" rating isn't from the calc, it was from a past CRT that made Kirby god tiers "At least 4-A, likely 3-C"

 

[Eficiente]

Bump.

 

[Jasonsith]

Oh Kirby is low multiverse level now so does this thread matter anymore?

Or just put a lower mid end for this?

 

[Eficiente]

It does matter, he's not plain "2-C" alone but agreed so far to be "4-A, likely 3-C to 2-C", with some low-tiers ending up being "[Tier 6], possibly 4-A to 3-C to 2-C", due to possibly scaling to top-tiers. If we agree to plainly use the 3-C calc then top-tiers would be "3-C, likely 2-C" and those low-tiers "[Tier 6], possibly 3-C to 2-C", which is just an astetic improvement.

 

[Antvasima]

So have you reached any conclusions here, and should I reopen the old staff forum thread after this one has been finished?

 

[Eficiente]

That other thread is finished, I'll apply everything from there after this thread here is done. We are waiting for @Psychomaster35 but otherwise I can't reach a conclusion here myself, the people called would need to do so should he not come or not have much to say.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Should I call for all of our calc group members again then?

 

[Psychomaster35]

Now that I see it, I suppose I can agree with it. I was unsure at first given the perspectives.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the reply.

 

[Eficiente]

Thanks for commenting, and apologize for the trouble, I had to do this thread.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Oh Kirby is low multiverse level now so does this thread matter anymore?

Or just put a lower mid end for this?

As Eficiente mentioned, it's a "likely 2-C"

This calc would change a "At least 4-A, likely 3-C to 2-C" to "3-C, likely 2-C"