- 17,173
- 23,334
- Thread starter
- #161
I disagree with your assessment, and I'd say the same back to you, but I'll cease responding to you to avoid this useless back and forth we have cluttering the thread.
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Giving Toneri a Second Chance (Obito Style)
- Thread starter Arc7Kuroi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- naruto naruto the last toneri
- Status
- 7,436
- 13,686
It is, but what he said wasn't about this calc, but his relationship with Naruto on the site in general, which I know literally nothing about. I am pointing out that we are literally coming up with even more ad-hoc headcanon to smooth over the roadbumps with the current ad-hoc headcanon being written to legitimize this calculation. That warrants pretty serious consideration.
- 11,745
- 18,452
And rather than focusing on motives, it'd be best to actually focus on the argument itself
- 7,436
- 13,686
No, it doesn't. I'm not extrapolating his stance towards this calculation to an attitude about the verse at large.
What I said wasn't an accusation of motive, but function. The alleged off-panel events and character motivations imagined therewith literally serve the purpose of legitimizing a calculation.
- 11,745
- 18,452
It doesn't exactly contribute to the discussion though, any way you slice it, and it comes off as such regardless...
Either way, it's best to leave this be, I just find this very distasteful tbh
- 7,436
- 13,686
It does, though. It's pretty significant that we are writing even more things into the movie to validate this.
There's nothing distasteful about it, and I really don't see why this back and forth on the matter was necessary.
Testarossa002
Username Only- 1,492
- 1,366
His plan was to throw the moon at earth not one part of it
The moon started moving the moment his tenseigan became active and didn't stop until he was defeated
There's no need to show that the tenseigan was activated post GWRE when it has always been active
Testarossa002
Username Only- 1,492
- 1,366
This was after Toneri was defeated
No noticeable split from that distance
YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
youtube.com
- 30,176
- 25,547
Cash you move me back to the Disagree list?
Also, i know that the topic if this thread is concerned with a calc, but as it is still primarily a revision thread, I believe that the votes of the Calc Group Members shouldn't be technically counted in the OP. This isn't a case where we're comparing two different calcs.
I admit I may be wrong about this, but just wanted to point that out.
Also, i know that the topic if this thread is concerned with a calc, but as it is still primarily a revision thread, I believe that the votes of the Calc Group Members shouldn't be technically counted in the OP. This isn't a case where we're comparing two different calcs.
I admit I may be wrong about this, but just wanted to point that out.
Last edited:
- 15,065
- 9,244
given that i haven't formally made a serious reply to this thread, this will be my one and only contribution, i wont respond after this or engage with the thread further. I'm not keen on Naruto' CRTs in general let alone one like this but here it is.
The arguments that we shouldn't use this because it's "head canon" is extremely disingenuous.
we can all agree the distance between the wide shot and close up shot are vastly different. but there's absolutely nothing wrong with using the information within a text to deduce a conclusion. literally this is the building blocks for some of the most widely accepted models in our world let alone a fictional stories. even more egregiously is that this kind of argument spits in the face of or own calculations which even the most simple versions require us to make assumptions. in which case you can go ahead and throw all that away if you want.
This is even more hilarious when the argument of inconsistency inherently relies on presuming a strict contradiction in causation, the same causation these preponements suggest we cannot know. if you cannot qualify what happens between when the moon is cut and when we later see the gap then you dont to have the luxury of saying it's inconsistent. saying nothing happened isn't a better qualifier than saying something happened.
On top of that i still think using a secondary scene where the split isn't the focus and putting that on the same degree of importance as when the narrative and feat do take precedence is bizarre, its even weirder because there's no sense of discussion between which of two is more consistent within the narrative its just assumed the later is more important or positions are taken that seems to be neutral "they both inconsistent thus we shouldn't use it" which isn't neutral btw because that position inherently requires you to presume both scenes are of equal importance.
There's also the fact that the novelization supports the split being large enough to see from earth, and the novelization is literally written by the same person who wrote the screenplay of the movie, so there's no discussion to be had in terms of conflict of intention.
If you dont want to agree with OP's conclusion then thats fine, but you dont get to stand on a soapbox and act afsif the opposition is unreasonable
The arguments that we shouldn't use this because it's "head canon" is extremely disingenuous.
we can all agree the distance between the wide shot and close up shot are vastly different. but there's absolutely nothing wrong with using the information within a text to deduce a conclusion. literally this is the building blocks for some of the most widely accepted models in our world let alone a fictional stories. even more egregiously is that this kind of argument spits in the face of or own calculations which even the most simple versions require us to make assumptions. in which case you can go ahead and throw all that away if you want.
This is even more hilarious when the argument of inconsistency inherently relies on presuming a strict contradiction in causation, the same causation these preponements suggest we cannot know. if you cannot qualify what happens between when the moon is cut and when we later see the gap then you dont to have the luxury of saying it's inconsistent. saying nothing happened isn't a better qualifier than saying something happened.
On top of that i still think using a secondary scene where the split isn't the focus and putting that on the same degree of importance as when the narrative and feat do take precedence is bizarre, its even weirder because there's no sense of discussion between which of two is more consistent within the narrative its just assumed the later is more important or positions are taken that seems to be neutral "they both inconsistent thus we shouldn't use it" which isn't neutral btw because that position inherently requires you to presume both scenes are of equal importance.
There's also the fact that the novelization supports the split being large enough to see from earth, and the novelization is literally written by the same person who wrote the screenplay of the movie, so there's no discussion to be had in terms of conflict of intention.
If you dont want to agree with OP's conclusion then thats fine, but you dont get to stand on a soapbox and act afsif the opposition is unreasonable
- 7,436
- 13,686
- 11,745
- 18,452
This whole discussion is on the validity of a calc so no, I’d actually say the CGMs are most needed here
- 7,436
- 13,686
Not the accuracy of a calc, though. The actual calculation is not in dispute, it is whether or not it can be applied to the profile.
- 10,312
- 17,354
.....
Whu....
Our entire debate has been on the validity of the calc itself, not if it's applicable to the profiles or not....
Whu....
Our entire debate has been on the validity of the calc itself, not if it's applicable to the profiles or not....
- 11,745
- 18,452
This is just entirely wrong. The thread is to determine the validity of the 5-C+ calc (specifically the split of the moon). Similar threads have required CGM input, and this is no different
- 7,436
- 13,686
Pardon? No. I'm not disputing how the calc was done, the actual measurement of the scan in question or the scaling used to reach the conclusion. I have no quarrel with how the calculation was performed on that scan.
- 11,745
- 18,452
The debate is on whether the width of the split is valid, and yes, you have very much taken issue with that. That is a very calculation-focused thing. So yes, the opinions of CGMs are important here.
- 17,173
- 23,334
- Thread starter
- #179
This thread was made to discuss precisely the cornerstone assumption of the calc itself. The split size. It is most certainly about the calc. The arguments I’m making for using the wider split size involve the narrative for sure but the underlying basis is 100% about the baseline calc assumption.
- 7,436
- 13,686
"Valid" is muddying the waters here. I am not objecting to how the 61km number was reached or how the calc was done, but whether it should be applied. It's a valid calc, it's just dependent upon an inconsistent scan, and therefore shouldn't be applied.
- 9,109
- 9,426
Haven't fully read the thread, but this is my opinion overall as well
Can likely take a more in-depth look later tho
- 17,173
- 23,334
- Thread starter
- #182
Take your time
- 11,745
- 18,452
A problem of “inconsistent visuals” is very much a calc thing, I’m literally in another thread about such a thing and it’s very much a calc thread.
I don’t think I should have to continuously stress that this will continue to count CGM votes. No ways about it
- 7,436
- 13,686
Then perhaps you should make a Staff Discussion thread updating the current discussion rules?
- 11,745
- 18,452
There’s no need. You’re the one going against how things are handled by wanting a thread about a calc to not count CGM votes. If you have an issue with how things really should be, then I’ll extend that offer to you
- 17,173
- 23,334
- Thread starter
- #187
You bring up a good point I should have made this a CGT rather than a CRT since I’m trying to reinstate a calc on the Naruto verse page. But hindsight is 2023 or sumn like that.
Ninja’d by KLOL
- 30,176
- 25,547
Whether the calculation is a valid calculation is one topic.
Whether the calculation should be applied to the profiles / the verse page is another topic.
The Calc Group Members are to address the first topic, not the second. And unless I'm mistaken the focus of this thread is going to be the second topic.
Whether the calculation should be applied to the profiles / the verse page is another topic.
The Calc Group Members are to address the first topic, not the second. And unless I'm mistaken the focus of this thread is going to be the second topic.
- 7,436
- 13,686
I can't speak to this vaguer notion of "how things are handled" but I can speak to the actual rules on the wiki, which are public knowledge.
You would still have to make a CRT after the CGM consensus is made.
Precisely. I have no issues with the validity of the calculation, I just don't think it should be applied. That was AKM's point as well.
- 11,745
- 18,452
Damage, this premise is very similar to the MHA Star and Stripe calc thread you made: a problem with a calc via inconsistent visuals.
This is very much a CGM job
- 11,745
- 18,452
Yeah, which includes the fact that calc based threads like this are CGM territory
- 30,176
- 25,547
Sure, but that was specifically a Calc Group Member thread where I sought input from Calc Group Members.
I'm not disputing the Calc Group Members getting involved with the 1st topic. It's it all being handled as a Content Revision thread I disagreed with.
- 7,436
- 13,686
As an aside:
@Mr._Bambu @Wokistan You guys both agreed with the initial revision that this thread is attempting to reverse. It'd be helpful if you indicated whether you feel the same way or changed your mind.
@Mr._Bambu @Wokistan You guys both agreed with the initial revision that this thread is attempting to reverse. It'd be helpful if you indicated whether you feel the same way or changed your mind.
- 9,109
- 9,426
People, people. Please stop this derail.
Ninja'd by M3X
Ninja'd by M3X
- 11,745
- 18,452
And this thread has a very similar basis, so if you’re suddenly not seeking out CGM input, that comes off as incredibly dubious
- 30,176
- 25,547
Mr. Bambu does not want to get involved with HST threads as far as I'm aware, so best not to tag them.
- 30,176
- 25,547
I added a second part to that post:
I'm not disputing the Calc Group Members getting involved with the 1st topic. It's it all being handled as a Content Revision thread I disagreed with.
- 7,436
- 13,686
- 11,745
- 18,452
Then it should be moved to a Calc Group Discussion Thread, idk why this was made a CRT to begin with
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
