Krypto the Superdog- Dirtbot LS Discussion

[Propellus]

Hopefully this thread won't be as painful as I'm literally experiencing lower back pain IRL, but this isn't the point.

Earlier before, there was a same calc of this new calc right here which bumps Dirtbot up to Class M via him tearing off a concrete roof along with a steel safe. But to me personally, I think Cari's version of the calc seems to be more reliable due to him also including the Dirtbot ripping off that safe. But I'll leave that up for discussion for everyone else to decide which is more reliable in use.

And before anyone else asks. No, Krypto and the others will not be scaling to this at all because the Dirtbot clearly overpowers him and he can't even budge him at all.

Either way, here are the options:

Option 1 (Keep Garrixian's original calc):

At least Class K, likely far higher (Krypto or Streaky were unable to even budge him at all. He easily tore off the entire roof of a building); even higher with Mineral Absorption

Option 2 (Use the new calc):

At least Class M, higher with Mineral Absorption (Easily tore off the entire roof of a building, and in addition to absorbing enough minerals, he also tore off a steel safe with ease)

 

[Dalesean027]

Seems fine

 

[Propellus]

Seems fine

Which option do you think works the best?

 

[Dalesean027]

The Class M, the old one only really calculates the weight of the roof not actually tearing it off like the second does

 

[Propellus]

Thanks for the clarification

 

[GarrixianXD]

I didn’t knew we could do that for ripping apart material from tensile stress. The new calc is far better no doubt.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Aye, Dark Carioca's calc is superior and ought to be used- ain't perfect, but very few of our works are. Simple enough CRT, can probably be put into effect with just my eval if you're strained for staff eyes.

 

[Marvel_Champion_07]

New calc is better

 

[Propellus]

Bump

 

[GarrixianXD]

You have two staff approvals to use the second calc, changes are fine to apply now.

 

[Propellus]

Oh alright then, but I need to wait until tomorrow if I'm going to apply the changes

 

[Mr. Bambu]

You have two staff approvals to use the second calc, changes are fine to apply now.

Actually, he has only one. It's thread mods that have technical evaluation rights, whereas content mods handle the actual editing of pages.

Still, as I said previously, I think this is a non-controversial enough CRT to be acceptable with only one staff evaluation- our rules allow for such things.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Actually, he has only one. It's thread mods that have technical evaluation rights, whereas content mods handle the actual editing of pages.

Still, as I said previously, I think this is a non-controversial enough CRT to be acceptable with only one staff evaluation- our rules allow for such things.

Don’t CGM have evaluation rights regarding calcs?

 

[Propellus]

Don’t CGM have evaluation rights regarding calcs?

That's what I've been thinking myself considering this CRT is here to find out which calc seems more reliable in use. And either then, this thread is a CRT instead of a CGMD thread because this upgrades the Dirtbot to Class M.

 

[ImmortalDread]

CGMs are the only members authorized to evaluate the correctness of the math. Whether in verse or in context, which one is more reliable narratively, this responsibility falls to thread moderators (and administrators) for assessment.

 

[GarrixianXD]

CGMs are the only members authorized to evaluate the correctness of the math.

Negative; CGMs also have the check the feat if the calculation conform with its standards, not just the mathematics alone.

 

[Propellus]

CGMs are the only members authorized to evaluate the correctness of the math. Whether in verse or in context, which one is more reliable narratively, this responsibility falls to thread moderators (and administrators) for assessment.

While true, but at the same time this still requires CGMs to take a look at the thread in reviewing it's validity. Thread Moderators usually specify in context and logic rather than math, that's the thing

 

[ImmortalDread]

Negative; CGMs also have the check the feat if the calculation conform with its standards, not just the mathematics alone.

Mathematics standards. So basically, the same what I said. Contextually, narratively, however, are for thread evaluating staff members.

While true, but at the same time this still requires CGMs to take a look at the thread in reviewing it's validity. Thread Moderators usually specify in context and logic rather than math, that's the thing

You said exactly the same thing as I have said. You are conceding, perhaps?

 

[Propellus]

You said exactly the same thing as I have said. You are conceding, perhaps?

Not only that, but I was explaining the point of this thread.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Not only that, but I was explaining the point of this thread.

From my understanding, you're indicating that the focus is on the reliability within the context rather than mathematical correctness, aligning with what I initially mentioned.

Therefore, I believe it's unnecessary to divert the discussion since we both share the same agreement. My intention was simply to clarify the rules of the discussion.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Contextually, narratively, however, are for thread evaluating staff members.

Eh, I remember there’s been statements that CGMs do have evaluation rights concerning calculations. What happened to that proposal lol

 

[ImmortalDread]

Garrixian, why do you like to argue. I am literally the one who created the entire section, so I know what I am talking about. No, they do however have the right to vote in math-changing policy (staff discussion/Calc Group board), or if there is a conflict in comment section, they can vote which method is correct.

But in narrative concerning, they don't have any.

 

[Propellus]

Therefore, I believe it's unnecessary to divert the discussion since we both share the same agreement. My intention was simply to clarify the rules of the discussion.

Alright then.

Don't derail the thread now.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Alright then.

Besides, since it has been explicitly clarified by @Mr._Bambu that this is a minor CRT (which is enough with one staff vote), you can apply the changes after 48 hours of thread creation.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Garrixian, why do you like to argue. I am literally the one who created the entire section, so I know what I am talking about. No, they do however have the right to vote in math-changing policy (staff discussion/Calc Group board), or if there is a conflict in comment section, they can vote which method is correct.

But in narrative concerning, they don't have any.

I'm not arguing. Sorry, should've clarified my wording by saying that I might remembered that incorrectly. I remember there's been a proposal for CGMs to have evaluation rights and I was asking what happened to that.

 

[Arceus0x]

glad that thing i suggested ages ago helped

 

[ImmortalDread]

I'm not arguing. Sorry, should've clarified my wording by saying that I might remembered that incorrectly. I remember there's been a proposal for CGMs to have evaluation rights and I was asking what happened to that.

It's fine. Nothing happens. I was a bit frustrated in other thread, so I apologise for the harsh approach

 

[Dereck03]

I'd be fine with using Carioca's Calc, also everyone here seems the be fine with using it as well so i think there shouldn't be any problem with this.

 

[Propellus]

Applied the changes.