• 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.

More calc group members wanted

Antvasima

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
He/Him
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
165,117
72,044
Given that the calc group is a backbone for our community to function properly, and that there are a lot of calculations to constantly evaluate, we are in constant need of more members.

It is very appreciated if you can help out with asking around, both here and in other battleboard communities, to see if any competent calcers are interested in helping out to improve the reliability of this wiki.

It is the by far most popular character statistics wiki in existence, with over 570000 visitors every month, so they would get a very large audience for their work.
 
I want to learn calcing, but I dont want to bother of any of the calc groups time with asking for their opinion of my calcs.

Especially since I made one and 'only' lina commented.
 
I've done a few calcs, though only one was checked and accepted. But I would like to help out the best I can; I do look at some of the pages for calculation guidelines and rules from time to time, so I might be able help out.
 
Okay. Thanks. As I mentioned earlier, it would also be good if our members start to actively ask around elsewhere to potentially bring experienced calcers to our community.
 
I will keep an eye out for anyone who seems good at calcs and nominate them. What about @Matthew Schroeder by the way? He seems good at calcs.
 
I dunno. It isn't Matthew's main expertise.
 
I am uncertain. He tends to be biased regarding Naruto, and his calcs have a tendency to be rejected.
 
Antvasima said:
I am uncertain. He tends to be biased regarding Naruto, and his calcs have a tendency to be rejected.
Click to expand...
I can vouch for him. The point of being part of a group is that he is able to do the math. Calcing is also set back by having to be approved by other members, so I am fine with him joining. Plus, we all have our biases and as long as he can do the math/is open to being corrected, I think he is fine.
 
Well, liking or disliking a verse is fine, but if that's the sole reason for approving or rejecting calcs, that is not really okay; especially if the calc came from an outlier, PIS, game mechanic, calc stacking, ect.

Edit: I also heard something about needing to do at least three calcs that were generally approved.
 
If his calculations have a tendency to be rejected by our current members, it seems unwise to let him join the group.
 
Gwynbleiddd does have a point in that we need competent people who actually know what they are doing.
 
Why not notify calc group members of your thoughts ask them? I think he has the potential to get better. He is certainly more qualified then anyone else on this wiki that isnt a calc math wise.
 
Again, asking well-known experienced calcers in other communities if they are willing to help out, might be a good idea.
 
Okay. Feel free to ask him then.
 
I agree that we need reasonably high standards. Asking experienced well-known calcers in other forums might be the best option.
 
He'd be a good member once he gets the hang of doing proper calculations and toned down his bias ( Then again we're all biased towards certain series. ) Imo


Practice makes perfect people. Pretty sure most people were do good calculations were like him at some point.
 
Then again we're all biased towards certain series.

Some are more biased than others.


Practice makes perfect people. Pretty sure most people were do good calculations were like him at some point.

Then we should see if he's improved in the next few months or so, then see if we can accept him. The calc group doesn't (and shouldn't) accept newcomers until they've gotten used to the grind and know their way around.

Yes, but this a thread looking for experienced calcers, not a thread to train them. I doubt anyone has the time to.

This.

An idea I have for accepting/rejecting new calc group members is a sort of entrance test, with the judges being our best calc group members. What do you think?
 
Oh yeah no I agree that he shouldn't be given the title of a calc member so said that since it seemed rude in a way.


Anyhow I'll ask around, I have a good friend that's good with calculations. I'll ask if he's interested in joining the wiki to help out with calcs.
 
@Fllflourine Seems fine to me. It is probably more democratic/merit based more then any other solution Say if you have 10 calcs approved by Lina and a few others, i can accept that (I am spitballing this number, dont take this too seriously guys)
 
Well, the current entrance test is for our calc group members to check if the calculations of the nominees are of sufficiently high quality.
 
I would also suggest that the candidates be given feats to calculate, and then they will compare their results to that of the Calc group members.

If the results do not differ too much, and they also give a solid reasoning as to why they might be different than theirs, and if the judges come to a consensus, then they're in.

Though I would prefer our judges being our best calculation group members (i.e. Lina).
 
Well they could, but I need to get some sleep right now, I'll check this thread when I can get back. @Antv
 
Antvasima said:
That seems overly complicated. Checking their previous calculations is much easier to manage.
Click to expand...
I am personally in agreeance with Filflourine here. While it may be "complicated", it is what is needed. I see that quality is needed over quantity, and that we need to be more rigorous when dealing with calculations in general.
 
Well, I am unable to organise such tests, and we would need new ones for every recruitment drive.
 
In addition, it is very uncertain if the current calc group members will generally accept to spend extra time to handle it, rather than simply look at the previous calculations performed by the applicants.
 
Antvasima said:
In addition, it is very uncertain if the current calc group members will generally accept to spend extra time to handle it, rather than simply look at the previous calculations performed by the applicants.
Click to expand...

The problem is, as it is, I feel we are too liberal and accepting of calculations and that has lead to problems
 
Well, we have to try to find a balance between getting enough members to manage all of the evaluations, and only accepting ones that are reasonably competent and unbiased.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AKM sama
New Staff Promotions
2
Replies
67
Views
5K
Lloydblitzed
Lloydblitzed
AKM sama
New Staff Promotions
2 3
Replies
82
Views
9K
AceSnowy
AceSnowy
Antvasima
I am taking a vacation
2
Replies
76
Views
7K
Zeinx1
Zeinx1
Antvasima
  • Locked
A new rule to help our calc group members?
2 3 4
Replies
125
Views
7K
Crabwhale
Crabwhale
AKM sama
New Staff Promotions
4 5 6
Replies
235
Views
13K
Rendynoc0unter
Rendynoc0unter
Back
Top