One Piece: ANOTHER Dressrosa Size Revision

[Damage3245]

Now a heavy thing that I noticed you spoke about was "consistency". Yeah, that's bs.

Because before we worked on "which was a factually better calc", but now it's "what calcs bring a closer value".

Well... I brought up both. I compared the calc methods first, and then I went into consistency. Am I not allowed to address both?

And before you go and dissect every single calc, you already know at least 3 of these are getting accepted.

So the question is, do you really want to argue with me of all people about consistency?

I'm a little confused. How many of these calcs are you submitting in good faith, or are you just trying anything you can think of and seeing what sticks?

Do you want me to evaluate these new calcs or not?

I mean... What are you arguing for? That Dressrosa is 22 km across? 28 km across? 135 km across? 200 km across?

 

[KingTempest]

No because you just sent 2 extra calcs, so now I don't know what we're truly trying to apply.

So I guess whatever sticks?

 

[Damage3245]

@KingTempest; Also, I know you've got some beef with me, but can you try to act a bit more politely here? Your whole comment has an unsubtle passive aggressive tone calling my arguments "cute" and sarcastically saying "that's funny" or "that's weird" or saying that me talking about consistency is "bs".

I'm aware you haven't deliberately targeted me with any of this - but it sets a pretty toxic tone for the thread when you're being so argumentative and clearly worked up. Like... we're just debating calcs here. Why even get worked up about it? We're both staff members so let's just take it down a notch, okay?

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

One of the threads of all time

 

[KingTempest]

Nope

My response stands as it is

 

[KingTempest]

Lemme rephrase

I'm not throwing whatever sticks.

I'm throwing everything into the ballpark.

I propose every calculation possible, and whichever is factually the greatest calc goes

 

[Damage3245]

Nope

My response stands as it is

As a staff member, I'm giving you a warning since you insist on doubling down instead of just being respectful when your behaviour has been pointed out. Our own rules state:

• You can leave comments in our forums if you want to point out information that seems inaccurate, but do not become obnoxious, unreasonable, or overly argumentative, and do not engage in any other, previously mentioned, disallowed behaviors.

There's no point in any of this if we can't argue civilly with each other. Being as passive aggressive as you are and then saying "My response stands as it is" strikes me as being obnoxious and overly argumentative. You're a staff member KT, don't forget that.

Lemme rephrase

I'm not throwing whatever sticks.

I'm throwing everything into the ballpark.

I propose every calculation possible, and whichever is factually the greatest calc goes

Okay, I'll work on an evaluation for each new calculation then if you insist on submitting each one.

 

[Deceived3596]

I'll post my opinion on the points presented when I have the free time to do so.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I'll post my opinion on the points presented when I have the free time to do so.

No one at the time knew, but this would turn out to be Deceived’s last post on this thread

 

[KingTempest]

I'll take my warning and admit I was wrong.

Now can we get along with this thread. It's been 3 weeks with no progress.

 

[Kachon123]

As a staff member, I'm giving you a warning since you insist on doubling down instead of just being respectful when your behaviour has been pointed out. Our own rules state:

• You can leave comments in our forums if you want to point out information that seems inaccurate, but do not become obnoxious, unreasonable, or overly argumentative, and do not engage in any other, previously mentioned, disallowed behaviors.

There's no point in any of this if we can't argue civilly with each other. Being as passive aggressive as you are and then saying "My response stands as it is" strikes me as being obnoxious and overly argumentative. You're a staff member KT, don't forget that.

You yourself acknowledged that nothing he said was necessarily a shot targeted toward you. Calling arguments that he deems bad as cute and weird isn't toxic or passive aggressive. It's him saying what he believes. if you're upset about that then maybe you should take a step away from your screen and learn that people can insult your arguments without insulting you.

 

[Damage3245]

I'll take my warning and admit I was wrong.

Now can we get along with this thread. It's been 3 weeks with no progress.

Thank you.

We have made some progress I think; there's just more to cover now which has come up from both of our arguments. I'll do my best to respond quickly but it is a lot to cover.

You yourself acknowledged that nothing he said was necessarily a shot targeted toward you. Calling arguments that he deems bad as cute and weird isn't toxic or passive aggressive. It's him saying what he believes. if you're upset about that then maybe you should take a step away from your screen and learn that people can insult your arguments without insulting you.

KT accepted the warning. I don't need any backseat moderating, thank you. A user can say what they believe without being passive aggressive and toxic about it, which is what I got from his earlier post.

 

[Kachon123]

KT accepting his warning doesn't mean that what you did isn't childish. Sure we can move on, but backseat moderating is far better than garbage moderating.

 

[CloverDragon03]

…All that aside…

I’m still on KT’s side of this argument here, given the whole “consistency” thing feels like a moot point with how you can get “consistency” for damn near any value you want using mathematically correct methods, as shown by this whole back and forth.

And given that the calcs Damage proposed ended up closer to KT’s with some minor alterations (that imo are probably more accurate overall given his reasoning), I don’t think the ~9 km figure we currently use holds up.

 

[Damage3245]

KT accepting his warning doesn't mean that what you did isn't childish. Sure we can move on, but backseat moderating is far better than garbage moderating.

No more derailing, thank you.

@CloverDragon03 Some methods being mathematically correct doesn't mean they're as valid as other methods if they're based on incorrect assumptions. I'll let you know when I've had the chance to properly evaluate what KT has brought up.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I mean, looking at the calcs KT altered for instance, I don’t see any such incorrect assumptions in his alterations

 

[Damage3245]

I mean, looking at the calcs KT altered for instance, I don’t see any such incorrect assumptions in his alterations

I was moreso thinking of the six brand new calcs that KT brought up, but I'll address the altered calcs too.

 

[SlendVeny]

Fully agree with KT

 

[Deceived3596]

No one at the time knew, but this would turn out to be Deceived’s last post on this thread

---

Initial Thoughts and Opinion on Angsizing vs Pixel Scaling:​

As for the actual thread itself and points presented by KT and Damage. I find myself leaning towards agreeing with KT's calculations more than compared to Damage's calculations. Damage has brought up the fact we generally assume calculations which gain values by angsizing are less reliable than those gained by pixel scaling. I don't have any inherent disagreements with this ideal, in fact I generally agree with it. I however don't agree it's applicable in all situations; it's heavily dependent on the context surrounding the feat itself. I believe the fact we're told by Kin'emon that he can't visualize distinctions between the palace itself to the windows on it, from the distance he's at, supports the general size gained through KingTempest's calculations. While an assumption, it's an assumption that's supported by and narratively consistent with the character's own statement. Which I believe makes the calculation more likely true compared to calculations that discard it.

Consistency:​

In regards to the consistency of these calculations, I'm conflicted. Damage's calculations, while fewer in number and such overall scope, are more internally consistent compared to KT's calculations, which are more in number but larger in internal discrepancies. We do gain from KT's calculations however that all of them are massively above all of Damage's calculations, regardless which calculation you assume is most consistent.

I believe this does call into question the legitimacy of Damage's calculations when viewing them from a consistency check as if all of KT's calculations, which are more in quantity, are all heavily above even Damage's largest calc. It forces participates of this thread to delve further into the methodologies used by Damage and KT to find out why these massive disparities exist. I'm not someone who is all that knowledgeable on calcs, so I can't comment on them all that much.

Culture and Inspiration:​

I wish to bring up something that has me more convinced to KT's side compared to Damage's side. As we know, Dressrosa is an actual country located on an island. It has its own ports and towns which multiple thousands of people live in. It makes more sense to me this country would be larger compared to small cities in our world, which are generally several times larger than what Damage has calculated Dressrosa to be. I know this isn't a "logical" position to have perse, but I do believe it does hold some merit when deducing the sizes of structures which are inspired by cultures and structures of our world.

Conclusions:​

So for conclusions; I'm leaning towards agreeing with KT's calculations, I'm not ultimately convinced however and I can have my mind changed, so I'll be waiting for Damage's refutations against the calculations presented by KT before finalizing my opinions of this thread.

 

[Damage3245]

so I'll be waiting for Damage's refutations against the calculations presented by KT before finalizing my opinions of this thread.

No problem. Thanks for the patience.

 

[Damage3245]

I wish to bring up something that has me more convinced to KT's side compared to Damage's side. As we know, Dressrosa is an actual country located on an island. It has its own ports and towns which multiple thousands of people live in. It makes more sense to me this country would be larger compared to small cities in our world, which are generally several times larger than what Damage has calculated Dressrosa to be. I know this isn't a "logical" position to have perse, but I do believe it does hold some merit when deducing the sizes of structures which are inspired by cultures and structures of our world.

I'll let you know when I've posted my analysis of the new calcs, but just need to address this argument first because something similar came up from Arc7Kuroi.

Firstly there is no known population size of Dressrosa, and Dressrosa has to my knowledge only five towns, two of which are port towns.

While the version of the calc that I posted earlier on the thread does produce an area of 65.8 km^2 for Dressrosa, this is not an inherently unrealistic size for an area of just five neighboring towns of undefined size/population. There are areas in our real world of comparable size to that which have a greater number of towns and villages in them than that.

 

[Kachon123]

There are areas in our real world of comparable size to that which have a greater number of towns and villages in them than that.

For example?

 

[Damage3245]

For example?

This'll be biased towards the UK but the closest district to that size is South Tyneside at 64.42 km^2, which has a population of nearly 150,000 people and has three towns and seven villages and also a fair amount of open green space.

Dressrosa is a lot more heavily built-up and dense with buildings though so population density could be even higher. An example of that being how Manhattan borough has an area of just 59.1 km^2 but a population of over 1.629 million people. Obviously Dressrosa doesn't have skyscrapers like Manhattan but it is mostly covered in multi-storey buildings (until Doflamingo wrecked most of them).

 

[Kachon123]

This seems to have been accepted as the cgm's opinions seem unchanged and the vote is currently in favor of KT's size. Grace has also long been passed. This can probably be applied to the verse page.

 

[KingTempest]

I'll wait till he wakes up and replies before I think to do so

 

[M3X_2.0]

I've been in touch with Tempest since day 1 of making this calc and the thread. I'm convinced about using method 4.

 

[KingTempest]

Oop, new contention

 

[CloverDragon03]

I'm fine with what M3X prefers. Looked at the method myself and it looks sound

 

[KingTempest]

Thank you guys

 

[Damage3245]

This seems to have been accepted as the cgm's opinions seem unchanged and the vote is currently in favor of KT's size. Grace has also long been passed. This can probably be applied to the verse page.

I've literally said up above that I'm writing a response to all of the new calculations that have been brought up.

I focused on the ongoing Whitebeard revisions first and now that they're all done and out of the way, I've got more time to focus on this.

Why would you want this to be rushed to a conclusion without allowing me to respond to the six new calcs that have come up?

 

[Damage3245]

In case anyone thinks I'm being absolutely unreasonable in taking a few days to address the multiple new points that have come up, our rules state:

• For verse-specific threads, if the only opposing party does not reply for over 2 weeks without any notice or known/suspected extenuating circumstances, then the moderators should try to get the thread to completion without them, assuming that they'd probably not reply. However, their points should not be discarded, and this should not be treated as that user conceding. Their arguments and votes should be kept in mind while the thread goes on and anybody else is free to argue in their stead.

There is absolutely no need to conclude this thread just yet.

 

[Kachon123]

I've literally said up above that I'm writing a response to all of the new calculations that have been brought up.

I focused on the ongoing Whitebeard revisions first and now that they're all done and out of the way, I've got more time to focus on this.

Why would you want this to be rushed to a conclusion without allowing me to respond to the six new calcs that have come up?

In case anyone thinks I'm being absolutely unreasonable in taking a few days to address the multiple new points that have come up, our rules state:

• For verse-specific threads, if the only opposing party does not reply for over 2 weeks without any notice or known/suspected extenuating circumstances, then the moderators should try to get the thread to completion without them, assuming that they'd probably not reply. However, their points should not be discarded, and this should not be treated as that user conceding. Their arguments and votes should be kept in mind while the thread goes on and anybody else is free to argue in their stead.

There is absolutely no need to conclude this thread just yet.

Lmao. I have no issue waiting for you, but if it's been 6 days since the last update of when your post will be out, this thread has been open for almost a month, and the staff votes are already in favor of KT's calc, then I don't see why or how anyone is rushing anything.

If you're not going to give any updates, it just makes it look like this thread is getting stonewalled or is dying, rather than you actually doing something productive.

 

[Damage3245]

Lmao. I have no issue waiting for you, but if it's been 6 days since the last update of when your post will be out, this thread has been open for almost a month, and the staff votes are already in favor of KT's calc, then I don't see why or how anyone is rushing anything.

If you're not going to give any updates, it just makes it look like this thread is getting stonewalled or is dying, rather than you actually doing something productive.

My last post on this thread was Saturday when I said:

I'll let you know when I've posted my analysis of the new calcs, but just need to address this argument first because something similar came up from Arc7Kuroi.

You even responded to that post.

So the thread is absolutely not dead, or dying, and it's not being stonewalled because I'm having to respond to like 6 new calcs at once here while busy with other threads and while busy with real life.

Just slow down, okay?

 

[Kachon123]

3 days ago then. My bad. My point still remains.

 

[Damage3245]

3 days ago then. My bad. My point still remains.

If it was two weeks ago, you'd have a point by the rules but it's not. The discussion is still very much ongoing.

 

[Kachon123]

I'm sorry, but it's absolutely ridiculous to wait 2 weeks for someone to post their arguments when the thread has already been going on for a month and there are already sufficient votes for it to get passed.

 

[Damage3245]

I'm sorry, but it's absolutely ridiculous to wait 2 weeks for someone to post their arguments when the thread has already been going on for a month and there are already sufficient votes for it to get passed.

Remember how there was a period from October 13 from October 22 when KT didn't leave a post on the thread because he was busy with other things?

I didn't pressure him to hurry up and respond to the thread. If you want this to be evaluated properly then give your opposition time to actually respond.

And no, I'm not asking you to wait 2 weeks for me to respond, I'm just asking for you to wait for me to respond.

 

[Damage3245]

@Kachon123; you're just bloating the thread up now with complaints. Quit whining and don't leave a post on this thread if you're not going to be on topic.

 

[Kachon123]

Anyways, when do you expect your post to be out?

 

[Damage3245]

Anyways, when do you expect your post to be out?

As soon as it is ready. Most likely within the next couple days now that I can focus on the thread.