References, but we make them more credible in "The Real World" official profiles.

[H3110l12345I20]

This request for further evaluation- is it interested in the paywall aspect, or adjustments to the letter of the rules?

Ant's suggestion to go in the source itself rather than the wikipedia article seems like judgment that didn't take into account the implications of what he's saying. It would require adjustment the rules to where a lot of our users (which may not be able to buy through the paywalls).

I'm worried this may block some of our users from contributing to the site since a lot of our wiki users are within the low-end age range of 12-30.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I've already said that I feel Wikipedia is valid enough of a source failing better options, that seems to still be applicable to the question.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I've already said that I feel Wikipedia is valid enough of a source failing better options, that seems to still be applicable to the question.

Ok. Crisis averted. When are the references stuff going to be applied to the IRL page? And will my way or another better way of applying it will be applied?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Wdym by "your way" of adding them?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Decided to edit+copy paste this here. Some these are unwritten rules that needed to be noted anyways.

This section should be between the "Power of the Verse" and Supporters/Opponents/Neutral section of the page. I decided to be minimal and outline basic verse specific rules.vvv

==Verse-specific Rules==
The real world doesn't break the laws of physics or thermodynamics. Unless the scaling is based off of overwhelming by raw power, calculations, treated realistically and within common sense, battleboarding concepts like power scaling, calc stacking, et cetera don't apply to the real world.
*Follow the [[User blog:H3110l12345I20/Standards for the Reliability, Trustworthiness and Evaluation of Sources for The Real World On-site|standards for real world page references]], as references are mandatory for new pages.
*Be more realistic and careful when scaling entities around tiers '''Below Average Human level''' to '''Street level''', as the tiering system becomes inconsistent due to the tiering system being oversimplified.
**Examples:
***Humans [[User blog:H3110l12345I20/Average Human Strongest Attacks Page#This is a stomp!|having '''Street level''' energy output]] on their legs and gravitational potential energy when anyone is capable of injuring a person with a full punch. And yet, athletes can exert below this energy output.
***[[Gray Wolf|Wolves]] [[User blogarlingAurora/✦ The Real World — Some calcs#Wolf jumping 12 ft(force)|jumping and withstanding '''Street level''' energy]] when their usual strikes (or bites in this case) [[User blogarlingAurora/✦ The Real World — Some calcs#Crushing Otters Skulls|are around '''Human level''' to '''Athlete level''']] and they can get easily thrown around by a heavier [[Jaguar (Real World)|jaguar]].

^^^; make sure to replace the smiley emojis with a colon and upper case "d" in the source. Not to mention that the note in the "power of the verse" section is technically being moved.

 

[Antvasima]

Would it be a good solution for us to respectively both use Wikipedia as a reference as well as the source reference that Wikipedia uses in turn?

 

[Antvasima]

Decided to edit+copy paste this here. Some these are unwritten rules that needed to be noted anyways.

This section should be between the "Power of the Verse" and Supporters/Opponents/Neutral section of the page. I decided to be minimal and outline basic verse specific rules.vvv

==Verse-specific Rules==
The real world doesn't break the laws of physics or thermodynamics. Unless the scaling is based off of overwhelming by raw power, calculations, treated realistically and within common sense, battleboarding concepts like power scaling, calc stacking, et cetera don't apply to the real world.
*Follow the [[User blog:H3110l12345I20/Standards for the Reliability, Trustworthiness and Evaluation of Sources for The Real World On-site|standards for real world page references]], as references are mandatory for new pages.
*Be more realistic and careful when scaling entities around tiers '''Below Average Human level''' to '''Street level''', as the tiering system becomes inconsistent due to the tiering system being oversimplified.
**Examples:
***Humans [[User blog:H3110l12345I20/Average Human Strongest Attacks Page#This is a stomp!|having '''Street level''' energy output]] on their legs and gravitational potential energy when anyone is capable of injuring a person with a full punch. And yet, athletes can exert below this energy output.
***[[Gray Wolf|Wolves]] [[User blogarlingAurora/✦ The Real World — Some calcs#Wolf jumping 12 ft(force)|jumping and withstanding '''Street level''' energy]] when their usual strikes (or bites in this case) [[User blogarlingAurora/✦ The Real World — Some calcs#Crushing Otters Skulls|are around '''Human level''' to '''Athlete level''']] and they can get easily thrown around by a heavier [[Jaguar (Real World)|jaguar]].

^^^; make sure to replace the smiley emojis with a colon and upper case "d" in the source. Not to mention that the note in the "power of the verse" section is technically being moved.

That text seems fine to me, but somebody also needs to check through the referenced blog posts to verify that they also seem acceptable.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Would it be a good solution for us to respectively both use Wikipedia as a reference as well as the source reference that Wikipedia uses in turn?

It wouldn't hurt, considering that the pages do change everyday like ours. Might as well add them to the blog [Standards for the Reliability, Trustworthiness and Evaluation of Sources for The Real World On-site] if you guys (the staff) permit it.

That text seems fine to me, but somebody also needs to check through the referenced blog posts to verify that they also seem acceptable.

The respective calcs are evaluated, though my own blog's [Standards for the Reliability, Trustworthiness and Evaluation of Sources for The Real World On-site] sources need to be verified.

 

[Antvasima]

The respective calcs are evaluated, though my own blog's [Standards for the Reliability, Trustworthiness and Evaluation of Sources for The Real World On-site] sources need to be verified.

@LordGriffin1000 @Planck69 @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu

Are any of you willing to take a look please?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

@LordGriffin1000 @Planck69 @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu

Are any of you willing to take a look please?

bump

 

[Antvasima]

@LordGriffin1000 @Planck69 @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu

We still need your help here.

References, but we make them more credible in "The Real World" official profiles.

This request for further evaluation- is it interested in the paywall aspect, or adjustments to the letter of the rules? Ant's suggestion to go in the source itself rather than the wikipedia article seems like judgment that didn't take into account the implications of what he's saying. It would...

vsbattles.com

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm kind of lost at where the topic is atm

 

[Antvasima]

I'm kind of lost at where the topic is atm

@H3110l12345I20

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It is my understanding of the thread that all that needs done, is to apply the text. We have agreed to allow this to pass, it has just been circling the stage of "how do we do that". Ant has already said that the letter of what was written by H is already fine, but he wants the blogs calc-checked, which H clarified was already done. The only thing I can parse as needing to be done, then, is... to confirm the sources of H's blog on this subject?

If this is a top priority thing for me to pursue, over my other duties, I will take the time to carefully read through each source beyond skimming it as I did before, I guess.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I'm kind of lost at where the topic is atm

vvv

The respective calcs are evaluated, though my own blog's [Standards for the Reliability, Trustworthiness and Evaluation of Sources for The Real World On-site] sources need to be verified.

The only thing I can parse as needing to be done, then, is... to confirm the sources of H's blog on this subject?

If this is a top priority thing for me to pursue, over my other duties, I will take the time to carefully read through each source beyond skimming it as I did before, I guess.

Spoiler: You're Welcome DDM!

 

[Mr. Bambu]

My evaluation of the sources: they are scholarly and reliable, although many are redundant (as in, many go over the same basic premises, so I've read about the importance of checking sources about a dozen times, an ironic instruction given why I'm reading it) or plainly contain large amounts of not-relevant information to our hobby here (dealing with things like citing news articles isn't really in our wheelhouse, even for real world profiles afaik).

Another issue is that this video is far too dramatically played up to be a reliable source on the subject at hand. It has a similar level of irrelevance given that it deals in news articles, and is also very much played up.

My only other complaint is that this one is just silly, most of those included are guides published by scholars or scholarly organizations (universities), whereas this one is essentially a guide made for children to not believe everything they read online. Part of the advice is to "ask your mum" if you aren't sure.

As a conclusion: it's basically fine. I think it tackles subjects outside of our wheelhouse and the sources repeat themselves quite a lot, but redundancy isn't actually a negative- getting multiple statements on something is good, one believes. So those redundancies can be included although I do mourn the loss of time reading them. The YouTube video isn't great to include and the children's guide is as mentioned just silly- I don't particularly care if the latter is removed or not, though. It (the blog as a whole) does at least hammer home that citations are important, link rot is bad and should be fought against wherever possible, and that one should get multiple perspectives on the same thing where possible. Oh, and that Wikipedia works as a resource, as a nice plus.

TL;DR has my approval, but dislike the YouTube video's inclusion.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

My evaluation of the sources: they are scholarly and reliable, although many are redundant (as in, many go over the same basic premises, so I've read about the importance of checking sources about a dozen times, an ironic instruction given why I'm reading it) or plainly contain large amounts of not-relevant information to our hobby here (dealing with things like citing news articles isn't really in our wheelhouse, even for real world profiles afaik).

Another issue is that this video is far too dramatically played up to be a reliable source on the subject at hand. It has a similar level of irrelevance given that it deals in news articles, and is also very much played up.

My only other complaint is that this one is just silly, most of those included are guides published by scholars or scholarly organizations (universities), whereas this one is essentially a guide made for children to not believe everything they read online. Part of the advice is to "ask your mum" if you aren't sure.

As a conclusion: it's basically fine. I think it tackles subjects outside of our wheelhouse and the sources repeat themselves quite a lot, but redundancy isn't actually a negative- getting multiple statements on something is good, one believes. So those redundancies can be included although I do mourn the loss of time reading them. The YouTube video isn't great to include and the children's guide is as mentioned just silly- I don't particularly care if the latter is removed or not, though. It (the blog as a whole) does at least hammer home that citations are important, link rot is bad and should be fought against wherever possible, and that one should get multiple perspectives on the same thing where possible. Oh, and that Wikipedia works as a resource, as a nice plus.

TL;DR has my approval, but dislike the YouTube video's inclusion.

The video is there just to give arguments that even the best sources could have arguments for why they could be false. But I agree with the removal, since that conclusion can be supported with logic alone.

Will remove the aforementioned video.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you greatly for helping out, Bambu. ️

What has been accepted here can probably be applied then.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

The video has been removed. The following section should be added to the IRL page once everything about it has been confirmed.

This section should be between the "Power of the Verse" and Supporters/Opponents/Neutral section of the page. I decided to be minimal and outline basic verse specific rules.vvv

==Verse-specific Rules==
The real world doesn't break the laws of physics or thermodynamics. Unless the scaling is based off of overwhelming by raw power, calculations, treated realistically and within common sense, battleboarding concepts like power scaling, calc stacking, et cetera don't apply to the real world.
*Follow the [[User blog:H3110l12345I20/Standards for the Reliability, Trustworthiness and Evaluation of Sources for The Real World On-site|standards for real world page references]], as references are mandatory for new pages.
*Be more realistic and careful when scaling entities around tiers '''Below Average Human level''' to '''Street level''', as the tiering system becomes inconsistent due to the tiering system being oversimplified.
**Examples:
***Humans [[User blog:H3110l12345I20/Average Human Strongest Attacks Page#This is a stomp!|having '''Street level''' energy output]] on their legs and gravitational potential energy when anyone is capable of injuring a person with a full punch. And yet, athletes can exert below this energy output.
***[[Gray Wolf|Wolves]] [[User blogarlingAurora/✦ The Real World — Some calcs#Wolf jumping 12 ft(force)|jumping and withstanding '''Street level''' energy]] when their usual strikes (or bites in this case) [[User blogarlingAurora/✦ The Real World — Some calcs#Crushing Otters Skulls|are around '''Human level''' to '''Athlete level''']] and they can get easily thrown around by a heavier [[Jaguar (Real World)|jaguar]].

^^^; make sure to replace the smiley emojis with a colon and upper case "d" in the source. Not to mention that the note in the "power of the verse" section is technically being moved.

 

[Antvasima]

The page in question is not edit-protected for regular members, so you can add the text on your own if you wish.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

The page in question is not edit-protected for regular members, so you can add the text on your own if you wish.

If no one else adds my requested source first, then I'll do it first in my spare time.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Applied the suggested changes.

I also made the "Power of the Verse" section more readable. But if any of you disagree with the minor change I made to the "Power of the Verse" section, anyone can revert it.

If no one else adds my requested source first, then I'll do it first in my spare time.

So I presume we're done here. Right?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Reckon so, after ten thousand ages.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will close this thread then. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.