- 6,921
- 6,640
A grace period of some form should be implemented.
-
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.
Restricting Postponement of Threads Because of Calculation Issues
- Thread starter KingTempest
- Start date
- Status
- 11,061
- 13,757
I personally see no harm in this. It has to do with visibility. A calculation is posted on the wiki where it generally doesn't get much visibility so obviously very few people would see it or be aware of it. When a thread is made here, a lot more people get involved and most of them might be seeing/checking that calculation for the first time. As long as the concern is valid, there should be no harm in addressing it. It's better to have all the checks before anything gets applied on the profiles than having to possibly revert them back.
- 165,042
- 71,878
- 4,089
- 1,351
A grace of perhaps a few months or so?
I do think this should been more like a guideline rather than a outright ruling since if there is any concerns that has to addressed, it is possible to do it in private rather than public, then make it public about those concerns and if it warrants a recalc.
- 11,061
- 13,757
That problem is not exclusive to calc related threads, such problems can and do arise in almost any thread (many people see a thread for the first time and need some time to respond). We just need to do what we do, have threads mods, etc. present on the thread make the call. If reasonable amount of time has passed and the other party has failed to provide arguments, just go ahead.
- 6,921
- 6,640
What should the standard operating procedure for starting a CRT be with a grace period be?
- Collect supporting material (accepted calcs, feats, and statements)
- CRT is drafted
- CRT is posted
- Grace period begins
- Any minor issues involving the supporting material are held off until the conclusion of the thread or a determined time.
- Major issues are to be discussed as per usual.
- 21,101
- 30,040
- Thread starter
- #47
That looks good
- 29,708
- 24,641
It doesn't quite make sense to me. If somebody spots an issue with the calc once the thread has been posted, it can't be addressed until after the CRT has been applied?
Though I guess this depends on what is considered a major or a minor issue.
Though I guess this depends on what is considered a major or a minor issue.
- 16,983
- 22,788
I thought the issue wasn’t with the type of issue but with postponing threads for over a week and whatnot. Like we shouldn’t be shutting down discussion, just cutting down on threads lasting weeks and even months because there may be an issue with a calc but the person addressing it is too busy to elaborate in the now.
- 32,758
- 37,913
It's both really. This thread basically explains what we are talking about.
Some of the worst issues taken with a calc I have ever seen till date, all trying to render the calc "invalid" based on some of the dumbest reasonings, despite getting hammered down by all the other calc members and experts for not even understanding how the feat was pulled off, and blatantly trying to change the event order against what the actual source material shows, these are just the tip of the iceberg in that thread, but you get my point.
It's to make sure nobody gets to stonewall threads like this with issues and nitpicks as dumb as this that are detrimental to and fly in the face of the actual source material itself.
- 16,983
- 22,788
Gotcha I know stonewalling is annoying, but attempting to ban it in some new type of guideline seems like a very very slippery slope. If the argument is just so obviously poor, I feel like the thread mods and everyone else can just acknowledge it’s baseless and move on. Don’t know if we need to implement any rules for that.
- 32,758
- 37,913
I do not propose any new rules, just some clarification that this constitutes as severe derailing (And thus adding it to the list of things that can be potentially considered blatant derailing or just be straight up incorrect) and blatant ignorance of the context of the CRT's proposals, and that stuff like this should straight up not be allowed to begin with, especially when it ends up not even making sense from any direction at all and ends up being a completely incorrect nitpick that cost entire months for absolutely no reason at all.
An even worse form of this is when people jump in, disagree for all the wrong reasons and then just leave the thread to never return, or just keep ranting about how x standard on the wiki is completely wrong and somesuch to propose massive revisions within said comments.
- 29,708
- 24,641
I don't think we need a strict rule for it. I just think we need people to be more aware that addressing issues like this shouldn't be dragged out, and if it looks like something that might take over a week of discussion instead of just a few days, then it should probably be handled as a separate issue altogether.
- 32,758
- 37,913
And if those issues turn out to be completely wrong to begin with and people still keep insisting they're right about it and want to make a CRT to delay it further? Action must be taken in those regards.
- 16,983
- 22,788
In that case, can’t staff just close the crt? Like when people spammed uni Momo threads staff just closed them.
- 29,708
- 24,641
If somebody insists that they're right, but the staff members evaluating it think that they're wrong then we do what we usually do when threads get unreasonably dragged out and bring it to a close if they can't concede themselves.
- 4,089
- 1,351
It would been considered derailment, not a actual violation of the rules.
A reminder will been done and if the event they decide to do behaviors that warrants a warning or more, then it is entirely on them.
Also say if the opposite is true, and the issues are valid as in they explain it in their own thread regard certain things.
Not just calcs, but say feats, statements, and so on.
Beside, I rather let any staff member handle it in their own way anyway.
Last edited:
- 32,758
- 37,913
This should be clarified somewhere under the derailment section.
- 16,983
- 22,788
Sumn like that would be fine I agree
- 32,758
- 37,913
I think you mean "would be considered".
Repeated derailment does count as violation of the rules tho
I mean, part of a CRT to get a calc approved is to discuss every single issue you have before hand, get extensive staff evaluation, and then resolve them accurately, you're supposed to do it all within that specific CRT early on. The best alternative would be to discuss the CRT's proposal in advance with all people involved or about to be involved and iron out all issues before actually making CRTs, this way, months of preparation and collection of evidence can be finished quickly without having to face further hiccups down the line.
Last thing you want is the verse supporters being at each others' throats for having different interpretations of the same feat.
- 4,089
- 1,351
Yeah, let me correct myself as I admittedly typing a bit fast on that.
Also both options does sound appealing to me ngl.
- 4,089
- 1,351
Oh, does this apply to different threads? I was under the impression that derailments are usually done on a single thread, not other threads that may have a separate topic in mind.
- 32,758
- 37,913
Repeated derailments on other threads counts, especially if you have nothing useful to contribute to the conversation and bring up complete non-issues and mark them up as issues, don't even bother to explain them and then leave. I have seen several people just jump into threads saying "I disagree" and then pulling up completely irrelevant issues of why they disagree or issues that aren't even issues to begin with because they hate how our already-established standards operate and whatnot, or they use arguments that have been repeatedly debunked over and over and over again and still they think those arguments to be correct, and then they just leave after leaving one such comment, never to appear again unless they choose to.
- 4,089
- 1,351
That is fair as I have see that happen from time to time.
- 10,748
- 6,476
An effort should be made to keep corrections as quick as possible with calculations but people should still be allowed to point problems out regardless of timeframe. Calculation related issues don't just disappear after a certain amount of time has passed
Also calculation blogs are a lot harder to find than threads so I don't think people not pointing out issues till a thread is made is a sure sign of someone wanting to stall revisions
I guess we can make it a policy to not wait unless a replacement calculation has already been done and encourage users to consult other calc group members to fix issues they find rather than stall content revision threads
Also calculation blogs are a lot harder to find than threads so I don't think people not pointing out issues till a thread is made is a sure sign of someone wanting to stall revisions
I guess we can make it a policy to not wait unless a replacement calculation has already been done and encourage users to consult other calc group members to fix issues they find rather than stall content revision threads
- 32,758
- 37,913
Advanced planning is still highly recommended so that future issues do not happen. That being said, you cannot delay the thread because of said issue and then disregard said thread and make your own, that's just borderline disingenuous.
There used to be access to this page which allowed you to check out blogs instantly. I have no ******* clue as to why access to this page was suddenly removed for all members around the time of forum move.
It's not just the stalling of threads that people have issue with, it's that you're stalling that thread only to make another thread and disregard all the discussion that happened previously instead of discussing it all within one single place more coherently.
- 12,552
- 2,508
I feel like this is a more specific issue than anything. Yeah it's annoying if a CRT gets held up, loses momentum and even dies off but if there is an issue with the calc then there's an issue with the calc, and it's relevant to bring arguments related to the calc to the thread if the CRT is about said calc. If this is about a specific type of stonewalling then yeah I agree that shouldn't be happening and the arguments need to be brought to the thread itself rather than making a new thread.
- 32,758
- 37,913
It's not even about calcs at times, it can be about literally any topic within a CRT that doesn't even involve calcs.
Also again, it's about stonewalling a thread for months at an end only to end up never contributing back and making another thread altogether disregarding everything that was discussed in the previous thread, costing everyone their precious time they had mustered for said thread. It's understandable if people lack the time to do this due to IRL obligations, but you don't get the right to waste others' available free time like this either.
- 6,921
- 6,640
Are there any standard procedures for CRTs that anyone would like to propose to make things more efficient?
- 32,758
- 37,913
Well for one, before making a CRT, we should preferably debate the proposals at hand with the verse experts, supporters and opponents alike, then run them down in advance by involving the staff and calc members a bit before actually greenlighting the way to making the final CRT. Last thing we need is an all-out civil war between the knowledgeable people of the verse who could also be staff.
Then once the CRT is made, focus all your issues and discussions or proposals within that thread alone and discuss them at hand there and nowhere else. If there are any valid concerns, put them in that CRT and don't stonewall for months at an end only to then ignore that thread entirely for a brand new one made from scratch disregarding the old thread that had countless discussions. It made sense back in the Fandom forum era days because of the comment limit, but not on here.
Stick to the source material and don't try to screw it up or "change" the order of the events to your liking because that's how you thought it happened, don't make assumptions that actually make no sense and then don't try to force them down everyone's throat and calling yourself the correct one and others wrong (Same applies for opposite scenarios, don't blindly kudos scenarios that make no sense and don't try to silence people who actually have genuine valid concerns), don't just come in, say you disagree because of reasons that blatantly go against wiki standards or have been debunked countless times (and have rules barring said reasoning from being used without new valid evidence) and then just leave, it contributes nothing to the conversation and actually facilitates even more hostility and toxicity in the long run, and is also derailing.
- 12,552
- 2,508
OP just discusses calc stuff though, as I said I agree that stonewalling is an issue, and if our current rules don't already punish this then they should be adjusted to do so.
- 2,335
- 1,007
This is by far the best solution in Hop's open onion. Woops. Opibiob. Opiate onion. Opinion. And this should was a common practice before, was it not?
- 11,095
- 4,317
I'm a little confused at the issue at hand. If a CRT has issues, it has issues.
- 165,042
- 71,878
So should we write some kind of rule text, that takes both the necessity to be able to point out valid calculation errors that need to be adjusted, and that unreasonable prolonged stonewalling needs to be avoided, into account? In that case, constructive suggestions would be very appreciated.
- 11,801
- 7,363
I mean I just think this will be under derailment alone.
- 32,758
- 37,913
Add it under the derailment section I guess.
- 165,042
- 71,878
So would somebody here be willing to try to write up a draft text for a new rule, or do you have ideas for improvements to my suggested solution above?
- 19,575
- 15,904
I don't agree with this. You could honestly just completely miss the thread and notice it at the tail end of it.
If the person has legitimate issues (or at least feels legitimate to them) then its not bad nor should it be shamed. Sometimes conclusions and popular consensus can just outright be wrong. Plus we outright have had calcs that have been approved of but on closer inspection the math is using the wrong metric or the wrong basis. Recently speaking just look at the Spy x Family thread. The calc blog was signed off by like three people but the basis of the math was completely wrong and needed to be adjusted multiple times.
- 32,758
- 37,913
Hence the need for having to discuss the mechanics of a calc in advance with the experts and calc members first before actually making the calc and then the CRT.
A short grace period could be added at the end of the thread too, but the above should alleviate most of the concerns.
- Status
