The Vs. Battles Wiki Problem

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@Iapitus Not saying it's better or that one is too low or too high, it's just that a positive usually requires more evidence than a negative.

 

[Executor_N0]

That was a long text and I really liked the ideas presented in it. I really don't have much to say about some things, but reading some answers already I think there are some people taking the wrong idea about some of these topics. I'm going to talk a little bit about what seems to affect me the most, because it's something I'm more used to.

"She talked about deleting/not allowing obscure verses, this is ridiculous." I think this is taking the idea in a very dramatic way.

I work, most of the time, with Digimon. I don't think many here would call Digimon an "obscure franchise", it has had a relative success in the past, I believe it is still in the memory of some people (Even if it's calling Digimon a Pokémon copy, or using it as a swearing for any monster franchise that's "generic" and "tries to copy Pokémon).

Still, I am fully aware that many disagree with the level that Digimon is placed here. If you talk about what Digimon is, many will say that it is a franchise of virtual monsters and that has children as protagonists, surely you will not see many people knowing about the "obscure Digimon lore". And that is an important part.

I don't want to focus on myself too much, but I must say that before I started talking about this part of Digimon, almost any Digimon fan just didn't know it. There could be one person or another who knew this, but it is almost no one.

I know this because even in other Digimon communities, my blogs were a catalyst for this type of knowledge to be disseminated (And I'm very happy because the people who started talking about it too, even if it is to curse me). That is, Digimon is not exactly an obscure franchise, but the content we use here is yes, it is.

If things like "Digimon are souls from a higher world that is prior to reality, and the story that they are computer programs is just an effect of a reality that is rewritten to suit beliefs" ( Nice, now I'm also talking about the problems with philosophical verses lol) were argued here without evidence, this with sure would be criticized.

It is partly true, but the amount of information that reveals this is almost nil. Many are contents mostly contained in novelizations, Drama CDs, interviews or complementary materials that are only available in Japanese (Only with Nakashima, and mostly Habu, this type of information started to be used in the more "mainstream" media).

If this information had not been cataloged and discussed and then accepted, it would have been discarded in the first few moments (and this has happened before).

But now we have blogs, this information has started to be more disseminated, and although it is still "obscure", it is not something that someone will see and simply say "it is a lie".

If a franchise, even a well-known one, is not worked by people who are responsible for categorizing the bases for the profiles, do not bring enough information or do not explain clearly, then it needs help, or it will simply be deleted. I believe that the focus is more on the more obscure franchises simply because there are not a lot of people who can do this research and gather the necessary information.

I used Digimon as an example of how the problem is not simply "it's an obscure franchise", but "unknown information that is not well presented and has dubious sources". The problem with "obscure franchises" is only because of numbers. If you can consistently prove everything about the "franchise" you want to catalog, I don't think there will be a problem even if it is very obscure.

I imagine that what Sera criticized was exactly about little-known franchises, that doesn't have anyone that's able to catalog the information, do not provide sources for them, and all we have most of the time is the opinion of the person who is defending something.

Although I may be very wrong, I think I should have said something about it. At least I tried.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

@Iapitus Not saying it's better or that one is too low or too high, it's just that a positive usually requires more evidence than a negative.

A low ball isn't a negative tho, at least not inherently. If its just a comparison between different potential tiers, then a stat being higher or lower than eachother should not matter, only which one is more valid based on context. Negatives are impossible to prove on their own, but that's a side point

 

[Antoniofer]

Yeah, the lowest end of any feat is generally the safe path; although, in my "desired universe", in an attemp to be more accurate, I would suggest to create ranges: not all strikes needs to yield the same, and not just something damages you doesn't mean anything arbitrary below will do nothing, or sometjing arbitrary above will instantly kill. This kind of stuff doesn't make debates easier, but it makes it more practical and rating more accurate.

 

[Schnee_One]

No... no it isn't. Whether it is too high or too low, inaccurate is inaccurate. This is just what I brought up in my comment. It is just a bad that a character be downplayed as it would be if they were wanked. Stuff like this is one of the most flagrant and inherent biases seen on this wiki and in debating in general

Correct, but not my point.

You have a calc, one assumes vaporization and the other pulverization, both make sense, but it's not explicitly proven it's vaporization or pulverization, what do you do?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Sometimes calcs are based on results of inconsistent pixel scaling; so neither is more valid than the other. But it's usually the low end for results like it that get accepted.

 

[Newendigo]

Also yeah I'm hellbent up with what Sera brough about creating pages.

If anyone want make a page about verse or character(s) (Popular or unpopular), they should, by all means, be fully willing to consistently work on it, otherwise those should be outright deleted with no futher discussion.

There are many pages with oudated stats due to their contributors just leaving them out of boredom or lazyness (No blaming the one that are too overworked, but still).

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Correct, but not my point.

You have a calc, one assumes vaporization and the other pulverization, both make sense, but it's not explicitly proven it's vaporization or pulverization, what do you do?

It depends on the context. Inherently, neither a high ball or a low ball is more valid, and in lack of further context, it should probably have both ends listed on a profile. Go for an "at least... likely..." and have both

 

[Sera_EX]

I imagine that what Sera criticized was exactly about little-known franchises, that doesn't have anyone that's able to catalog the information, do not provide sources for them, and all we have most of the time is the opinion of the person who is defending something.

Nailed it, Ex.

 

[Schnee_One]

It depends on the context. Inherently, neither a high ball or a low ball is more valid, and in lack of further context, it should probably have both ends listed on a profile. Go for an "at least... likely..." and have both

This was a rhetorical question, a low ball is usually accepted because of the fact that it has more evidence and the easier assumption over the highball, hence safer.

Context is important, but usually it leads to situations where this is the case

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

This was a rhetorical question, a low ball is usually accepted because of the fact that it has more evidence and the easier assumption over the highball, hence safer.

If the low ball has more evidence, than it wouldn't be selected because it was a low ball. I made claims on them being equally valid, but if the low ball is more consistent, then obviously go with thw more consistent option. The low ball is not an easier assumption on its own over a high ball

 

[Schnee_One]

Low Balls usually have more supporting evidence, or rather the High End doesn't have enough evidence, hence it is safer.

 

[Antoniofer]

Sometimes calcs are based on results of inconsistent pixel scaling; so neither is more valid than the other. But it's usually the low end for results like it that get accepted.

That's why some times is better to eyeball, it may be unaccurate, but is kind of mire objective; calcs where pixel scaling is not needed tend to be better, reason why I rather simply evaluate someone reacting by reaction time rather how much it moved in those short boost (also, despite its name, time of hertz are more accurate units than speed at the moment of measuring speed, also acceleration).

 

[NotAMarioFan(lol)]

Maybe drop it to 50 staff members? Seems like a pretty good number

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

@Schnee In those cases, it should be selected based on there being more supporting evidence. If they are selected based on more or less context, then great, but don't pretend that Low Balling is a safer option on their own. This very thread is an example of the inherent bias people have for low balling and downplaying over wanking and high balling

 

[Schnee_One]

Who said that? Think you misunderstood what I said

 

[Newendigo]

"Usually" doesn't mean a lot, every calc should be analyzed by it's own case, and their results should not be assumed by what is traditionally more common.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Okay, that's perception rather than speed; using reaction time. Plus we can't really use limitations due to game mechanics as an excuse to low-ball characters; 10 m/s Sonic says hi. But stuff like a Boulder being shattered is simply twice the height of the character but also half the size of a Town on the World Map is an example of inconsistent pixel scaling.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

@Schnee

Of course we are, Low Balled results are safer

This is exactly what you said. Low balled results are no safer than high balled results.

Also, one of Sera's main cases is complaining about inflation, and constantly says we should take a lower road over a higher road, when neither is more valid.

 

[Schnee_One]

They are safer because of everything I just said though

Lack of Evidence for High End=Safer, this is basic.

 

[Tipper17]

all I'm seeing facts from this gal nice thread OP

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

@Schnee

At least from my personal experience, people (Mostly Staff) are more willing to accept downgrades or low-balled results than the opposite.

This is what you were responding to, was it not? They were talking about the inherent bias toward low ball over high balls. Just that, in a vacuum, not when there was more or less context for either side, just on its own.

If there is equally little evidence for the low end then no, its not safer. See, this is what I mean. People accept that low ends are more valid than high ends on their own just inherently, when that's incredibly fallacious.

What you say is literally the same as saying this: Lack of evidence for Low End=Safer, which we all know is false.

 

[Antoniofer]

Technically, the only instances where m/s is actually useful is in travel speed or escaping aoe attacks, other times simply measuring in time units or hertz is more accurate, be reaction or perception speed (despite its name); attack speed is basically the amount of time it takes to perform an offensive action, generally measured in m/s if they are projectile type, they generally face against reaction/perception.

Acceleration is also important, it measures how much time it cover to perform an attack, and is also useful at the moment of dodging aoe attacks.

 

[Newendigo]

They are safer because of everything I just said though
Lack of Evidence for High End=Safer, this is basic.

This logic is not universal and so can't apply to every calc.

There are calcs which Mid-Ends/High-Ends have more evidence than its Low-Ends.

The safe argument comes from nowhere.

 

[Schnee_One]

@Newendigo @Iap

Both of you had a massive assumption jump on what I said.

Low Ends are usually safer, yes, why? Because their is usually more evidence for the Low Ends thus it is safer to use the one that makes more sense

That is all.

Inherent bias is a thing, but the reason saff are more willing to accept Low Ends is because this is usually the case.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

@Newendigo @Iap
Both of you had a massive assumption jump on what I said.

Low Ends are usually safer, yes, why? Because their is usually more evidence for the Low Ends thus it is safer to use the one that makes more sense

That is all.

Inherent bias is a thing, but the reason saff are more willing to accept Low Ends is because this is usually the case.

You... you responded to a comment about people inherently choosing low balls over high balls for no other reason. What kind of assumtion is it to conclude you are talking about the same thing as the comment you respond to?

If there is more evidence for a low ball, then that isn't the cases we are talking about.

Its not a bias if they are taking cases of low balls having more evidence, but the second they are more inclined towards choosing these things for just... being low balls, that's a major problem

 

[Schnee_One]

At least from my personal experience, people (Mostly Staff) are more willing to accept downgrades or low-balled results than the opposite.

Yes, this post, which is true, because usually there's less supporting a high end then the low end

It's clear we talked something almost entirely different, you talked about choosing low ends for the sake of it is downplay, and it is.

 

[Newendigo]

''**** you wiki for deleting two entire comments of mine.''

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I'll reiterate one thing that I said earlier in that I'm fully willing to admit that I'm part of the problem when it comes to staff problems. I'm not as varied as I used to be, I drop "looks fine I guess" on things I don't care about, and I get teed off at people and snap at them. Even several years in I have a lot of building to do.

Also yes. Low ends>high ends.

 

[Agnaa]

I do agree with low ends > high ends, especially because high ends tend to stack on each other to justify higher and higher results, while the same doesn't really happen with low ends. Accepting a calc at 9-B instead of 9-A won't make a character more likely to be downgraded to 9-C, but accepting it at 9-A would make the character more likely to be accepted at High 8-C, and similar stuff can happen with hax or multiversal tiers.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

I do agree with low ends > high ends, especially because high ends tend to stack on each other to justify higher and higher results, while the same doesn't really happen with low ends. Accepting a calc at 9-B instead of 9-A won't make a character more likely to be downgraded to 9-C, but accepting it at 9-A would make the character more likely to be accepted at High 8-C, and similar stuff can happen with hax or multiversal tiers.

That's not an inherently bad thing tho. Why would it be? As long as its accurate or more accurate, the direction that the stats move in shouldn't matter. Not unless you presuppose that lower tiers are more safe or reliant, of course

 

[Agnaa]

That's not an inherently bad thing tho. Why would it be? As long as its accurate or more accurate, the direction that the stats move in shouldn't matter. Not unless you presuppose that lower tiers are more safe or reliant

If two things are equally likely, and one compounds on itself to create increasingly less likely interpretations (despite each step being equally likely), and one doesn't, then the one that doesn't compound is better.

It's not that higher or lower is better, it's that questionable things stacking is worse.

 

[Newendigo]

That seems more like a fault from the users who purposely use the High-End to get even more higher tiers, not that the High-End calcuation is wrong on itself.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

If the higher end results are inherently less likely, then it shouldn't be compounding to begin with. That's an issue of accuracy, not of probability. Don't missunderstand me, I'm only pointing out that what a given stat is shouldn't matter, only that it is more or less accurate/likely.

If the stacking of them is less accurate, then that's it own issue. If the drive towards accuracy happens to move it up, then that isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Not unless you presuppose that lower stats are inherently more likely, or course.

 

[Agnaa]

@Newendigo That's exactly what I said. The tendency of high-ends to compound is the issue, not the high-ends themselves.

@Iapitus I never said that the higher end results are inherently less likely, I was continuing your example of both ends being equally likely. It's an example of where taking an equally likely choice at each spot ends up compounding to an unlikely choice. Where the drive towards accuracy ends up reducing accuracy.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

But they shouldnt be compounding upward if it still remains that the context given context remains that the lower to results are equal, and more accurate than the other alternatives. Unless new context implied that the higher end results, like perhaps someone calculates a new feat or something, the issue is again that it is become more inaccurate, not that it is moving up.

 

[Agnaa]

Again, the issue is that if both high and low are equal, accepting the high gives new starting ground from which a higher looks more reasonable, while accepting a lower doesn't tend to give a corresponding chain of downgrades.

I agree that the issue isn't that it's moving up - the issue is that moving up begets more moving up, while moving down doesn't, making moving up more prone to inaccuracies.

 

[Newendigo]

@Newendigo That's exactly what I said. The tendency of high-ends to compound is the issue, not the high-ends themselves.

So... It doesn't matter if the result of a calculation is accurate, in context, method and consistency (Under whatever current power level the verse/characters are question). It will be rejected just so people don't go around trying to implement higher tier based on it?

I'm right?

 

[Agnaa]

@Newendigo If it's accurate, in context, with a proper method, and consistent, then there's no room for disagreement about whether it should be accepted or not.

This example has always been about cases where both the high-end and the low-end are equally likely, with no special context prioritizing one or the other, in which case people consider the low-end "safer".

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Again, the issue is that if both high and low are equal, accepting the high gives new starting ground from which a higher looks more reasonable, while accepting a lower doesn't tend to give a corresponding chain of downgrades.
I agree that the issue isn't that it's moving up - the issue is that moving up begets more moving up, while moving down doesn't, making moving up more prone to inaccuracies.

But in that you are assuming it being high somehow makes it more appealing/accurate, which is not what I am claiming nor should that be the case if they are both equally likely in a vacuum. I'm not saying they are equal in all cases obviously, all I'm saying is that neither should be defaulted to, and neither should be more accurate in and of themselves.

But again, if the baseline high and low end are the most likely to be accurate than that shouldnt happen as long as we approach accuracy.

Let me phase your situation another way. If you had a potentially infinite scale of equally likely possibilities, which is dead ass probably impossible, then it wouldn't be 2 equally likely outcomes to begin with