Using spoken words as a variable to find timeframe

[RavenSupreme]

Currently we are treating spoken words during feats, battles, scenes etc. as free action and ignore if the time it took for the words to be spoken / the dialoge to be exchanged would in reality actually take more time than the feat was calculated to take place.

On the other hand there exists the possibility of using spoken words as a crucial variable to finding timeframes, as for example seen in this calculation

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/U...f_Darkness_(new_palace_calc_by_Raven_Supreme)

Which uses a found distance from an earlier calc of mine and connects it with a found timeframe via spoken word to get a new speed result.

-

This means either we decide to completely see spoken words as free action, which means we ignore it when it would invalidate a feat but at the same time also dont use it to find new feats

Or we roll with it, which means we can use it to find new feats, however it also means that already existing and future feats have to be double-checked if the spoken words are not contradicting the value found.

-

Waiting for input.

 

[AppleLord]

This is not going to end well, especially with adding the double checks. It will create a lot of work for the staff members. I could subject "double checking" if for some reason someone comes across it, instead of doing all that heavy work. But in the end it's up to the mods to decide.

 

[Antvasima]

You should preferably ask all of the calc group members, along with Kaltias and DontTalkDT, to comment here, if we are going to decide on some coherent standards: VS Battles Staff

We would also need to decide in which page that we should explain this policy.

 

[Thebluedash]

I don't like the idea of using spoken words as a source of timeframe. It seems rather inconsistent, and would probably bring even more arguments on calcs really. Plus, doublechecking all of our speed calcs on this site would probably take a while.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I personally don't think that we should use speaking as a way to measure the timeframes for things, as they lead to inflated results. Talking is a free action is like, the most common thing in fiction with superhuman stats. Take Piccolo's "begone" for example.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the replies.

 

[RavenSupreme]

I am of the same opinion. Treating it as a free action for both way is only fair. Otherwise we would introduce a double standard, allowing it for when it suits us for good results and neglecting it when it would invalidate it.

 

[EmbalmerMaster9000]

From a bit of experience, most of the calculations that utilizing talking as a timeframe are usually comic/manga scenarios, whereas in other forms of media such as animated films and videogames, timeframes are generally provided. Likewise, as per what other various staff members are stating above, talking is generally a free action in most forms of fiction.

Either we treat it as a free action, or we only funnel it down to being allowed in comic/manga/other picture book scenarios due to those lacking specific timeframes other than "character took this time to run to this location" or other such statements. Then again, this opinion is only being based off of a couple of examples, so I personally do not agree with using the 'funnel it down to manga/comics' option.

To simplify, I agree with the other staff members' opinions, and I believe that we should not using talking to determine a timeframe in a certain scenario.

 

[Antvasima]

So in which calculation instruction page should we preferably mention this rule?

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

I agree with the majority.

 

[EmbalmerMaster9000]

So in which calculation instruction page should we preferably mention this rule?

The speed calculations part of the Calculations page, possibly?

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, that might be an idea, although the Calculations Introduction and References page seems to have a longer speed explanation section.

 

[TataHakai]

Talking is a free action makes sense as a counter to using spoken word timeframes, i agree with what has been said above in terms of this since it is starting to get out of hand.

 

[Antvasima]

So is anybody willing and able to properly write an addition to the Calculations Introduction and References page, and possibly the Calculations page as well?

It might be good to ask Assaltwaffle and DontTalkDT for help with that part of the work.

 

[Executor_N0]

Well, if there is no indication that relates the act of speaking to the other action, I agree that Talking should be considered a free action.

 

[Antvasima]

Would you be willing to insert an explanation of this rule into the calculations instruction page?

 

[Antoniofer]

I would use speaking as the last source to find timeframe since is considered most of the time as a free action; it we have distance+known speed, free fall, vertical launch, or any kind of known speed we use that rather than speaking.

 

[Kepekley23]

If there is no other way, I believe using spoken words is appropriate.

 

[Antvasima]

So, using it as a last resort might be acceptable then? What do the rest of you think about this?

 

[Kaltias]

I agree with Antonio and Kep.

It should be a last resort when it comes to finding timeframes, but it's still better than a purely assumed timeframe

 

[Lilixa]

Correct me if i wrong, but I think most visual novel has same case like this ??

 

[RavenSupreme]

I will just keep tabs on the votes:

Against: Thebluedash, The real cal howard, Zanybrainy, Spinosaurus, Tata Haki, Executor, RavenSupreme

in total 7 staff members are leaning towards not accepting talking as a means to find timeframes in general

In favour: no one is in favour of doing it on a general term

Using it as last resort when no other way is possible: Antoniofer, Kepekley23, Kaltias

In total 3 staff members are leaning towards accepting talking as a means to find timeframes in specific cases when there is absolutely no other way to find it as a last resort.

My question is:

Usually, when there is no other means of finding a timeframe we roll with the 60 second rule

How would that compare to the talking bit?

 

[Liger686]

I also think using spoken words as a last resort is fine.

 

[Kepekley23]

If the characters are talking at the exact same time as the feat is being performed, I'm pretty sure it'd be a more accurate low-end as a last resort.

 

[RavenSupreme]

When a feat happens over multiple panels and there are panels where we only see action but no talking we would have to assume that all that happens all the while the person is still talking, which is nothing I am a fan of to be honest.

Picture 1: Talking and feat starts

Picture 2-3: We see the feat unfold but not the character talking

Picture 4: Talking and/or feat ends

Feels a little weird assuming Pictures 2-3 would still be supported by the timeframe from Picture 1

And we always can resort to the 60 second rule if nothing else works. Adding the talking feature feels, in my eyes, as an unecessary step for 99% of the time while at the same time being a little on the double-standarded side, since we otherwise disregard it even when it would invalidate other feats.

I dont know if we need a to specific allow something for the possible 1% basically, since it will likely get misused.

 

[ArbitraryNumbers]

I'm with Assalt. I recall Darkanine doing using such a timeframe to calc a Foxtrot feat.

 

[Antoniofer]

Assault hasn't commented about the issue yet tho.

 

[Antvasima]

Arbitrary probably thought of somebody else, and got the usernames mixed up. It happens sometimes, and I do not think that it is a big deal.

 

[Golden_Void]

Against this as well, it's generally a free-action, and as it was shown in few Bleach calcs, doesn't always produce accurate results.

 

[RavenSupreme]

I thank all the members from the calc group for their participation, as it seems to be an important tweak on how we handle things. With ~10 staff members being in favour of talking being treated as free action I think all these recent Bleach calculations using WPM can be dismissed. We have to check what other verses use the same methods and revise them accordingly.

Thats a massive amount of work however. Anyone willing to help?

 

[Antvasima]

We first have to revise our standards in the Calculations Introduction and References page, and possibly the Calculations page as well.

I would also much prefer to get input from DontTalkDT, Assaltwaffle and Kaltias first.

 

[RavenSupreme]

Oh wow.

You are right they have not responded here yet.

We wait. This should be made a decision by as much people as possible.

 

[Antvasima]

I would appreciate if you inform them via their message walls.

 

[Kaltias]

I'll do it

 

[Antvasima]

Thanks. What do you think about this Kaltias?

 

[Kaltias]

I think that it should be considered as a valid method to find timeframes, but only as long as there is literally no way to know otherwise.

Like, if a character is running and the syllabus counter gives me 9 seconds, but I can find a timeframe based on, say, some rocks falling that gives me 14 seconds, the latter takes precedence.

If there is literally no way to know otherwise, i'd rather use the timeframe found via spoken words than completely guess with an assumption

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That makes sense.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I've always been against this and I still am.

 

[Antvasima]

What about as a last resort?

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Still a no for me. That "last resort" usually leads to super inflated values and an unprecedented amount of guesswork.