• 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.

Evaluations of conflicting accepted calculations (Staff only)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Elizhaa

Elizhaa

VS Battles
Administrator
Messages
16,008
Reaction score
8,264
Currently, there are issues with Calculations with popular verses in the wiki like Naruto (The Universe) ; there are a lot of conflicting accepted calculations for the same feats in Content Revision Thread. As a result, from the verse popularity, there have been hostilities from regarding the choice based on the calculations which get the CRT closed from derailing from namecalling to staffs members attacks and usually results in Rule violations reports from Wiki Members. These cases prevent Calculation Members, who are mostly called to discuss the correct calculation, to work effectively.

There was an unspoken rule if there are conflicting accepted calculations, the topic should be resolved in Calc Group Discussio first then a CRT should be done based on the result.

So, this thread is about proposing this rule which I believe should be added in the Discussion Rules:

  • Regarding conflicting accepted calculations for the same feat, a discussion regarding which calculations that are most reliable to use should happen in the Calc Group Discussion Board. If the appropriate calculation is chosen, there should be a Content Revision Thread to decide which characters that should scale to the feat.
Changes are welcome regarding the proposed rule.
 
Yeah. Also, make sure to actually enforce the calc group only aspect of discussing calcs. Maybe the OPs of the calcs being disputed, but the reason that they can't do it properly is largely due to those threads being flooded with other stuff.
 
Yeah, Calc Members should just choose which one is better and then a CRT is done. We have a thread about evaluating calculations for a reason, after all.
 
This is kinda why you shouldn't just ask random forks as per what calcs they accept and you should stick with a group of guys who know the verse
 
The problem imo is that the calc group usually just looks to the math of the calc to see if it's right. The only place for people to debate the validity of the feats being calc'd is either in the comments of the calc, where they are often ignored, or in a thread, where they are either drowned out by supporters or conflict ensues.
 
> The only place for people to debate the validity of the feats being calc'd is either in the comments of the calc, where they are often ignored, or in a thread, where they are either drowned out by supporters or conflict ensues.

Whether the feat can be used or not, and who scales to it, is something to be handled primarily in a CRT which the OP has said.
 
Dargoo Faust said:
Honestly I feel like this boils down to poor communication between calc members if this is even an issue to begin with.
Click to expand...
I think it is largely due to some of these popular verses where fans can be really hostile with their arguments; some members there insults wiki members and our wiki system general. They usally get banned later, though.
 
Wokistan said:
Yeah. Also, make sure to actually enforce the calc group only aspect of discussing calcs. Maybe the OPs of the calcs being disputed, but the reason that they can't do it properly is largely due to those threads being flooded with other stuff.
Click to expand...
I think it easier to enforce rule from Calc Group Discussio as they are meant for calculation discussion only.

From the board:

  • A board serving as a workshop for the calc group, to more easily discuss different calculations and wiki projects. Other members should only comment if they can provide information, or it is otherwise useful for a discussion.
I think the second point is usally what happens, @Wokistan.
 
Isn't the usual just to have the calc group members check the math to see if there's anything wrong, and if there are multiple accepted ones that's when you call the knowledgeable members to see if it can be used?
 
The extent to which a calc group member is familiar with a verse may also affect their ability to properly evaluate a calculation. I am not implying bias within the group, rather that a person that lacks experience with a verse may not be able to properly evaluate due to lacking context or experience with the verse.

A good example of this was a question that I was asked by Damage on my wall regarding two conflicting calculations for a Naruto feat. I was viewing the calculation as someone who had never even heard of Naruto before, and found Kep's calculation better than Damage's because I believed Kep's pixel scaling to be solid, when it was in fact erroneous. If that conversation had taken place in a thread rather than in comparative private, my inexperience could have skewed a possible argument. It should be a case that when deciding which calculations to accept, familiarity with a verse should also be considered even among the calculation group members, especially in a case such as that.
 
I suppose that DMUA, Damage3245 and Crimson Azoth make sense there.

Personally I think that the rule is fine, but be noted that both Calc Group members and verse-knowledgeable members should cooperate when it comes to calculation evaluation and acceptation.
 
I do agree there some threads where the Calc group members aren't knowledge to make the best choice on the verse from the consistencies of the feats and inputs from members might be need to make a better decision,

In any case, based on @DMUA, @Damage3245 and @Crimson Azoth's points, would you, guys, be fine if the rule violations reports, judged a case by case basis of course, when a CRT become more hostile be a primary primary?

I think the rule violation reports can solve some of these issues. I had members who improved their behaviors from my warnings given.

I do know some members feel thickshinned enough not make rule violation report but I think it is better when done because they would hostile comments are against our Site Rules and it think it letting bad behaviors go unpunished:

  • Refrain from spamming, trolling, threatening, using derogatory comments of any form (ethnic, homophobic, belittling the disabled or mentally ill, etcetera), and rude, vulgar, sexist, etcetera offensive language.
 
I'll be honest, the Calc blog comments section isn't very helpful when comments pointing out general flaws with the premise get overshadowed and ignored for several months before being brought up in a CRT, where everything gets resolved after 200+ comments. Honestly, this practice of getting CG members to just come over and say OK is terribly impractical, and should be shelved in favour of CG Board threads or CRTs. It doesn't help when the comments on a blog don't appear in one's notifications, causing people to miss stuff entirely.
 
Crimson Azoth said:
I do realize that the blog format of accepting or denying calculations is incredibly flawed, primarily due to the lack of notifications. But what is the alternative?
Click to expand...
I just listed my preferences right after that line. Threads, regardless of how messy they can get, is a far better, more reliable way of getting stuff done than blog Yes/Nos.
 
I think it's better if people adress the root of the issue that is the inconsistent as hell art from these manga that make it possible for a 1000 calculations of the exact same feat to exist in the first place, if the art were consistent it all calculations would give a similar result regardles of which frame of reference one used to pixelscale.
 
Blogs do technically give notifications, just though e-mail, which barely anyone checks reliably.

Perhaps we could ask FANDOM to add notifications for blog comments? Hopefully it isn't too crazy to implement.
 
AguilaR101 said:
I think it's better if people adress the root of the issue that is the inconsistent as hell art from these manga that make it possible for a 1000 calculations of the exact same feat to exist in the first place
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that's just the reality that we have to live with. We can't really change that
 
I do agree with the OP. Plenty of Naruto and Bleach calcs are constantly being redone and pushed. And sometimes, the calcer would purposely inflate or deflate certain results. I do agree that Calc Group Members who are also well versed on both verses should preferably be the one deciding which calculations are legit.
 
>I had never heard of Naruto

How the hell...anyway, your point makes sense
 
Be American. I hadn't heard of any anime except dragon Ball, berserk, and Naruto before going on this site. Derailing though.
 
A few issues:

The system of calc group members being the ones to decide if calculations are acceptable to use via blog post comments is the only useful alternative that we have, as starting thousands of threads in the calc group forum is not realistic. In lack of better options, I am continuously trying to make sure that the members are informed about new replies by telling others to inform them via their message walls.

I have asked Fandom about an option/checkbox for specific email notifications only for subscribed blog comments in the past, but they do not seem to have updated their settings afterwards.

The problem with making calc group discussions open for hordes of overenthusiastic fans of popular franchises is that the calc group members would quickly grow extremely overwhelmed and exhausted, to the point of not being able to do their jobs in general. They should feel free to ask specific knowledgeable, rational, and reasonable members for clarifications and other information when necessary though.
 
For the record, I support writing an official, as opposed to an informal, rule about that in cases of conflicting calculations for the same feats, the calc group have to discuss which of them that seem most reliable in their personal forum. However, as I mentioned above, they are free to ask for outside help, by using the Knowledgeable Members List or the associated verse page list of supporters.
 
DMUA said:
This is kinda why you shouldn't just ask random forks as per what calcs they accept and you should stick with a group of guys who know the verse
Click to expand...
Dunno where the discussion is as of right now, but DMUA basically nailed it. If you ask tons of calc group members to look at your calc, there's a good chance a differing of opinions comes out. Often times multiple versions of a calc can be considered acceptable, it's just we tend to use the lowest possible acceptable amount.

Regarding what Ant says... yeah, basically. If you desperately need a talk between a large bunch of math nerds, make a thread- this is if like three or more of them aren't really communicating about this issue or just can't reach a consensus. At that point something needs discussing. But if you just need confirmation on which end to use, bring people back via a message and have them look again.
 
I guess the rule is fine, then.

I think this point about Calculation Group about asking for help can be added in a rule text from these texts below:

  • "they are free to ask for outside help, by using the Knowledgeable Members List or the associated verse page list of supporters."
 
That is obviously fine for me. Can somebody write a draft for the new regulation text?
 
Here is a draft, @Antvasima:

Changes are welcome.
 
Something like this perhaps?

"If there exist conflicting accepted calculations for the same feat, the calc group members should discuss which ones that are most reliable to use in their own forum. The calc group is free to ask for relevant information from reliable members, by using the Knowledgeable Members List or the associated verse page list of supporters. After a decision thas been reached, and the most reliable calculations have been selected, a discussion should be started in the content revision forum to decide which characters that should scale to the feats."
 
Okay. Thanks.
 
I think it is good. Fixing this error: "to to the feats", would improve it further.
 
Speaking as a totally not calc group member, this seems fine, I'd welcome the idea of regular users being able to make threads on the board if and only if the calc has disputed accepted ends and isn't being fixed by just asking them to respond. At that point a discussion should be had.
 
I fixed the error that Elizhaa pointed out. Should I add the new rule now?
 
I say yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
AKM sama
  • Featured
New Staff Promotions
2 3
Replies
84
Views
4K
LordYanSen
  • Locked
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
21
Views
2K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
Expectro2000xxx
Absolute Zero Standard Revision
Replies
34
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Links Revision
Replies
11
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top