FANDOM


  • Apparently this:https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Jvando/Tengai_Shinsei_Earthquake_AP

    Is calc stacking.

    I would like an explanation please and keep in mind that stuff like OP and Fairy tail also use measured distances to calc feats. Oh forgot Bleach here.

      Loading editor
    • Can you provide examples for the OP and Fairy Tail calcs?

        Loading editor
    • I'm not as familiar with FT so I can't comment on that one yet, but for the One Piece calcs I believe they only use Pixel Scaling to get their sizes?

      The Calc Stacking page specifies that Pixel Scaling over several steps is usually accepted.

        Loading editor
    • Damage3245 wrote:
      I'm not as familiar with FT so I can't comment on that one yet, but for the One Piece calcs I believe they only use Pixel Scaling to get their sizes?

      The Calc Stacking page specifies that Pixel Scaling over several steps is usually accepted.

      Sorry but this is bs, pixel scaling or consistent statements what is the actual difference. In fact the Naruto one pixel scales once. and has multiple supportive statements including WOG.

      How is pixel scaling several steps not inflated? Like wat? That is backwards as hell.

        Loading editor
    • @Rocker1189; I'm not responsible for the policies of the wiki, I'm just going straight from the page.

      > Calc stacking refers to the practice of using results from one calculation in order to calculate other feats.

      Indisputably the distance used for the Tengai Shinsei calc is derived from another calc. It is not a stated / canonical distance. The fact that so many different distances were included shows how varied the size can be through different calcs.

      > Note that pixel scaling over several steps is usually accepted (even through less steps are viewed as better than more steps).

      The page specifies that pixel scaling is usually accepted. Sometimes this can lead to inflation which is why some calcs aren't accepted.

        Loading editor
    • Damage3245 wrote:

      > Calc stacking refers to the practice of using results from one calculation in order to calculate other feats.

      Indisputably the distance used for the Tengai Shinsei calc is derived from another calc. It is not a stated / canonical distance. The fact that so many different distances were included shows how varied the size can be through different calcs.

      > Note that pixel scaling over several steps is usually accepted (even through less steps are viewed as better than more steps).

      The page specifies that pixel scaling is usually accepted. Sometimes this can lead to inflation which is why some calcs aren't accepted.

      > Calc stacking refers to the practice of using results from one calculation in order to calculate other feats.

      Which pixel scaling does.

      >The fact that so many different distances were included shows how varied the size can be through different calcs.

      With one specific one being the most support, note that pixel scaling also has these issues and it wont be a problem if one method is picked.

      >The page specifies that pixel scaling is usually accepted. Sometimes this can lead to inflation which is why some calcs aren't accepted.

      And where does it say that distances calced by statements can not be accepted.

      This entire thiing literally means that statement calced distances can not be used, thus how is Bleach's accepted. Its unfortunate that it is Bleach since I dont even want to touch that right now, but it is in the exact same situation.

        Loading editor
    • we use factual information to validate and help us with the calcs. thats not stacking. thats what any calcer here does- he uses the information available to get correct results. otherwise, we couldnt use heights for characters that have been stated, or periods of time, or hardness of objects, or anything along those lines. calc stacking means using an unoficial calc to get the results to another fan made calc.

        Loading editor
    • @Lorenzo; I'm not disputing using available information in a calc. But what you're describing as " using an unoficial calc to get the results to another fan made calc" is precisely what is happening in the example in the OP.

      Using a character's official height in a calc isn't calc stacking.

      Using a canonical stated distance between two locations in a calc isn't calc stacking.

        Loading editor
    • Damage3245 wrote:
      @Lorenzo; I'm not disputing using available information in a calc. But what you're describing as " using an unoficial calc to get the results to another fan made calc" is precisely what is happening in the example in the OP.

      Sooo, like OP and Bleach then?

      You still have not explained what makes pixel scaling better btw.

        Loading editor
    • What about a “canonically stated” speed and timeframe? I’m sure that’s calc stacking too because double standards. Calcing a value using info we get from the story and using that to calculate something else...how is that different from calcing from a stated height or something of the like?

        Loading editor
    • @damage im not disgreeing. it is calc stacking. but using official sources is not. thats a fact. ik using calcs on other calcs is stacking. i said that. im just stating what i tohught needed to be stated.

        Loading editor
    • Seeing as the OP and FT calcs are pixel scaling which is accepted as fine nothing to really complain about there.

      That leaves the Bleach one which I am fairly certain nobody wants to kickstart that clusterfuck ovo

      Reading through the calc and comments, the only difference I can find with it and the FT one (its what I am most familiar with) is the distance that is the source of the scaling. In the FT one, the distance between Hargeon and Magnolia is stated in verse during the final arc by Wahl and Dimaria while the distance between Konoha and Suna is calc'd. Don't read OP so I can't speak on it and Bleach need not be mentioned.

        Loading editor
    • >Seeing as the OP and FT calcs are pixel scaling which is accepted as fine nothing to really complain about there.

      There is a lot to complain about imo.

      > That leaves the Bleach one which I am fairly certain nobody wants to kickstart that clusterfuck ovo

      which is annoying because it is literally the same situation, note that I have no issues with Bleach's way of doing it.

      > Reading through the calc and comments, the only difference I can find with it and the FT one (its what I am most familiar with) is the distance that is the source of the scaling. In the FT one, the distance between Hargeon and Magnolia is stated in verse during the final arc by Wahl and Dimaria while the distance between Konoha and Suna is calc'd. Don't read OP so I can't speak on it and Bleach need not be mentioned.

      I can understand FT, but the methods used for the Naruto scaling are provided by novels and WOG e.g Ninjas travel for thousands of miles without rest and move faster than horses. These are both canonical. same as the timeframe.

      OP, is just pixel scaling which shoul really be calc stacking same with canon statements. SO they are either both calc stacking or neither are. I lean on neither personally.

        Loading editor
    • If I'm not mistaken, the distance between Konoha and Suna has been declared and used it for Pixel Scaling between the battlefield and where the "ninja intelligence" were.

      It's not calc stacking, it's just the same thing as calculating something using the height of the character.

        Loading editor
    • @MostPowerfull; The distance between the two has not been officially stated. Right now the Tengai Shinsei calc has about five different ends from it due to five different calcs for the distance.

        Loading editor
    • Damage3245 wrote:
      @MostPowerfull; The distance between the two has not been officially stated. Right now the Tengai Shinsei calc has about five different ends from it due to five different calcs for the distance.

      thus one calc needs to be pick, which I personally think is method 5 for being supported in speed, distance of travel without rest and timeframe.

      You still have answered none of my questions above so I am assuming it is a double standard.

        Loading editor
    • @Rocker1189; whether there's one calc or five, it still doesn't change the fact that it is a calc being used for a completely different calc. By our current standards it is calc stacking.

      Either our standards need revising, or they should be upheld.

        Loading editor
    • I was never a fan of pixel scaling myself but if the Naruto map is consistent in its portrayals and the info is from camkn material, I dont see the problem.

      If the problem is that the base distance that everything scales from is a calculated one despite being the numbers coming from canon info, then we have some nice double standards. Once more, I can't speak to OP but the Mimi calc is definitely the same situation to me. If this doesn't go through due to aforementioned reasons, OP better be using a stated distance or it needs to GTFO along with Bleach.

        Loading editor
    • @Damage

      What?

      • Statements that it takes 3 days to reach such a place
      • The author saying that cars are unnecessary
      • Ninjas running between trees.

      Yes, it is stated, even indirectly. So no ... This is not calc stacking.

        Loading editor
    • Damage3245 wrote: @MostPowerfull; The distance between the two has not been officially stated. Right now the Tengai Shinsei calc has about five different ends from it due to five different calcs for the distance.

      I love how you are wording it as if all five calcs are equally legitimate. I can make 4 different calcs for the combined TBB calc using 4 different Pixel Scaled heights for Gyuki, so let’s not talk about “consistency” for one.

      For another, those calcs for the distance (aside from mine) use huge unsupported assumptions that are unfounded and not stated anywhere within the story. I only added them because none have been accepted yet.

      Mine uses Canon statements about distance, time, and speed to get a result. What’s the difference? The number if statements I have to use? Cause really, I don’t use any “assumptions” aside from Horse speed because it is specifically stated by a canon Novem and WoG.

      And Bleach, I won’t get into it, but I fully support their method of calculating their distance and whatnot. Hell, I agreed in the thread where they compared the pixel scaling method for the distance to get the size of Seireitei and the statement method for the distance to get Seireitei.

      My problem isn’t with the calc but the blatant double standards that seem to pervade certain parts of the wiki. If it’s wrong, fine, I can accept that, but what I can’t accept are these standards that we seem to uphold only when it suits us.

        Loading editor
    • Damage3245 wrote:
      @Rocker1189; whether there's one calc or five, it still doesn't change the fact that it is a calc being used for a completely different calc. By our current standards it is calc stacking.

      Either our standards need revising, or they should be upheld.

      Or it does not fall within the issues our current standards have, which is exactly that. Pixel scaling also falls within using a calc on another calc. Again what is the difference between pixel scaling and what we did. You stil have not answered that question.

      This is not an issue with speed, since we are not using supersonic speeds to justify the distance, this is not AP based either, we are not assuming the AP of the metoer based on other meteors without evidence, this is a distance calc (something that is not mentioned in page btw) and uses canon statements from official sources.

      Double standards then, I thought so.

        Loading editor
    • MostPowerfull wrote:
      @Damage

      What?

      • Statements that it takes 3 days to reach such a place
      • The author saying that cars are unnecessary
      • Ninjas running between trees.

      Yes, it is stated, even indirectly. So no ... This is not calc stacking.

      dont forget, ninjas dont need rest after running thousands of miles and ninjas are stated to be faster than horses.

        Loading editor
    • Not sure what’s going on here but I’m pretty sure using calculated sizes and distances for calcs isn’t calc stacking or else finding out fictional sizes and distances is completely worthless.

        Loading editor
    • AnonymousBlank wrote:
      I was never a fan of pixel scaling myself but if the Naruto map is consistent in its portrayals and the info is from camkn material, I dont see the problem.

      If the problem is that the base distance that everything scales from is a calculated one despite being the numbers coming from canon info, then we have some nice double standards. Once more, I can't speak to OP but the Mimi calc is definitely the same situation to me. If this doesn't go through due to aforementioned reasons, OP better be using a stated distance or it needs to GTFO along with Bleach.

      Yep the Naruto map has always been consistent and there have been several versions. The maybe one inconsistency is turtle island...but it is literally an island sized turtle that moves so that is to be expected.

      That is exactly it.

        Loading editor
    • Sigurd Snake in The Eye wrote:
      Not sure what’s going on here but I’m pretty sure using calculated sizes and distances for calcs isn’t calc stacking or else finding out fictional sizes and distances is completely worthless.

      Exactly.

      Like I said, I have no issues with all these calcs, I just want us to be consistent.

        Loading editor
    • Naruto's distances aren't consistent given the fact we have different calcs going all at once all using different ends to find the distance.

      Bleach and Fairy Tail are singular statements pr group of consistent statements for size. Per the wiki rules this doesn't constitute as calc stacking.

      I forget One Piece since it's been years since I read Dressrossa.

        Loading editor
    • This is the information I used in order to use my distance calc while the other Konoha to Suna distance calcs used pure unsupported assumptions and by “unsupported” I mean that they weren’t specifically stated within the story.


      This has been argued and overdone using a decent bit of assumptions thereby making the calcs of this feat most likely inaccurate. I'm not a big fan of assumptions:

      • 8 Hour rest
      • Superhuman speed
      • Etc

      They are fair to make, don't get me wrong, but none of those assumptions are strictly supported by any direct statements from the series...Until now.

      Let me type that out to make it easier for everyone to see:

      Shinobi did use lightning trains and steam trains or blimps when the situation called for their necessity, but they were simply faster at traveling by foot than other, normal people. Shinobi could go down a trackless path, and make a journey of a thousand miles without a single break. For them, their own two legs were the most reliable method of transport. And there was all the more reason to go on foot when traveling in the desert, where no reliable roads were guaranteed. Shinobi were more tenacious than camels, faster than horses, and they flew across the seas of sand with ease.
      ~ Gaara Hiden, Chapter 2

      So, what do we have?

      We have a stated speed: "Faster than horses"

      We have a general stated stamina: "Can make a journey of a thousand miles without a single break...Shinobi were more tenacious than camels"

      As opposed to thus making some generalized assumptions backed by no evidence, I can now at least make a single assumption based on the passage, that being their speed. We know their stamina can allow them to last for "a thousand miles" (Since this was translated from Japanese, the raws most likely say “a thousand Kilometers” but this doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things), so them needing rest in an urgent situation is an unsubstantiated assumption that is disproven by a straight-up statement from the Gaara Hiden novel.

      Why should this statement even be considered when another statement from this novel was rejected?

      Simple, this statement isn't contradicted by anything within the story AND it is actually backed up by information told to us by Kishimoto in an interview, meaning that it is doubly confirmed by the primary author of the work himself:

      It would actually take too long to really go nitty-gritty into details, but for example one of the things I focused on was that anything that's NOT possible to recreate, or to do, using ninjutsu, ninja skills, I would not develop for Naruto's world. So no cars. Because they have shuriken, the throwing stars, there are no guns either. So there were certain things I had clearly in my head that I didn't want to have available in their worldview.
      ~ Masashi Kishimoto

      Here is the source

      • It is backed up by the primary author of the work
      • It is not contradicted by any showings within the series
      • I don’t need to use arbitrary assumptions
      • It is thus usable
        Loading editor
    • IMadeThisOn8-1-2017 wrote:
      Naruto's distances aren't consistent given the fact we have different calcs going all at once all using different ends to find the distance.

      Bleach and Fairy Tail are singular statements pr group of consistent statements for size. Per the wiki rules this doesn't constitute as calc stacking.

      I forget One Piece since it's been years since I read Dressrossa.

      Please read what I am saying, 1 of the calcs is supported in every way from speed to rest time. Naruto has no inconsistenncy actually as the timeframe is exactly the same all the time. Also that is not an inconsistency, those are just wrong calcs. All of them use assumptions but the very last one.

      FT has a distance statement, Bleach has the singular length of time statement that is comepltely open to interpretation and can depend entirely on what speed you use for the character meaning that it can have over 5 calcs based on what speed you use for Ichigo. Just like with the Naruto one, the Bleach one even has multiple distances that could be got depending on what speed you used, only difference is that they were outright called flawed. I dont see how you can all Naruto's inconsistent, based on absolutely nothing btw but Bleach's isnt.

      OP is just a pixel calc.

      Lmao at grouping up Bleach and FT. Please tell me what distance Bleach was given in that calc while FT has a stated distance.

        Loading editor
    • IMadeThisOn8-1-2017 wrote: Naruto's distances aren't consistent given the fact we have different calcs going all at once all using different ends to find the distance.

      Bleach and Fairy Tail are singular statements pr group of consistent statements for size. Per the wiki rules this doesn't constitute as calc stacking.

      I forget One Piece since it's been years since I read Dressrossa.

      All the ends to find the distance are completely unsupported (except mine). I.e. they are wrong. Naruto’s distances aren’t inconsistent, the methods to use them are wrong themselves. I can derive any number of assumptions to get any number of distances, but if my basis for assumptions are wrong or are arbitrary, then yeah, the distance will appear “inconsistent”.

      Let me also continue by saying Naruto’s 3 day statement is also consistent. Funnily enough, it’s consistent years after it was first introduced from Naruto to Boruto with three statements for the 3 day timeframe in total. If that’s not consistency, then I believe one of our dictionaries are wrong cause I might just not know what that even means anymore. But if my definition is correct, then by your own admission, this isn’t calc stacking since Naruto has “a singular statements or group of consistent statements for size“

      Also, how are you doing to compare Bleach’s timeframe statement to FT’s direct distance statement like they are in any way the same?

        Loading editor
    • I think there's a misunderstanding of what calc stacking is

      We allow for distance and size to be used in other calculations because they tend to stay consistent and not inflated, unlike speed 

      Using statements across multiple levels also isn't any different from using pixel scaling as long as they are both valid, you can raise the same arguments and pros for them

      We've always accepted statements for distance/size in all verses and we've allowed those distances and sizes to be used in other calculations

      If Naruto has varying distances and sizes for a certain thing just like any other series it's best to find the most accurate one that's consistent with the others, rather than attempt to throw them all out which makes no sense and isn't what we want to do in this wikia

        Loading editor
    • To my knowledge, distances had never fell into calc staking, aside of the calcs already linked:

      Kepekley23 evaluated this calc and never said anything about calc staking from using a distance of another blog.

      Ugarik accepted this calc and never said anything about calc staking the distance of another blog.

      This calc was accepted and wasn't called out for calc staking as well.

      I accepted this calc because he thing I said above.

      I calculated this feat because the same thing I said above.

      I also accepted this for reasons above.


      You can stretch that only the 4 calc is similar that the thing with Naruto and its distance via statement and timeframe, but:

      "Note that pixel scaling over several steps is usually accepted (even through less steps are viewed as better than more steps)."

      Why is it that pixel scaling, that may or may not inflate a calc for multiple steps, is more realiable than using statements?

      As long as something is enterily consistent, we use that. And if many calcs of the same distance were made, we go with the most accurate one via the context of the series. Pixelscaling can be called out because the size you get using panel 1 and panel 2 can give a different result that using panel 1 and panel 3. We choose if combination one is more cansistent than combination 2 or viseversa and use that distance, or if that isn't accepted then every single calc that tries to find the distance from x to x places are totally useless calcs that are for nothing since if they all fall into calc staking, what would be the point?

      There are many, many other calcs that I didn't linked that also use sizes from other calcs to calc another feat.

      So if I'm misunderstanding why this feat in particular was called out, I want to know that.

      And if I'm not, then the best we can do is leave a note on the calc staking page about using distances for other calcs.

      Edit: MRK el que lo lea.

        Loading editor
    • If the consensus is that this method is fine to use, then I'm perfectly fine with that.

      But I only brought it up because is seemed to fall directly under what the page of Calc Stacking talks about and there is no exception stating that calc stacking using distances is acceptable.

      If it is, then all that we need to do is ammend the Calc Stacking page.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, if anything, we should firstly get more imput for staff who is knowledgeable of this calc staking thing along with DontTalkDT as he is the one how made the page to begin with.

      If using the distance is ok, we should wrote a note there. And if it is not ok, then we get rid of all the calcs that do this.

        Loading editor
    • Damage3245 wrote:
       

      If it is, then all that we need to do is ammend the Calc Stacking page.

      I'm fine with a note of it being added to the page that using distances across calculations isn't calc stacking

        Loading editor
    • No matter how you look at it, it is by definition calc stacking.

      This topic is more about whether it is an acceptable form of calc stacking.

        Loading editor
    • You mean another acceptable form, pixel scaling is also calc stacking by that definition.

        Loading editor
    • What rocker said

        Loading editor
    • I think TataHakai is making sense here. Calc Stacking is generally using an AP feat to calc speed, or using a speed feat that has no superhuman lifting strength involved to calculate AP. Here, is just calculated the distance between the various countries by simple comparing and contrasts.

        Loading editor
    • @Rocker1189; this might be down to a difference of interpretation over terminology, but pixel scaling isn't quite the same thing as calcing to me. But I can see why it would be seen like that.

      The Calc Stacking page needs a whole subsection explaining which forms of Calc Stacking are acceptable to use. As far as I know there are at least three:

      1) Pixel Scaling (which is currently mentioned on there)

      2) Distance/Size Stacking (which is what this thread is about)

      3) Multipliers (detailed in the Multipliers page, but it is also worth mentioning on the Calc Stacking page)

        Loading editor
    • Damage3245 wrote: @Rocker1189; this might be down to a difference of interpretation over terminology, but pixel scaling isn't quite the same thing as calcing to me. But I can see why it would be seen like that.

      The Calc Stacking page needs a whole subsection explaining which forms of Calc Stacking are acceptable to use. As far as I know there are at least three:

      1) Pixel Scaling (which is currently mentioned on there)

      2) Distance/Size Stacking (which is what this thread is about)

      3) Multipliers (detailed in the Multipliers page, but it is also worth mentioning on the Calc Stacking page)

      Well, it certainly has to be a difference in terminology because pixel scaling is literally a calc, the only difference is that it is entirely visual based. Which most manga/comics are extremely inconsistent with anyway.

      Also you can't separate size stacking from pixel scaling, pixel scaling is quite literally size stacking.

        Loading editor
    • @Rocker1189; I know that. The difference is usually that pixel scaling is based on a figure which isn't derived from a separate calc.

      To put it another way the difference between the case in the OP and some other cases is that it goes like this:

      Calced Size -> Pixel Scaled Size -> Pixel Scaled Size, etc.

      Official Size -> Pixel Scaled Size -> Pixel Scaled Size, etc.

      Both are "size stacking" but the first one is dependent on a calc while the latter is not.

      If it is fine, then there is no problem here, but all I'm saying is that the Calc Stacking page needs to be updated.

        Loading editor
    • If you want to say that, we have an official(extremely consistent) timeframe, official speeds and even official rest time.

        Loading editor
    • DontTalkDT
      DontTalkDT removed this reply because:
      12:22, September 13, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Thanks for the staff input. It was really helpful as usual

        Loading editor
    • What exactly do "calced distances" refer to in this debate?

      If it just means using something pixel scaled in another blog post in a calc for your own blog that obviously isn't calc stacking. Over how many blog posts a calc is spread doesn't affect the validity of a calc.

      But I think other practices are meant?

        Loading editor
    • DontTalkDT wrote: What exactly do "calced distances" refer to in this debate?

      If it just means using something pixel scaled in another blog post in a calc for your own blog that obviously isn't calc stacking. Over how many blog posts a calc is spread doesn't affect the validity of a calc.

      But I think other practices are meant?

      In this instance, calced distances refers to using a statement such as “It takes three days to get from X to Y” and using either an assumed speed of travel (average walking speed if they walked) or a stated speed of travel (A can travel faster than Horses) to get a distance. Usually 8 hours rest per day is factored in if there’s no reason to assume otherwise like a direct statement stating A can travel for B amount without rest.

        Loading editor
    • Pretty much what Jvando has said.

      It's not just pixel scaling a distance and using that for a calc; it is determining a distance through by making a calc for it, and using that as a basis for pixel scaling for another calc.

        Loading editor
    • Jvando wrote:

      In this instance, calced distances refers to using a statement such as “It takes three days to get from X to Y” and using either an assumed speed of travel (average walking speed if they walked) or a stated speed of travel (A can travel faster than Horses) to get a distance. Usually 8 hours rest per day is factored in if there’s no reason to assume otherwise like a direct statement stating A can travel for B amount without rest.

      Hmmm... I see were the debate comes from.

      Regarding speed of travel one has to ensure that this is speed of prolonged travel, that they actually travel as fast as they can and that they aren't slowed by having to carry stuff.

      One also has to consider that given mountains, rivers, swamps etc. a path isn't always a straight line, of equal speed to travel through and of equal stamina requirements.

      IMO the statement regarding the speed should also be made regarding the travel in question. Otherwise people will start doing calcs were they assume that a characters every move in a serious battle is supersonic, because they were stated to move supersonic one time at some point of a story.

      Aside from that, if both time and speed are reliable statements, I guess I'm fine with it.


      Thinking about this, it probably falls into the same category as calculating the speed of a bullet and then using the speed of said bullet, at that very same instance, in order to calculate the speed of a character dodging it. That usually is accepted as well.

      The basic point in both is that the parameter can not have changed between the scenario of the first and the second calc. In my example, because the speed in both cases comes from the very same object at the very same time, and in the example that the thread is about, because distances don't usually change a lot.

      So for the calc stacking page, I would then suggest rewriting the pixel scaling note into:

      "However, parameters that are calculated in a first calculation can be accepted for use in a second calculation, if and only if they can not have changed between them. To provide a few examples:

      • Pixel scaling over several steps is permitted, as long as the size of the scaled objects usually stays constant.
      • Using the calculated speed of a projectile to calculate the speed of a character dodging said projectile on the very same occasion is usually permitted, as long as the projectile wouldn't have changed its speed mid flight.
      • Using a reliable stated timeframe and speed something travels during that timeframe one can calculate the distance travelled. Said distance can then usually be used for calculations. (Take heed that paths don't need to be straight and that speed reliably has to be constant)

      However, even for this parameters calc stacking is avoided as much as possible. That means that results taking less such steps are usually taken over results that rely on more calc stacking."

        Loading editor
    • I agree with DonTalk

        Loading editor
    • So is the calc good to go?

        Loading editor
    • The suggested modification for the Calc Stacking page sounds good to me.

      (Though I would add a 4th bullet point that Multipliers are an accepted form of calc stacking, and include a link to the main Multipliers page which contains more details on it.)

      @Wrath Of Itachi; the calc is no longer invalid for original reason I evaluated for it, but I'll be giving a 2nd evaluation for it as soon as I get home.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.