• 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.

The necessity of Neutral/Opponents on a Verse page?

I also think that you are trying to fix a feature that is not broken, and that you are currently being an obstructionist when I am offering a much less drastic and more constructive alternative solution.
This had already being settled for a while, and i am unsure what your solution you're putting forward is? If i can say Ant, you seem to constantly flipping your take on this on a whim, so its hard to draw a bead on what you're currently agreeing with.

Its not about it being broken, nor did i claim it was ever broken. I stated it could be improved upon, and it has thus became redundant. Its not an active harm to the wiki, and it shouldnt need to be in order for me to suggest an improvment. An improvement that has already been agreed upon, but has now suddenly resurfaced and is trying to be changed.

There are genuine issues with keeping S/O/N in the format that it is AND then also adding Knowledgable Members.
  1. Makes the verse page longer with an unnecessary section kept
  2. Unnecessary section in question would just be a rinse-and-repeat of the supporters section pretty much. Theres no need to keep Neutral or Opponents in any case.
  3. It still gives off the negative implications of bias that S/O/N had in the first place.
 
I reevaluate information. It is a part of my job.

Anyway, I am saying that since your suggestion has been rejected by our staff, a much less drastic and more constructive solution seems greatly preferable, which is to move the sections of the following page to the corresponding individual verse pages, while also keeping the Supporters/Neutral/Opponents sections.

 
I reevaluate information. It is a part of my job.

Anyway, I am saying that since your suggestion has been rejected by our staff, a much less drastic and more constructive solution seems greatly preferable, which is to move the sections of the following page to the corresponding individual verse pages, while also keeping the Supporters/Neutral/Opponents sections.

I mean I dont see where the official voting for that was, and most people who were on this thread that were FOR the change haven't been able to see or comment on this either. It feels to me like you've just been waiting this change out from before, and suddenly sprang it now to avoid the change entirely with the people that were initially against it for reasons like 'its fun'.

There still has been no 'constructive' reasoning given as to why we are keeping S/O/N if we're also adding Knowledgable Members. I genuinely believe this just makes it worse when we have to repeat the two sections, when it was initially a replacement to remove biased labelling. What is the point of keeping a Supporter/Opponent/Neutral?

Do yall genuinely need to tell everyone your personal stances on a verse? And then differentiate that from being 'knowledgable' about it? I feel we're ignoring entirely the initial problems presented about the Supporter/Opponent/Neutral section we had addressed and what got this 'replacing this section with better terminology' started in the first place

I hate to bring up Weekly too, but why do you think RWBY's strongest soldier was labelling themself as an 'Opponent' of the verse? It'll always fall victim to people using them to warp perception of their takes
 
Last edited:
From what I recall, our staff members here eventually rejected your suggestion, and I also personally disagree with it, as I find these sections useful, as our staff members can use them to easily find members that can help out in content revision threads, and that can then be sent notifications through @"username" commands.

However, I want to make those sections more useful than currently by moving our knowledgeable members sections to the verse pages right above them as well.
 
From what I recall, our staff members here eventually rejected your suggestion, and I also personally disagree with it, as I find these sections useful, as our staff members can use them to easily find members that can help out in content revision threads, and that can then be sent notifications through @"username" commands.
What was agreed upon was ultimately replacing S/O/N with Knowledgable Members (or Somewhat Knowledgable Members as you wanted to put it), since it had outlived its usefulness and now only created issues as a relic of the past. the thread then went dead silent somewhere (i remember someone saying it would need a year or something to do the bot command that could change it), and has only been bumped up every once in a while. This is part of the reason CRTs take far too long, because now even we're forgetting what our original outcome was

There was a lot of discussion about it, but no, it wasn't rejected, until seemingly now out of nowhere, once we had already agreed to this change. It comes across that the only answer people will take is a 'No', and that this CRT will just stay around until eventual attrition makes it fall into not doing anything in the long run.

So i need to genuinely ask, Why do people want to keep Supporter/Neutral/Opponent so intently? Do people just really like putting their names on the Verse page solely to say they're a fan of the series, or do not like it. That only puts discredit to your professional opinion (at surface value, people will definitely meet takes with more skepticism if they see you are an 'opponent' of the verse you're trying to talk about at the very least.)
However, I want to make those sections more useful than currently by moving our knowledgeable members sections to the verse pages right above them as well.
Yes I agree, thats productive as the current Knowledgable Members List page is poorly formatted and super long to scroll through, however though that now makes two sections mandatory on a Verse page that just list off names of people that can help. One of which are people actually confident in answering any questions related to the verse and its power system, and the other just people giving off their personal feelings for a verse (which i've explained through this whole thread why i think it isn't suitable for this wiki as it continues to improve).

This is the biggest go-to source for quick powerscaling in the entire community generally (barring Death Battle but thats far more limited characters), whether we're liked or not, but when it comes to now making more positive impacts (and i heavily reiterate that this isn't a 'broken system', merely an 'outdated one'), we need to make sure theres nothing at least on the main wiki pages that hint towards a bias or negatively associated labels in our discussion front. And there have been a lot of scenarios and personal takes given that support this confusion.

I know I would hate to ever be accused of 'bias', I like to think that i'm fair when it comes to my regards for fictional characters (Cause i too, when i was younger, have been biased and leaning to more than one side when it came to versus debates.)

The only real change here is that we'd be replacing S/O/N with 'Knowledgable Members', removing all negative 'allignments' to verses that people only put their name down due to personal beliefs OR they actually can say they know the verse. There is still a list of names of users on each verse page (only one section), only this time it removes all confusion that hints at personal biases (whether thats accurate or not) to the general traffic.
 
Last edited:
Well, I still support my solution in order to not lose any useful information about which members we can call for to participate in content revision threads.

Can somebody please list all of the staff members who have participated in this thread, so I can call for them afterwards?
 
Well, I still support my solution in order to not lose any useful information about which members we can call for to participate in content revision threads.
You woudlnt be losing that information if we simply transferred at least the 'Supporters' to Knowledgable Members alongside that. If anything, you'd be weeding out the people that will speak on Content Revisions with bias. That definitely wont be eradicated but it would certainly help in the future when people want to put their names down on whether they are confident they know the verse, rather than wanting to be an 'opponent' towards it. Its literally just improving terminology amongst other things.

You wont have to worry about the bigger mainstream franchises when it comes to content revision threads, they're sorted with people that come to them than the other way around. Its the smaller franchises with 1-2 that mainly require staff input, and probably need more leniency when 'voting' on
 
Moving supporters to a knowledgeable members section would often be misleading, so I do not accept that suggestion, and would appreciate if we can move onwards with further input from our staff here regarding my own suggested solution here. 🙏
 
Moving supporters to a knowledgeable members section would often be misleading, so I do not accept that suggestion, and would appreciate if we can move onwards with further input from our staff here regarding my own suggested solution here. 🙏
The section is nothing BUT misleading already. The Vs Battles wiki does NOTHING with verse allignment labels, and it only serves as a scapegoat or bias. What is the point of labelling yourself an 'opponent'???

Making two separate sections mandatory on every verses page, that'll likely just be carbon copies of eachother, but at least only one of them actually lets people put their names down based on KNOWLEDGE and not just personal bias towards a verse.

Your solution only makes the page more cluttered, since it is still keeping the outdated list of names for users (a ton of which aren't active on the wiki anymore) only on personal viewings on the show, and even further serparating that from the section that gives no partial opinion towards either like or dislike of a verse. If you did not 'accept that suggestion' at all then why have we been here for a year? And why are we suddenly switching up?
 
Look. It would be a too drastic change to just suddenly get rid of all our Supporters/Neutral/Opponents sections. Our staff currently greatly NEED them in order to find and summon a sufficiently high amount of active members who are interested in a verse for the benefit of content revision discussion threads.

Given that what you suggest would be disastrously destructive for the wellbeing of our community, I am never going to accept it, no matter how much you pester me about it. My apologies. 🙏

However, what we can much more realistically do is to move our currently too empty knowledgeable members sections from the following linked page to new "Knowledgeable Members" sections in the respective associated verse pages, and then gradually wait until they fill up with many more listed members over the span of several years, and then consider if we should remove at that point hopefully redundant Supporters/Neutral/Opponents sections at that much later point in time.


That is a much more realistic solution than what you suggest here.
 
Last edited:
Look. It would be a too drastic change to just suddenly get rid of all our Supporters/Neutral/Opponents sections. Our staff currently greatly NEED them in order to find and summon a sufficiently high amount of active members who are interested in a verse for the benefit of content revision discussion threads.

Given that what you suggest would be disastrously destructive for the wellbeing of our community, I am never going to accept it, no matter how much you pester me about it. My apologies. 🙏

However, what we can much more realistically do is to move our currently too empty knowledgeable members sections from the following linked page to new "Knowledgeable Members" sections in the respective associated verse pages, and then gradually wait until they fill up with many more listed members over the span of several years, and then consider if we should remove at that point hopefully redundant Supporters/Neutral/Opponents sections at that much later point in time.

That is a much more realistic solution than what you suggest here.
@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

Are any of you willing to help me out here please?
 
I am pretty positive I said my piece multiple times. Basically the "No need to fix what isn't broken."
 
Another thought, I'd rather not remove the Supporters/Neutral/Opponents section at all. Idk why ppl are saying it's unnecessary or useless; I align with the sentiment that it denotes what verses the user is supportive of and against. For instance, the opponents section could be denoted that a user does not want to participate in any of the verse discussions. As mentioned before, the supports/neutral/opponents haven't been an issue at all.

Tl;dr, if it's not broken then there's simply nothing to fix, otherwise you might break it instead.
 
Hello,
Its possible I've just missed something, and I know this has been around on the Wiki for a long time, but this in in regards to having a section on every Verse page for Neutral/Opponents?

Not that i've had any personal issues with it in the past, but it seems rather counter-productive and doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than letting people know widely that you do not care for the series (Power-scaling wise or story wise?), or you flat out oppose it for some reason?

Were there debating competitions or something that require alligning or opposing a certain verse? I definitely understand the Supporters section since that is how you are able to list members who are willing to help and know their stuff for clarity of information, but what does knowing someone is against the verse exactly do thats positive?
It's a fun bit of community-building, a conversation-starter, something people can chuckle at, it gives flavour to the site.
If anything, it can possibly be a reason for people to list your opinions off as spite (as in people may suspect a bias since you list yourself as against a verse in general)
Fools can find any reason to dismiss people's opinions, adding this one doesn't change anything meaningful.
or promote more general negativity within the debating community by creating some sort of competitive target against specific verses.
I've never seen it do that.
The debating community can get very negative over something as silly as powerscaling/matchups, as we've all seen and probably experienced at least once in our life, and this sorta seems to make it view more as a competition?
I've never seen it do that.
The vast majority of Verse pages dont even seem to have any Opponents/Neutral included, since i can assume its not really a necessary label to most, that if anything, is going to get in the way of people thinking a viewpoint is fair.
Still nice to have a standard even if it isn't utilised 100% of the time. Many pages lack matches entirely, or in certain sub-sections of the match portion.

So, I don't think those sections should be removed.
 
Thank you for helping out. 🙏

So what about adding an extra "Knowledgeable Members" section to our verse pages by moving these sections from the following page?


I think that it would cause many more members to notice them and list themselves, which would likely be very useful for us.
 
eh idk, the dedicated page lets verses without verse pages get listed, so it'd be a shame for that page to get deleted entirely.

Plus, I'd say it does a little bit of filtering. If someone knows enough about our standards to be knowledgeable, they'd hopefully know that such a page exists.

And it does feel like a bit of redundancy.

At most, maybe have each page link to its entry on that list. Something like "A list of knowledgeable members on this series can be found here." in a suitable place.
 
Would it work if we move those sections to the verses that do have verse pages, for the sake of convenience and noticeability, but keep this knowledgeable members page around as it is for verses that do not have any verse pages yet, and mention that requirement as an official instruction at the top of the knowledgeable members page?
 
Last edited:
That could work, I just think having a sentence pointing to the knowledgeable members page might be an easier way of getting a similar result.

Hell, I wonder if that could automatically be applied by bots on every page, we might be able to change the start of every supporters/opponents/neutral section to have a statement like that.
 
I think adding the knowledgeable members is a good idea, so it allows users to find the proper people for help
 
That could work, I just think having a sentence pointing to the knowledgeable members page might be an easier way of getting a similar result.

Hell, I wonder if that could automatically be applied by bots on every page, we might be able to change the start of every supporters/opponents/neutral section to have a statement like that.
I think that my suggested solution seems considerably more convenient in this case. I would appreciate if we can apply it eventually. 🙏
 
Back
Top