• 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.

Off-Site Respect Threads on Wiki Pages (Staff Only)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bobsican

He/Him
21,159
6,084
I know I'm not staff and all, but I got authorization from Ant to do this thread.

Anyways, it has been noticed recently that there's some profiles that link to off-site "Respect Threads", which list a bunch of miscelaneous feats and statements.
The problem?
Such threads don't follow our standards, but rather the ones of elsewhere if anything, and so are misleading for our purposes, for example, a respect thread can "conclude" that X character is MFTL+, but in our terms it's actually deemed an outlier, or in other words it's about the same as featuring vs threads from other sites on our profiles, which currently isn't allowed.
If we're going to feature feat/statement compilations on pages without the purpose of explaining a setting as a whole (As many explanation pages currently do in here), they should be posted in the site first as a blog post or page (This is pending consistency, but that's an issue for another day), and be accepted for it.

In a nutshell, we need some guideline to (most likely) ban the featuring of off-site respect threads on profiles and probably specify that this content is allowed if it's made within this site and accepted or so.
 
I strongly agree with this. The problem is especially bad when it is respect threads for Marvel and DC Comics characters, given that those verses run on "everybody can fight everybody" plot-induced stupidity.
 
Last edited:
I agree; we should avoid linking random respect threads from places like Reddit or DeviantArt. If people want to make a respect thread, they may make a blog post that pretty much lists all those feats and/or calculates them.

And this is especially true since some respect threads have not made proper calculations, and/or the rely to heavily on assumptions; such as an off panel bullet timing feat being treated as a physically outpacing the bullet type of feat when the most common sensical interpretation is that it's an aim dodging feat, and the list goes on. And some of those respect threads even mixed canon and non-canon sources.
 
I've always been against using them, for Bob's reasons and because often they take feats and statements from a many different media, regardless of them coming from a different canon, side-material and such.

They can also perfectly be against our standards or even include lies for all we now, as they don't conform to our standards and have not been evaluated or approved by anyone.
 
I agree with this. Always found it weird how we used offsite unevaluated material on our pages.
 
What's the point of the thread exactly (no disrespect)? Is it to implement a rule? Is it to revise profiles?
 
What's the point of the thread exactly (no disrespect)? Is it to implement a rule? Is it to revise profiles?
From what I undertsand, it's to implement a rule that respect threads should first be posted as blogs or pages so that they may be properly evaluated before being used on profiles. Our current stance on allowing offsite respect threads means that threads with feats that don't meet our standards, non-canon feats or even completely fabricated feats may be posted on pages and that sets a bad precedent.
 
What's the point of the thread exactly (no disrespect)? Is it to implement a rule? Is it to revise profiles?
To implement a rule and then get rid of all external respect thread links from our character profile pages.
 
From what I undertsand, it's to implement a rule that respect threads should first be posted as blogs or pages so that they may be properly evaluated before being used on profiles. Our current stance on allowing offsite respect threads means that threads with feats that don't meet our standards, non-canon feats or even completely fabricated feats may be posted on pages and that sets a bad precedent.
To implement a rule and then get rid of all external respect thread links from our character profile pages.
Understood, I agree w/ the OP then.
 
I agree with this. Always found it weird how we used offsite unevaluated material on our pages.
To be fair, respect threads (at least the one from reddit) doesn't give values nor does math like we do; they simply archive scans and statements of what the character has done. So yes, its unevaluated, but is not really that misleading considering it gives us how the event happened.

Not against removing the RT links, just kind of neutral. And sorry for commenting in this Staff only Thread.
 
The reason most profiles have respect links is because someone just sorta copy pasted everything from the RT and never gave credit to it. Look at the old Spider-Woman page for example, which literally just copy-pasted an entire Reddit RT.

I'm fine with removing off-site stuff. What I'm not good with is removing them but still keeping the feat section that just copy pastes them without any credit.
 
To my knowledge, @Tonygameman is one of the main people adding them. Which he's a cool person who probably was unaware; albeit we never made an official statement. I know he isn't staff, but I'll ping him since he can be aware of the practice and might be able to help out with removing things he added. But a lot of Obscure video game characters and/or characters not so popular on the wiki but popular elsewhere those links added. Such as the Battletoads profiles and also Master Chief from Halo both have links to respect blogs containing inappropriate evaluations on certain feats.
 
Such as the Battletoads profiles and also Master Chief from Halo both have links to respect blogs containing inappropriate evaluations on certain feats.
If its only some RTs why don't we just have a CRT to determine if its usable or not.
 
I'm pretty sure there might be a lot more than the ones I'm familiar with, others mentioned ones for other verses and it's especially ones on Marvel/DC characters that are especially bad. We're just adding a rule to basically say avoid blindly adding respect threads from different websites whether it be Reddit, Spacebattles, DeviantArt, ect to profiles. VSBW blog posts are a different story that may use staff evaluation, but it's just linking random posts from different websites without really asking especially should not be allowed. It's easier to evaluate if it's our platform.

And besides, the point about feats without calculations or context, non-canon material thrown in, out of context or falsified feats, borderline hyperboles, and the list goes on should make us question the source.
 
Last edited:
VSBW blog posts are a different story that may use staff evaluation, but it's just linking random posts from different websites without really asking especially should not be allowed. It's easier to evaluate if it's our platform.
Just being added without evaluation sure. But if its a verified source why not use it?
 
Verified or not they should still be evaluated, and at that point it's just better to move them on a wiki blog, perhaps crediting the original author (and link) if it ends being used.

If we credit the author and then make some modifications, they should be noted in some way, to mark the difference between what was originally posted and what was handled by us.
 
While one should ensure that a respect thread reflects our evaluations of the character, I personally don't mind off-site linking.
Let's be honest here, such respect threads are added because it is easy. If we prohibit them the result wouldn't be that more people write their own respect thread to paraphrase what was priorly linked in the respect thread (those willing to write their own respect threads would have done so anyways), but more likely that no respect thread is listed for the character anymore. Which I think is a loss.

I think making the addition of an external respect thread a subject of a CRT for more popular characters, to ensure they don't go against our page, is sufficient precaution.
 
While one should ensure that a respect thread reflects our evaluations of the character, I personally don't mind off-site linking.
Let's be honest here, such respect threads are added because it is easy. If we prohibit them the result wouldn't be that more people write their own respect thread to paraphrase what was priorly linked in the respect thread (those willing to write their own respect threads would have done so anyways), but more likely that no respect thread is listed for the character anymore. Which I think is a loss.

I think making the addition of an external respect thread a subject of a CRT for more popular characters, to ensure they don't go against our page, is sufficient precaution.

If we allow something just because it's easier, it's also opening gates to getting in content of lower quality or downright misleading for our purposes, the content that's featured requires to be properly evaluated for our purposes, and as the external content is also prone to change beyond what we can moderate, it's better if they're at least posted in this website in some way, rather than just being externally linked.

Feat Compilations are also entirely optional, as outlined in the Standard Format for Character Profiles, so it really isn't a big deal if they just get removed, especially considering that more often than not they're from useless to detrimental, given that for our purposes the important and accepted content is already within sections like Attack Potency and Speed.

Speaking of which, I wonder why there's many pages using off-site calculations, namely NarutoForums ones, especially considering that there's no evaluation to cite for our purposes for those from what I could find in them.
 
Last edited:
Such threads don't follow our standards, but rather the ones of elsewhere if anything, and so are misleading for our purposes, for example, a respect thread can "conclude" that X character is MFTL+, but in our terms it's actually deemed an outlier, or in other words it's about the same as featuring vs threads from other sites on our profiles, which currently isn't allowed.

Since this came up from linking to the /r/RespectThreads subreddit, I feel obliged to point out that that is nothing at all like how that battleboard works from what I've seen. They don't "conclude" that a character has certain ratings. They just list their feats without providing extraneous commentary on it.

And this is especially true since some respect threads have not made proper calculations, and/or the rely to heavily on assumptions; such as an off panel bullet timing feat being treated as a physically outpacing the bullet type of feat when the most common sensical interpretation is that it's an aim dodging feat, and the list goes on. And some of those respect threads even mixed canon and non-canon sources.

This, however, is a more valid worry.

If we're going to feature feat/statement compilations on pages without the purpose of explaining a setting as a whole (As many explanation pages currently do in here), they should be posted in the site first as a blog post or page (This is pending consistency, but that's an issue for another day), and be accepted for it.

A separate page is likely unnecessary, pages have an optional "Feats" section that can be used in this way. But I guess blogs could also be fine.

Speaking of which, I wonder why there's many pages using off-site calculations, namely NarutoForums ones, especially considering that there's no evaluation to cite for our purposes for those from what I could find in them.

They're grandfathered in, and I believe that most have been accepted at some point, even if those evaluations are near-impossible to find now (since at some point, just a calc member okay'ing it when asked in a random thread was enough).
 
What Bobsican said, and I'm also not the biggest fan of reading 50 paragraphs when there's really only one or two useful pieces of evidence out of dozens of additions being proposed. Narutoforum calculations are a different can of worms as they're things OBD accepted, are often made by people very good at calculations, have been evaluated by former staff members knowledgeable on calculation methods, ect. But even those could use recalculations based on formula updates and the like.

But I get uneasy when someone links a Reddit/Deviantart page and there's like 50+ Wall level feats the character struggles with an occasional "Survived a nuclear explosion but got knocked out and unknown how they escaped", 99% of the speed section is characters struggling to react to handgun fires, rockets, or speeding cars then there's 1 or 2 instances of evading a sniper laser from a distance which happens off panel and prone to being seen as aim dodging, a bunch of statements about Nth dimension being interpreted as a Tier 2/1 statement, some technobabble about quantum mechanics or probability being treated as manipulation when those are just scientists talking about those things with no actual control over those stuff being mentioned, and the list goes on. It's better if it's organized on an actual Content Revision, is more moderately paced, tackling things one category at a time, and the like.

So it's for that reason that I simply do not agree with having Reddit/Deviantart pages being linked on character profiles. It be better to handle at a reasonable pace and using reasonable amounts of text to address the points.
 
Respect Threads didn't make much sense to me either

If we were to keep them, they should be turned into on-site User Blogs that have accepted calcs and feats on their pages
 
If we allow something just because it's easier, it's also opening gates to getting in content of lower quality or downright misleading for our purposes, the content that's featured requires to be properly evaluated for our purposes, and as the external content is also prone to change beyond what we can moderate, it's better if they're at least posted in this website in some way, rather than just being externally linked.
It can be properly evaluated in a CRT that proposes adding the thread.

Feat Compilations are also entirely optional, as outlined in the Standard Format for Character Profiles, so it really isn't a big deal if they just get removed, especially considering that more often than not they're from useless to detrimental, given that for our purposes the important and accepted content is already within sections like Attack Potency and Speed.
Disagree there. Respect threads have the advantage that you can see the character do more than just the bits we consider most relevant. Those kinds of feat dumps tend to mention a load of the less impressive showings as well.
Considering that our profiles always are what we go by they overrule everything in external respect threads anyway. The only way they are ever actively detrimental is if someone goes to that thread, sees something out of context, and then wastes our time by making a CRT based on that understanding.
So as long as respect threads are checked before being added to such popular profiles everything should be fine.

Heck, any respect thread to be added coming from this page needs to be evaluated just as much.

Speaking of which, I wonder why there's many pages using off-site calculations, namely NarutoForums ones, especially considering that there's no evaluation to cite for our purposes for those from what I could find in them.
Calcs need to be checked. Where they come from never mattered. We were never prone to commit to the genetic fallacy of only accepting what comes from us.
We allow off-site calcs to be used after they were evaluated in a calc group forum thread.
 
It can be properly evaluated in a CRT that proposes adding the thread.


Disagree there. Respect threads have the advantage that you can see the character do more than just the bits we consider most relevant. Those kinds of feat dumps tend to mention a load of the less impressive showings as well.
Considering that our profiles always are what we go by they overrule everything in external respect threads anyway. The only way they are ever actively detrimental is if someone goes to that thread, sees something out of context, and then wastes our time by making a CRT based on that understanding.
So as long as respect threads are checked before being added to such popular profiles everything should be fine.

Heck, any respect thread to be added coming from this page needs to be evaluated just as much.


Calcs need to be checked. Where they come from never mattered. We were never prone to commit to the genetic fallacy of only accepting what comes from us.
We allow off-site calcs to be used after they were evaluated in a calc group forum thread.
Yeah, but that would have to be done for any future additions if anything, as I don't think anyone is going to actually bother all the ones that are currently around filled with "misleading" content for our purposes more often than not.

And this advantage is outside the premise of the wiki, we index the statistics as they fit the system that has been carefully crafted with filters against outliers, "lies", calc standards, etc., users are free to come up with their own conclusions from other sources, but for consistency and reliability we should stick to featuring what we've properly accepted, rather than any kind of "shown" feat. The way they can be detrimental is that they give an inappropiate portrayal of how we actually rate each character, and thus being misleading to the idea we want to give, hence why I still don't support using off-site respect threads and the like as something to feature on pages.

Actually, calcs have been dismissed pretty often because of that, generally they're asked to be copy-pasted to a blog post then ask for an evaluation these days, or else they aren't usable for profiles on the site, several NarutoForums calcs also now have broken links for citations/pictures that seemingly used pixelscaling or the like, but that's another can of worms either way.
 
Last edited:
As someone who is friends with some other offsite people, I should mention that some people have made calculations on other wikis then they basically copy/pasted it on a new blog post on this wiki to have our staff evaluate it here. Or I and some others also have copy/pasted things from other wikis or sites, posted them in our blogs, and it started with us giving credit to the original calculation creator. Antvasima and several others have often reverted edits based on calculations made on other wikis even if someone who is a current calc group has commented on said wiki saying it was fair game. It's less messy if it's a page on our wiki regardless of the information being sufficient or not.
 
I believe that we should allow people to link this things but rule out how if anything differs with our stuff (minimum as it might be) then that's to be ignored, that while also encouraging people to go make their own calcs, CRTs and research about it. See, if we just disallow this it can lead to we missing out feats and stuff others may list outside the wiki, and it can be seen like we are missing those things in cases when we do know the feats and how they're wrong. But if we do show them, and we don't use the things that are different, then that shows our standards, how we know X claims exist and ignore them, be it because they're wrong or because nobody bothered to bring them up in profiles doesn't matter.
 
I mean, to keep clear that we're aware of feats that have been dismissed countless times we already have the Editing Rules clarifying those out for several cases.
If we're going to feature off-site respect threads and so on, at the very least a proper approval is to be done in here for each one first by a staff member, and then if it has content that differs from our standards (Which is most likely the case), it's to be specified, rather than just leaving a "blank" link saying "Respect Thread", cases that differ too much or are deemed as too unreliable and so on may also be declined by the staff for featuring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top