• 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.

Suggestions for improvements (New forum)

Bobsican said:
Per the new Tiering system revamp, shouldn't the knowledgeable Low 1-A and above sections have the users listed removed for the most part, then let them manually readd themselves if they still deem themselves pertinent on such topics? It'd be recommended to ping them in any case to comment on this matter regarding themselves.
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Elizhaa @Theglassman12 @Planck69 @PrinceofPein @Agnaa @Everything12 @TheUnshakableOne @Ovy7 @Rakih_Elyan @IdiosyncraticLawyer @Astral_Trinity439 @RatherClueless

What do you think about this? 🙏
 
Just a clarification that I meant that you are all listed there, so if you think that you no longer qualify after our recent tiering system changes, you are free to remove yourselves from being listed. 🙏
 
For the most part, I know the new tiering system. This is why I have not been commenting on the new tiering system, as I am still waiting for more actual examples, not just theoretical ones.
 
Okay. No problem then. This was just a mention that if you or the other listed members do not understand our new tiering system, you should probably remove yourselves from being listed until you do understand it again. 🙏
 
Last edited:
A minor criticism: I noticed that this site's log in tends to glitch out when I attempt to use password managers like Dashlane. I can work around it so not a huge deal, but worth mentioning since it's kinda annoying.
 
Being more lenient with how much input is required to pass revisions for Verses that only have 1-2 members overseeing them
 
Mantidil said:
A minor criticism: I noticed that this site's log in tends to glitch out when I attempt to use password managers like Dashlane. I can work around it so not a huge deal, but worth mentioning since it's kinda annoying.
Click to expand...
I think that is likely a standard XenForo setting that we cannot affect. 🙏
Jinx666 said:
Being more lenient with how much input is required to pass revisions for Verses that only have 1-2 members overseeing them
Click to expand...
What do you have in mind, more specifically? 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
What do you have in mind, more specifically? 🙏
Click to expand...
Just that whenever smaller verses without as much support, say with like 1 person actively maintaining the profiles, need a revision thread, that it should require less staff input for approval.

This is just because since theres only 1 or 2 knowledgable members, who arent staff members, then its difficult to muster up enough approval (and even then, it would just have to be a FRA reason since they wont know the verse that well.

I also wouldnt mind one of those Wiki Management Threads like this one, for adding a few missing Powers and Abilities to a profile, without needing to make a whole thread on them. Say, someone can post a request to add a Power/Ability to a page if they think something is missing (and as long as its only 1 or 2), and provide proof for it. Then if its sound logic, a member of staff can give it a thumbs up and they're free to add it. This gets rid of the necessity to make a thread for like, 1 simple ability addition while also allowing for engagement before they make edits to the profile
 
Jinx666 said:
Just that whenever smaller verses without as much support, say with like 1 person actively maintaining the profiles, need a revision thread, that it should require less staff input for approval.

This is just because since theres only 1 or 2 knowledgable members, who arent staff members, then its difficult to muster up enough approval (and even then, it would just have to be a FRA reason since they wont know the verse that well.

I also wouldnt mind one of those Wiki Management Threads like this one, for adding a few missing Powers and Abilities to a profile, without needing to make a whole thread on them. Say, someone can post a request to add a Power/Ability to a page if they think something is missing (and as long as its only 1 or 2), and provide proof for it. Then if its sound logic, a member of staff can give it a thumbs up and they're free to add it. This gets rid of the necessity to make a thread for like, 1 simple ability addition while also allowing for engagement before they make edits to the profile
Click to expand...
It seems better to start a staff forum discussion thread about this. These are not issues that I and our forum system manager can easily decide and apply on our own. 🙏
 
I think that is not possible, as it is a partially invisible regular sub-forum, so only people with staff rights here would be able to delete threads there.

But you can likely blank the information within the drafts there that you currently disapprove of. 🙏
 
It may be ideal to make the rule violation reports and wiki vandalism reports threads their whole subforum, so each report can be its own thread to ease organization, with each case by extension getting more attention and being easier to track, while concluded ones can then go into an archive subforum.
 
That seems far too impractical to organise and overview. I think that our current system mostly works fine. Also, the "Report" button for forum posts leads to our current rule-violation thread. 🙏
 
In theory, we also already archive cases deemed to be actual rule violations via the warning tracker. It isn't always remembered when it ought to be but it does provide an attempt at a record, and one that doesn't require so much infrastructure.
 
Also, isn't the separate subforum technically already a thing through the "private report" section, not to mention HRG?
 
Yes, although it is not quite the same thing. 🙏
 
Is there a metric for tracking hours spent on the forum?

Edit: kinda like the "play time" you see on games.
 
So are these Outdated templates going to be more common-use? Perhaps a different one with wording that requests people edit/clean it up to the standard, as opposed to saying that there is a revision underway?

Could there be another Forum Megathread that lets people pitch pages that can have this disclaimer template added? It'd be great to be able to add and identify pages that are unanimously agreed upon to be outdated, so that any casual viewers of the wiki understand that the info isnt up to date as well as provide a list overtime for regular editors to look over and fix.
 
Last edited:
Jinx666 said:
So are these Outdated templates going to be more common-use? Perhaps a different one with wording that requests people edit/clean it up the standard opposed to saying that there is a revision underway?

Could there be another Forum Megathread that lets people pitch pages that can have this disclaimer template added? It'd be great to be able to add and identify pages that are unanimously agreed upon to be outdated, so that any casual viewers of the wiki understand that the info isnt up to date as well as provide a list overtime for regular editors to look over and fix.
Click to expand...
@Agnaa @Mr. Bambu @GrathOfLux @AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Qawsedf234

What do you think about this? 🙏
 
Jinx666 said:
So are these Outdated templates going to be more common-use?
Click to expand...
Yes! That was the intention of the reword, and the new mention of them in the Discussion Rules.
Jinx666 said:
Perhaps a different one with wording that requests people edit/clean it up to the standard, as opposed to saying that there is a revision underway?
Click to expand...
No. If a page does not meet our current standards, and no-one is intending to work on it, it should just be deleted.

It isn't really meant to cover instances where there was simply new material released.
Jinx666 said:
Could there be another Forum Megathread that lets people pitch pages that can have this disclaimer template added?
Click to expand...
If you want a megathread, you can use the profile deletion requests thread. That aside, you're typically meant to use general discussion threads for the verse, or a content revision thread of its own, since verse experts are the people that should be contacted about this sort of change.
 
Agnaa said:
No. If a page does not meet our current standards, and no-one is intending to work on it, it should just be deleted.
Click to expand...
I mean it definitely should in cases, but old pages seem to get a pass due to their creation being before the new standards. And sometimes there are pages that have actual substance, but the people managing them have left the wiki, and thus no real need to delete them based on that. For the mass amount of pages this wiki has, theres always bound to be ones that are outdated and i think its better if we let it at least be known with a disclaimer (and then open it to a minimum awareness for anyone who wants to fix/update the profile)
Agnaa said:
It isn't really meant to cover instances where there was simply new material released.
Click to expand...
It definitely could be. Pages that are outdated purely because there is new material that isn't really being discussed due to the verse being in limbo, we should definitely let the casual audience know that this is the case as opposed to the pages appearing underdeveloped and then reflecting on the wiki's quality.

Not saying the current template that i linked should be used for this context, but perhaps a similar one in the cases of pages that just aren't caught up with any new canon material it aligns with, and theres no one around/it'll take time to put the revisions in. It just acts as an acknowledgement and requests help if anything
Agnaa said:
If you want a megathread, you can use the profile deletion requests thread. That aside, you're typically meant to use general discussion threads for the verse, or a content revision thread of its own, since verse experts are the people that should be contacted about this sort of change.
Click to expand...
Thats fine, thats how i thought it would work anyway, ive asked discussion threads already if its worth using this new template such as Doctor Who (which has some very outdated profiles, but there are revisions going on apparently so its deff applicable), but theres definitely pages out there that are worth salvaging and already have decent information to just consider in deletion/

But there are many verses without active supporters or discussion threads to bring this up with, that also dont deserve to get 'deleted' (since i believe after the Fate verse got wiped and brought back, it stirred controversy), so can instead be used as a springboard.

I think just having a list of pages like this that the wiki can unanimously decide is outdated will also help newcomers understand the difference better between the high-and-low quality, and give them a starting point to help fix the wiki (such as adding in references). It could maybe also be used to help any members that are looking to be promoted to a mod role by thinning down these pages/verses they have the ability to do with an already disclaimed identification. The goal with this would always be to have as little of them as possible.

Theres also a lot of singular pages, and verses with only a few page representations that can't really be applicable to verse-wise outdated measures. Thats why i think a megathread that lets people pitch those type of pages on their own (or a maximum of lets say, 7-8 pages?) can benefit from this identification.
 
Last edited:
Yeah that is a fair point.

The current Outdated template was meant to tackle the issue of "Outdated - Now fails standards", but linguistically there are the relevant cases of "Outdated - New content was released" and "Outdated - Uses old formatting conventions".

I think there would be merit in separating those out into their own templates, and letting the latter two be applied much more liberally through a wiki management thread.
 
I don't know if it will be necessary or not but I think we should have a badge for knowledgable member for each verse. Normally, the badge won't show at all but when the member is replying a thread of the verse they knew really well and accepted by others, they should have a badge showing that they are a knowledgable member. That way I think people will have better grasp on determining the value of the words.

Edited: I proposed this becuz if a person is really good at arguing even tho they aren't right in story context, other ppl will have no way of knowing without knowing the story.
 
Weaver261 said:
I don't know if it will be necessary or not but I think we should have a badge for knowledgable member for each verse. Normally, the badge won't show at all but when the member is replying a thread of the verse they knew really well and accepted by others, they should have a badge showing that they are a knowledgable member. That way I think people will have better grasp on determining the value of the words.

Edited: I proposed this becuz if a person is really good at arguing even tho they aren't right in story context, other ppl will have no way of knowing without knowing the story.
Click to expand...
Requires too much developer work to implement. No can do.
 
Not sure if this the right thread but shouldn't there be a page to explain how speedblitzing work? Like reaction or perception blitz and how many multipliers needed at least to perform both of them

And also how would the unquantifiable blitz speed amps compares to quantifiable ones in a matchup
 
Johner2133451 said:
Not sure if this the right thread but shouldn't there be a page to explain how speedblitzing work? Like reaction or perception blitz and how many multipliers needed at least to perform both of them
Click to expand...
I think it's too case-by-case to be able to determine, as it mostly depends on how far your opponent has to travel compared to you.
Johner2133451 said:
And also how would the unquantifiable blitz speed amps compares to quantifiable ones in a matchup
Click to expand...
You just need to discuss it and be convincing.
 
Would it still be a good idea to create a page that explains some rough basic mechanics for speedblitzing? 🙏
 
Agnaa said:
I think it's too case-by-case to be able to determine, as it mostly depends on how far your opponent has to travel compared to you.

You just need to discuss it and be convincing.
Click to expand...
Can you give an example perhaps?

Well I think a page explaining it would be good but ok
 
Johner2133451 said:
Can you give an example perhaps?

Well I think a page explaining it would be good but ok
Click to expand...
If Character A is trying to win through overwhelming speed, they may need to move their fists 0.6 meters in order to attack. But in that time, Character B, trying to prevent such a victory, would only need to move their hands 0.3 meters to block. So they could still block perfectly despite being half the speed.

It gets way more complicated when we include characters of different physiologies, characters that have thought-based abilities, characters with different speed ratings for different actions they can take, etc. A character with a sufficiently fast long-ranged weapon might speedblitz from range, but get speedblitzed in CQC. We cannot just put it down to a multiplier.

idc either way about having a page explaining it. I don't think these ideas are particularly hard for people to reason out, particularly controversial, or particularly important. So I don't think a page is very necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SurrealChough504
Mike Tyson (Prime) Sandbox - Evaluation Request
Replies
2
Views
307
Oiguana2701
Oiguana2701
AKM sama
New Staff Promotions
2 3
Replies
82
Views
9K
SDTaro
SDTaro
AKM sama
New Staff Promotions
2
Replies
52
Views
7K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
A new sub-forum
Replies
12
Views
5K
Anonymous_Learner
Anonymous_Learner
Deadguy999
SERIOUS* Creating profile for chess pieces
Replies
23
Views
2K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Back
Top