Banning WoG from Ninjago

[Ebihara]

I have gotten permission In PM's from @Mr. Bambu to make this thread.

Hello the purpose of this thread is to create a rule for the ninjago verse to ban the use of Word of god (WOG) questions importantly those asked by fans on social media such as X/Twitter/Bluesky. This thread is not about removing WOG statements that exist in the verse there is a CRT being made by another user to tackle that task, this thread is only about creating a rule prohibiting the use of WOG in Ninjago. This has become a relevant topic recently because of this report in the RVRT. Besides the fact that this is not the first time this has been an issue in the verse. Even outside of our sites users asking leading questions, we have had issues recently of other CRTs that have been attempted to be pass using WOG statements derived from leading questions. A good amount of the statements now as support are often responses that just say things along the lines of probably or pretty much along side being very vague questions. This is also besides the fact that X answers have no lore value. This obviously extends to things as Bluesky, this is clearly a case of an author having fun interacting with fans and these cant be used for our indexing purposes, along side the verses history of misuse of WOG statements in both asking and/or using them in CRT's. I think a rule prohibiting the use of WOG statements in the Ninjago verse is necessary.

I am very open to the wording of the rule, maybe something along the lines of.

"Due to previous abuse of Word of God (WOG), statements from social media are not allowed for Ninjago CRT's or blog's. To see reasoning why please refer to this thread."

And it would link back to this thread.

Edit New wording: "Due to previous abuse of Word of God (WOG), statements from social media are not allowed for Ninjago CRT's or blogs with the sole exception of author statements that determine if other official work is canon. To see the reasoning why please refer to this thread."

Edit 2: "All Word of God statements and feats are completely disallowed for Ninjago for reasons mentioned in this thread."

Edit 3: "All Word of God statements and feats are completely disallowed for Ninjago for reasons mentioned in this thread. An exception is given to statements regarding the canonicity of certain materials."


Agree: @Mr. Bambu @FinePoint @Planck69 @DarkDragonMedeus

Disagree:

Netural:

 

[FinePoint]

Honestly, just the fact that they explicitly said that X answers have no lore value should be more than enough, so I agree.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yeah.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

For the record, I encourage Ninjago supporters to speak here, I'll give permission to any who ask. Preemptively giving permission to YmTheSuper and Orange guy (technically the latter asked me, but still) to speak here, as both contacted me regarding an interest in helping out.

As it stands, I anticipate a more typical CRT to be made for the removal of specific current instances of WoG use in Ninjago, this thread isn't that.

 

[Planck69]

Yeah, this makes sense.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks good to me.

 

[TheOrangeGuy09]

Got permission from @Mr. Bambu and @FinePoint. Here are my thoughts.

So, the key reason why all of the author statements are removed is because one user violated the off-site rules, asking leading questions on Twitter. However, some (note, not all) of such questions were used on the profiles, which is admittedly bad, and those must be nuked. However, I do not think that nuking all statements is particularly fair in this situation. This is not the fault of authors, other verse supporters on this wikia (including me), or Ninjago as a whole that these leading questions had been asked. That's the responsibility of who did it, regardless of who did it (particularly @Lloydblitzed in our case), not anyone mentioned above. He got his punishment, being banned for a certain period of time. The verse having to get the punishment by having every, and any, author statements just axed indiscriminately does not seem a fair decision.

As for Tommy Andreasen stating that X posts have no lore value, I believe this is pretty contradictory from his part. He gave multiple answers that clarified and expanded the lore, like Nadakhan capturing all of the Elemental Masters, with it being the reason why nobody helped Ninjas during the events of Season 6 (confirmed twice), telling what happened to Onis after the war, also establishing that the war was "eons" ago, which is relevant to why their invasion was so overwhelming in Season 10, Morro having done some bad act and thus getting cursed, which explains why and how he got into the Cursed Realm, establishing that Morro had no Spinjitzu and that's why he needed Lloyd (which is supported in the show). He also clarified many debatable and questionable things in the show, for example, explaining that Jay being capable of using Wind was merely an early mistake that should be forgotten, or saying what exactly happened to Zane in Season 11, which clarifies a messed up timeline, or explaining that Morro's llightning wasn’t normal lightning but a manifestation between ghost power and Lloyd’s power. There are far more instances like these, if needed.
Not only that, but he himself announced that he no longer does reply Ninjago lore/logic questions after retirement, implying that he did indeed expand the lore in X (Twitter) before the retirement. These evident contradictions, from my perspection, essentially nullifies the aforementioned post of X posts having no lore value.
Moreover, the new author of the series, Doc Wyatt, had repeatedly stated that anything Tommy ever said is true, even saying it is above his own words on the show. Given that he is the new "guy in charge" now, this means that he essentially canonized Tommy Andreasen's posts.

On the other hand, I may see why the verse can get a "stricter" treatment, since the usage of the author statements, despite them being leading, and some being even accepted, definitely makes it a tougher case. One possible rule I can see is removing any statements from @Lloydblized no matter of their nature (replacing them with evidence from the show, if possible, of course). However, just eliminating all statements no matter what is not really reasonable.

Now, briefly to some specific things:

Besides the fact that this is not the first time this has been an issue in the verse.

This is a separate verse, Lego Monkie Kid, not Ninjago.

A good amount of the statements now as support are often responses that just say things along the lines of probably or pretty much along side being very vague questions.

Regarding this part, I think "probably" should either be treated as "likely" or just axed (unless it is supported by the show, then it is just established), while "pretty much" is definitely an agreement, not anything vague.

Summarizing for the key issue, I do not think that this verse should be treated any differently from any other verse when it comes to author statements, except some relevant restrictions related from the incident, like banning posts from @Lloydblitzed. Just because some users did or attempted to use such statements does not mean all statements are ought to be eliminated. Especially given the existence of lore-expanding posts, with some clarifying certain debatable questions.

That's my two cents.

 

[FinePoint]

Snip

I suppose he did just say more specifically that they could be contradicted by new lore in the show,.

So I wouldn't be entirely opposed to something more along the lines of: "They're considered secondary canon unless contradicted at all."
And perhaps applying a "likely" or "possibly" to things supported only by those statements.

Though ultimately I do still lean more towards banning it.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It remains my opinion that between the author themselves stating social media answers aren't canon, the fact that they do answer so many leading questions, and the sheer fact that WoG is already so tenuous to begin with, that it isn't acceptable to keep it going for this verse. WoG has to prove itself reliable, everything about Ninjago has proven the opposite.

Without wanting to devolve into a back and forth about specific answers: I don't think the evidence provided shows that the writer's dismissing of Twitter statements as "canon" is contradictory. That answers are relevant doesn't really matter.

I think there's room for interpretation, and I think Orange guy has made one particular interpretation. I'm not convinced of it, at least not for now.

 

[Ultimate-Rex1]

I disagreement with OP
First: Rule
First it should be not removed all of it, because many of them literally prove it in show and official books, and some of them was literally non-leading questions, so I make another rule for this

Statements from Tommy, Doc Wyatt, Kevin Burke, Glen Lakin, and other WoG, must not be used, even if it was "Questions and Answers", unless they fit our WoG standards or it's was non-leading question

It is very simple: if WOG statements (even if it was Q&A) support what is shown in the series or official books, then they can be used, as propose to remove ONLY leading questions (and probably the ones from Lloydblized). Those who are NOT baiting can stay.
Second: WOG statments
About statments like statments say "possibly" or "sort of" shouldn't use unless is proven in show or official books, like this, we literally seen Ninja stronger than the other humans, but statments like this, can't be use for two problems, it's leading questions and don't proof in show or official books
Three: Remove
I agree with remove everything who was not been proven in a show or official books, and I hope I'm allowed to remove every leading questions was use in Ninjago pages like this

Spoiler: Remove

• The Nether-Space was implied to have a flow of time similar to the one of the Merged Realms, and the Grasslands were implied by WoG to have the same nature at the Nether-Space.

Should be removed as it's leading questions, and we don't have any proof in show
Also this are non-leading questions:

existing beyond time, space and reason

But some staffs are doubt on it, so I think they should not be removed as it's non-leading questions. This is a decision for staffs
I hope there aren't things I haven't forgotten.
If there anything are need to review here page for every leading questions it was use

Fourth: Correction
Also statments who I don't mentioned in 3, would be use as it, as WoG would be use as only supportive
Like Cosmology Page

Spoiler: Correction

There are 17 Realms in total. Ninjago is the "prime" realm/universe, and ALL of the other 16 realms are all parallel to it.

Are proven in show. (Even Cosmology explain all realms)

They also represent both sides of the balance.

They have been pointed out to be light and dark in their fight, until it was mentioned many times even in Wu's diary. Also The Overlord itself say it.

• The Grasslands were stated to be located outside the realms, completely separate from the Merged Realms and unaffected by the Merge.

We literally don't seen it in Ninjago Map, so it should be still use but add it "This is supported where it didn't shown in the Merged Realms map".

• WOG stated the Overlord's void is meant to be a dark version of the Grasslands.

It has been mentioned that his dimension is on another level from mortal place.
And etc.... Everything that I didn't mention is not among the things that should be deleted as it proven in the show and official book or it's was non-leading questions:
Here you will find all WOG statments are proven in the show and official book or it's was non-leading questions

WOG Statements (Who can still use)

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Ebihara]

ere you will find all WOG statments are proven in the show and official book or it's was non-leading questions

we don't know if they are non leading questions cause a good amount of them have the initial question deleted. 1 2 3 4 5 are some i found in the blog of what you think can be kept along side some from lloyd there is more then i just linked(and by the rules of the website we cant use anything he as a user of the site asked anyways they all have to go regardless of this rule passing or not), which is also a leading questions. the cosmology page is filled with leading questions as well and the answers are often things like "maybe" or "probably" so many statements are obviously leading questions or vague answers that should have lead to likely or probably ratings or shouldn't have been used as serious info at all. If WoG doesn't get banned which I still feel very strongly is the right move here, there is so much the blog you linked that is clearly not ok.

there is so much more that needs to be removed then just what has been asked by llyod there are large amount of low quality statements , leading questions everywhere for many things beyond the ones I've linked. Many Questions have the intinal question gone as well. I don't think we can keep any statements where the intinal question is gone at this point at all seeing the history leading questions... but at this point I think its shown to still be a problem that isn't worth the issues it brings. I can sit here and link scans with leading questions or lacking the initial question or just a insanely vague or unserious answers all day but I think its clear at this point WoG isnt entirely constant..

If they are just supporting statements the show supports then why are they needed in the first place.

 

[Ultimate-Rex1]

we don't know if they are non leading questions cause a good amount of them have the initial question deleted.

It can be continued because it is not broken rules and it is supported in the show and official book

1 2 3 4 5 are some i found in the blog of what you think can be kept along side some from lloyd there is more then i just linked(and by the rules of the website we cant use anything he as a user of the site asked anyways they all have to go regardless of this rule passing or not), which is also a leading questions.

First statement 1 2 3 are same statments, and all of them are proven in show and official book . About @Lloydblitzed should be still use as even isn't leading questions, and proven in show no need to removed but if staffs agree with removed Lloyd questions statements can be remove.

the cosmology page is filled with leading questions as well and the answers are often things like "maybe" or "probably" so many statements are obviously leading questions or vague answers that should have lead to likely or probably ratings or shouldn't have been used as serious info at all.

It still can be use as it proven in show, I review page there no statement say "probably" or "maybe", even if it was Q&A, is still can be use as supporting proves.

If WoG doesn't get banned which I still feel very strongly is the right move here, there is so much the blog you linked that is clearly not ok.

Bruh, if we banned it, will who even we can see if books like novel or another show are canon for example: "We have Garmadon Comic but we don't know is canon or not canon, but WOG say it's canon", so is this means all statments shouldn't be removed? Of course, yes, WOG are support for show and we can see it not even all of WOG aren't proven in show

there is so much more that needs to be removed then just what has been asked by llyod there are large amount of low quality statements , leading questions everywhere for many things beyond the ones I've linked. Many Questions have the intinal question gone as well. I don't think we can keep any statements where the intinal question is gone at this point at all seeing the history leading questions... but at this point I think its shown to still be a problem that isn't worth the issues it brings. I can sit here and link scans with leading questions or lacking the initial question or just a insanely vague or unserious answers all day but I think its clear at this point WoG isnt entirely constant.

None of those are low quality nor have leading answers so they can stay, even is still can be used to support the other prove like canon, systems of verse, cosmology, etc....

If they are just supporting statements the show supports then why are they needed in the first place.

If I told you that previously there were fans who thought there were 16 realms in Ninjago, but WOG explained that there were 17 realms where some scenes like 16 Realms parallel to Ninjago, in this statments Ninjago is not identified as 17 realm because it was mentioned and this is what WOG explained. And we need WOG for many things I say like canon or something similar to this.

 

[YmTheSuper]

Got permission from Mr. Bambu here

if WOG statements (even if it was Q&A) support what is shown in the series or official books, then they can be used

Why use the statements in the first place if they are supported by other canon sources? Just use the sources that contain that information.

and some of them was literally non-leading questions, so I make another rule for this

as propose to remove ONLY leading questions (and probably the ones from Lloydblized). Those who are NOT baiting can stay.

Author statement rules are very clear. Even if something is not contradicted by the show or not prompted by a leading question it shouldn't be used unless it is directly clarifying something that happened in the source material.

Statements that technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence that they are accurate.

Regarding this whole discussion I have one question, would author statements about the canonicity of works/media still be usable? Since we do use some in the verse.

Also a bit off-topic but I do think that WOG from social media should be very restricted and heavily scrutinized in all verses (like only usable if they directly explain or describe an event that happened and appeared in the show but is unclear and up to interpretation) since there have been many rule violations involving them (I don't really have a problem with official Q&A sections in official media and sources)

 

[Ebihara]

It can be continued because it is not broken rules and it is supported in the show and official book

You're kidding right? This whole thing came up because leading questions. It is beyound unreasonable and irresponsible to use any questions we don't know the orgin of.

books like novel or another show are canon

I think asking if some other officially lisnced piece of media maybe fine as that's very differnt

First statement 1 2 3 are same statments

Sorry was on phone ill fix later, there are many examples of awnsers we don't have the question for and again without thst context its pretty absurd they where used in the first place.

None of those are low quality nor have leading

Yes they are, id say even if we didnt ban WoG 50% of the WoG in your blog should be deleted.

Regarding this whole discussion I have one question, would author statements about the canonicity of works/media still be usable? Since we do use some in the verse.

I think this is reasonable as it's very differnt then what is causing the issue here. For purposes of determining if a comic or similar lisnced stuff.

Also a bit off-topic

Yea I have similar feelings but that is very much beyound the scope of this thread. I think in this verses case as I have stated many times before it has gotten so out of hand that is just needs to go. Like Bambu said WoG has to prove themselves reliable and I think they just haven't.

I don't think much more really can be said here really there are two fairly oppiste view points and a couple things we cant fundamentally agree on. So at this point it should ideally be left up to staff.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Regarding this whole discussion I have one question, would author statements about the canonicity of works/media still be usable? Since we do use some in the verse.

It is my opinion that this would be fine, and should be considered an exception from the WoG ban. The WoG at fault is purely that which pertains to in-universe information.

 

[Ebihara]

How about this as an edited rule keeping that in mind? If its deemed nessearcy to have the expectation in the rule itself.

"Due to previous abuse of Word of God (WOG), statements from social media are not allowed for Ninjago CRT's or blog's with the sole exception of author statements that determine if other official work is canon. To see the reasoning why please refer to this thread."

Considered saying officially licensed work instead or officially published work. Which might be better.

 

[Ultimate-Rex1]

Got permission from Mr. Bambu here

Why use the statements in the first place if they are supported by other canon sources? Just use the sources that contain that information.

For more information bruh, even why we banned it if we still can proven it in show bruh. Yh, so? This is not what I meant.

Author statement rules are very clear. Even if something is not contradicted by the show or not prompted by a leading question it shouldn't be used unless it is directly clarifying something that happened in the source material.

I don't even say it "not contradicted by the show", I say proven in the show so is still can be use as it say in rules

Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when they contradict what has been shown to the audience. Statements that technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence that they are accurate.

You're kidding right? This whole thing came up because leading questions. It is beyound unreasonable and irresponsible to use any questions we don't know the orgin of.

We see this in show is still can be used as rules say.

I think asking if some other officially lisnced piece of media maybe fine as that's very differnt

So it should be not all statments get banned and just use:

"Statements from Tommy, Doc Wyatt, Kevin Burke, Glen Lakin, and other WoG, must not be used, even if it was "Questions and Answers", unless they fit our WoG standards"

Yes they are, id say even if we didnt ban WoG 50% of the WoG in your blog should be deleted.

Unless it is fit our WoG standards

 

[AigerTheKing]

Permission by @Mr._Propeller_Hat

Got permission from Mr. Bambu here

Why use the statements in the first place if they are supported by other canon sources? Just use the sources that contain that information.

We have a rule about this. So I don't understand why we should ban WoG that's massively used as supportive to the show to begin with

• Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when they contradict what has been shown to the audience. Statements that technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence that they are accurate.

the fact that they do answer so many leading questions,

Most authors of fictional verses are being asked leading questions, yet they aren't banned. I don't think anyone in VSBW has control over what people ask an writer in another social media, it all depends on what statements are used on site

and the sheer fact that WoG is already so tenuous to begin with, that it isn't acceptable to keep it going for this verse. WoG has to prove itself reliable, everything about Ninjago has proven the opposite.

How exactly can WoG prove himself to be reliable in your vision? They should not answer people's questions straight up?

Without wanting to devolve into a back and forth about specific answers: I don't think the evidence provided shows that the writer's dismissing of Twitter statements as "canon" is contradictory. That answers are relevant doesn't really matter.

You and the OP seem to forget Doc and Tommy aren't the same guy. The new writer (Doc) negates the older writer (Tommy) statement by consistanly stating that X answers are true. I don't see a reason why we should assume this statement affects anything from X and especially Bluesky


Most WoG answers are often non leading answers or barely related to the initial question (Like this), so I don't think we should disregard them. Additionally, I think banning all of WoG over an incident that concerns like 2 statements is a bit of overreacting

Also a bit off-topic but I do think that WOG from social media should be very restricted and heavily scrutinized in all verses (like only usable if they directly explain or describe an event that happened and appeared in the show but is unclear and up to interpretation) since there have been many rule violations involving them (I don't really have a problem with official Q&A sections in official media and sources)

Some authors only interact throught social medias and don't host gigantic events like MCU directors, so this would be nitpicky to just ignore them

 

[YmTheSuper]

For more information bruh, even why we banned it if we still can proven it in show bruh. Yh, so?

If you believe it can be proven in the show then just use scans from the show.

Most WoG answers are often non leading answers or barely related to the initial question (Like this), so I don't think we should disregard them. Additionally, I think banning all of WoG over an incident that concerns like 2 statements is a bit of overreacting

Banning WOG in the verse might seem a bit harsh, but considering the sheer amount of author statements being used and the fact that a lot of them have leading questions, some even from a member of the forum (also a lot of the justifications being used for major abilities, a lot of the cosmology blog relies on WOG), I think it's pretty reasonable. If author statements weren't abused to this degree then we wouldn't reach the point of discussing a full on ban.

If a verse needs to use 20+ author statements then there is clearly a major issue. My only gripe would be the fact that I believe other verses that use WOG in similar ways should receive similar treatement but that's outside the scope of this thread.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Most authors of fictional verses are being asked leading questions, yet they aren't banned. I don't think anyone in VSBW has control over what people ask an writer in another social media, it all depends on what statements are used on site

Yeah, that's what the thread is about. The point is the Ninjago writer's tendency to answer these questions in such an insanely high volume.

How exactly can WoG prove himself to be reliable in your vision? They should not answer people's questions straight up?

This question is asked in bad faith. Still, I will point out that most verses are not banned from the use of WoG. The issue with Ninjago specifically is these leading questions. Now, I suspect your question is not literally "how does an author prove themselves", but rather, "what is the issue with Ninjago"- still, I will answer the former:

Answering questions in a way that seems to align with source material with consistency, while avoiding "******* around", a la the Devil May Cry writers. It's evaluated on a case by case basis, but that's more or less the gist of it.

You and the OP seem to forget Doc and Tommy aren't the same guy. The new writer (Doc) negates the older writer (Tommy) statement by consistanly stating that X answers are true. I don't see a reason why we should assume this statement affects anything from X and especially Bluesky


Most WoG answers are often non leading answers or barely related to the initial question (Like this), so I don't think we should disregard them. Additionally, I think banning all of WoG over an incident that concerns like 2 statements is a bit of overreacting

I didn't forget that. I just don't really care or think it is relevant. That said, if he does directly counter the statement that X answers are non-canon, I'd be interested in seeing proof.

As for the latter half, you are massively downplaying the severity of this issue, in a manner I can only call downright untruthful. WoG is constantly used for Ninjago. Ym posted this awhile ago, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's more, not to mention whatever might have been attempted to have been used in CRTs, but never made it to the profiles themselves. This is hardly two statements: this is a deeply ingrained issue for Ninjago, and it is much more severe than any other verse I've seen in terms of leading questions being used as legitimate evidence.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I disagreement with OP
First: Rule
First it should be not removed all of it, because many of them literally prove it in show and official books, and some of them was literally non-leading questions, so I make another rule for this

It is very simple: if WOG statements (even if it was Q&A) support what is shown in the series or official books, then they can be used, as propose to remove ONLY leading questions (and probably the ones from Lloydblized). Those who are NOT baiting can stay.
Second: WOG statments
About statments like statments say "possibly" or "sort of" shouldn't use unless is proven in show or official books, like this, we literally seen Ninja stronger than the other humans, but statments like this, can't be use for two problems, it's leading questions and don't proof in show or official books
Three: Remove
I agree with remove everything who was not been proven in a show or official books, and I hope I'm allowed to remove every leading questions was use in Ninjago pages like this

Spoiler: Remove

Should be removed as it's leading questions, and we don't have any proof in show
Also this are non-leading questions:

But some staffs are doubt on it, so I think they should not be removed as it's non-leading questions. This is a decision for staffs
I hope there aren't things I haven't forgotten.
If there anything are need to review here page for every leading questions it was use

Fourth: Correction
Also statments who I don't mentioned in 3, would be use as it, as WoG would be use as only supportive
Like Cosmology Page

Spoiler: Correction

Are proven in show. (Even Cosmology explain all realms)

They have been pointed out to be light and dark in their fight, until it was mentioned many times even in Wu's diary. Also The Overlord itself say it.

We literally don't seen it in Ninjago Map, so it should be still use but add it "This is supported where it didn't shown in the Merged Realms map".

It has been mentioned that his dimension is on another level from mortal place.
And etc.... Everything that I didn't mention is not among the things that should be deleted as it proven in the show and official book or it's was non-leading questions:
Here you will find all WOG statments are proven in the show and official book or it's was non-leading questions

WOG Statements (Who can still use)

vsbattles.fandom.com

For the record, it seems you do not have permission here. Furthermore, it should be known that even those with permission, cannot speak indefinitely; a thread moderator can only extend permission for one message, an admin for three. Only a bureaucrat can extend indefinite posting permissions.

Given that many arguments here are similar, I am asking those who disagree with this to abide by the rules of the site as anyone else would. You need permission to post.

 

[Ultimate-Rex1]

For the record, it seems you do not have permission here. Furthermore, it should be known that even those with permission, cannot speak indefinitely; a thread moderator can only extend permission for one message, an admin for three. Only a bureaucrat can extend indefinite posting permissions.

Someone tell me you can talk because Mr. Bambu said that he allow permission Ninjago supports to talk in this.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Someone tell me you can talk because Mr. Bambu said that he allow permission Ninjago supports to talk in this.

For the record, I encourage Ninjago supporters to speak here, I'll give permission to any who ask. Preemptively giving permission to YmTheSuper and Orange guy (technically the latter asked me, but still) to speak here, as both contacted me regarding an interest in helping out.

As it stands, I anticipate a more typical CRT to be made for the removal of specific current instances of WoG use in Ninjago, this thread isn't that.

As you can see, I did not give blanket permission, instead I suggested Ninjago supporters ask me. You did not. That said, you have posted the three posts I might have given you anyhow- even if I wanted to, the only individuals capable of granting you more now are the bureaucrats.

Your posts will remain up, as I don't seem them disruptive. Be more mindful in the future, is all.

 

[AigerTheKing]

Permission again by Bambu

Yeah, that's what the thread is about. The point is the Ninjago writer's tendency to answer these questions in such an insanely high volume.

Again, I don't think anyone is at fault for having the writer answering fans, and it doesn't make them unreliable. Most of the questions he answers are about lore clarification. Just recently, he did so

This question is asked in bad faith. Still, I will point out that most verses are not banned from the use of WoG. The issue with Ninjago specifically is these leading questions. Now, I suspect your question is not literally "how does an author prove themselves", but rather, "what is the issue with Ninjago"- still, I will answer the former:

Answering questions in a way that seems to align with source material with consistency, while avoiding "******* around", a la the Devil May Cry writers. It's evaluated on a case by case basis, but that's more or less the gist of it.

Most questions it Ym's blog are not leading answers and respect the guideline about "Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself" tho, which is the whole basis on why we refuse an WoG statement or not

I didn't forget that. I just don't really care or think it is relevant. That said, if he does directly counter the statement that X answers are non-canon, I'd be interested in seeing proof.

Orange gave you proof that it counters the older writer statement with Doc claiming everything Tommy said was true (which includes interview and Twitter)

As for the latter half, you are massively downplaying the severity of this issue, in a manner I can only call downright untruthful. WoG is constantly used for Ninjago. Ym posted this awhile ago, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's more, not to mention whatever might have been attempted to have been used in CRTs, but never made it to the profiles themselves. This is hardly two statements: this is a deeply ingrained issue for Ninjago, and it is much more severe than any other verse I've seen in terms of leading questions being used as legitimate evidence.

I will explain it like this with one of the statements used in there :

Q: Is Source Energy stronger than Elements
A: Source Energy is the source of Elements

is different from:

Q: Is Source Energy stronger than Elements
A: Yes

So why remove statements that are unrelated to the original question? According to Oxford definition, this is what Leading Question means:

A question that prompts or encourages the answer wanted.

"Source Energy is the source of Elements" is clearly not the answer wanted by the author. This is also provable with other statements in Ym's blog, some of which aren't even by Wog

Q: Hey doc, I got a weird question, but can the elemental power of smoke give you cancer? Cause in some scenes it was shown that your elemental power doesnt always make you immune to your element since jay also nearly died when he charged that battery in seabound.
A: I hadn't considered the smoke/cancer question before, but Elemental Masters are immune to negative effects of their own powers (example: Wyldfyre doesn't burn on her own heat), so I'd have to say the Elemental Master of Smoke would not get ill from his own smoke.

Once again, the guy who asked this only wanted to known if Smoke gives cancers. Doc partly answered with by saying that Elemental Masters are immune to negative effects of their own powers, which is clearly not what he asked for

Q: Can Gandalaria can use magic without her crystal ball? (Found back the question in Ninjago Wiki)
A: Not all spells use crystal balls. There are potions, hexes, etc. Various kinds of magic, used in various kinds of ways. Some require different power items, some require no items at all.

Guy wanted to know if the Magician can use her magic without the Crystal Ball. Doc answers by talking about Magic itself in a general sense, and addressing power items, potions, hexes, yet again not what the guy specifically wanted to know as he never asked if there were various kinds of magic

Q: If it was 200 years ago, how are they still alive?
A:`Different realm, different rules and physics. Fenwick is probably 10000+

This is actually used to support a statement in the show that Lloyd said about Realms having different rules of time, so it falls under "Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself" rule like some others in his blog

Many other statements in the blog are just answering stuff obviously shown in the show, or based on the show, like this one. Some are litterally about confirming canonity of a material, like this one, or about confirming an existing statement from a book, like the WoG backup for Shatterspin. The amount of actual leading questions that are truly answer as the author of the question wishes to is far smaller then what some here are arguing (about like 3).

At worst, I think its best replace the statements who has been answered in the show with show scans, or do that and keep WoG as supportive/clarification evidence, and to only remove those who are truly leading in a CRT on the matter

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Again, I don't think anyone is at fault for having the writer answering fans, and it doesn't make them unreliable. Most of the questions he answers are about lore clarification. Just recently, he did so

And I would straight up disagree, again.

Most questions it Ym's blog are not leading answers and respect the guideline about "Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself" tho, which is the whole basis on why we refuse an WoG statement or not

I think this comes down to the line you draw at which you consider something to be a leading or otherwise problematic question, ig. I'll take you at face value, that you don't think these are issues, but I've looked at them, and it is more than the two you have suggested.

Orange gave you proof that it counters the older writer statement with Doc claiming everything Tommy said was true (which includes interview and Twitter)

Doc did do that, but that doesn't support the point you're saying it supports. I asked you for evidence that counters what Tommy said. Doc just said "what Tommy said is true". Which includes the statement about social media shit being largely non-canon explanations provided by the authors.

I will remind you of what it is you claimed:

"You and the OP seem to forget Doc and Tommy aren't the same guy. The new writer (Doc) negates the older writer (Tommy) statement by consistanly stating that X answers are true. I don't see a reason why we should assume this statement affects anything from X and especially Bluesky."

Only, that isn't what Doc said. Doc said that he followed the same rules as Tommy. Your point is not only not proven, it is actively rebuked.

I will explain it like this with one of the statements used in there :

Q: Is Source Energy stronger than Elements
A: Source Energy is the source of Elements

is different from:

Q: Is Source Energy stronger than Elements
A: Yes

Both of those are the same question, both of those are the same answer.

"Source Energy is the source of Elements" is clearly not the answer wanted by the author. This is also provable with other statements in Ym's blog, some of which aren't even by Wog

I assume you meant, "not the answer wanted by the fan"? Regardless. I don't really grasp what point you're trying to make: whether they say yes or reiterate the question, the question itself is the issue, not the answer.

Q: Hey doc, I got a weird question, but can the elemental power of smoke give you cancer? Cause in some scenes it was shown that your elemental power doesnt always make you immune to your element since jay also nearly died when he charged that battery in seabound.
A: I hadn't considered the smoke/cancer question before, but Elemental Masters are immune to negative effects of their own powers (example: Wyldfyre doesn't burn on her own heat), so I'd have to say the Elemental Master of Smoke would not get ill from his own smoke.

Once again, the guy who asked this only wanted to known if Smoke gives cancers. Doc partly answered with by saying that Elemental Masters are immune to negative effects of their own powers, which is clearly not what he asked for

"Hey doc, do they have powers that extend beyond what is in the show? Because they aren't shown to suffer from it."

"Well gee young man, maybe, but it doesn't affect them anyways."

The issue is the question. It is not the answer.

These continue on for a couple examples and I don't feel compelled to dissect each one. If the point is "well, not all answers are leading questions", then you would be right, but that is not the focal point of discussion. It must be decided whether leading questions exist in a significant enough quantity to allow WoG at all.

I am certain, given time, you could unearth thousands of answers that are not by any means resultant from a leading question. Nevertheless, our concern would not be with these, and the effort would be wasted.

 

[Ebihara]

Honestly, just the fact that they explicitly said that X answers have no lore value should be more than enough, so I agree.

Yeah.

Yeah, this makes sense.

Looks good to me.

"Due to previous abuse of Word of God (WOG), statements from social media are not allowed for Ninjago CRT's or blogs with the sole exception of author statements that determine if other official work is canon. To see the reasoning why please refer to this thread."

coming up on 48 hours so looks like it will be passing, how do yall feel about the slight wording change to include just things that say yes or no to things being canon. or is that implied? Or if the original wording is fine.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Fine with it, but it should read "CRTs or blogs", not "CRT's or blog's". Only nitpick I have.

 

[AigerTheKing]

coming up on 48 hours so looks like it will be passing, how do yall feel about the slight wording change to include just things that say yes or no to things being canon. or is that implied? Or if the original wording is fine.

Tbh nobody except 2 of those replied to the counter arguments. Most of these statements are replacable anyways

And I would straight up disagree, again.


I think this comes down to the line you draw at which you consider something to be a leading or otherwise problematic question, ig. I'll take you at face value, that you don't think these are issues, but I've looked at them, and it is more than the two you have suggested.

What's the point of allowing WoG on-site at this point then? Several statements of similar kind were passed on by staff and completly allowed, which is contradictory to the "rule" you are suggesting applies

Doc did do that, but that doesn't support the point you're saying it supports. I asked you for evidence that counters what Tommy said. Doc just said "what Tommy said is true". Which includes the statement about social media shit being largely non-canon explanations provided by the authors.

It should be referring to his new X answers not adding any canon to the current lore as he implied here. Also, he implied here that he would continue Way of Departed, which is basically full of Old Ninjago Lore he uploads on Twitter specifically. This goes against the interpretation and heavily suggest (along with what Orange said), that his statement refers to adding new lore to Dragon Rising and beyond. In fact, if we take a look at his pinged Twitter page message:

So yeah this suggest statement doesn't apply to his past answers when he was working with Ninjago

"You and the OP seem to forget Doc and Tommy aren't the same guy. The new writer (Doc) negates the older writer (Tommy) statement by consistanly stating that X answers are true. I don't see a reason why we should assume this statement affects anything from X and especially Bluesky."


Only, that isn't what Doc said. Doc said that he followed the same rules as Tommy. Your point is not only not proven, it is actively rebuked.

He didn't say that

And what you are referring to is about Doc following the same "everything that doesn't contradict the show is canon" rule, not what you are claiming.

Both of those are the same question, both of those are the same answer.

Being the source of something ≠ Being stronger than something. This is clearly not the same answer nor question and a false equivalence

I assume you meant, "not the answer wanted by the fan"? Regardless. I don't really grasp what point you're trying to make: whether they say yes or reiterate the question, the question itself is the issue, not the answer.

Why is the question itself an issue? From what I saw, they are a problem only when the wanted answer is obtained

"Hey doc, do they have powers that extend beyond what is in the show? Because they aren't shown to suffer from it."

"Well gee young man, maybe, but it doesn't affect them anyways."

The issue is the question. It is not the answer.

Tbh, Doc response would be more relevant than what he was asked with

These continue on for a couple examples and I don't feel compelled to dissect each one. If the point is "well, not all answers are leading questions", then you would be right, but that is not the focal point of discussion. It must be decided whether leading questions exist in a significant enough quantity to allow WoG at all.

Are you arguing that WoG un-usuable simply because they answer questions from multiples fans. Why don't we ban WoG from all other verses since they also answer dozens of questions? Also, the main issue I have with the rule is that it still goes against the established rules regardless, for most of them, that we can use things that's supported or clarifying the show

I am certain, given time, you could unearth thousands of answers that are not by any means resultant from a leading question. Nevertheless, our concern would not be with these, and the effort would be wasted.

So questions such as this for MCU, this from Star Wars, MCU using WoG to confirm stuff from their verse, Mao Gakuin doing the same and multiple verses is straight up acceptable, but when its Ninjago with lore stuff, its somehow an issue?

 

[Ebihara]

nobody except 2 of those replied to the counter arguments.

i have replied to them over and over. I am done linking leading statements you've used and then you say "its not leading." I have replied to everything I think has substance or is new and hasnt been addressed.

So questions such as this for MCU, this from Star Wars, MCU using WoG to confirm stuff from their verse, Mao Gakuin doing the same and multiple verses is straight up acceptable, but when its Ninjago with lore stuff, its somehow an issue?

off topic and irrelevant, but these verses arent mostly comprised of WoG

I think at a point you are being disingenuous about the scope and severity of WoG in this verse, it is very much not comparable to pretty much any other verse in the sheer % of the supporting statements and scans used that are WoG. Also comparing it to official interviews is ridiculous . But either way those are other verses and how they handle it is irrelvant here and outside the scope of this thread as it has been said many many times.

What's the point of allowing WoG on-site at this point then? Several statements of similar kind were passed on by staff and completly allowed, which is contradictory to the "rule" you are suggesting applies

just cause something passed does not meant it should have. things fall through the cracks all the time and mistakes are made. We have to now go in and remove all the WoG when this rules passes, nothing is contradictory here.

Most of these statements are replacable anyways

Then replace them with things that aren't WoG, simple. As its been said many times why do you need WoG if its in the show.

 

[AigerTheKing]

i have replied to them over and over. I am done linking leading statements you've used and then you say "its not leading." I have replied to everything I think has substance or is new and hasnt been addressed.

Respectfully, you aren't a staff, and I was talking about all the staff that commented that didn't look at the counter arguments and just FRA trained the thread. I responded to the arguments and proved why most of them aren't leading

I think at a point you are being disingenuous about the scope and severity of WoG in this verse, it is very much not comparable to pretty much any other verse in the sheer % of the supporting statements and scans used that are WoG.

Also comparing it to official interviews is ridiculous.

According to Bambu, it won't matter because they are leading questions

Then replace them with things that aren't WoG, simple. As its been said many times why do you need WoG if its in the show.

Why do we need to ban all WoG for the verse over this if we can do that then?

 

[Ebihara]

proved why most of them aren't leading

You did no such thing, you put your head in the sand and ignored the fact they are leading.

According to Bambu, it won't matter because they are leading questions

Then remove them, you keep bringing it up like its some sort of gotcha, its not its irrelevant and basically derailing at this point.

Respectfully, you aren't a staff, and I was talking about all the staff that commented that didn't look at the counter arguments and just FRA trained the thread. I responded to the arguments and proved why most of them aren't leading

finepoint and bambu have been keeping up and we have argued against each of your reasonings as why they should stay.

Why do we need to ban all WoG for the verse over this if we can do that then?

They go hand and hand, your solution was keep basically everything including tons of statements we don't know the question for and tons of leading questions and even some from lloyd which you acted like weren't also leading and there wasn't just a whole discussion in RVRT that they had to go. You have dishonestly represented the severity of the misuse and abuse of WoG in the verse and then use whataboutism's that have no bearing on this topic. Or you respond "its only 2(3) leading statements" when presented and told over and over about the large amount of leading questions and statements that not only passed but are attempting to get passed in the verse so often. The reason is this is different is cause Ninjago has gone so far and beyond what is reasonable in its misuse of WoG that it does require a rule. But again what other vereses do and how they operate does not matter here.

 

[AigerTheKing]

You did no such thing, you put your head in the sand and ignored the fact they are leading.

Most definitely

So why remove statements that are unrelated to the original question? According to Oxford definition, this is what Leading Question means:
A question that prompts or encourages the answer wanted.
"Source Energy is the source of Elements" is clearly not the answer wanted by the author. This is also provable with other statements in Ym's blog, some of which aren't even by Wog
Q: Hey doc, I got a weird question, but can the elemental power of smoke give you cancer? Cause in some scenes it was shown that your elemental power doesnt always make you immune to your element since jay also nearly died when he charged that battery in seabound.
A: I hadn't considered the smoke/cancer question before, but Elemental Masters are immune to negative effects of their own powers (example: Wyldfyre doesn't burn on her own heat), so I'd have to say the Elemental Master of Smoke would not get ill from his own smoke.
Once again, the guy who asked this only wanted to known if Smoke gives cancers. Doc partly answered with by saying that Elemental Masters are immune to negative effects of their own powers, which is clearly not what he asked for

finepoint and bambu have been keeping up and we have argued against each of your reasonings as why they should stay.

Only 2 staff out of the 5-6 ones that commented

They go hand and hand, your solution was keep basically everything including tons of statements we don't know the question for and tons of leading questions and even some from lloyd which you acted like weren't also leading and there wasn't just a whole discussion in RVRT that they had to go. You have dishonestly represented the severity of the misuse and abuse of WoG in the verse and then use whataboutism's that have no bearing on this topic. Or you respond "its only 2(3) leading statements" when presented and told over and over about the large amount of leading questions and statements that not only passed but are attempting to get passed in the verse so often. The reason is this is different is cause Ninjago has gone so far and beyond what is reasonable in its misuse of WoG that it does require a rule. But again what other vereses do and how they operate does not matter here.

No, my solution was to only keep those that helps clarifying stuff from the show.

Many other statements in the blog are just answering stuff obviously shown in the show, or based on the show, like this one. Some are litterally about confirming canonity of a material, like this one, or about confirming an existing statement from a book, like the WoG backup for Shatterspin. The amount of actual leading questions that are truly answer as the author of the question wishes to is far smaller then what some here are arguing (about like 3).

At worst, I think its best replace the statements who has been answered in the show with show scans, or do that and keep WoG as supportive/clarification evidence, and to only remove those who are truly leading in a CRT on the matter

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Respectfully.

I can only give permission for three posts, as an administrator. You have surpassed that. I believe Ebihara technically has posting rights by right of being the OP.

I've no time for now, but I will get to looking through the posts later and give my thoughts. Who knows, I may be swayed. I ask that this does not get applied or closed until then, please.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Tbh nobody except 2 of those replied to the counter arguments. Most of these statements are replacable anyways

What's the point of allowing WoG on-site at this point then? Several statements of similar kind were passed on by staff and completly allowed, which is contradictory to the "rule" you are suggesting applies


It should be referring to his new X answers not adding any canon to the current lore as he implied here. Also, he implied here that he would continue Way of Departed, which is basically full of Old Ninjago Lore he uploads on Twitter specifically. This goes against the interpretation and heavily suggest (along with what Orange said), that his statement refers to adding new lore to Dragon Rising and beyond. In fact, if we take a look at his pinged Twitter page message:

So yeah this suggest statement doesn't apply to his past answers when he was working with Ninjago

He didn't say that

And what you are referring to is about Doc following the same "everything that doesn't contradict the show is canon" rule, not what you are claiming.


Being the source of something ≠ Being stronger than something. This is clearly not the same answer nor question and a false equivalence

Why is the question itself an issue? From what I saw, they are a problem only when the wanted answer is obtained

Tbh, Doc response would be more relevant than what he was asked with

Are you arguing that WoG un-usuable simply because they answer questions from multiples fans. Why don't we ban WoG from all other verses since they also answer dozens of questions? Also, the main issue I have with the rule is that it still goes against the established rules regardless, for most of them, that we can use things that's supported or clarifying the show

So questions such as this for MCU, this from Star Wars, MCU using WoG to confirm stuff from their verse, Mao Gakuin doing the same and multiple verses is straight up acceptable, but when its Ninjago with lore stuff, its somehow an issue?

I am on mobile, so formatting will be horrible and there's smart odds that I make a typo or two.

Why allow WoG? Because it can be used constructively. The point of this discussion is to determine whether Ninjago can be used like so. Even this thread has agreed that Ninjago's WoG can still be used for questions of canon. This point just doesn't make sense- you're painting it as though we're erasing all WoG on the site when Ninjago is demonstrably a unique case.

I don't see the pinned message as being a statement that his random thoughts on Twitter being canon. He feels he no longer has the right to elaborate on canon and so doesn't, that just seems fair.



Doc has at the very least implied he maintains the same rules as Tommy. You choosing the quote that doesn't speak on that kinda feels like cherry picking.

You're right that I misread your little hypothetical question thing. But it is the same question, and as I said, that's the bit we're concerned with here. Still, my bad.

My argument is that Ninjago as a franchise has displayed a proclivity towards seriously answering leading questions in a significant volume, and Ninjago as a verse on VSBW has displayed a proclivity towards using those answers.

Truthfully, I would be interested in why the WoG is even necessary. If the argument is all in favor of just keeping it for clarification, why not just use the show? How much clarification is needed? Is the show so inscrutable that it is unreasonable to interpret things a certain way?

I've asked a lot of questions there, but you cannot speak here. Do feel free to continue discussion on my wall or privately.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I've spoken to Aiger off-thread. The results of the conversation were to an extent enlightening, I grasp better how difficult this may make it for Ninjago, but the discussion really did only cement to me that social media answers shouldn't be taken for this verse. I would consider this my final vote on the matter: I approve of the rule being implemented, and failing further issue, I would suggest the rule be implemented and that we move on to removing WoG as it is from the verse's scaling.

 

[Ebihara]

I've spoken to Aiger off-thread. The results of the conversation were to an extent enlightening, I grasp better how difficult this may make it for Ninjago, but the discussion really did only cement to me that social media answers shouldn't be taken for this verse. I would consider this my final vote on the matter: I approve of the rule being implemented, and failing further issue, I would suggest the rule be implemented and that we move on to removing WoG as it is from the verse's scaling.

I was going to add it on the verse page under the summary section (unless there is a more appropriate place for it on the page) is there anywhere else it needs to be added such as?
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/D....-,Franchise-Specific Rules,-Avatar: The Last

 

[Ebihara]

It has been applied to the verse page. If this needs to be added to the discussion rules page that will need to be unlocked. I assume this would count as a discussion rule but not 100% sure.

 

[FinePoint]

It has been applied to the verse page. If this needs to be added to the discussion rules page that will need to be unlocked. I assume this would count as a discussion rule but not 100% sure.

It should definitely be added to the discussion rules.
They deal with verse-specific topic/source bans.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yeah FinePoint is correct. I've added this to the Discussion Rules page/removed it from the verse page. This thread is finished, then, so I will close it.

 

[FinePoint]

Yeah FinePoint is correct. I've added this to the Discussion Rules page/removed it from the verse page. This thread is finished, then, so I will close it.

I've unlocked the thread because the exact wording of the rule as written does not exactly align with what you've been telling people is acceptable.

So we need to decide if it needs to be worded better or not.
(It also has a grammatical thing which has been bothering me anyway.)