• 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.

Removing abilities that are entirely justified from WoG (Part 1)

rule says social media so it will come down to. is this social media. I really dont have an opion on that so I think leave that up to evaulating staff.
The rule was targetting Twitter and Bluesky mainly. I doubt organized and streamed interviews on Youtube is the same thing. Im going by what Bambu told me when we were arguing in DMs about the rule🤷‍♂️
 
The rule was targetting Twitter and Bluesky mainly. I doubt organized and streamed interviews on Youtube is the same thing. Im going by what Bambu told me when we were arguing in DMs about the rule🤷‍♂️
So, someone asked a question on stream and he answered the question?
 
rule says social media so it will come down to. is this social media. I really dont have an opion on that so I think leave that up to evaulating staff.
Not really an issue since it is WoG, and YouTube is literally the definition of a "social media", so if we go to that part, it still ain't an issue.

But yeah, I asked Bambu if he could clarify.
 
The rule was targetting Twitter and Bluesky mainly. I doubt organized and streamed interviews on Youtube is the same thing. Im going by what Bambu told me when we were arguing in DMs about the rule🤷‍♂️
I think this depends on whether or not we count YouTube interviews as social media or interviews, we should probably wait for Bambu (Like when you mentioned the interviews did you tell him it was hosted in YouTube?)
 
So, guy just says that it's up to the show and books to establish canon, and you use him to justify an ability?
 
So, guy just says that it's up to the show and books to establish canon, and you use him to justify an ability?
Book and show by default defines canon for any verse, however if Tommy's statement isn't contradicted, I don't see why it isn't usuable
 
He was talking about not being able to establish canon for Post Crystalized. The Overlord Void thing isn't affected
If he stated it on social media or a podcast, this is strictly the same tho. He stated multiple times that "canon answers" shouldn't be given on social media and such, he even outright states his answers aren't canon/are not of any worth.
 
If he stated it on social media or a podcast, this is strictly the same tho. He stated multiple times that "canon answers" shouldn't be given on social media and such, he even outright states his answers aren't canon/are not of any worth.
He just implies the show is the deciding canon which is why its "above" his answer. That's 1:1 the WoG rule for the wiki
 
At this point, I will be requesting Ant to reopen the thread again, so I can single-handedly reword it to ban "ANY" WoG.
 
Why, because its not part of what Bambu agree to??
No, since you are abusing the wording, and quite literally proving why it requires a rule in the first place. So we again return to the "WoG over actual in-verse feats/statements," the sole thing the thread was to prevent.
 
So you agree that what he answered (and the justification you want to use) is WoG?
Which according to staff is okay because its an official interview?
No, since you are abusing the wording, and quite literally proving why it requires a rule in the first place. So we again return to the "WoG over actual in-verse feats/statements," the sole thing the thread was to prevent.
Abusing what wording? I explicitly asked Bambu if it was allowed, and he said yes. At this point, you just want to ban this again because you want to, not because its an issue
 
Which according to staff is okay because its an official interview?
And the guy interviewed even says it's non-canon. Like, what do you want more?

Also, I highly doubt Bambu anticipated the fact that "actually there is some podcast where questions were given to a scenarist/creator, that states his answers are non-canon, and his answers are subsequently used to scale the verse".
 
Which according to staff is okay because its an official interview?
I already asked him to specify, and he will clear up if he means in general (most likely), or for Ninjago. Since leading questions are completely banned for all users on the wiki.

Abusing what wording? I explicitly asked Bambu if it was allowed, and he said yes. At this point, you just want to ban his again because you want to, not because its an issue
Completely avoiding my concern? I am asking if you notified him that it was specifically regarding Ninjago.
.
 
I’ll never get it why y’all so prioritize Tommy saying not to use his words if he himself gives tons of lore expansions, clarifications, etc. Do you want to say that he just said “nuh uh don’t use me” and then like “yuh I’ll answer questions and expand the lore and clarify stuff but this all is not canon fr doing this to waste my time”.

I feel like anyone with common sense would understand that what he means is to prioritize the show over his own words in case of contradiction, which is pretty much a rule in any franchise, but unironically I don’t care enough to fight about this. Just giving my thoughts.
 
I'd like to clarify that our stance on WOG for Ninjago specifically is stricter than for other verses, due to this recently implemented discussion rule.

So in this case it is no longer relevant if the question is leading or not, we do not allow WOG for Ninjago from social media at all, which would naturally include YouTube.
 
And the guy interviewed even says it's non-canon. Like, what do you want more?
That's not what he said. And later on he clarified that it was about the new creative team along with the new show having WoG over him
Also, I highly doubt Bambu anticipated the fact that "actually there is some podcast where questions were given to a scenarist/creator, that states his answers are non-canon, and his answers are subsequently used to scale the verse"
What kind of excuse is this?
 
So in this case it is no longer relevant if the question is leading or not, we do not allow WOG for Ninjago from social media at all, which would naturally include YouTube.
The interview didn't include answering comments on live. So its like recording an event or call and uploading it into socials. Very different from the kind of dissallowed statements staff agreed to
 
I’ll never get it why y’all so prioritize Tommy saying not to use his words if he himself gives tons of lore expansions, clarifications, etc. Do you want to say that he just said “nuh uh don’t use me” and then like “yuh I’ll answer questions and expand the lore and clarify stuff but this all is not canon fr doing this to waste my time”.

I feel like anyone with common sense would understand that what he means is to prioritize the show over his own words in case of contradiction, which is pretty much a rule in any franchise, but unironically I don’t care enough to fight about this. Just giving my thoughts.
He explains it himself the best. He had ideas, he had "headcanons" (if you could call it like this) about how characters were, how places were... If the stuff isn't in the show or in any books right now, it means it's non-canon until proven otherwise.


What kind of excuse is this?
lul.

image-2025-05-13-211918546.png
 
The interview didn't include answering comments on live. So its like recording an event or call and uploading it into socials. Very different from the kind of disallowed statements staff agreed to
Technically the rule doesn't specify it even has to be a question.

Also, from my understanding he is indeed answering questions from fans which were simply prepared ahead of time.
 
He explains it himself the best. He had ideas, he had "headcanons" (if you could call it like this) about how characters were, how places were... If the stuff isn't in the show or in any books right now, it means it's non-canon until proven otherwise.
Again, referring to DR as previously explained

Doesn't change anything I said lol

Technically the rule doesn't specify it even has to be a question.

Also, from my understanding he is indeed answering questions from fans which were simply prepared ahead of time.
How would an interview work otherwise?

Alright, that's it, I am requesting the reopening of the staff thread.
Yeah, so you can twist what staff told me:
76Sr8tA.png

vEtC8uq.png
 
So the only point you're arguing is "Well it's WoG but since the format is different, that's fine". Yeah, no.

If it was like, member of the teams solely exchanging between each other and giving "canon answers" I would personally agree with it. The fact the questions were from twitter kinda defeat the whole purpose of the thing.
 
So the only point you're arguing is "Well it's WoG but since the format is different, that's fine". Yeah, no.

If it was like, member of the teams solely exchanging between each other and giving "canon answers" I would personally agree with it. The fact the questions were from twitter kinda defeat the whole purpose of the thing.
There's many interview as such as this as well, but again, Im going by what he told me, and he implied "Reddit AMA" kinds of stuff is ok while I asked about Ninjago
 
Back
Top