Removing WOG from Ben 10

[Reiner04]

Yes and no. I'm fine with WoG in a limited capacity. Writers that don't follow the McDuffie rule are usable in some capacity, but those who do follow that rule shouldn't be included as they view their answers as non-canon to the core franchise.

Alr. Thats fine by me since they themselves states that their answers shouldn't be considered relaible.

 

[Reiner04]

We usually treat statements like this as indicating that the writer/artist/whoever has no greater canon control, but they do still give insight into what they were thinking when making the scenes in question

So with OPM for example, the lead artist has stated he has no canon input. We rate his statements as a "possibly" rating, and while we don't say that what he says is canon, we do use his thoughts to explain some potential actions or abilities for a scene if they're expanded on.

So things like McDuffie explaining plot issues would not be considered valid, but statements explaining his thought process on how powers work or why characters did a certain thing can be considered as potential secondary canon.

Btw, this still will be applicable on even those following MC duffie law right? Like those writer involved explaining certain scenes or part of the story or certain mechanics they introduced as "possibly"? (Just for clarification)

 

[Qawsedf234]

Btw, this still will be applicable on even those following MC duffie law right?

If they follow his school of thought, the most their WoG can qualify for is a possibly rating and only if its explaining something within a scene. Any raw lore or general answers wouldn't be usable for a profile.

 

[GeneralSol16]

The writer doesn't remember the answer and responded with "Doesn't he have all their powers" with a "sure".

Overall I don't think it's super usable. If we do keep it I only see it as a possibly rating.


The issue is with the WoG, not them having a potential feat. The WoG is awful in that respective case. This applies to most of your other responses. They can still be valid, but most/none of the WoG meets our standards in those cases.

I wanted to make sure you people knew that practically all of them are supported by the show or follow a specific logic, and that it wssnt just WoG

 

[Reiner04]

@AmonInChains can you update the votes in the OP please?

 

[AmonInChains]

At work rn, I will check later.

 

[ABSOLUTE-ABSTRACT-KING]

While I am generally against using WoG statements, I don't think that a statement that is elaborating any screenplay incident, or is backed up by show or any other canon material should be banned (just like how Duncan saying that Alien-X has no past present or future or timeline counterpart makes sense as he lives outside timestream and his home world is stated to be out of sync with all time, or verse having infinite universe is backed up by statements from canon etc). And I don't think (or see a valid reason to assume) that CN or MoA agree with "MC Duffie's law".
Most of the things that are gonna get removed can be later added via screenplay.
Edit : Also the WoG telling us about BTS (what officials wanted to imply when writing a scene) should be canon as it's just "explaining screenplay"

 

[AmonInChains]

Ogey, I reach home so I this is the current vote tally.

Agree with the OP as currently
Dale:

this is actually super crazy how many leading questions and scans are based not even from the show but just spamming questions to those involved in the series, pretty sure that's mega against the rules too so yeah these gotta go if that's all there is with no actual showings of half this shit or exact statements in the show itself

KT:

Sheesh, this makes sense though

Emirp:

Agree with OP

Damage:

OP looks fine to me.

Maverick:

Agree with the OP.

Agree with OP, but allowing canonicity statements
Planck:

Yeah, this seems rather egregious. Agree for now.

Presumably, yeah. Granted, multiple people have held the reigns of the series since then, to my understanding and they normally wouldn't be any less valid, barring major contradiction.

Qaw's stance
Qaw:

The only thing I really get behind is that the justifications for these powers come from multiple sources with WoG being one of them, but they only use WoG. Instead they should be rewritten to include all relevant sources.

If they follow his school of thought, the most their WoG can qualify for is a possibly rating and only if its explaining something within a scene. Any raw lore or general answers wouldn't be usable for a profile.

Nierre:

I share the same thoughts as qaws as well

Oblivion:

I share Qawsedf's thoughts on the matter.

Reiner:

Same stance as me, Firestorm and Qawsedf.

Agree with only removing leading questions
Vietthai:

Yeah, remove the WoG screenshot and link from the verse. Shit like 26-dimensional or multiversal+ question is crazy

As long as the statement isn't an answer to a leading question, then they're fine.

WoG is only applicable if it supports something existent in source material
Firestorm:

To my understanding from previous threads, we already agreed that WoG is only applicable if it supports or elaborates on something already in the source material.

Disagree with creating a Discussion Rule
Reiner:

Anyways i don't see any point in it there have never been any issue with WOG here. We have specific rules regarding them, so i disagree with going verse specific in such a non issue.

 

[Reiner04]

Snip

Lifeless

 

[AmonInChains]

By itself finding all the scans in the OP already took half my lifespan

 

[DaReaperMan]

By itself finding all the scans in the OP already took half my lifespan

Golgfag's Maneaters

"Who could forget the Ogres? Not anyone with a sense of smell, that's for sure. Worse than Trolls, and that's saying something, but there are few troops you's rather have on your side in the heat of battle." —Elodhir Seamane, High Elven gentleman adventurer[1a] Golgfag's Maneaters, also known as...

warhammerfantasy.fandom.com

I have a profile for you to make to take the rest of it.

 

[Ultimate-Rex1]

Ok, so just replace statements that Qaw says it's leading question

 

[Forthegood]

@Forthegood
Do not be rude to the opposition or the OP. Threads are created and votes are cast based on what people find convincing. It is obvious that we might not like how a thread goes or turns out; we naturally favor our own views and believe they are correct, but that isn't necessarily always the truth. That is why these threads exist, different people can put forward arguments from their own perspectives, arguments that might not make sense to us or may not even seem valid from our point of view but who knows if they might be the right one and we just can't see from that perspective or like it? Regardless, we still need to respect their opinions and leave the final judgment to the staff, who evaluate which side sounds most logical to them. Everyone believes they are right in their own view, including staff members, that is why multiple staff are required for a CRT to pass. The fact that this thread remains in a deadlock despite 12 staff members participating is clear proof of that.

Blah Blah Blah. I wasn't being disrespectful i was stating a fact. Cope

 

[Reiner04]

Ok, so just replace statements that Qaw says it's leading question

Qaws stance doesn't have proper consensus either. In terms of Venn Diagram this is currently the situation of votes in the thread (Pink area depicts there are certain elements that is agreed upon by all)

 

[Hellformer]

Qaws stance doesn't have proper consensus either. In terms of Venn Diagram this is currently the situation of votes in the thread (Pink area depicts there are certain elements that is agreed upon by all)

Bro applied mathematics to solve an actual issue

 

[Reiner04]

Bro applied mathematics to solve an actual issue

Venn diagram is famous to depict stuff like these honestly. Votes are scattered here and there and some actually need to clarify their stance on canonicity statements still atleast like how Plancks did. I am not expecting anything but just clarification anyways in that area to not get canonicity in mess in future.

 

[Reiner04]

Yes and no. I'm fine with WoG in a limited capacity. Writers that don't follow the McDuffie rule are usable in some capacity, but those who do follow that rule shouldn't be included as they view their answers as non-canon to the core franchise.

The issue is with the WoG, not them having a potential feat. The WoG is awful in that respective case. This applies to most of your other responses. They can still be valid, but most/none of the WoG meets our standards in those cases.

If they follow his school of thought, the most their WoG can qualify for is a possibly rating and only if its explaining something within a scene. Any raw lore or general answers wouldn't be usable for a profile.

@Damage3245 @Emirp sumitpo @Maverick_Zero_X
This thread is in deadlock with 12 staff participating with votes scattered around everywhere and not to mention its 9 pages already. Would Qawsedf suggestion be a valid compromise?

 

[Antvasima]

@Mr. Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus @FinePoint @Mr._Propeller_Hat

I was asked to ping you here, since several of you participated in a similar crt previously.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I guess I agree with removing powerscaling statements at least; unsure about everything else. But I do agree that we do tend to have a policy when it comes to authors answering questions from fans.

 

[Reiner04]

Considering this thread has turned into a 6-6 deadlock with maximum staff participation (not to mention it has already reached 8 pages) would it be a reasonable to propose a compromise that Supporters of the verse, myself included and many have already volunteered, fix the profiles by adding relevant in-show statements that support the WOG currently in use. In cases where the WOG is entirely unnecessary, it shall be removed. We will also remove the few 'leading question' WOGs that slipped into the profiles due to what appears to be an evaluation issue (some mistakes that anyone can make). Finally, we can create a verse-specific note making it explicit that, due to past issues, all future WOG must strictly follow and staffs carefully examine that they follow our general site-wide rules before being accepted.

I am sure that just being extra careful with the WOGs just solves the issue fine rather than going verse specific to discredit them entirely.

@Planck69, @KingTempest, @Emirp sumitpo

What's your opinion on this compromise?

I guess I agree with removing powerscaling statements at least; unsure about everything else. But I do agree that we do tend to have a policy when it comes to authors answering questions from fans.

I proposed a compromise on the previous page since the thread was in a deadlock. Essentially, I suggest removing any and all power-scaling or 'leading' WOG statements that managed to slip onto the profiles. Additionally, I propose creating a note on the verse page stating that we must be particularly careful to ensure any WOG proposed in future CRTs strictly follows our wiki guidelines and rules, so this mess does not occur again. Do you think this works out?

 

[Qawsedf234]

I'm fine with that rule addition.

 

[Damage3245]

That seems fine to me.

 

[Firestorm808]

Fine.

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that Reiner's suggested compromise seems fine.

 

[Dalesean027]

Thats all good, I can agree w that

 

[AmonInChains]

Ogey, based on what is being agreed (specifically Qaw stance), I made this new rule in-verse if y'all can check it

Do not use WoG statements that contain powerscaling claims, leading questions, or raw lore explanations to justify any ability or feat. Only explanations of in-series scenes (that do not meet the criteria above) and statements regarding canonicity are allowed, as agreed in this thread.

 

[Lonkitt]

Ogey, based on what is being agreed (specifically Qaw stance), I made this new rule in-verse if y'all can check it

This looks good to me

 

[Reiner04]

Ogey, based on what is being agreed (specifically Qaw stance), I made this new rule in-verse if y'all can check it

I don't think that actually covers entirety of Qaws stance since Qaws stance differs for the writer's that follow MC duffie's law and the writers that do not follow MC duffie law. Duncan that do not follow MC duffie law and incase is not answering leading or powerscaling questions should be fine to use as long as supported by show and show's context and if it follows our wiki guidelines. I will draft the rule in few hours to accomodate his stance and the wiki guidelines regarding WOG after we get consensus over the compromise.

 

[AmonInChains]

Mmm

snip

Since you made the proposal, how this should be reworded?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Mmm

Since you made the proposal, how this should be reworded?

Here's my version:

Do not use WoG statements that contain powerscaling claims, leading questions, or raw lore explanations to justify any ability or feat. Additionally multiple authors have expressed that their statements in outside media are not reflective of the core canon. These author's explanations of in-series scenes (that do not meet the criteria above) and statements regarding canonicity are allowed, as agreed in this thread, but answers outside of those specific instances are to be ignored. Authors that do not follow this philosophy can be used for more general information, but all statements require a CRT to be used within a profile due to previous misuse of author statements.

 

[AmonInChains]

Here's my version:

Holy, this is quite more detailed.
Yeah, easy agree with that.

 

[Reiner04]

Here's my version:

Thjs is fine by me

 

[Reiner04]

Here's my version:

@Dalesean027, @Planck69, @KingTempest, @Emirp sumitpo, @Damage3245, @Maverick_Zero_X, @Vietthai96, @Nierre , @Firestorm808 , @Oblivion_Of_The_Endless , @Elizhaa , @DarkDragonMedeus , @FinePoint , @Imaginym , @LephyrTheRevanchist @Antvasima

Is this rule fine by you all?

 

[Clockluckdoo]

Considering the entire argument against WOG, I agree with the OP.

 

[AmonInChains]

Considering the entire argument against WOG, I agree with the OP.

Bro appearing at last but still based

 

[Reiner04]

Considering the entire argument against WOG, I agree with the OP.

I want to use one meme but i wont.

 

[Oblivion_Of_The_Endless]

Is this rule fine by you all?

Looks good to me.

 

[Damage3245]

Yeah, that's fine.

 

[Planck69]

Qawsedf's amended proposal is fine.

 

[KingTempest]

Looks good to me