- 20,399
- 16,219
- Thread starter
- #41
I just don't understand why you're fixated on 1 year 1k messages. It seems extremely counterproductive and already failed once. You're just gonna get the same shit again, why bother?
-
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.
Tokyo Revengers is kil (Banning TR for the rest of eternity)
- Thread starter Arceus0x
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tokyo revengers
- 18,196
- 19,619
Even when he came back to it on Vzearr, he behaved relatively well at that earlier time, hence why that sock was only banned when he confessed.
- 7,780
- 11,569
It's not really the same since other factors have changed.
We know they're likely to sockpuppet, and we know better the kinds of ways they do that, we're better at spotting it.
At this point, if they go an entire year without drawing suspicion it must because they're behaving incredibly well, at which point we have at least a year where it doesn't even affect us.
That said, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to making the restrictions even harsher, though I do prefer the 1k posts 1 year metric.
- 20,399
- 16,219
- Thread starter
- #44
If he didn't confess you'd still be blind to his actions mate. He got too greedy with the manipulation, next time he could figure it out.
We already knew damn well that Vapourr would sockpuppet. Nobody got better at spotting it and the latest socks only got spotted cause based on latest events Vzearr seems to be unstable.
And the past month gets repeated. Making it all harsher or banning the verse would solve this.
- 7,780
- 11,569
It seems to me like the entire community pegged him immediately.
We only hesitated for a lack of actual evidence, but we were ready this time to pull the trigger the instant something happened.
- 20,399
- 16,219
- Thread starter
- #46
Yes, and in a year our asses will forget about it because another historical event will inevitably drop on our heads again. Do you really want a future headache or do you want to take some Ibuprofen now?
- 11,748
- 14,169
This is a bit of a dilemma here because I believe a poisoned well can be cleaned and refilled just fine. As such, TR getting unbanned and having its problematic userbase removed would seemingly be the end of this debacle and we could go on with all our lives.
However, this verse, for whatever incomprehensible, godforsaken reason seems to attract the most caustic, irresponsible and disruptive people I've seen in a good long bit. Definitely a crowd that's usually reserved for much larger verses that are easier to justify as being that way.
If it was one of said larger verses, I'd probably be more willing to compromise. However, as the case is now, I see no loss whatsoever to just excising it entirely. Get rid of it.
However, this verse, for whatever incomprehensible, godforsaken reason seems to attract the most caustic, irresponsible and disruptive people I've seen in a good long bit. Definitely a crowd that's usually reserved for much larger verses that are easier to justify as being that way.
If it was one of said larger verses, I'd probably be more willing to compromise. However, as the case is now, I see no loss whatsoever to just excising it entirely. Get rid of it.
- 21,643
- 13,560
I share similar thoughts with Crab, given the track record of the series I don't see much loss from just outright nuking this verse and not bringing it back ever.
- 34,633
- 41,946
I am inclined to agree with Agnaa
- 35,060
- 41,649
Assuming a no-ban prospect is reached, I'd strongly favor a 2-year, 5k comments ban PLUS permanent staff oversight on said comments (Like what we did for Vzearr right before his ban, having and needing every single comment to have gotten approval from staff).
- 35,060
- 41,649
@Mr. Bambu @AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Dereck03 @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @GrathOfLux @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Maverick_Zero_X @Emirp sumitpo @LordTracer @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Reiner04 @Vietthai96 @Oblivion_Of_The_Endless @ActuallySpaceMan42 @Nierre @TWILIGHT-OP @Random-Helper323 @Catzlaflame
SomebodyData
Waiting for Walpurgisnacht Rising and Metroid 6...
VS Battles
Administrator
Human Resources
- 14,727
- 4,021
It would be unfortunate to ban a verse because of the actions of one individual.
I think we should do the 2-year, 5k comments ban and maybe give de facto control of the verse to an experienced user already here.
I think we should do the 2-year, 5k comments ban and maybe give de facto control of the verse to an experienced user already here.
- 13,823
- 19,632
I would prefer deletion over restriction. Such restrictions would make revisions impractical, and it doesn’t seem worth it.
- 2,060
- 3,918
The thread that repealed the initial restrictions we had in place was not only relatively short (dozens of pages repealed by <20 messages), but was also full of blatant lies:
If X problem exists, we implement Y policy to change it, then repeal Y policy, we shouldn’t be surprised that X problem returns.
Under the initial guidelines we had where users needed >1k messages, 1 year of user history, and direct approval from evaluation staff, it was fine. The problems we did have w/ TR users were largely exclusive of the verse itself.
For those reasons, I Agree with Agnaa/FP.
Wdym work under staff supervision? Just ambiguous fluff. Avoid initiating threads ? Then proceeds to initiate a thread literally the next day? And also how are Profiles “low-risk areas” when that’s basically the whole issue?
If X problem exists, we implement Y policy to change it, then repeal Y policy, we shouldn’t be surprised that X problem returns.
Under the initial guidelines we had where users needed >1k messages, 1 year of user history, and direct approval from evaluation staff, it was fine. The problems we did have w/ TR users were largely exclusive of the verse itself.
For those reasons, I Agree with Agnaa/FP.
- 20,399
- 16,219
- Thread starter
- #59
Would you agree with the increased message and time on the wiki though?
- 15,203
- 22,453
so, if we go with verse deletion, do we allow it to have a chance to come back in the future, or permanently ban it from our wiki?
I have no interest in the verse, just curious about a potential situation
I have no interest in the verse, just curious about a potential situation
- 20,399
- 16,219
- Thread starter
- #61
permanent. No backsies.
- 25,374
- 6,746
Yeah
- 12,483
- 16,845
Not how that works, btw. Every wiki policy change can be challenged and appealed.
- 20,399
- 16,219
- Thread starter
- #64
Well the point here is to make it permanent so that we don't get a repeat of what happened.
- 12,483
- 16,845
Can still be appealed, it's my point.
- 20,399
- 16,219
- Thread starter
- #66
the point is to make a precedent for rejecting any attempts to appeal it since it clearly failed to work last time.
- 12,483
- 16,845
Then I disagree with that.
- 21,509
- 36,025
Yeah I think its fine to allow things to be appealed later but it shouldn't be an easy decision to come back from obviously since banning by itself shows the weight of it but not allowing a potential appeal x amount of time down the line seems a bit much
- 5,056
- 5,849
I don't agree with banning the verse. This is a user problem, it has always been a user problem. It appears to be mostly be a single user problem. I can't see banning being fair to the verse or other users who support it. Now, if there isn't really any supporters who exist for the verse left then I think deleting it is fine because we have a policy of removing verses who lack supporters on our wiki. But I'm not going to support a ban for this, unless there's a problem with the verse itself.
- 5,878
- 3,690
Consider myself on the "Agree, but not permanently" deal. I think there's a time and a place for everything, including Tokyo Revengers, but not now.
- 4,744
- 7,347
Though this may be a staff thread, I think this discussion warrants the input of the existing Tokyo Revengers supporters to enquire about their perspectives on the matter and what they would do if either verdict was reached. How the verse should be handled will be the judgement of the staff team at the end of the day, but the people most directly interested in indexing the verse should at least be heard out when we are making a decision that principally concerns them. I will invite each of them to make a comment here, with normal constraints.
@DenLitz @CorbinMLG @Whiz_Almighty @MorrisHatesYou @Zefra3011 @Dinozxd @RoggerReggor @Demon_Lord18
Each of you have listed yourselves on the Tokyo Revengers verse page and have linked forum accounts. This discussion is about how to handle the Tokyo Revengers verse going forward, in light of its recent controversies, with arguments being put forward to either allow its continued indexing, to only allow users meeting a certain account age/message count threshold to index the verse, to freeze its indexing for the present moment, or to delete the pages and ban the verse from further discussion. If any of you have thoughts on this matter you'd like to provide, particularly your own view on the matter and the reason for it, I invite you to make a single comment here to share it. Please keep your responses brief if possible, and if you wish to make any follow-up comments, you can contact me or other staff members to request further permissions.
@DenLitz @CorbinMLG @Whiz_Almighty @MorrisHatesYou @Zefra3011 @Dinozxd @RoggerReggor @Demon_Lord18
Each of you have listed yourselves on the Tokyo Revengers verse page and have linked forum accounts. This discussion is about how to handle the Tokyo Revengers verse going forward, in light of its recent controversies, with arguments being put forward to either allow its continued indexing, to only allow users meeting a certain account age/message count threshold to index the verse, to freeze its indexing for the present moment, or to delete the pages and ban the verse from further discussion. If any of you have thoughts on this matter you'd like to provide, particularly your own view on the matter and the reason for it, I invite you to make a single comment here to share it. Please keep your responses brief if possible, and if you wish to make any follow-up comments, you can contact me or other staff members to request further permissions.
- 15,203
- 22,453
I'm on Lephyr side here, i can get behind with delete the verse, but should still allows the supporters to save the verse into users blog or sandbox and allows it to be appealed later in the future. This isn't the verse fault, it was a single user issue, banning it permanently from the wiki because a single supporter was acting badly is not good in my book
Last edited:
- 437
- 1,314
I agree with Agnaa and FinePoint.
Banning a verse over the actions of a single person would be unfair
The idea of permanent ban that cannot be appealed does not go well with our wiki policies
Banning a verse over the actions of a single person would be unfair
The idea of permanent ban that cannot be appealed does not go well with our wiki policies
MorrisHatesYou
Username Only- 791
- 447
I have great deal of distaste towards how the user base of this wiki treats the supporters of the verse and the verse itself in general so my judgement may be clouded by them (If anyone want specific examples, we can talk, just not here, dm me here or discord).
I'm all in for a ban given the current condition, this is not a big verse that'll cost much for the wiki if it were to get removed and it's not much of a powerscaling verse to begin with. It causes too much problems for the staff members and exhausts too much time and energy for them, in the threads and even RVR.
It's not enjoyable for both the staffs and the participants.
The profiles are outdated, the scaling chain is garbage, even a small CRT for scaling chain can cause massive arguments given how they directly affect the stats, and given that no staff member has innate interest in the verse, it'll very difficult to conclude stuffs regarding things that require context, since they can lead to long debates or discussions.
The only condition I'd say, in which we can make it work is if we have staff members who have great deal of interest in the verse. with zero bad history with the supporters.
It'll not be hard to deal with normal revisions, like adding abilities, but it can get quite complicated for people who are unfamiliar with the verse for things that require heavy context.
I also disagree with the notion that other supporters not interested in the verse, Dinozxd regularly participate in discussions, Demonlord comments on CRTs here and there, same as myself. Corbin and I have regularly talked about making revisions, we talked a lot about scaling, but we never made threads because right after the verse got unbanned it got barrage of threads.
Also if the verse is not going to get banned, please don't implement the rule in which a user has to be registered for 2 years in the forum and has to have a number of 5000 messages to contribute to the verse, as that'll only limit substantial amount of input.
I have a better solution:
Since the main problem regarding this verse is the supposed socks of one user. We should allow every user of the site who are signed up to the forum up until now to contribute to the verse, and new members who are signed up in the forum from this from this moment have to ask permission to contribute to the verse.
I think banning makes the most sense personally.
- 11,197
- 1,727
@SomebodyData says I can ask if Vzearr's an anomaly or if we can expect this to be a problem in 100 years.
I also hear he has friends, but I guess they'll die the same decade as him.
I also hear he has friends, but I guess they'll die the same decade as him.
- 12,483
- 16,845
That's a very weird way to ask that, with extra commentary bordering on being in bad taste. Do not abuse staff permission to make this kind of comment again.
As for the answer: As has been brought up, is not just that Vzearr or his circle has been problematic. Is a combination of the verse being in total disarray, staff being lax or outright ignoring threads seeking to fix it, and the people that would want to are those close to the problematic "cabal".
That being said, we are currently in waiting for those other supporters to speak their mind, as Grath has asked them to.
- 12,757
- 15,219
What if we let only you and the remaining of the supporters make CRTs and weigh in decisions for the verse? Make a select group of individuals work on the verse and only they can make CRTs and comment. It's like dislocating the verse from the wiki while keeping it alive. What about that?
- 1,580
- 578
In a sense, I believe the verse is disliked by both staff and blue names enough to warrant its removal. I myself developed some bias due to all the heated discussions it had. We supporters also never really found a middle ground to agree on, and many arguments from years ago were repeated in the last CRTs. But I don't know how often this happens in other verses, so the latter might not be a good reason to support deletion.
That said, keep in mind that if the 2-year and 5k messages rule passes, all the current supporters won't be able to participate in CRTs, as we are all under 5k messages.
- 12,757
- 15,219
I believe this only works for new users or recently created accounts, you guys would obviously be allowed.
