-
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
- 12,485
- 16,853
- 20,485
- 16,315
- Thread starter
- #83
well then, since nobody else's votes matter, that's a 2 to 5 in favor of not banning the verse.
I really do hope you consider the 5k messages, 2 year barrier for any profile younger than a month
- 24,305
- 37,727
oh yeah i forgot i'm useless, damn
adios
adios
- 2,603
- 5,159
I am fine with the deletion, but I don't agree with the idea that there will be no backsies. There is always the possibility of reversing a decision, and if that is also part of your proposal, then I disagree with that specific part of it.
- 20,485
- 16,315
- Thread starter
- #87
what do you think my proposal? Current supporters are fully allowed, new users that aren't older than a month get the 5k message, 2 years barrier? It would be a good way to evade any future socks.I think that only allowing the current reliable supporters, and new supporters with a reasonably high amount of edits to handle the verse seems reasonable.
- 20,485
- 16,315
- Thread starter
- #89
mmm, 3000 edits 2 years. That's 4 messages a day. Should be more than manageable.Well, 5000 edits may be a bit much, but except for that it seems fine.
- 20,485
- 16,315
- Thread starter
- #91
could you pink the other admins and bureaucrats that votes here to see if they agree or not?Yes, that seems reasonable.
- 20,485
- 16,315
- Thread starter
- #93
@LephyrTheRevanchist @Crabwhale @Planck69 @Agnaa @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyDataCan you list the ones I should ping please?
- 18,196
- 19,625
Yeah sure.
- 2,603
- 5,159
Well, 5000 edits may be a bit much, but except for that it seems fine.
So, are messages on the forums and edits in the wiki being treated as the same criterion for this? I am seeing a mention of edits and messages.
Like, are we treating it as the combined total of both edits and messages?
- 35,074
- 41,658
I guess.
- 2,603
- 5,159
If it ends up being about raising the barrier to entry instead of deletion, then setting it at 3000 contributions and 2 years works for me.
- 20,485
- 16,315
- Thread starter
- #100
Sorry, that is what I meant. Never thought about edits I'll leave it up to y'all. I'd say put it lower cause even I barely have that much after nearly 8 yearsSorry. I read that as at least 3000 messages for some reason, so that is what I supported above.
- 229
- 271
I'm against banning this verse, although I have been inactive for months now xd
Last edited by a moderator:
SomebodyData
Waiting for Walpurgisnacht Rising and Metroid 6...
VS Battles
Administrator
Human Resources
- 14,734
- 4,054
Would work with me
- 13,826
- 19,645
Should have quoted Grath’s comment so that staff members reviewing the thread can see that you’ve been given permission to post as a verse supporter. It would also help if you provide a more detailed opinion, for example, whether there are enough supporters to maintain and update the profiles, and why you believe the verse should be kept rather than deleted. That was probably the intentions of tagging the verse supporters. Edited your comment to Quote Grath's post.
- 20,485
- 16,315
- Thread starter
- #104
Well out of all the people who have replied it seems most agree with this idea.
How does
"Note, due to the repeated rule violating actions taken by some of the supporters of the Tokyo Revengers verse, access to it is restricted to users who have 3000 messages on the wiki, 1000 edits and have used the wiki for 2 years. The exception to this rule are users who have been supporters before the rule was enacted and who were a month older than the CRT that established the restriction (any user that joined after March 25th, 2026 has to abide by the restriction). "
Sound?
How does
"Note, due to the repeated rule violating actions taken by some of the supporters of the Tokyo Revengers verse, access to it is restricted to users who have 3000 messages on the wiki, 1000 edits and have used the wiki for 2 years. The exception to this rule are users who have been supporters before the rule was enacted and who were a month older than the CRT that established the restriction (any user that joined after March 25th, 2026 has to abide by the restriction). "
Sound?
- 7,800
- 11,647
It mostly sounds good to me, though I would prefer if the first line used more passive voice, like:
"Due to repeated rule violations in relation to the verse".
- 20,485
- 16,315
- Thread starter
- #107
Due to repeated rule violations in relation to the verse, access to Tokyo Revengers (including page editing, CRTs, VS threads, Calculation group threads and more) is restricted to users who have 3000 messages on the wiki, 1000 edits and have used the wiki for 2 years. The exception to this rule are users who have been supporters before the rule was enacted and who were a month older than the CRT that established the restriction (any user that joined after March 25th, 2026 has to abide by the restriction).
- 35,074
- 41,658
I remain in stark disagreement to that. 3000 messages and 1000 edits is a perfectly fair requirement to adhere to.
- 7,800
- 11,647
- 20,485
- 16,315
- Thread starter
- #111
Well, other admins agree on 3000 messages. We could lower amount of edits but the messages should stay imo. 3000 in 2 years ain't a tall order for someone active.
- 35,074
- 41,658
- 35,074
- 41,658
I am not sold on reducing the edit count.
- 7,800
- 11,647
Well, the reason is that I basically always delegate actually applying things to other people, especially since a vast majority of the time I'm evaluating a thread someone else made or for a verse I'm not a supporter of.
The point is that revisions are group projects. A large number of people can help throughout most of the process, but only one of them typically makes the final edits to apply it.
So unless your regular wiki activity is patrolling, it's entirely possible to make a ton of significant contributions but not have your edit count reflect that.
- 18,196
- 19,625
I don't want people making fluff edits.
People who edit sandboxes/blogs every time they want to tweak a sentence make edit patrolling more difficult.
If someone's not making a bunch of calc blogs, and patrolling for edits on random pages, AND drafting a bunch of profiles from scratch, it can take quite a while for 1k edits to be hit.
Lephyr has less than 500 edits from after the forum move (before which, every post or edit of a post on the forum was counted as an edit), despite having been active for the vast majority of those 5 years.
- 2,603
- 5,159
I mentioned last time that I agreed around 3000 contributions, and I feel like I should clarify that I meant a combination of edits and messages.
I do not think edits should be treated as a separate requirement. Some users are not particularly experienced in editing, and making it a standalone metric could lead to unintended consequences like users making numerous low-quality or unnecessary edits just to meet the threshold, which would increase the workload for our Content Moderators and volunteers during patrol, as there would be now an increased number of edits that they will have to look through.
- 12,485
- 16,853
In fact, I even made it a point when I was originally promoted that it was weird because I almost never edited anything.
- 15,263
- 22,526
Wait hold on a minute, why post count turn into edit count now?. I remember we were talking about post count?
- 2,603
- 5,159
There seems to be a miscommunication based on the posts above.
Which is why I asked here, since they were throwing different terms such as edit or messages.
Agnaa said to count both edits and messages as a singular metric, so I agreed here and put this under the term "contribution" but the 1000 thing suddenly came out of nowhere.
I believe that the 1000 edit should be wiped and it should be turned into:
