Tokyo Revengers is kil (Banning TR for the rest of eternity)

[Reiner04]

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:

Looks good to me.

@Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus @Agnaa @LephyrTheRevanchist @Mr. Bambu @Antvasima

What's your opinion on Butler's updated draft?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

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:

This seems totally fine to me, yeah. Probably link to this CRT in the text where relevant when this gets added but I can safely assume this was already the plan.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

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:

Looks good to me.

 

[DavidTPPM]

Idk if it's too late, I hope it's not, but I have a small thing I'd like to add. (FinePoint gave me approval to comment)

I think the edits should be completely excluded from the 3000 minimum contributions for few reasons.

1. Even when merged with the general message minimum it still encourages edit spam as it effectively reduces the message minimum. From what I remember Vzearr specifically was even caught spamming edits to hide non-accepted upgrades to TR profiles, so we can already expect people like these to do so.

2. The edit spam is much less noticeable than regular message spam. While messages spamming could be noticed by any member or staff in any thread, edits would likely only be noticed by a handful of people that keep watch of them. It also doesn't help that you can technically spam edits without breaking too many rules by just hiding it under the pretense of "fixing spelling mistakes" or "adding categories". Basically, it's a lot harder to notice someone's just spamming edits for the sake of increasing their contribution count than it would be to notice the same with messages alone

3. Editing doesn't really fulfill a part of what I believe makes the message limit a good requirement. 3000 messages would let people see how a person behaves, what their interests are, and generally whether or not they raise any red flags. And even if they were to hide it, we could immediately notice a change in behavior once they get access to TR. However edits don't reveal anything about a user. Hypothetically you could have a user with 3000 edits and not know anything about them.


To put it simply, edits don't really help avoid people like Vzearr how messages would, and instead just open another path to hide a person's behavior until they get access to the verse. Given we already have a minimum account age, they don't even serve as a time investment requirement.

 

[Arceus0x]

Looks good to me.

This seems totally fine to me, yeah. Probably link to this CRT in the text where relevant when this gets added but I can safely assume this was already the plan.

Looks good to me.

@Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus @Agnaa @LephyrTheRevanchist @Mr. Bambu @Antvasima

What's your opinion on Butler's updated draft?

what say you?

 

[Nierre]

I share the same opinion as David tbch

 

[Agnaa]

I think, basing this off of the old rule:

To curb increasingly frequent behavioral rule violations and sockpuppetry issues with users primarily interested in this verse, members must have accounts registered for at least one year and at least 1000 forum messages before participating in revisions for it, and the verse's characters may not be used in versus threads. At their discretion, staff members intimately familiar with this verse may grant permission for productive users with less account history and/or posts to participate in revisions or disqualify suspicious and misbehaving members from participating independent of their account history and/or posts.

We should also not allow TR characters to be used in versus threads, since those are a lot harder to monitor, and risks roping in innocent people for bullshit reasons if they're allowed.

Like, someone who supports a different verse. A TR supporter creates a match involving it. A person responding saying "So how strong is Mikey?" would be a rule violation if they don't have an old/active enough account.

 

[CastoriceTheFifth]

Bump as a non staff

 

[Arceus0x]

I think, basing this off of the old rule:

We should also not allow TR characters to be used in versus threads, since those are a lot harder to monitor, and risks roping in innocent people for bullshit reasons if they're allowed.

Like, someone who supports a different verse. A TR supporter creates a match involving it. A person responding saying "So how strong is Mikey?" would be a rule violation if they don't have an old/active enough account.

Since we have a general idea then why don't we just apply it at this point.