-
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.
Suggestions for improvements (New forum)
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vs battles wiki
- 13,033
- 20,701
For CRTs in particular, I feel like enforcing the need for actual reasons for voting would become much more difficult if there was just a poll. Like, you could just cast your vote in the poll and be done with it. What need would there be for you to comment?
It may have its place in VS Threads, but even that's iffy because even those require a stated reason for your vote. It just seems like something that's better in concept than it is in practice
It may have its place in VS Threads, but even that's iffy because even those require a stated reason for your vote. It just seems like something that's better in concept than it is in practice
TWILIGHT-OP
He/Him- 2,892
- 1,565
Umm... @Dark_Soul20189 has told me that he is getting Gateway 502 error while entering forum and can't open forum.
- 993
- 722
It is fixed now, but for some reason I was blocked from the forum 8just the forum) for over a hour.
- 1,228
- 333
My first suggestion, is that users should be able to follow tags like they can follow Threads. I mean, it would be nice if a user could follow the MCU tag and get notified when a thread using the MCU tag is opened.
And I think that the message editing time in conversations should be longer than 5 minutes or even abolished.
And I think that the message editing time in conversations should be longer than 5 minutes or even abolished.
- 167,393
- 75,909
- Thread starter
- #1,728
I do not think that is possible.
Also, our members extremely frequently seem to very irresponsibly use tags that do not use the original wiki page titles, so you would likely have to follow around 8 of them for every verse.
Please explain further.
- 11,199
- 19,615
Arrow seems to be talking about private messages, the time limit to edit them is less than 5 minutes, after that it's impossible to edit or delete them.Please explain further.
- 11,199
- 19,615
Personally I have no interest, although I tend to think that it is a bit annoying the short time that sometimes there is to edit the message, I would say that between an average of 10 to 30 minutes would be fine, I'm more inclined to 10.
Bobsican
He/Him- 21,616
- 6,262
A good suggestion to minimize clutter here would be to have a rough list in the OP of the kind of changes that are often proposed but are simply unplausible with the current resources, as I've been noticing that most suggestions brought up here, even if good, are simply rejected out of budget limitations, so that may be something for starters to list on there if this is deemed fine.
Lou_change
He/Him- 10,051
- 5,329
The editing rules page still features rules for collaboration web fiction which refers back to our old SCP standards, I assume that needs to be changed. It also indirectly mentions the concept of multiple levels of tier 0 in the "inclusion of verses" section something that no longer exists.
- 167,393
- 75,909
- Thread starter
- #1,735
Okay. I will ask our system manager about fixing the issue.
Would 30 minutes be an appropriate time limit?
@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Planck69Thank you. What do the rest of you think?
Your input would be appreciated here.
I think that would likely make the first post of this thread too cluttered, and I do not remember what I should mention there.
Bambu and Ultima, are you willing to handle this please?
- 31,202
- 33,843
I believe the reason for why PMs typically have messages unable to be edited is because some people could use that as an excuse for wrong doings. If someone could just remove their own hostile/toxic messages, some could use that as an advantage to delete evidence of harassment. But the solution is that edit history and staff members being able to read remove posts much like public messages would make up for that. People should be able to fix typos or reclarify if they said something but meant something else entirely. I think PMs should look like the messages we see on the various threads in all those regards IMO.
- 167,393
- 75,909
- Thread starter
- #1,740
No they are not. We have applied plenty of new features that have been both reasonable, constructive, and possible to apply.
Chritin
He/Him- 408
- 266
So I understand that this might be an outlandish request, but a closed mouth doesn't get fed so I thought I might as well ask.
Currently, the process of overwriting an image on the wiki can be solved in a few ways. A person can upload an entirely new file (taking up redundant space on the wiki), get a staff member to upload a new version of an image (a lengthy, slow moving process due to many staff having more pressing duties), or simply doing nothing and leaving an image as is. This is extremely frustrating in my opinion, and thus I was wondering if it may be possible for general users to have permissions on overwriting images. I mostly detailed why I would like to see this change in this thread here, as well as a few ideas supporting it which I will reiterate here.
My overall argument is that many of the concerns that some people may have over allowing anyone to overwrite images are greatly outweighed by the accessibility the feature provide people. Now I understand that the primary reason the ability isn't allowed for most users is the fear of dealing with vandalism and image disputes. However, I see ability to overwrite images as a feature no different from editing character profiles and verse pages, which is something a vast majority of members can do, and is much more prone to abuse. By the sites very nature as a subjective wiki (despite the fact that all pages are based on evidence), it's obvious that it would incur attacks by people who disagree with our views, and thus cause editing disputes or acts of vandalism. On the contrary, images are much less prone to these kinds of attacks. Most images on the wiki display purely factual information and most if not all people seeking to change them would only do so to improve their quality and effectiveness on the wiki.
What I mean by all of this is that if we allow people to have free access to edit most pages, then I see no reason why they shouldn't also have access to overwrite images, since they are only factual visual aids that, when updated properly, can improve the visual clarity of the wiki as a whole.
I hope that all makes sense (I can get needlessly wordy sometimes) , and I would totally understand the staff wouldn't want to implement this, but I thought I should still ask.
Currently, the process of overwriting an image on the wiki can be solved in a few ways. A person can upload an entirely new file (taking up redundant space on the wiki), get a staff member to upload a new version of an image (a lengthy, slow moving process due to many staff having more pressing duties), or simply doing nothing and leaving an image as is. This is extremely frustrating in my opinion, and thus I was wondering if it may be possible for general users to have permissions on overwriting images. I mostly detailed why I would like to see this change in this thread here, as well as a few ideas supporting it which I will reiterate here.
My overall argument is that many of the concerns that some people may have over allowing anyone to overwrite images are greatly outweighed by the accessibility the feature provide people. Now I understand that the primary reason the ability isn't allowed for most users is the fear of dealing with vandalism and image disputes. However, I see ability to overwrite images as a feature no different from editing character profiles and verse pages, which is something a vast majority of members can do, and is much more prone to abuse. By the sites very nature as a subjective wiki (despite the fact that all pages are based on evidence), it's obvious that it would incur attacks by people who disagree with our views, and thus cause editing disputes or acts of vandalism. On the contrary, images are much less prone to these kinds of attacks. Most images on the wiki display purely factual information and most if not all people seeking to change them would only do so to improve their quality and effectiveness on the wiki.
What I mean by all of this is that if we allow people to have free access to edit most pages, then I see no reason why they shouldn't also have access to overwrite images, since they are only factual visual aids that, when updated properly, can improve the visual clarity of the wiki as a whole.
I hope that all makes sense (I can get needlessly wordy sometimes) , and I would totally understand the staff wouldn't want to implement this, but I thought I should still ask.
- 167,393
- 75,909
- Thread starter
- #1,742
Trolls used to systematically overwrite our previously existing images, that are displayed in our wiki pages, with pornography or otherwise extremely inappropriate content, and this type of vandalism is much harder for edit-patrollers to notice.
Also, even non-maliciously intended, but still inappropriate, replacements of our visibly displayed wiki images would turn much harder for edit-patrollers to notice.
So in combination this results in a definitive no. My apologies.
Also, even non-maliciously intended, but still inappropriate, replacements of our visibly displayed wiki images would turn much harder for edit-patrollers to notice.
So in combination this results in a definitive no. My apologies.
Chritin
He/Him- 408
- 266
All good, and yeah that makes sense.Trolls used to systematically overwrite our previously existing images, that are displayed in our wiki pages, with pornography or otherwise extremely inappropriate content, and this type of vandalism is much harder for edit-patrollers to notice.
Also, even non-maliciously intended, but still inappropriate, replacements of our visibly displayed wiki images would turn much harder for edit-patrollers to notice.
So in combination this results in a definitive no. My apologies.
Arkenis
They/Them- 16,268
- 7,461
Not sure if this is the thread and this is a small issue but there's a ton of vampire hunters and witch hunters yet there is only two in vampire hunters, Leon Belmont who I just put and then Richter Belmont. There isn't a category for Witch Hunters at all and I can name characters who are witch hunters Hansel and Gretel, Tasha Godspell, Madoka Kaname, and then in their verse there's more so a Witch Hunter category should be made and the Vampire Hunters category needs more attention since its lacking.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 22,567
- 21,859
I'm just now getting to this last bit.@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Planck69
Your input would be appreciated here.
I think that would likely make the first post of this thread too cluttered, and I do not remember what I should mention there.
Bambu and Ultima, are you willing to handle this please?
The rule previously said this:
Would it be alright to change it to this:
...or would you rather the rules be rewritten to entirely disallow such things? This is in part an element of the Afterlife of SCP thread I made, but not much attention has been had on the subject. Less than I'd hoped for, at least.
- 167,393
- 75,909
- Thread starter
- #1,746
You are free to do so on your own, but it doesn't seem like a task that is necessary to request from our staff.
- 167,393
- 75,909
- Thread starter
- #1,747
I have responded elsewhere regarding this topic.
https://vsbattles.com/threads/the-afterlife-of-scp.170313/post-6662571
- 167,393
- 75,909
- Thread starter
- #1,750
@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69
So, regarding the available editing time for private messages in our forum. Would it be appropriate to increase it from 5 minutes to 30 minutes, or is some other time limit better?
vsbattles.com
So, regarding the available editing time for private messages in our forum. Would it be appropriate to increase it from 5 minutes to 30 minutes, or is some other time limit better?
Suggestions for improvements (New forum)
I pictured it more as a quality of life thing than something to overly rely on out of that, yes, and it may be worth to limit this to more simple stuff on that regard such as VS Threads to avoid being detrimental for staff threads as mentioned.
Quibster
She/Her- 1,929
- 678
Yes.Please elaborate. Do you mean our "Powers and Abilities" pages?
- 2,031
- 3,257
Sure, 30 minutes works for me. I'm okay with it as long as it's not just 5 minutes.So, regarding the available editing time for private messages in our forum. Would it be appropriate to increase it from 5 minutes to 30 minutes, or is some other time limit better?
Suggestions for improvements (New forum)
I pictured it more as a quality of life thing than something to overly rely on out of that, yes, and it may be worth to limit this to more simple stuff on that regard such as VS Threads to avoid being detrimental for staff threads as mentioned.
- 31,202
- 33,843
30 minutes is better than 5; though not quite as much as abolishing time limits + giving staff permission to see edited and/or removed posts similar to regular thread messages. But still an improvement regardless if the system manager isn't able to do the latter.
- 167,393
- 75,909
- Thread starter
- #1,756
Please elaborate. Do you mean our "Powers and Abilities" pages?
Thank you.
I think that we have an ongoing powers and abilities revision thread, yes. Is somebody here willing to link to it please?
- 167,393
- 75,909
- Thread starter
- #1,757
Thank you for all replies here. I will ask about it.
Bobsican
He/Him- 21,616
- 6,262
Per the new Tiering system revamp, shouldn't the knowledgeable Low 1-A and above sections have the users listed removed for the most part, then let them manually readd themselves if they still deem themselves pertinent on such topics? It'd be recommended to ping them in any case to comment on this matter regarding themselves.
Similar threads
