VS Battles Wiki Forum

Only staff members with evaluation rights can authorize regular members to participate in Staff Discussion threads. Thread Moderators and Administrators can only grant permission for a single post at a time; only Bureaucrats have the discretion to grant permission for indefinite posting rights. If a staff member determines that a regular member has misused their granted privileges, another staff member can remove them.

Click to expand...

Damage, please don't give people misleading approvals like this.

Hey, if it's about a single post at a time, I've informed mods of my posts, and in some cases, was even asked specifically to do so.
Unless we have a rule saying a mod can only give permission once, but I don't see such a thing?

@Agnaa; seems a little tedious to have to repeatedly give permission if Chariot was in an ongoing discussion, but fair enough.

Hey, if it's about a single post at a time, I've informed mods of my posts, and in some cases, was even asked specifically to do so.
Unless we have a rule saying a mod can only give permission once, but I don't see such a thing?

Yeah, you can ask the same mod repeatedly, but I can't find any evidence of you having done so for the latest flurry of posts. And I'd think you didn't since you pointed to this old post to justify it.

seems a little tedious to have to repeatedly give permission if Chariot was in an ongoing discussion, but fair enough.

Myeh, the point's to have a staff member vetting every post, to make sure that new points are still being brought up and all that.

but I can't find any evidence of you having done so for the latest flurry of posts. And I'd think you didn't since you pointed to this old post to justify it.

Click to expand...

Well yeah why would you? Posting Discord DM's is cringe as **** and I'd rather not drop me and M3X's convo's that go over a bunch of shit, not just some random hobby thread, some of which def ain't suitable for the wiki, every other post.
I was explicitly told to debate with you and I'm doing that, while he's busy.

CGMs can't authorize posts in staff discussions.

And, like, you can just say "this staff member approved this post" or whatever.

On his own thread, that he made staff discussion by his own choice (With the intent that I partake in it)?
hell our thread actually, like let's not forget that. This ain't just some random staff thread I decided to partake in.
You're missing the forest for the trees here brother.

Hell, all this is telling me is the next two times we do this, which there will be mind you, is to not make it a staff thread, to begin with, or to at least post it myself because apparently even if it's your thread you can't talk on it because your name isn't in the OP?

Also I think it's pretty damn obvious who I got permission from like 5 different dudes if you wanna be real, but only M3X and Damage made note of it publically

On his own thread, that he made staff discussion by his own choice (With the intent that I partake in it)?
hell our thread actually, like let's not forget that. This ain't just some random staff thread I decided to partake in.
You're missing the forest for the trees here brother.

I think you're missing the wack-ness of this precedent. If we just let the OP of staff-only threads invite whoever they want to freely participate in it, then it's not a staff-only a thread, it's a "staff and as many of the OP's friends as they want to include" thread.

Hell, all this is telling me is the next two times we do this, which there will be mind you, is to not make it a staff thread, to begin with, or to at least post it myself because apparently even if it's your thread you can't talk on it because your name isn't in the OP?

I was letting it slide earlier, because it sounded like you contributed a lot, but now you're saying that you just edited two lines.

I don't want CRTs for massive verses giving 12 people permission because they each contributed a few scans to it.

And yeah, you could make it a non-staff thread next time if you want non-staff participation. That's what I tend to do. It's just that if it becomes a shitshow, it'll be remade into a staff only thread regardless.

I think you're missing the wack-ness of this precedent. If we just let the OP of staff-only threads invite whoever they want to freely participate in it, then it's not a staff-only a thread, it's a "staff and as many of the OP's friends as they want to include" thread.

Click to expand...

Except that isn't what's happening here, it's more "OP invites the co-creator of the thread to partake and actively tells him to do so and OP".
Like I could've posted the thread instead? In fact I might've if shit played out slightly differently, nothing would have changed beyond the name of the OP in the first post. Let's not pretend anything is actually different.

I was letting it slide earlier, because it sounded like you contributed a lot, but now you're saying that you just edited two lines.

Click to expand...

Of that text, I told Deagon, and now I'm telling you, don't misconstrue what I actually said. just because I didn't ******* write out an encyclopedic level worth of text, admittedly, barebones as **** page, doesn't mean I wasn't involved at all. Hell didn't M3X literally say I'm the person who brought it up to begin with? I obviously helped, gave ideas, pointers, and suggestions and had to listen to this shit while it was being done.

I don't want CRTs for massive verses giving 12 people permission because they each contributed a few scans to it.

Click to expand...

If they're knowledgable, unironically tbh, whether it be 1 or 100. Especially for massive verses, I'd rather the opinion of people who know what the **** they're even talking about than those who don't, staff or not.
Like I'd take Armor's opinion over basically anyone's when it comes to NMH, or Dale's opinion over anyone's for like S&L, and they're staff, but for Zelda, I'd take DustCollector's opinion over basically anyone's and he isn't staff.
I give more of a **** about how knowledgable they are over anything else tbh, after all, we're meant to index shit as accurately as possible, not saying that's me here, but, literally co-created the thread brother. And even explicitly told to partake in and notably, to tackle your points as well.

And yeah, you could make it a non-staff thread next time if you want non-staff participation. That's what I tend to do. It's just that if it becomes a shitshow, it'll be remade into a staff only thread regardless.

Click to expand...

Well that's what's going to have to happen now because goddamn lmao.

Except that isn't what's happening here, it's more "OP invites the co-creator of the thread to partake and actively tells him to do so and OP".

Yeah, that's why I said the wack-ness of this precedent, not the wackness of this case. Especially since, as you said later, you're fine with the precedent being extended like that.

Of that text, I told Deagon, and now I'm telling you, don't misconstrue what I actually said. just because I didn't ******* write out an encyclopedic level worth of text, admittedly, barebones as **** page, doesn't mean I wasn't involved at all. Hell didn't M3X literally say I'm the person who brought it up to begin with? I obviously helped, gave ideas, pointers, and suggestions and had to listen to this shit while it was being done.

Yeah it's just hard to weigh up how much that matters, since I wasn't there.

If they're knowledgable, unironically tbh, whether it be 1 or 100. Especially for massive verses, I'd rather the opinion of people who know what the **** they're even talking about than those who don't, staff or not.
Like I'd take Armor's opinion over basically anyone's when it comes to NMH, or Dale's opinion over anyone's for like S&L, and they're staff, but for Zelda, I'd take DustCollector's opinion over basically anyone's and he isn't staff.
I give more of a **** about how knowledgable they are over anything else tbh, after all, we're meant to index shit as accurately as possible, not saying that's me here, but, literally co-created the thread brother. And even explicitly told to partake in and notably, to tackle your points as well.

If it's their knowledge we're mining, they have a lot of options to get that through:

• The OP of the thread can post it.
• They can ask a staff member for permission on a per-post basis.
• They can ask a bureaucrat for permission to post as many times as they want.
• They can start a DM with all the staff members in the thread, and post their arguments there.
• They can post on the message walls of any staff member they want to convince.
• They can talk to staff-members off-site.

The purpose of these staff only threads, as I see it, is to distill the arguments so staff (who are expected to know a lot about our standards), can evaluate whether those arguments meet our standards or not.

(Although in some cases we do consider non-staff to have equal or greater voice on some niche bits of site policy, like high tiers and esoteric abilities).

But in summary, yeah, they're more knowledgeable about the verse themselves, but that's not all that matters for a CRT, and they should be able to communicate important info in other ways than giving a dozen people carte blanche to drag out a thread to 600 pages.

Yeah, that's why I said the wack-ness of this precedent, not the wackness of this case. Especially since, as you said later, you're fine with the precedent being extended like that.

Click to expand...

Yes, and?

Yeah it's just hard to weigh up how much that matters, since I wasn't there.

Click to expand...

Then don't talk about it as if you were?
Also you literally were.

If it's their knowledge we're mining, they have a lot of options to get that through:
The OP of the thread can post it.

Click to expand...

Tedious, extra effort, can easily be misconstrued, requires a middleman who might not be always available to do so given people have lives, and could easily get lost in shit, it shouldn't be up to OP to speak for others especially if they don't want to, OP can easily just go "nah man i dont wanna".

They can ask a staff member for permission on a per-post basis.

Click to expand...

I mean apparently, that isn't good enough as we can see here.

They can ask a bureaucrat for permission to post as many times as they want.

Click to expand...

If they're busy? If the bureaucrat doesn't give permission, not because they shouldn't, but because of their own lack of knowledge around the situation, the people in question, and so on? Or should they pester them to get permission even if other lads said "yeah man it fine"?

They can start a DM with all the staff members in the thread, and post their arguments there.

Click to expand...

Jesus Christ I'm going to ignore you legitimately just said "lmao they can just go out of their way and DM who knows how many staff and then proceed to take it up with them all simultaneously".
I do not think you thought that through.

Edit: Wait did you mean that group DM thing? That's even worse, because now it's not them needing to multi-task a bunch of shit, but now it's every STAFF that needs to double partake in essentially the same convo twice over.

They can post on the message walls of any staff member they want to convince.

Click to expand...

because people definitely like being pestered on their walls, and see the above point. Wouldn't it be magnitudes less of a hassle if they just post in the actual thread and can do it all simultaneously assuming they have the actual credentials to do so?
You're making a mountain out of an ant hill.

They can talk to staff-members off-site.

Click to expand...

No, they can't, because we don't give a **** what happens off-site, we only care about what happens on-site, even you should know this.

The purpose of these staff only threads, as I see it, is to distill the arguments so staff (who are expected to know a lot about our standards), can evaluate whether those arguments meet our standards or not.

Click to expand...

And I'm saying if people with the proper credentials, are more knowledgeable than the staff in question even, and have even been given a general ok to do so, should by all accounts be able to post instead of going through the dozen hoops you think is somehow a decent alternative.

If something gets dragged onto 600 posts, it either 1. Needs that level of discussion or 2. Is a personal issue in which case just tell them to **** off when it comes to that.

Tedious, extra effort, can easily be misconstrued, requires a middleman who might not be always available to do so given people have lives, and could easily get lost in shit, it shouldn't be up to OP to speak for others especially if they don't want to, OP can easily just go "nah man i dont wanna".

We want this sorta shit to take extra effort. The point is to avoid low-effort comments that made the initial non-staff thread a shitshow in the first place.

Taking time isn't much of an issue, these threads shouldn't be blitzed through in 6 hours.

I mean apparently, that isn't good enough as we can see here.

That is good enough, but that's not what happened here! Damage gave permission days ago, which is only applicable for one post, yet you kept commenting after seemingly only "getting permission" from someone who's not allowed to give it.

Edit: Wait did you mean that group DM thing? That's even worse, because now it's not them needing to multi-task a bunch of shit, but now it's every STAFF that needs to double partake in essentially the same convo twice over.

Why would they need to have the same convo twice?

You're talking about verse experts being able to provide important info from the verse. The staff would just debate with that info in the thread, and get corrected by knowledgeable members in DMs if they get something materially wrong. They wouldn't need to re-debate it in DMs.

Wouldn't it be magnitudes less of a hassle if they just post in the actual thread and can do it all simultaneously assuming they have the actual credentials to do so?

Yeah, and those credentials can come from asking a thread mod/admin/bureau for permission to post, or by making the thread yourself. I'm giving alternatives if someone doesn't want to do that, or thinks they were unfairly denied.

No, they can't, because we don't give a **** what happens off-site, we only care about what happens on-site, even you should know this.

What? We don't care about what happens off-site in terms of rule violations. I don't know a single staff member that will pretend they didn't hear arguments made off-site, and insist they be made on-wiki instead. A shitton of things have been discussed off-site, which has moved conversations forward.

And I'm saying if people with the proper credentials, are more knowledgeable than the staff in question even, and have even been given a general ok to do so, should by all accounts be able to post instead of going through the dozen hoops you think is somehow a decent alternative.

But the general okay has to come from bureaus. Other than that, we want staff vetting posts one at a time, to make sure that users don't overstep their bound from just sharing knowledge about the verse that only an expert in it would know, to debating over whether site standards that all staff should know would apply.

We want this sorta shit to take extra effort. The point is to avoid low-effort comments that made the initial non-staff thread a shitshow in the first place.

Click to expand...

No offense, but that's actively detrimental regardless of what your justification is, that isn't how you avoid shitshows (which, btw, you're once again missing the point). All I'm getting from this, and something I'm pretty sure you basically just made admission to that, is "We want shit to be extra ******* annoying to disincentivize others to post", which is how you get shit half-assed and lose vital information that might've made a major difference.

Taking time isn't much of an issue, these threads shouldn't be blitzed through in 6 hours.

Click to expand...

Lad, the alternatives you gave aren't just "takes a bit longer", it's bordering on being a flat-out nuisance, it only works if there happens to be a mod that is even willing to do some of that shit, is unbiased, completely free, and even willing to do it with multiple parties in some cases.
All because you want to avoid a shit show? Talk about being pessimistic, talk about a shitshow if a shitshow actually happens. Then use your ability to just purge the alleged derailment.
If someone generally has the ok, is way the hell more qualified to partake, well if your only argument is that you want to avoid a shitshow, that's just being overtly cruel and rude to the people involved without even giving the benefit of a doubt based an on arbitrary fear that honestly, probably wouldn't even happen 90% of the time.

That is good enough, but that's not what happened here! Damage gave permission days ago, which is only applicable for one post, yet you kept commenting after seemingly only "getting permission" from someone who's not allowed to give it.

Click to expand...

Ah I see, you must've missed the part where I said I was informing mods of my posts, got the ok from like 5 mind you, though only two made it public, and the other 3 think being this anal about is a nuisance in and of itself but I'm not here to throw anyone under the bus.
I kept going? Yes, because I was explicitly told by a mod to engage with you in particular at the time. So I did so.
It being from a few days ago I wouldn't say is much of a factor was working yesterday and the day before I was cooking in the sandbox for most of the day, the posts at the time was given an ok from M3X, though apparently **** CGM's I guess.
And I named Damage off because I opened notifs because of obligatory peppersalt likes, was scrolling through them, went oh hey damage said it was ok, and then used him as an example because, well you know why

But yes sure Agnaa.

Why would they need to have the same convo twice?

Click to expand...

Disagreements, needing multiple middle men, a bunch of shit?

You're talking about verse experts being able to provide important info from the verse. The staff would just debate with that info in the thread, and get corrected by knowledgeable members in DMs if they get something materially wrong. They wouldn't need to re-debate it in DMs.

Click to expand...

Except what if a Staff disagrees with them for whatever reason, whether it be ignorance, not buying it, lack of knowledge or context, or anything really? Yeah it won't be that easy, and let's not pretend staff are infallible, I've been here long enough to see some oddly malicious acts when it comes to vetoing shit. (I should make it clear I'm not going "staff bad lol", obviously not the case, goddamn a few of my favorites lads here staff, I'm just saying people be people and there's been some suspect stuff before).

But say in this instance, the staff disagrees but is also objectively wrong. They might not realize it themselves though. And the verse expert isn't able to actually properly refute it because, well they're just not allowed to I guess? Or it needs to be done in a DM, in which case only the very person that disagrees with them can partake in it, in which case that does **** all for convincing other staff involved, or what if the mod just doesn't buy into the evidence or info even if it's technically correct? You'd need to invite other mods, but if they invite EVERY staff involved on that thread like you suggested? Well **** at that point why even have the staff thread? Just use the DM thread.

Yeah, and those credentials can come from asking a thread mod/admin/bureau for permission to post, or by making the thread yourself. I'm giving alternatives if someone doesn't want to do that, or thinks they were unfairly denied.

Click to expand...

No offense, but I don't think you get the scope of what your alternatives entail.

And no, because you just said only a Burea can give it, and a mod or admin needs to be bothered for every post, honestly, in your hypothetical shitshow scenarios, if something THAT controversial is being discussed for it to actually require that level of, well whatever you call this, I don't think anyone wants to be pestered that much when they can just go "yeah, you have an ok to post, but if you get problematic that's revoked", or something. After all, it's not like you can't delete posts and say "hey stop" once that bridge is crossed. Hell Damage said it best tbh.

What? We don't care about what happens off-site in terms of rule violations.

Click to expand...

No, we don't care about that shit, at all.
You're not allowed for RVR, you're not allowed to post CRT shit from other places. On-site or not at all.

I don't know a single staff member that will pretend they didn't hear arguments made off-site, and insist they be made on-wiki instead.

Click to expand...

Even worse, some staff might just straight up ignore them lmao.
Notwithstanding why would most staff want to be bothered off-site? And this also easily delves into the possibility of arguments being misinterpreted or said imprecisely given it now turns into a game of telephone.

A shitton of things have been discussed off-site, which has moved conversations forward.

Click to expand...

And I can assure you just as much has been lost to the void.

But the general okay has to come from bureaus. Other than that, we want staff vetting posts one at a time, to make sure that users don't overstep their bound from just sharing knowledge about the verse that only an expert in it would know, to debating over whether site standards that all staff should know would apply.

Click to expand...

That's why you have the ability to tell blues to **** off and delete posts brother

We're obviously not going to agree on this, I think you're being pessimistic and somewhat anal about it, have an opinion that I'd even wager could be actively detrimental to the quality of profiles at times, and I think you also have the ability to prevent the thing you fear might happen without needing to take such obtuse precautions. That's my opinion, nothing against you here of course, but that's just me and like 15 other people and there ain't anything I can do about it so, do with that what you will.