• 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.

A new rule against profiles for tools and toys?

Actually, "common weapons" is probably bad phrasing, now that I think about it.

"Conventional weapons" would serve us a lot better, as that would probably cover normal weapons and other items like hammers that are used as weapons.

Thoughts on that?
 
@Promestein

Well, I like to have a clearly understood structure preventing these kind of things, and a brief rule doesn't cause any harm.
 
Starter Pack said:
"Conventional weapons" would serve us a lot better, as that would probably cover normal weapons and other items like hammers that are used as weapons.

Thoughts on that?
Click to expand...
That works better.
 
Prom has a really good point, I'll just be blunt for once and straight-up tell you what the problem really is. It's our method of handling things. We're doing the opposite of what we should be doing. Rather than makes rules for every single type of profile we don't allow, we should simply better define what we do allow.

If I made a wikia for fruit battles (Fruit Battles Wiki) and clearly state that only fruit are allowed, then it's common sense and obvious that a profile for a potato isn't allowed. I shouldn't need a rule saying "no vegetables", a rule for "no meat or poultry", or a rule for "no wheat", etc. All of those things are not fruit, so they are automatically disallowed by only allowing fruit. See what I'm saying?

Keep in mind that I mean no offense, I understand wanting to be as clear as possible to prevent recurring misunderstandings and misconceptions, but I think the current approach we're continuously taking is becoming a bit reductive, if not redundant.
 
@Sera

Well, it is harder to define for this type of wiki with a wider range of what we allow, especially as many real world creatures, weapons, and events have been included, which is technically outside of the main point of the wiki. Mind you, I think that they should stay, but nevertheless.
 
We have noted the exceptional nature of those files. Many real life files can be used as references for calculations and scaling.

Anyway, Colonel Krukov had this to say on the matter:

I think that it's best to use common sense as a first judgement as to what is isn't allowed. The second thing is that people should ask an experienced/regular member for their opinion. If people are still struggling if it's acceptable, then a staff member (Preferably a Content Moderator or Administrator) should answer the question.

We shouldn't be allowing generic items (We're not adding every inanimate object known to man nor blow up water rafts etc.)

It's somewhat debatable, but I don't think we should be adding every vehicle known to man. I can understand military vehicles but adding every car, boat, plane etc is unnecessary. My solution is to either pick specific things that stand out. For example: World record holders, world's first, technical marvels, and things that have unique technology.
 
I agree that we don't need to add a new rule; it should just be common sense that toys such as nerf guns. I think an already existing rule already says no stupid profiles that don't really contribute to anything. Not like we make profiles for every single inanimate object in existence.

Various guns, swords, and bombs can have profiles, but toys are barely even weapons.

Also, Sera is right that making a new rule every time becomes redundant as similar to various Discussion Rules; they is far too much redundancy.
 
Well, it seems like I am starting to get outvoted then. I still don't think that a brief regulation text would cause any harm though.
 
People are really testing the boundries of what is allowed on the site and it's really starting to wear out my patience. While I can understand not wanting to have an outright rule made for such profiles, not making it known that you'd have to be high as a kite to not see a problem with a goddamn pool floatie on this site is an issue we seiously have to address.

Also, while we're on the topic of unacceptable profiles, for the love of God, can we please get rid of all the 10-B to 9-C profiles with nothing but the most mundane powers & abilities like Social Influencing that gets you laid and basic level Stealth Mastery I could perform at 3 AM on the way to the fridge? At what point do we just allow Desperate Housewifes profiles, or Bizaardvark profiles? I honestly don't see the appeal of having these kinds of characters on the wiki, but I don't have a proper argument as to why I think they should go. I think this just boils down to common sense and I can nither expand on that, nor should I have to.
 
Well, Sir Ovens has a point about the sitcom characters.
 
I think we already have a rule that covers tools and toys.

The only exception to these rules is Real Life, which serves as more of a reference for feats and common weapons, events, and animals, rather than being an actual verse.
Perhaps the only addition that's needed is adding "military vehicles" to the list.
 
That might be an idea.
 
Apologies for speaking on a non-staff thread.

Anyway, I agree with Goji. I get the vibe Nemo created the profile in the first place to exploit the loophole for the sake of exploiting the loophole which is unnecessary and has already wasted our time even debating this issue.
 
As with numerous other issues of this vein, I'm tossing in my agreement with Sera.
 
Well, I don't think we need to get rid of every single 10-B character that doesn't have feats. And it is true that due to Google+ getting shut down and plenty of them possibly migrating here, some have complained that the overgrowth in quantity in traffic is leading to drop in quality control. Not going to get into too much detail, and would rather avoid sounding harsh like a few other staff members have, but their motives behind the sentiment is true.

But yeah, people are introducing a lot of characters, verses, weapons, ect that don't really belong in a Vs debating community; regardless of whether they're published works or fanfiction. I can agree the family sitcom characters where everyone is exactly normal human are out of place around here. And if Nemo is the one making those profiles, I suppose we could ask him not to make any more.
 
I'd like to clarify, since some people seem to have this misconception, that the 10-B sitcom characters were made by Laguna97, not by Nemo.

Nemo made a real world weapons profile for a Nerf gun 3 months ago, incessantly argued about why it didn't break the rules, and just yesterday made a real world vehicles profile for a pool floatie, and incessantly argued about why it didn't break the rules.
 
Well, I am fine with both getting rid of the sitcom characters, the unnecessary toys, tools, and equipment profiles, inserting brief mentions into our rules against them, and forbidding the people who write them from creating any further similar loophole profiles.

This seems like the most convenient solutions to apply.
 
As far as I can tell, Nemo clearly broke the rules. As Sera said it's not about making rules for what we don't allow, it's about what we allow. And Nemo is in direct violation of a pretty clear rule which only specifies "common weapons, events and animals". Calling it loophole isn't gonna cut it. We should just tell him to stop and if he doesn't comply then...
 
You can forbid him from continuing with more of similar behaviour if you wish. He has otherwise been a well-behaved member though, and this did not cause any actual harm, so a ban seems like a serious overreaction.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, I am fine with both getting rid of the sitcom characters, the unnecessary toys, tools, and equipment profiles, inserting brief mentions into our rules against them, and forbidding the people who write them from creating any further similar loophole profiles.

This seems like the most convenient solutions to apply.
Click to expand...
Is this acceptable?
 
I agree with Prom.

The best thing I can think of is to add something like "If you create unnecessary profiles you will receive a warning or be banned from creating profiles if the behaviour isn't stopped"
 
Well, I don't think warning.banning them bluntly is the best approach, but I think the first thing would just be telling them that the profiles seem unnecessary or inappropriate. Being naive doesn't make them malicious by default. But I do agree with Prom regardless.
 
Can somebody remind me what we are supposed to do here/what the conclusions are?
 
The conclusion was to not change anything, I have no idea why Jasonsith bumped the thread...

To quote Prome

We don't need to add a rule disbarring every dumb profile. You know the profile was dumb. Everyone knows the profile was dumb. We shouldn't humor him with a debate.
 
Okay. Thank you for the reminder.
 
If you'll forgive my asking: Which varieties of profiles, if any, are henceforth to be disallowed as a result of this thread?
 
Imaginym said:
If you'll forgive my asking: Which varieties of profiles, if any, are henceforth to be disallowed as a result of this thread?
Click to expand...
The same stuff that was disallowed before.

Toys that aren't weapons (such as nerf guns), "vehicles" that aren't weapons (such as pool floaties).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Locked
A new rule for social media links?
2
Replies
76
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Dark_Soul20189
  • Locked
The Necessity for references rule change/addition
Replies
29
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Locked
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
21
Views
2K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
Flashlight237
Upscaling: Should There Be A Number For It?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Antvasima
  • Locked
Slightly adjusting our rules for bolded "powers and abilities" links
Replies
32
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top