-
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.
About unofficial author statements.
- Thread starter The_real_cal_howard
- Start date
-
- Tags
- editing rules
- Status
- 32,359
- 20,298
@Ant
How about.
"Author statements will only be accepted when their statements clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when said statements contradict what is shown to the audience in that series. Statements which technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence of their truth shown to the audience in the series itself. Finally, brief / vague answers to fan-questions on social media are also generally disregarded, while more elaborate statements in serious interviews are usually considered more reliable."
How about.
"Author statements will only be accepted when their statements clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when said statements contradict what is shown to the audience in that series. Statements which technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence of their truth shown to the audience in the series itself. Finally, brief / vague answers to fan-questions on social media are also generally disregarded, while more elaborate statements in serious interviews are usually considered more reliable."
- 32,359
- 20,298
Alright, can we go with that?
- 33,408
- 8,430
I'm fine with it.
- 3,260
- 293
Aren't you making this issue a little too strict? We already have two rules explaining how to go about this issue.
- 167,862
- 76,484
Something like this perhaps:
"Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when they contradict what has been shown to the audience. Statements that technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence that they are accurate. Finally, brief or vague answers to fan-questions via social media are also generally disregarded, whereas more elaborate explanations in serious interviews are usually considered more reliable."
"Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when they contradict what has been shown to the audience. Statements that technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence that they are accurate. Finally, brief or vague answers to fan-questions via social media are also generally disregarded, whereas more elaborate explanations in serious interviews are usually considered more reliable."
- 32,359
- 20,298
I like it.Antvasima said:
- 167,862
- 76,484
Okay. Let's wait to see what others think before inserting it into the Editing Rules page.
- 40,470
- 12,953
- Thread starter
- #92
I like it too.
- 3,260
- 293
Statements that technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence that they are accurate.
- If there is no supporting evidence that the statement is accurate to what is shown to us, would this not mean that the author's statement does not match the evidence, and thus, would contradict it?
- 32,359
- 20,298
@Lina
What, no.
That line is based on the principle of Burden of Proof, which I already explained in this thread. An affirmative / accusatory statement requires evidence to back it up, and this is very true in VersusDebating. You need to prove that a character is Planetary, or a Reality Warper, or FTL. Therefore statements that have no backing to them are typically rejected.
There's also the Carl Sagan line: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and this is also true for VersusDebating.
What, no.
That line is based on the principle of Burden of Proof, which I already explained in this thread. An affirmative / accusatory statement requires evidence to back it up, and this is very true in VersusDebating. You need to prove that a character is Planetary, or a Reality Warper, or FTL. Therefore statements that have no backing to them are typically rejected.
There's also the Carl Sagan line: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and this is also true for VersusDebating.
- 11,532
- 8,030
Let's say you got a character with tens of feats, none of which come even close to exceeding Wall level. Then suddenly some VS debating fan goes to the author on Twitter, asks "Can he destroy multiple universes" to which the author quickly replies "Yeah sure he could."
Would you really be comfortable with rating this guy who has never been shown or stated in the series to be even 9-A as 3-A via this one quick social media statement that was extracted out by a member of this site who just wants an upgrade? Simply because it's techincally never contradicted. It's never said in the series he couldn't bust multiple universes and his tens of Wall level feats were kinda casual.
This is not at all an exteme example like most would suggest. Rick and Morty is literally infinitely worse than this example. Like I said if the WoG isn't directly contradicted, it can of course be taken more seriously than one that is. But if the statement is highly outlandish and not at all supported by the story itself, I still think we shouldn't accept it.
Would you really be comfortable with rating this guy who has never been shown or stated in the series to be even 9-A as 3-A via this one quick social media statement that was extracted out by a member of this site who just wants an upgrade? Simply because it's techincally never contradicted. It's never said in the series he couldn't bust multiple universes and his tens of Wall level feats were kinda casual.
This is not at all an exteme example like most would suggest. Rick and Morty is literally infinitely worse than this example. Like I said if the WoG isn't directly contradicted, it can of course be taken more seriously than one that is. But if the statement is highly outlandish and not at all supported by the story itself, I still think we shouldn't accept it.
- 32,359
- 20,298
I agree to Ryu. ovo
- 167,862
- 76,484
I have now done so:
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/index.php?title=Editing_Rules&diff=1440334&oldid=1413884
However, there is a bit of repetition in conjunction with the previous two rules sections (regarding the vague or uncaring brief author replies).
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/index.php?title=Editing_Rules&diff=1440334&oldid=1413884
However, there is a bit of repetition in conjunction with the previous two rules sections (regarding the vague or uncaring brief author replies).
- 32,359
- 20,298
It's true.
The first one is talking about uncertain statements. The second is talking about statements in general, be them guidebooks, in-series, or author. The third is author specifically.
Perhaps we could merge one and two together?
The first one is talking about uncertain statements. The second is talking about statements in general, be them guidebooks, in-series, or author. The third is author specifically.
Perhaps we could merge one and two together?
- 167,862
- 76,484
Well, I am open for suggestions regarding the wording.
Here are the current rules:
"Regarding direct information from the author/creator of a character: We do not use statements that are phrased in an uncertain, uncaring, and/or unspecific manner, such as "Could be", "Maybe", "Probably", "Possibly" etcetera. The statements also need to be consistent with what has been revealed within the fictional franchise itself. Otherwise, it will be considered as an Inconsistency or Outlier."
"When a statement from a character, guidebook, or even word of god contradicts what occurs in the series, they won't be used. For example, if an author says that a character from his work is incapable of shattering planets, even though it has destroyed galaxies on-screen, we will always go with the latter, rather than the former."
"Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when they contradict what has been shown to the audience. Statements that technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence that they are accurate. Finally, brief or vague answers to fan-questions via social media are also generally disregarded, whereas more elaborate explanations in serious interviews are usually considered more reliable."
Here are the current rules:
"Regarding direct information from the author/creator of a character: We do not use statements that are phrased in an uncertain, uncaring, and/or unspecific manner, such as "Could be", "Maybe", "Probably", "Possibly" etcetera. The statements also need to be consistent with what has been revealed within the fictional franchise itself. Otherwise, it will be considered as an Inconsistency or Outlier."
"When a statement from a character, guidebook, or even word of god contradicts what occurs in the series, they won't be used. For example, if an author says that a character from his work is incapable of shattering planets, even though it has destroyed galaxies on-screen, we will always go with the latter, rather than the former."
"Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when they contradict what has been shown to the audience. Statements that technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence that they are accurate. Finally, brief or vague answers to fan-questions via social media are also generally disregarded, whereas more elaborate explanations in serious interviews are usually considered more reliable."
- 32,359
- 20,298
Tried to merge One and Two:
Statements, be them from characters within the series, or from official guidebooks, won't be used if they are phrased in an uncertain, uncaring, and/or unspecific manner, such as "Could be", "Maybe", "Probably", "Possibly" etcetera. For a statement to be accepted, it needs to direct and conclusive. Similarly, if these statements contradict what's shown within the series itself, they will be rejected and considered an inconsistency or an Outlier.
Basically merged rules 1 and 2, and made them focus specifically on character and guidebook statements. This makes rule 3, now rule 2, focus specifically on author statements.
Statements, be them from characters within the series, or from official guidebooks, won't be used if they are phrased in an uncertain, uncaring, and/or unspecific manner, such as "Could be", "Maybe", "Probably", "Possibly" etcetera. For a statement to be accepted, it needs to direct and conclusive. Similarly, if these statements contradict what's shown within the series itself, they will be rejected and considered an inconsistency or an Outlier.
Basically merged rules 1 and 2, and made them focus specifically on character and guidebook statements. This makes rule 3, now rule 2, focus specifically on author statements.
- 167,862
- 76,484
I think that the texts are largely fine as they are. The main issue is that we need to merge the following sections:
"We do not use statements that are phrased in an uncertain, uncaring, and/or unspecific manner, such as "Could be", "Maybe", "Probably", "Possibly" etcetera."
"Finally, brief or vague answers to fan-questions via social media are also generally disregarded, whereas more elaborate explanations in serious interviews are usually considered more reliable."
"We do not use statements that are phrased in an uncertain, uncaring, and/or unspecific manner, such as "Could be", "Maybe", "Probably", "Possibly" etcetera."
"Finally, brief or vague answers to fan-questions via social media are also generally disregarded, whereas more elaborate explanations in serious interviews are usually considered more reliable."
- 32,359
- 20,298
"Finally, brief or vague answers to fan-questions via social media, specially those phrased in an uncertain way, such as "Could be", "Maybe", "Probably", "Possibly", etcetera, are also generally disregarded. Meanwhile, more elaborate explanations in serious interviews are usually considered more reliable."
- 167,862
- 76,484
How about this, for the sake of simplicity:
"Regarding direct information from the author/creator of a character: We do not use statements that are phrased in an uncertain, uncaring, and/or unspecific manner, such as "Could be", "Maybe", "Probably", "Possibly" etcetera. Brief or vague answers to fan-questions via social media are also generally disregarded, whereas more elaborate explanations in serious interviews are usually considered more reliable."
"When a statement from a character, guidebook, or even word of god contradicts what occurs in the series, they won't be used. For example, if an author says that a character from his work is incapable of shattering planets, even though it has destroyed galaxies on-screen, we will always go with the latter, rather than the former. The statement need to be consistent with what has been revealed within the fictional franchise itself. Otherwise, it will be considered invalid."
"Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when they contradict what has been shown to the audience. Statements that technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence that they are accurate."
"Regarding direct information from the author/creator of a character: We do not use statements that are phrased in an uncertain, uncaring, and/or unspecific manner, such as "Could be", "Maybe", "Probably", "Possibly" etcetera. Brief or vague answers to fan-questions via social media are also generally disregarded, whereas more elaborate explanations in serious interviews are usually considered more reliable."
"When a statement from a character, guidebook, or even word of god contradicts what occurs in the series, they won't be used. For example, if an author says that a character from his work is incapable of shattering planets, even though it has destroyed galaxies on-screen, we will always go with the latter, rather than the former. The statement need to be consistent with what has been revealed within the fictional franchise itself. Otherwise, it will be considered invalid."
"Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when they contradict what has been shown to the audience. Statements that technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence that they are accurate."
- 32,359
- 20,298
I think that this suggestion if very good.
- 3,260
- 293
Antvasima said:
This statement sounds okay, as it aligns with the first two statements that we have for this type of issue.
- 32,359
- 20,298
I like it.
So, is this finally concluded?
So, is this finally concluded?
- 32,359
- 20,298
I like it.
- 167,862
- 76,484
I have now done so:
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/index.php?title=Editing_Rules&diff=1440433&oldid=1440334
Should we close this thread then?
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/index.php?title=Editing_Rules&diff=1440433&oldid=1440334
Should we close this thread then?
- 3,260
- 293
I am okay with the changes made to the editing rules section.
Since this thread has been requested to be closed, we will close it.
Since this thread has been requested to be closed, we will close it.
- Status
Similar threads
