• 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.

Agreeing and Disagreeing in Content Revisions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robo432343

Robo432343

10,011
3,706
Let me give you an example. Someone is trying to downgrade a verse and a person just says "i agree" in the first 5 minutes of the thread. And ..we never see that person come back to the thread ever again. The vote is counted. There are no counter arguments yet. Can there be a rule that says that we have to wait for some counter arguments before making a decision to agree or not? People keep saying that they agree with the thread without at least waiting for some counters, especially in downgrades and upgrades. If someone says they agree without even waiting for some counters then the vote wont be counted. Please
 
fking imagine being a defender for a downgrade thread and some dude just says that they agree with the downgrade without even reading any of your points
and never comes back to the thread ever again
 
Robo said:
Let me give you an example. Someone is trying to downgrade a verse and a person just says "i agree" in the first 5 minutes of the thread. And ..we never see that person come back to the thread ever again. The vote is counted. There are no counter arguments yet. Can there be a rule that says that we have to wait for some counter arguments before making a decision to agree or not? People keep saying that they agree with the thread without at least waiting for some counters, especially in downgrades and upgrades. If someone says they agree without even waiting for some counters then the vote wont be counted. Please
Click to expand...
I don't think the vote should even be counted lol. It's always good to wait for counterarguments.
 
Just copy-paste the big arguments, edit it for yourself and then say I agree, originality and plagiarism be damned. /s
 
And some people dont even know jack shit about the verse and yet they still agree with the thread. It makes them think that the downgrade is the absolute truth to everything. some others just say they agree with the thread because they think its wank
 
Closing the thread is advisable as the matter has already been indirectly addressed. The value of the discussion/thread lies in the quality of the argument and evidence presented, not solely on the number of votes.

The final decision will be made by staff members who are qualified and mature enough to evaluate the thread thoroughly.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Closing the thread is advisable as the matter has already been indirectly addressed. The value of the discussion/thread lies in the quality of the argument and evidence presented, not solely on the number of votes.

The final decision will be made by staff members who are qualified and mature enough to evaluate the thread thoroughly.
Click to expand...
then that defeats the whole purpose of non-staffs voting
 
The notion that a thread should pass or be valued based solely on the number of agreements it receives is ineffective in a debating community.

This is because users can spam the "Agree FRA" to show favoritism or unfairness. If we follow this logic, the existence of thread moderators and other staff members would be rendered unnecessary, as the outcome of threads would be determined solely by votes of agreement or disagreement.

However, it is important to recognize that only moderators have the power to influence the fate of a thread. Therefore, the number of agreements a thread receives should not carry any significant weight or impact on its outcome.

It is crucial to distinguish between the value of a non-staff members votes and its impact on the discussion's thread.
 
Last edited:
Closing this thread and moving on would be the most reasonable course of action, as creating a rule to address this issue would seem childish.
 
ImmortalDread said:
The notion that a thread should pass or be valued based solely on the number of agreements it receives is ineffective in a debating community.

This is because users can spam the "Agree FRA" to show favoritism or unfairness. If we follow this logic, the existence of thread moderators and other staff members would be rendered unnecessary, as the outcome of threads would be determined solely by votes of agreement or disagreement.

However, it is important to recognize that only moderators have the power to influence the fate of a thread. Therefore, the number of agreements a thread receives should not carry any significant weight or impact on its outcome.

It is crucial to distinguish between the value of a thread and its impact on the discussion's thread.
Click to expand...
uh yes, thats exactly why random people who vote agree FRA SERVES NO PURPOSE without waiting for counters in these specific threads and it shouldn't count unless they are a supporter of the verse, knowledgeable or is a staff
 
Have you considered looking at the situation from a different perspective? If someone agrees with the thread, then there's no issue.

Do I need to explain this further?

Additionally, the wiki is attracting new members every day, so it would be unwise to discredit their votes
 
ImmortalDread said:
If someone agrees with the thread, then there's no issue.
Click to expand...
Yeah, agreeing with a thread without waiting for any counter arguments...And what happens next is that most of the time people don't check back on the thread. I'm not saying they cant agree/disagree, they should at least be patient. However if it is something blatant (for example someone having a fire ability) then that's fine.
 
Although I do not believe arguing will be productive, I am willing to remain patient and respond to you.

However, I fail to see the need for waiting for counter arguments if the thread already makes sense to me. It seems like this discussion is going nowhere. The thread can be closed.

If you do not understand this simple concept, you could try asking in the "Questions and Answers" section and consult with other members.

Your logic is this:
"I need to wait for counter arguments because I have no ability or am not mature enough to decide if the thread makes sense or not, so I am forced (or obligated) to wait for other counter-arguments till I can make further input or decision" - Robo
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ImmortalDread said:
However, I fail to see the need for waiting for counter arguments if the thread already makes sense to me.
Click to expand...
Dread that's where things go wrong. To YOU, the thread can make perfect sense but for people who are actually supporters of the verse, it would be classified as just stupid at times. And even when arguments get debunked, people keep trying to bring debunked arguments back and it goes in circles + derailed comments.
 
Isn't "debate" about discussing and exchanging matters, even if we have different viewpoints? We can have a conversation and debate about it to clarify our positions and arguments.

Furthermore, it's not up to you to determine if arguments have been debunked or if they are deemed "stupid." Those judgments are subjective and depend on individual perspectives.

Regarding derailing arguments, that's precisely why we have thread moderators, to prevent discussions from getting off-topic.

Finally, isn't it the very point of a "debate" to revisit arguments and discuss them from different angles, even if it may seem like we're going in circles?
 
It's not about the thread not the validity of OP, neither if there is any counter arguements. It's about the person and his choice based of his own reasonings. Is he convinced? If yes then he can agree, if not then no. If he is not sure then he waits for counter arguements. They won't be under baseless assumptions of counter arguements will be made against the OP anyway.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Isn't "debate" about discussing and exchanging matters, even if we have different viewpoints? We can have a conversation and debate about it to clarify our positions and arguments.

Furthermore, it's not up to you to determine if arguments have been debunked or if they are deemed "stupid." Those judgments are subjective and depend on individual perspectives.

Regarding derailing arguments, that's precisely why we have thread moderators, to prevent discussions from getting off-topic.

Finally, isn't it the very point of a "debate" to revisit arguments and discuss them from different angles, even if it may seem like we're going in circles?
Click to expand...
I dont think i said anything about debates. How are people debating if they're just going to say 'agree' if they're not even going to wait for other arguments?? And i never said its up to me if debunked arguments are stupid. I'm saying people can agree with a downgrade and the supporters can think its stupid and easily debunk it. And when it IS debunked, it gets ignored by people who agreed with said downgrade. And then there is PEOPLE WHO SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN VOTE TALLY AND AGREE WITH THE THREAD BECAUSE OF THAT.
 
I'm not entirely clear on the matter at hand, but it's certainly not advisable to limit people's freedom of expression simply because they're expected to wait for opposing arguments, or else their vote won't be counted.

It's not up to you to determine whether or not their vote should be considered valid. Rather, it's your responsibility to count all votes and respect people's decisions.
Robo said:
I'm saying people can agree with a downgrade and the supporters can think its stupid and easily debunk it. And when it IS debunked, it gets ignored by people who agreed with said downgrade. And then there is PEOPLE WHO SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN VOTE TALLY AND AGREE WITH THE THREAD BECAUSE OF THAT.
Click to expand...
If someone's opinion has not been swayed by the debunked arguments, they have the right to maintain their stance and still support the downgrade. It doesn't make sense to discredit their vote just because the thread has been debunked.

This line of reasoning is now nonsensical.
 
ImmortalDread said:
I'm not entirely clear on the matter at hand, but it's certainly not advisable to limit people's freedom of expression simply because they're expected to wait for opposing arguments, or else their vote won't be counted.
Click to expand...
That's not really limiting peoples freedom because they can still have the right to agree or disagree with a thread...Their opinions can easily change after seeing a counter but it gets ignored
ImmortalDread said:
It's not up to you to determine whether or not their vote should be considered valid. Rather, it's your responsibility to count all votes and respect people's decisions.
Click to expand...
Ok- the part where it is wrong is when people say they agree with a controversial downgrade, ignoring the supporters of the verse

ImmortalDread said:
If someone's opinion has not been swayed by the debunked arguments, they have the right to maintain their stance and still support the downgrade. It doesn't make sense to discredit their vote just because the thread has been debunked.
Click to expand...
YES THATS WHAT IM SAYING. THEY CAN SUPPORT THE DOWNGRADE BUT THEY DONT, THEY JUST SAY THEY AGREE WITH THE DOWNGRADE AND NEVER COME BACK
 
What is the issue with their failure to return? Are you suggesting that users should be compelled to justify their position, or else their vote will be invalidated? This is still nonsensical
 
ImmortalDread said:
What is the issue with their failure to return? Are you suggesting that users should be compelled to justify their position, or else their vote will be invalidated? This is still nonsensical
Click to expand...
No. When someone says they agree with a downgrade and never come back, other people do it too. This makes an extreme difference in the vote tally and when people see that tally, they also say they agree with the downgrade even when arguments get handled by staff, knowledgeable members etc.

Like what even is the POINT of normal users saying they agree? Its literally up to the staff and supporters....If you don't know anything about the verse, you should NOT be saying this unless they actually know what they are talking about...
 
Robo said:
Like what even is the POINT of normal users saying they agree? Its literally up to the staff and supporters....If you don't know anything about the verse, you should NOT be saying this unless they actually know what they are talking about...
Click to expand...
???????? Which rule does it suggest that non-verse supporter should not comment?

I am losing my brain. I will drop it.
 
Abstractions said:
Well spoken, Antvasima's top guy.
Click to expand...
Considering that I have argued comparatively peacefully and rationally, despite being stressed out while enduring repeated vicious emotion-appealing gang-up attacks, I obviously do not think that is a fair assessment at all, and I would appreciate if our staff members avoid taking random off-topic potshots at me. Thank you.

If you have a problem with me, please send me a PM instead to talk it out, as I have offered you to do previously.
 
Also, this is a staff forum thread and a potentially important topic, so it seems best if we make this discussion staff only from now onwards.
 
Though it’s definitely advisable to wait and see the counter arguments for more controversial changes, the proposed rule seems like it’d needlessly prolong more minor or straightforward CRTs.

Also, to my knowledge a huge crowd of regular users going "Agree/Disagree FRA" isn’t really the deciding factor of a content revision thread in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ByArrow
  • Locked
Is being able to stand and operate in the void enough for void resistance? (Staff Only)
Replies
9
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
IdiosyncraticLawyer
  • Locked
Clarifying the number of staff necessary to approve Tier 1 and 0 revisions
2
Replies
67
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
LordGriffin1000
  • Locked
Human Statistics Scaling Standards in Fiction (Staff Only)
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
LordGriffin1000
LordGriffin1000
KingTempest
  • Locked
Obvious Revisions Revision (Staff Only)
2 3
Replies
104
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
CloverDragon03
  • Locked
Fairy Tail: Discussion Rule Proposal
Replies
28
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top