-
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.
All-purpose request thread (New forum)
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
- 167,669
- 76,246
- Thread starter
- #5,282
@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality
This seems like a rather serious issue. Would either of you be willing to see if you can find an alternative please?
Or perhaps somebody else is willing to check if the page has been saved at some point via the Wayback Machine Internet Archive?
- 167,669
- 76,246
- Thread starter
- #5,283
- 167,669
- 76,246
- Thread starter
- #5,284
Never mind. I found a backup link. I will replace it.
- 11,612
- 15,976
I saw that many staff and regular members wanted the thread closed, so I closed it. It was also getting quite heated.
With that being said, I didn't actually participate in the thread, and I have no real investment in the topic or discussion itself. So I don't mind reopening it, if that's what everyone wants.
- 4,629
- 1,614
I can vouch for the fact the thread was getting heated.
- 16,137
- 10,667
What is the point in they commenting in the thread if they don't like it? it doesnt even makes sense, it seems that all threads now can be closed just because people don't like it, funny
- 11,612
- 15,976
I'm sorry if I offended you, Bern. That wasn't my intention. And like I said, I really have nothing to say for or against the thread in and of itself.
But this is kinda how the site works. People just.......comment on threads, voice agreements or disagreements, and sometimes things get very heated. It's our job as staff to prevent things from going too far, which many people believe was the way things were headed.
Like I said earlier, I have absolutely no issues with reopening the thread, but people would have to remain extra calm this time. (Which just seems unlikely given how things were going, but eh)
- 16,137
- 10,667
How is the thread going to be heated? if people don't like the topic of the thread, they simply can not comment in the thread, its their fault to start problems there, not mine
- 4,629
- 1,614
Because it doesn’t seem to being a discussion as it originally started out as a QnA and later turns into a full blown argument rather than a actual “discussion” ngl.
- 16,137
- 10,667
i published it in QnA because I had no idea of which board to publish it, so, QnA was the best one, but since the moment that people noticed it to be a discussion, they shouldnt stay in the thread if they don't like the topic
- 11,612
- 15,976
Well, I'm afraid we can't prevent people from commenting. That's simply not an option.
If you want to pursue your proposal without getting too much unwanted input, you could make a staff-only thread if you'd like. That might be the way to go, anyway, since the topic at hand would have huge site-wide ramifications if accepted.
That's my two cents.
- 16,137
- 10,667
Why do we need to prevent people from commenting? No, it just doesnt makes sense, if they filling the discussion with nosense, just threadban them
Why Staff thread? it was not a discussion with intend to change standards, it was just a discussion about it
- 16,137
- 10,667
this is basically saying that people bad behavior is literally my fault, like, I get that they don't like the topic, so, why they can't just don't talk in the thread instead of wanting and making it to be closed?
Last edited:
- 7,095
- 3,855
Can someone please close this CRT that ended a while ago?
- 10,866
- 12,234
Whether it was your intention or not, the thread does, in practice, function as a content revision thread. People who want the current standards to be kept can't simply ignore a thread that could lead to the standard getting changed.
And if a CRT has been rejected it gets closed. Given I'm not sure if the thread was formally rejected yet, but if it wasn't then it should be moved to CRT forum upon being reopened.
- 4,629
- 1,614
DarkDragon, Therefir, and some non staff members did give their response about the matter behind souls.
Edit: These two links has DarkDragon’s response.
Post in thread 'Why everything is assumed to have a soul here?'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/why-everything-is-assumed-to-have-a-soul-here.128096/post-4325172
Post in thread 'Why everything is assumed to have a soul here?'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/why-everything-is-assumed-to-have-a-soul-here.128096/post-4325031
Edit: One more, it is from There this time.
Post in thread 'Why everything is assumed to have a soul here?'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/why-everything-is-assumed-to-have-a-soul-here.128096/post-4325381
- 16,137
- 10,667
Why does the thread function as content revision? I didnt understood that part, and they can simply ignore a thread, they have no reason to keep commenting in a QnA board that they don't like, mainly that they don't have any arguments in the thread, some of them literally were in the thread just for the sake of closing it, that thread never would become a CRT, mainly because it is poorly made, with no contents in the text of the thread, just a 2 or 3 sentences asking a question, and someone already made a CRT about that before, it was rejected because people simply cannot get rid of their fantasy despite the site being a site that wants accuracy, but that wouldnt matter in my thread, as it was not published as CRT
- 16,137
- 10,667
their comment was literally ''rejected before'' which doesnt matter because its not a CRT and ''a lot of people belive'', which is irrelevant
- 10,866
- 12,234
If you ask "Why do we have that standard?" It's a question. The moment you get an answer and then argue that that is wrong and should be different, you are having a CRT.
If you make an attempt to prove that a standard is wrong, then it is a CRT, as we obviously wouldn't leave a standard proven wrong in place.
So whether or not your intention is to change the standard, if you are debating whether the standard is wrong it is, in practice, and attempt to change the standard.
Question about standard -> Q&A
Debate about standard -> CRT
- 167,669
- 76,246
- Thread starter
- #5,303
Look, it seems like several staff members gave you official responses, and the thread was likely too controversial for our forum to start with. There is no point in continuing to spam this thread about the issue.
- 16,137
- 10,667
No, I said several times in the thread that i wanted a discussion about it, but with no intend to change the standard
it was a casual discussion, and yeah, we do leave standards wrong, it happens to a lot of standards that the wiki have, but nobody cares to change it, same to the Soul case, I didnt wanted to change the standard, just discuss about it, can you show in the wiki rules that I am not allowed to discuss about wiki standards? because i didnt saw that rule
- 167,669
- 76,246
- Thread starter
- #5,305
See above.
- 11,612
- 15,976
I think DT summed up what I wanted to say perfectly.
Your original intention may have been to pose a simple question, which is obviously fine, but once arguments started getting exchanged back and forth, it became indistinguishable from a regular CRT.
In any case, that's not even the reason it was closed to begin with. The reason it was closed is because it became way too heated for a supposed "inconsequential discussion", and was getting borderline aggressive according to many.
Nobody is saying it's your fault, of course, but it is a reality that we as staff had to act on, regardless of the thread's original intention.
Your original intention may have been to pose a simple question, which is obviously fine, but once arguments started getting exchanged back and forth, it became indistinguishable from a regular CRT.
In any case, that's not even the reason it was closed to begin with. The reason it was closed is because it became way too heated for a supposed "inconsequential discussion", and was getting borderline aggressive according to many.
Nobody is saying it's your fault, of course, but it is a reality that we as staff had to act on, regardless of the thread's original intention.
- 167,669
- 76,246
- Thread starter
- #5,307
Anyway, as far as I am aware, if a verse explicitly does not contain souls, or a character is a robot, or similar, it is usually acceptable to add "Resistance to Soul Manipulation" to the pages. We simply usually do not do so because it is redundant, and we would technically likely have to give resistance to lots of other abilities that do not exist in that verse as well.
- 16,137
- 10,667
its alright, being treated unfairly in the vs wiki is pretty common, dont worry, I will stop doing something that its absolutely not against the rules, because nowhere in the site rules, it shows a case that i violated the rules, by that logic, the thread have no reason to be closed, but hey, people don't like things, and it seems that if we dont like things, we can just force people to stop, despite that they didnt violated the rules, because yeah, we do it, and we will absolutely close any chance of discussion regarding a topic that it's absolutely not against the rules
- 16,137
- 10,667
Obviously you guys are, if its not my fault, then my thread should not be the '''''''victim'''''' of people bad behavior, why can't they just leave alone something that they don't like and will not change the site standard?
- 11,612
- 15,976
To be completely honest, this notion seems a bit unrealistic to me. As DT pointed out, how on earth would it not change the standards? Assuming that the conclusion reached was that characters having souls should not be a standard assumption, then obviously the standard would need to change 100%. Otherwise we'd be willingly leaving a standard in place that is agreed to be incorrect, which just doesn't make much sense.
- 16,137
- 10,667
Then we simply cannot let a discussion unrelated to CRT happen because we are scared that a bad standard actually can be fixed because someone there made a thread just to have fun discussion about specific standards? it looks far worse
- 167,669
- 76,246
- Thread starter
- #5,314
Again...
- 16,137
- 10,667
@UchihaSlayer96 you are a thread mod and you can close/thread ban people right? then why didnt u just thread banned the users that were ******* around the thread derailing that shit with memes instead of closing a thread that does not violate the rules?
- 11,612
- 15,976
Bern, did you read anything I said? I wasn't an active participant in that thread. I wasn't even keeping up with it at all. I came towards the end after seeing multiple people complain about the thread being hostile, heated, and seemingly going nowhere/concluded. Then I read the last page or so, and found that these claims were true, personally. So I asked if I should close it, and the answer was yes. Then I went ahead and closed it.
There's no underlying conspiracy by me to unjustly close your thread. I genuinely don't care about the topic, one way or another. It was simply standard procedure, nothing more nothing less.
Now, as I said before, I personally have no qualms about reopening the thread. But I second DT that it should be moved to the CRT forum. The idea that the thread is of absolutely no consequence is simply unrealistic, if not misleading.
- 16,137
- 10,667
Obviously that the people that were being toxic in the thread would say Yes when someone ask to it be closed, isnt it literally obvious?
it shouldnt, i made the thread to not be a CRT, why would it be moved to a CRT? thats abuse of power
- 167,669
- 76,246
- Thread starter
- #5,318
I think that the answer to the question of the thread is rather straightforward, as I said above, but that it was blown up into a bigger and more controversial topic than it should be. It seems best if the thread remains closed to me.
- 16,137
- 10,667
then can I request all the threads that I don't like to be closed? Because that's what happend, and I don't recall to be biased against someone, I don't know why do I need to be treated in such way
