• 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.

Allowing Rance on the wiki.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quoting you.


Fandom only seems to act when it is pushed to do so. Even very large wikis can probably avoid action- in fact, several very large wikis are still only netting very small amounts of visits and user edits. I know because I used to run one.

We have specifically given rules that state that, no, even if you can avoid the ****, if the intent of the game is ****, then it isn't acceptable. I also don't understand why this is being so hotly debated.
Though fandom policy is inconsistent, it's also the only policy we're basing our rules off and we should still abide by it. Even if it acts only when pushed, that means we should delete verses only when they're deemed appropriate. If fandom hasn't deleted a wiki after seventeen years, the only reasonable assumption is that it's allowed until proven otherwise.
Useful Information...
The VSBW guidelines aren't supposed to be any harsher than fandom's, though. Assuming you (and everyone else) aren't arguing for the wiki being needlessly puritan, we shouldn't bar any verse from being included that fandom has given the okay to.
 
Alright, should discussion about this topic be paused until then?

I would also like to add there is a official patch of sengoku rance that removes or edits the h-scenes, so the notion that "rance is just ****" or "rance cant function without the h-scenes" is wrong.
At this point I'm convinced you just haven't actually read what I've said, so sure, pause it up.
 
Though fandom policy is inconsistent, it's also the only policy we're basing our rules off and we should still abide by it. Even if it acts only when pushed, that means we should delete verses only when they're deemed appropriate. If fandom hasn't deleted a wiki after seventeen years, the only reasonable assumption is that it's allowed until proven otherwise.

The VSBW guidelines aren't supposed to be any harsher than fandom's, though. Assuming you (and everyone else) aren't arguing for the wiki being needlessly puritan, we shouldn't bar any verse from being included that fandom has given the okay to.
I won't pretend to have scoured the AliceSoft wiki, but it is possible that it is scrubbed of hentai content, no? Does it contain, for example, guides on how to reach your favorite rape scenes? Because I know those are within these games, I know that is the intent- whether the wiki includes these may well be the reason for Fandom not recognizing the debauched content held within.

Our standards are basically clear. They were written so we can align with Fandom, yes, but our needs as a wiki are different than a wiki dedicated to the games themselves.
 
I won't pretend to have scoured the AliceSoft wiki, but it is possible that it is scrubbed of hentai content, no? Does it contain, for example, guides on how to reach your favorite rape scenes? Because I know those are within these games, I know that is the intent- whether the wiki includes these may well be the reason for Fandom not recognizing the debauched content held within.
Yes, the CGs guides are in the subsections for each game. And why should fandom care, if its not directly being displayed on their website?
Our standards are basically clear. They were written so we can align with Fandom, yes, but our needs as a wiki are different than a wiki dedicated to the games themselves.
I really do not see the issue then besides your personal morality, it's entirely possible to powerscale the characters in the series without talking about how rance's dick is boundless in AP or some shit like that.
 
There's a difference between "that's all this character is" and "yeah, they do other stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that they do this"
 
And we allow this character, and if you've seen anything about redo of healer.... you'd see why this argument is moot
 
Right, but canon or not, I find it hard to accept the claim that the primary purpose of the series is not it's sexual content if there's also an official hentai series.

Like, this isn't R34 content, this was an actual hentai studio with multiple episodes.
 
Sorry, it occurs to me I misrepresented the situation. There are actually two separate hentai series for Rance, with a total of six episodes between them.

The second series is a direct adaptation of the first game.
 
Well, ultimately what classifies a Type 4 thing is that pornographic content is intrinsic to the work and can't be removed from the series. Considering you can do non-H playthroughs and whatever warcrime the MC has committed we have at least one equal of it, I'm not seeing why it couldn't be allowed.

The exception being, of course, if something pornographic is needed for scaling. Like how Rosen Garten has a dude who solely uses his dong as a weapon or how years ago Ant/some other dude didn't want to make a Frank Miller Superman profile because his primary scaling would come from a sex feat.
 
The exception being, of course, if something pornographic is needed for scaling. Like how Rosen Garten has a dude who solely uses his dong as a weapon.
yea, rance has none of that, besides whoever rance ***** gets their level cap/maximum potential slightly increased
 
can't be removed
I'm not sure where that comes from though. The rating is only described as such:

Verses that have high sexual content as the main focus of the material. Such verses are pornographic in nature and strictly unsuitable for the wiki. The majority of the media content is sexual for verses that fall under this rating.

The main crux as far as I can tell is the "main focus." To me, Rance is very clearly focused on sexual content.
 
I'm not sure where that comes from though. The rating is only described as such:

Verses that have high sexual content as the main focus of the material. Such verses are pornographic in nature and strictly unsuitable for the wiki. The majority of the media content is sexual for verses that fall under this rating.

The main crux as far as I can tell is the "main focus." To me, Rance is very clearly focused on sexual content.
Rance X is literally described as having a low amount of sexual content for its length.
 
To me, Rance is very clearly focused on sexual content.
Rance the character can be a horny character without the work falling into Type 4. It's about the overall content ratio and the presentation.
its not even relevant enough to be considered an addition to a profile,
Then why would you mention this? It does nothing but hurt any argument you're trying to make.
 
Rance the character can be a horny character without the work falling into Type 4. It's about the overall content ratio and the presentation.
Right, but if we agree the removability isn't part of the criteria then that -- at the very least -- settles our disagreement.

As far as the presentation, the verse is very clearly pornographic in nature.
 
removability isn't part of the criteria then that -- at the very least -- settles our disagreement.
But that's the point I'm making here. If you can cut off all the **** and it just be an edgy game then the **** isn't some intrinsic thing. At least not from my view.
 
But that's the point I'm making here. If you can cut off all the **** and it just be an edgy game then the **** isn't some intrinsic thing. At least not from my view.
I mean, there's even a SFW release of Kuroinu on Steam, but that's unambiguously a hentai series. I don't think removability is a realistic angle to take, since any series could have those kind of elements removed.

I think intent and presentation is key.
 
I mean, there's even a SFW release of Kuroinu on Steam, but that's unambiguously a hentai series. I don't think removability is a realistic angle to take, since any series could have those kind of elements removed.

I think intent and presentation is key.
If it was intended to be masturbated to, removing the 18+ content would ruin the intent and presentation.
 
Level 4: Extreme - Verses that have high sexual content as the main focus of the material. Such verses are pornographic in nature and strictly unsuitable for the wiki. The majority of the media content is sexual for verses that fall under this rating.

I think the italicized portion is pretty important for helping determine whether or not this would be suitable
 
So if somebody argues they're watching hentai for the plot, then it's totally acceptable to index? Our line is drawn at whether they gain abilities from the mass rape?
If you can index the series without referencing its sexual content then i dont see a complaint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top