Alt Battle Wiki

[Tllmbrg]

With SCP nuked we've officially fully started moving it to Alt Battles wiki - https://alt-battles.fandom.com/wiki/Alt_Battles_Wiki
There is now also a Discord server for anyone who wants to help coordinate adding more verses onto the site:

Join the Alt Battles Wiki Discord Server!

Check out the Alt Battles Wiki community on Discord - hang out with 14 other members and enjoy free voice and text chat.

discord.gg

 

[DemiiPowa]

Let SCP die old man

 

[GarrixianXD]

Let SCP die old man

It was IdiosyncraticLawyer’s idea in the first place

 

[Agnaa]

So I can put Angie's MGQ profiles on there, right?

 

[Newendigo]

Another wrong battles wiki.

 

[Rikimarox2]

So I can put Angie's MGQ profiles on there, right?

They were dark times when MGQ was on the wiki. Imagine having to explain how a monster girl wins the fight by sucking the opponent off. I got embarrassed when I had to explain how the angel monster girl wins against Sonic back in the day.

Anyways, put all of them.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Could Composite Human go there?

 

[Deidalius]

I want to join that Discord server, I like SCP, can I please get a new invite?

 

[Tllmbrg]

Could Composite Human go there?

No

 

[Artorimachi_Meteoraft]

No

But you’re human Tllmbrg

 

[AmogusSusfunni]

The link doesn't work.

 

[Tllmbrg]

The link doesn't work.

I want to join that Discord server, I like SCP, can I please get a new invite?

I edited the link above, it should work now

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Question, if a verse has low notability and isn't made by me for inclusion on FCOC, would that mean I could create such a profile there? And where do I dispute such inclusions for Alt Battles? I'll link to the verse in-question:

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Question, if a verse has low notability and isn't made by me for inclusion on FCOC, would that mean I could create such a profile there? And where do I dispute such inclusions for Alt Battles? I'll link to the verse in-question:

Per the rules, only verses that have previously failed to garner approval for conclusion on the main wiki but nevertheless still have a reasonable argument for qualifying can be on Alt Battles Wiki. When evaluating such requests, staff on Alt Battles don't even consider if the main wiki was right or wrong to reject such a verse, only if accepting the verse is something they believe someone could reasonably argue. See more here before you consider if it qualifies:

Site Rules

alt-battles.fandom.com

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Per the rules, only verses that have previously failed to garner approval for conclusion on the main wiki but nevertheless still have a reasonable argument for qualifying can be on Alt Battles Wiki. When evaluating such requests, staff on Alt Battles don't even consider if the main wiki was right or wrong to reject such a verse, only if accepting the verse is something they believe someone could reasonably argue. See more here before you consider if it qualifies:

Site Rules

alt-battles.fandom.com

The verse already fails on the popularity front judging by the vid's views. And 28 days later already was a bajllion steps ahead of the video for cultural impact.

So the verse fails on popularity and notablity. Unless I missed something or this precedent is terrible, I advocate inclusion of this verse.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

The verse already fails on the popularity front judging by the vid's views. And 28 days later already was a bajllion steps ahead of the video for cultural impact.

So the verse fails on popularity and notablity. Unless I missed something or this precedent is terrible, I advocate inclusion of this verse.

I think you've misunderstood what types of verses qualify to be on Alt Battles Wiki - it's meant for verses with whether or not they succeed or fail disputed, not ones that blatantly fail the requirements. You seem to directly acknowledge that the verse fails the main wiki's requirements instead of disputing that it does. Given how it doesn't look like you're arguing that this verse even qualifies for the main wiki in the first place, I'm not going to approve it for this one either. To clarify, Alt Battles Wiki is for verses that at least one person believes meets the main wiki's retirements but which the staff have rejected despite that, not a place to dump stuff everyone agrees is inelegible.

 

[Agnaa]

Per the rules, only verses that have previously failed to garner approval for conclusion on the main wiki but nevertheless still have a reasonable argument for qualifying can be on Alt Battles Wiki. When evaluating such requests, staff on Alt Battles don't even consider if the main wiki was right or wrong to reject such a verse, only if accepting the verse is something they believe someone could reasonably argue. See more here before you consider if it qualifies:

Site Rules

alt-battles.fandom.com

I think you've misunderstood what types of verses qualify to be on Alt Battles Wiki - it's meant for verses with whether or not they succeed or fail disputed, not ones that blatantly fail the requirements. You seem to directly acknowledge that the verse fails the main wiki's requirements instead of disputing that it does. Given how it doesn't look like you're arguing that this verse even qualifies for the main wiki in the first place, I'm not going to approve it for this one either. To clarify, Alt Battles Wiki is for verses that at least one person believes meets the main wiki's retirements but which the staff have rejected despite that, not a place to dump stuff everyone agrees is inelegible.

So if the main wiki were to explicitly disallow SCP within its rules, such as by rewriting this section (as was discussed in this thread which should have been concluded long ago), would SCP get deleted off of Alt Battles Wiki?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

So if the main wiki were to explicitly disallow SCP within its rules, such as by rewriting this section (as really should have been done long ago), would SCP get deleted off of Alt Battles Wiki?

If the rules were rewitten specifically to exclude a verse from the main wiki, that would be disregarded when evaluating it for Alt Battles Wiki, so no.

 

[Agnaa]

If the rules were rewitten specifically to exclude a verse from the main wiki, that would be disregarded when evaluating it for Alt Battles Wiki, so no.

We rewrote our rules specifically to exclude Suggsverse (hell, most rules we write about the exclusion of verses are done with specific ones in mind; Content Rating Scale for MGQ, combat relevance for Cool Cat, special effects for Adam Ruins Everything, etc. Really, why would we write these rules if we didn't have verses we wanted to exclude by implementing them?).

Does that mean that those verses are allowed on Alt Battles Wiki?

EDIT: Also, since these rule changes were specifically made for SCP, and only incidentally hit Backrooms and RPC, does that mean that those would have to be deleted off of Alt Battles Wiki?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I think you've misunderstood what types of verses qualify to be on Alt Battles Wiki - it's meant for verses with whether or not they succeed or fail disputed, not ones that blatantly fail the requirements. You seem to directly acknowledge that the verse fails the main wiki's requirements instead of disputing that it does. Given how it doesn't look like you're arguing that this verse even qualifies for the main wiki in the first place, I'm not going to approve it for this one either. To clarify, Alt Battles Wiki is for verses that at least one person believes meets the main wiki's retirements but which the staff have rejected despite that, not a place to dump stuff everyone agrees is inelegible.

The purpose of why SCP isn't allowed is due to the fanfic and battleboarding stuff in the canon.

The clarification is also very subjective, and may lead to bad precedents of not handled correctly. That's not mentioning everyone knows the reason why SCP doesn't belong on the main and fcoc site due to the negative reaction of the death of SCP. And people tend to remember negarive things more clearly

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

We rewrote our rules specifically to exclude Suggsverse (hell, most rules we write about the exclusion of verses are done with specific ones in mind; Content Rating Scale for MGQ, combat relevance for Cool Cat, special effects for Adam Ruins Everything, etc. Really, why would we write these rules if we didn't have verses we wanted to exclude by implementing them?).

Does that mean that those verses are allowed on Alt Battles Wiki?

EDIT: Also, since these rule changes were specifically made for SCP, and only incidentally hit Backrooms and RPC, does that mean that those would have to be deleted off of Alt Battles Wiki?

For your specific examples:

• Suggsverse wouldn't be allowed because even though you're correct that we would disregard that it had a specific rule written against it, it's so contradiction-ridden and blatantly meant for battleboarding that arguing for its inclusion isn't something Alt Battles staff would agree is "reasonable". Staff agreement rules are laxer there because Alt Battles staff only consider if a reasonable argument exists, not if they personally agree with it, but a degree of subjectivity does still exist about what qualifies as reasonable.
• MGQ wouldn't be allowed because it violates Fandom Community Guidelines, so permission to host it or not is out of our hands.
• Cool Cat wouldn't be allowed because its owner is touchy about copyright, which isn't something Alt Battles wants to deal with; I didn't explicitly write that into the rules because it slipped my mind at the time, but I'll look to getting it added.
• I don't know anything about Adam Ruins Everything. What exactly happened to it?
• Backrooms and RPC wouldn't be deleted, as we don't agree that the rule changes "only incidentally hit" them; the rules should've been rewritten not to hit them if it wasn't the intent to delete them.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

The purpose of why SCP isn't allowed is due to the fanfic and battleboarding stuff in the canon.

The clarification is also very subjective, and may lead to bad precedents of not handled correctly. That's not mentioning everyone knows the reason why SCP doesn't belong on the main and fcoc site due to the negative reaction of the death of SCP. And people tend to remember negarive things more clearly

The whole reason SCP is on Alt Battles is that I and several others disagree that the supposed "fanfic and battleboarding stuff" should be enough to disallow it from belonging on the main site. Whether or not disagreements exist isn't as subjective as you imply.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

The whole reason SCP is on Alt Battles is that I and several others disagree that the supposed "fanfic and battleboarding stuff" should be enough to disallow it from belonging on the main site. Whether or not disagreements exist isn't as subjective as you imply.

Any person can literally say " I disagree with "Y" reason "X" verse not allowed on main site." (That's how broad this stance can get)

Since literally only one good precedent exists that would make it very distinct from my case (SCP)...

Where am allowed to put such a small verse like the suggestion I had in mind?

 

[Tllmbrg]

Suggsverse wouldn't be allowed because even though you're correct that we would disregard that it had a specific rule written against it, it's so contradiction-ridden and blatantly meant for battleboarding that arguing for its inclusion isn't something Alt Battles staff would agree is "reasonable". Staff agreement rules are laxer there because Alt Battles staff only consider if a reasonable argument exists, not if they personally agree with it, but a degree of subjectivity does still exist about what qualifies as reasonable.

As an Alt Battles wiki staff member I disagree with not including Suggsverse, especially when being contradictory doesn't stop most toonforce heavy cartoons from being indexed.

Also, the way I see it, the criteria should be:
If it's rejected from both Vs Wiki and FC/OC
Rejected from Vs Wiki due to similar grounds like SCP or failing notability clause
Rejected from FC/OC due to their new standards

 

[Elyartaker]

another Alt Battles wiki staff member here!
I agree with Tllmbrg. If we had rules with the same depth and purpose as the main wiki (here), then why create Alt Battles?
Stuff like Suggsverse or I Can Tell You What Is Killing The Stars, which are not allowed here due to controversial standards and rules, can be included in Alt Battles.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Everyone, please take further discussion about this to the actual Alt Battles Wiki forum.

Any person can literally say " I disagree with "Y" reason "X" verse not allowed on main site." (That's how broad this stance can get)

Since literally only one good precedent exists that would make it very distinct from my case (SCP)...

Where am allowed to put such a small verse like the suggestion I had in mind?

I don't know, sorry. Alt Battles's standards have never been so lax as to agree with your "broad stance" argument.

As an Alt Battles wiki staff member I disagree with not including Suggsverse, especially when being contradictory doesn't stop most toonforce heavy cartoons from being indexed.

Also, the way I see it, the criteria should be:
If it's rejected from both Vs Wiki and FC/OC
Rejected from Vs Wiki due to similar grounds like SCP or failing notability clause
Rejected from FC/OC due to their new standards

another Alt Battles wiki staff member here!
I agree with Tllmbrg. If we had rules with the same depth and purpose as the main wiki (here), then why create Alt Battles?
Stuff like Suggsverse or I Can Tell You What Is Killing The Stars, which are not allowed here due to controversial standards and rules, can be included in Alt Battles.

Suggsverse is incoherent to the highest degree. It's full of complete contradictions like "There can be Nothing existing outside of THE ALL; else, THE ALL would not be THE ALL." and "Outside of THE ALL exists Regions." in the same excerpt. This isn't a matter of rules with depth and purpose, it's a matter of there literally not being anything to coherently index.

 

[Tllmbrg]

Everyone, please take further discussion about this to the actual Alt Battles Wiki forum.

I'd rather have it here, since vs wiki and fc/oc standards effect what we can have, so it's easier to get them here

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I'd rather have it here, since vs wiki and fc/oc standards effect what we can have, so it's easier to get them here

Whether a verse should be allowed or not should be debated in the actual site's forum. Sites should make their own decisions in their own forums.

 

[Elyartaker]

This isn't a matter of rules with depth and purpose, it's a matter of there literally not being anything to coherently index.

PIS, CIS, outliers and etc
It just depends on whether someone is willing to scale it or not.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

PIS, CIS, outliers and etc
It just depends on whether someone is willing to scale it or not.

You could scale it one way, I another, and given how contradictory the whole thing is, nobody would be more right or wrong. Further discussion should go on the actual Alt Battles Wiki internal forum.

 

[Elyartaker]

You could scale it one way, I another, and given how contradictory the whole thing is, nobody would be more right or wrong.

The same can be said about SCP if we tweak our rules about canons. The most logical one, with the least contradictions, can be used IMO.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

The same can be said about SCP if we tweak our rules about canons. The most logical one, with the least contradictions, can be used IMO.

Well, we're not going to be tweaking the rules, so that's moot. There is no logic to decide what is most logical. Once again, take further discussion of this elsewhere, please.

 

[Elyartaker]

please.

okay.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Well, we're not going to be tweaking the rules, so that's moot. There is no logic to decide what is most logical. Once again, take further discussion of this elsewhere, please.

Thanks for linking the forum, I posted my question here for more potential input.

 

[Agnaa]

Responding here since this does elucidate vsbw's own rules, to some extent.

For your specific examples:

• Suggsverse wouldn't be allowed because even though you're correct that we would disregard that it had a specific rule written against it, it's so contradiction-ridden and blatantly meant for battleboarding that arguing for its inclusion isn't something Alt Battles staff would agree is "reasonable". Staff agreement rules are laxer there because Alt Battles staff only consider if a reasonable argument exists, not if they personally agree with it, but a degree of subjectivity does still exist about what qualifies as reasonable.
• MGQ wouldn't be allowed because it violates Fandom Community Guidelines, so permission to host it or not is out of our hands.
• Cool Cat wouldn't be allowed because its owner is touchy about copyright, which isn't something Alt Battles wants to deal with; I didn't explicitly write that into the rules because it slipped my mind at the time, but I'll look to getting it added.
• I don't know anything about Adam Ruins Everything. What exactly happened to it?
• Backrooms and RPC wouldn't be deleted, as we don't agree that the rule changes "only incidentally hit" them; the rules should've been rewritten not to hit them if it wasn't the intent to delete them.

• The "contradictions", as you go onto explain, aren't objectively contradictions. They're as much a contradiction as a character being able to interact with a nonexistent being, or use soul manip on a being without a soul. Contextually, it just demonstrates a greater degree of power. It tries to invoke being "beyond omnipotence". The author clearly didn't forget about those things, they have a very consistent hierarchy written out, they just define it in a way which we say makes no sense, but that's not an objective view. While we say that "beyond omnipotence" is incoherent, that's not a view everyone has to hold. Plus, we do allow highly contradictory verses such as cartoons; from what I've seen those are far harder to coherently scale than Suggsverse. But anyway, it seems like your rule from this is "Even though a rule was written explicitly for it, that rule is concrete enough that even if it wasn't named, it would still be disallowed." Good to know!
• This is demonstrably false. While they delete wikis that focus on that sort of content, they're fine with wikis like ours indexing it, so it seems. It's my belief that our staff don't pursue this simply because they don't want it on our wiki, and so they're using that as an excuse.
• That issue isn't real. It's a bit of paranoia Ant had, that was never demonstrated to have literally any impact on any wiki's ability to index it. Other people discussing it at the time mildly pushed back, but he still wanted to include it in the written rule, and others didn't care, since we still wanted it removed for its combat inapplicability. Another wiki has it, the series has its own wiki, and Jasonsith's backup of the profile has remained without issues.
• Ah, this had a different focus than I remembered. Seems like he was simply one of the founding cases for the rules around stage personas; requiring characters to be sufficiently different from their real-world actors, and having sufficient plot of its own. Still, his case was the first flashpoint for this, so it may still be relevant.
• From this, it seems like your rule is "Rules don't need to specifically name verses, they just need to be constructed to hit them, before we'd ignore them", a rule which contradicts the one you presented for Suggsverse, and which would allow vastly more verses deleted off of vsbw.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

The "contradictions", as you go onto explain, aren't objectively contradictions. They're as much a contradiction as a character being able to interact with a nonexistent being, or use soul manip on a being without a soul. Contextually, it just demonstrates a greater degree of power. It tries to invoke being "beyond omnipotence". The author clearly didn't forget about those things, they have a very consistent hierarchy written out, they just define it in a way which we say makes no sense, but that's not an objective view. While we say that "beyond omnipotence" is incoherent, that's not a view everyone has to hold. Plus, we do allow highly contradictory verses such as cartoons; from what I've seen those are far harder to coherently scale than Suggsverse. But anyway, it seems like your rule from this is "Even though a rule was written explicitly for it, that rule is concrete enough that even if it wasn't named, it would still be disallowed." Good to know!

From this, it seems like your rule is "Rules don't need to specifically name verses, they just need to be constructed to hit them, before we'd ignore them", a rule which contradicts the one you presented for Suggsverse, and which would allow vastly more verses deleted off of vsbw.

I shall discuss this with the other Alt Battles staff and see what they think about it.

• This is demonstrably false. While they delete wikis that focus on that sort of content, they're fine with wikis like ours indexing it, so it seems. It's my belief that our staff don't pursue this simply because they don't want it on our wiki, and so they're using that as an excuse.
• That issue isn't real. It's a bit of paranoia Ant had, that was never demonstrated to have literally any impact on any wiki's ability to index it. Other people discussing it at the time mildly pushed back, but he still wanted to include it in the written rule, and others didn't care, since we still wanted it removed for its combat inapplicability. Another wiki has it, the series has its own wiki, and Jasonsith's backup of the profile has remained without issues.

If that's the case, could we look towards reforming these rules on the main wiki?

Ah, this had a different focus than I remembered. Seems like he was simply one of the founding cases for the rules around stage personas; requiring characters to be sufficiently different from their real-world actors, and having sufficient plot of its own. Still, his case was the first flashpoint for this, so it may still be relevant.

I'm not exactly sure about him, then.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

That issue isn't real. It's a bit of paranoia Ant had, that was never demonstrated to have literally any impact on any wiki's ability to index it. Other people discussing it at the time mildly pushed back, but he still wanted to include it in the written rule, and others didn't care, since we still wanted it removed for its combat inapplicability. Another wiki has it, the series has its own wiki, and Jasonsith's backup of the profile has remained without issues.

I mean this is a discussion thread, so...

What the what? Isn't another reason of this due to BigSmoke4269 trying to meddle with staff due to his bad rep? Why can't we just edit the rule to say "the verse lacks combat notability/ above average stuff" if this is the real issue behind this frequent problem? Excuses like Suggsverse not being here make sense, but the staff are supposed too be reasonable, not just making rules based off of vibes alone.

 

[Agnaa]

If that's the case, could we look towards reforming these rules on the main wiki?

Maybe. But as I said, even if those aspects of them weren't issues, I believe we still wouldn't allow such verses.

I would want it changed, but I think there's a low chance of it changing in any impactful way, so there's many other things I'd rather focus on.

I mean this is a discussion thread, so...

What the what? Isn't another reason of this due to BigSmoke4269 trying to meddle with staff due to his bad rep? Why can't we just edit the rule to say "the verse lacks combat notability/ above average stuff" if this is the real issue behind this frequent problem? Excuses like Suggsverse not being here make sense, but the staff are supposed too be reasonable, not just making rules based off of vibes alone.

Yeah, BigSmoke's repeated requests led to that rule being added.

We could, but as I said, that was pushed for but Ant shot it down.

And it wasn't purely off of vibes; Cool Cat's creator had DMCA'd videos that reviewed his movies negatively. There was a basis to be pointed to, but I think there was no good reason to think that'd end up hitting us. And in the years since, it demonstrably hasn't hit other similar websites.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Maybe. But as I said, even if those aspects of them weren't issues, I believe we still wouldn't allow such verses.

I would want it changed, but I think there's a low chance of it changing in any impactful way, so there's many other things I'd rather focus on.

Yeah, BigSmoke's repeated requests led to that rule being added.

We could, but as I said, that was pushed for but Ant shot it down.

And it wasn't purely off of vibes; Cool Cat's creator had DMCA'd videos that reviewed his movies negatively. There was a basis to be pointed to, but I think there was no good reason to think that'd end up hitting us. And in the years since, it demonstrably hasn't hit other similar websites.

And, why bother putting the rule if the creator wasn't going to hit us? If your primary concern back in the day was an infamous user then topic ban him from the topic of putting it on site.

In BigSmoke's defense, I'm not advocating for instability for the sake of laughs, we can perfectly have funny matches within reason and the rules ( since that was his initial purpose). It's just that his humor clouded his reason and he isn't always polite to staff. He should be punished for instability and behavior alone, this example is just teaching people that if the staff doesn't like you, no matter how notable, original, or popular a verse is, nonsensical boundaries will be arbitrarily set rather than justb behaving well. We shouldn't set stuff on nonsensical boundaries if the creator doesn't care about some random battleboarders to copyright strike down. That still counts as vibes. No point in having the rule of the creator doesn't care

 

[Agnaa]

And, why bother putting the rule if the creator wasn't going to hit us? If your primary concern back in the day was an infamous user then topic ban him from the topic of putting it on site.

In BigSmoke's defense, I'm not advocating for instability for the sake of laughs, we can perfectly have funny matches within reason and the rules ( since that was his initial purpose). It's just that his humor clouded his reason and he isn't always polite to staff. He should be punished for instability and behavior alone, this example is just teaching people that if the staff doesn't like you, no matter how notable, original, or popular a verse is, nonsensical boundaries will be arbitrarily set rather than justb behaving well. We shouldn't set stuff on nonsensical boundaries if the creator doesn't care about some random battleboarders to copyright strike down. That still counts as vibes. No point in having the rule of the creator doesn't care

I believe BigSmoke repeatedly tried to get Cool Cat added, and when people reported him for repeatedly requesting that, he said "why is that against the rules?" Which was correct! Just bringing up a topic isn't against the rules, and we try to have our rules be general, rather than person-specific. So to stop that, we set up a general discussion rule saying "you cannot argue for this verse to be added", rather than one saying "BigSmoke cannot argue for this verse to be added".

I thought it was justified based on the repetitive nature of the arguments, and its combat irrelevance alone (which BigSmoke repeatedly tried wanking into notability).

So ye, I've been pretty consistent that I think the "copyright" angle was nonsense. But it still got added despite my protest.

Although I do think it's weird that you frame this as being about the "staff not liking BigSmoke". The majority of discussion rules are about things brought up repeatedly by different people. It's something that occurs for repeated tiring arguments like that in general.