Banning WoG from Ninjago

[Ebihara]

Sounds good, based on the other thread. And sorry my grammar isnt the best we can fix that too.

 

[FinePoint]

Sounds good, based on the other thread. And sorry my grammar isnt the best we can fix that too.

Just for the sake of not needing to scroll, I'm reposting your revised version here:

"Due to previous abuse of Word of God (WOG), statements from social media are not allowed for Ninjago CRT's or blogs with the sole exception of author statements that determine if other official work is canon. To see the reasoning why please refer to this thread."

 

[AigerTheKing]

Just for the sake of not needing to scroll, I'm reposting your revised version here:

"Due to previous abuse of Word of God (WOG), statements from social media are not allowed for Ninjago CRT's or blogs with the sole exception of author statements that determine if other official work is canon. To see the reasoning why please refer to this thread."

Speaking of this, does this mean 1 on 1 questions from team member to creator in interviews not count in the rule?
Exemple: SDCC or stuff like VA interviewing Creators
And what about podcasts like the one we talked about?

According to Bambu, official AMA's stuff are okay for Ninjago, so I'd like for this to be clarified (or at least wait for him to come here)

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

Alright sooo, this rule was clearly not strong enough to keep Ninjago safe...

• Due to previous abuse of Word of God statements from social media are not allowed for Ninjago CRTs or blogs. To see reasoning why please refer to this thread.

Now why do I claim this?

Now I started a thread trying to help fix the things, the thread started alright, but then this comment came... and everything went downhill.

He later stated that he could use this as a source.

Now what was this? Simple YouTube interview stream. Claiming how @Mr. Bambu said it was allowed, but the key issue here he never specified Ninjago.

Claiming that the rule only was regarding Twitter and Bluesky, and was not talking about an interview on YouTube.

He further said he was given permission by Bambu and Agnaa to use the Interview.

But ohhh, it gets better. The interview itself claims that the books and the show should give a canonicity, and it shouldn't happen on social media or in a podcast.

Now time for the iceing on the cake, the damn questions that was apparently taken before the stream came from Questions asked by fans on Twitter...

Ask Tommy your questions here before the stream: https://twitter.com/TommyAndreasen/st...

Source the description under the interview.



So yeah, I think it's pretty clear that allowing any further WoG's for Ninjago will only end badly... And that the current proposal was not strong enough.

So yeah, I think the rule needs to be altered a bit. Here is my proposal.

All Word of God statements and feats are compleltly disallowed for Ninjago for reasons mentioned in this thread.

Lastly - wasn't the point of this to actually make Ninjago less reliant on WoG? It clearly failed if we allow them just to make it in interview form instead...

 

[Ebihara]

If the rule ends up getting changed I will Edit the OP to reflect whatever is decided. Not that my vote or opion will matter here, I agree with the new wording since the current wording has already created issues, stricter wording seems to be needed.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I've unlocked the thread because the exact wording of the rule as written does not exactly align with what you've been telling people is acceptable.

So we need to decide if it needs to be worded better or not.
(It also has a grammatical thing which has been bothering me anyway.)

Does it?

I've answered questions confirming that under the current wording, we'd allow something like an interview, which seems to be the point of contention. Provided they're not like, supplying random people with interviews (at which point it's not equivalent to what we already removed), this is fine and doesn't strictly fall outside the letter of the rule.

I guess the AMA point is one that would fall outside the letter of the rule, and can probably be discussed more if desired.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

I've answered questions confirming that under the current wording, we'd allow something like an interview, which seems to be the point of contention. Provided they're not like, supplying random people with interviews (at which point it's not equivalent to what we already removed), this is fine and doesn't strictly fall outside the letter of the rule.

Ehm, I would request reading this.

Snip

TLDR - Is that the author himself calls that any post outside the show and books is not part of the canon, and the interview themself are based on Twitter questions. Not to mention, by the current rule, a large margin can just switch from a Twitter post to an "interview".

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Alright sooo, this rule was clearly not strong enough to keep Ninjago safe...


Now why do I claim this?

Now I started a thread trying to help fix the things, the thread started alright, but then this comment came... and everything went downhill.

He later stated that he could use this as a source.

Now what was this? Simple YouTube interview stream. Claiming how @Mr. Bambu said it was allowed, but the key issue here he never specified Ninjago.

Claiming that the rule only was regarding Twitter and Bluesky, and was not talking about an interview on YouTube.

He further said he was given permission by Bambu and Agnaa to use the Interview.

But ohhh, it gets better. The interview itself claims that the books and the show should give a canonicity, and it shouldn't happen on social media or in a podcast.

Now time for the iceing on the cake, the damn questions that was apparently taken before the stream came from Questions asked by fans on Twitter...

Source the description under the interview.



So yeah, I think it's pretty clear that allowing any further WoG's for Ninjago will only end badly... And that the current proposal was not strong enough.

So yeah, I think the rule needs to be altered a bit. Here is my proposal.


Lastly - wasn't the point of this to actually make Ninjago less reliant on WoG? It clearly failed if we allow them just to make it in interview form instead...

When I talked about an AMA, I did imagine a more curated event than seven people reading chat in the same way they would give comments. I would agree that this probably shouldn't be used, and then that we probably would need to revise the rule. AMAs I've seen in the past have been stricter than this, so. My bad, anecdotal personal experience didn't prepare me for this.

The rule is obviously not "just" about Twitter or Bluesky, these sites were merely the catalysts. If they started answering questions on Instagram, it'd obviously fall in the same boat. YouTube is only debateable because it isn't really social media, but here it is functionally mimicking it. Given that they themselves extended the philosophy of "canon shouldn't come from stuff like this podcast", we can probably extend this to livestreams, interviews, etc.

If this is what we're dealing in, then I would be led to agree that the rule needs strengthening and non-curated YouTube videos like this would also preferably be avoided. Dunno how I'd phrase it.

For the record. Given that this is just... the guy answering Twitter questions, in video format, using this to circumvent the rule seems knowingly obtuse. Still, it helps us work out the issues with the rule.

@Ebihara @FinePoint if either of you two have ideas on adjustments to the rule, I'm open to hear them.

 

[FinePoint]

Does it?

I've answered questions confirming that under the current wording, we'd allow something like an interview, which seems to be the point of contention. Provided they're not like, supplying random people with interviews (at which point it's not equivalent to what we already removed), this is fine and doesn't strictly fall outside the letter of the rule.

Well if it's hosted on a social media site like YouTube it would fall within the letter of the rule.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Ehm, I would request reading this.


TLDR - Is that the author himself calls that any post outside the show and books is not part of the canon, and the interview themself are based on Twitter questions. Not to mention, by the current rule, a large margin can just switch from a Twitter post to an "interview".

I'm gettin' to it. Probably shouldn't have posted at that point, still.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

I'm gettin' to it. Probably shouldn't have posted at that point, still.

No worries, I was rushing it too, so what do you think of my own rule proposal?

All Word of God statements and feats are compleltly disallowed for Ninjago for reasons mentioned in this thread.

Edit—I prefer it to be like this since it prevents any kind of way to bypass it, as shown in my thread. They will quite literally take the rule by how strong the wording is, and if it's too weak, they will find another way around it.

 

[FinePoint]

@Ebihara @FinePoint if either of you two have ideas on adjustments to the rule, I'm open to hear them.

Well, honestly I can get behind Dark_Soul's proposal:

"All Word of God statements and feats are completely disallowed for Ninjago for reasons mentioned in this thread."

The speed at which arguing sprang up and loopholes about it were mentioned makes me question if there is a way we can word it that will stop it from being abused. Plus we have two separate statements from creators now that only stuff in the actual media (show and books) should be seriously considered canon.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

A mite extreme. I'll go through the thread in which this was all argued and see if I agree. Give me a bit.

 

[Ebihara]

Well, honestly I can get behind Dark_Soul's proposal:

"All Word of God statements and feats are completely disallowed for Ninjago for reasons mentioned in this thread."

The speed at which the verse's supporters began immediately finding loopholes and arguing about it makes me question if there is a way we can word it that will stop it from being abused. Plus we have two separate statements from creators now that only stuff in the actual media (show and books) should be seriously considered canon.

I share the same concern.
Is there still a need to allow statements that state if other officially licensed is canon or do we feel that could be abused? or even necessary in the first place.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yeah that thread sucks. The issues with the video were presented and still defended. So, between the tenacity by which these statements are defended, the inherent flaws with the statements themselves, their poorly-curated state of origin, and the statements from the writers that none of this should really be considered canon anyways, I'll sign off on the rule rewriting.

For the sake of argument I'll wait a day, maybe two, before applying it, in case any wording changes may be proposed or thought processes may be introduced. For now I'll remind y'all that this is a Staff thread and you need permission to post. That includes you, @Dark_Soul20189, though I recognize your intent.

 

[Ebihara]

"All Word of God statements and feats are completely disallowed for Ninjago for reasons mentioned in this thread."

I am fine with this wording if finepoint is.

 

[Ebihara]

I know most people who likely would have something they want to say has hit there message limit in this thread. I have talked to @Dark_Soul20189 off thread and they seem happy with the new wording.

snip

has anyone contacted you with anything note worthy involving the new wording?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

No, nothing.

Reckon the time is coming up. 24 hours on the nose is in about 4 hours. I'll be at work by then, so this may have to wait to be added to the rules proper until after.

 

[Ebihara]

Reckon the time is coming up. 24 hours on the nose is in about 4 hours. I'll be at work by then, so this may have to wait to be added to the rules proper until after.

Ok sounds good, I do want to clarify. With the new wording this would seem to exclude WoG statements that affirm the canonicity of other material. If I remember correctly there are WoG statements that say that other things like comics or web series as canon. I am not sure how important these are or how often or even if its really needed to determine if these things are canon but I remember this being a concern before.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Ok sounds good, I do want to clarify. With the new wording this would seem to exclude WoG statements that affirm the canonicity of other material. If I remember correctly there are WoG statements that say that other things like comics or web series as canon. I am not sure how important these are or how often or even if its really needed to determine if these things are canon but I remember this being a concern before.

Canonocity should preferably still be taken into account. I feel we are all aware of the spirit of the rule, but if we wanted to adjust the phrase to "All Word of God statements and feats are completely disallowed for Ninjago for reasons mentioned in this thread. An exception is given to statements regarding the canonicity of certain materials.", I think that would be fine.

 

[Ebihara]

Canonocity should preferably still be taken into account. I feel we are all aware of the spirit of the rule, but if we wanted to adjust the phrase to "All Word of God statements and feats are completely disallowed for Ninjago for reasons mentioned in this thread. An exception is given to statements regarding the canonicity of certain materials.", I think that would be fine.

I would generally agree we understand the spirit of the rule but this thread had to get reopened cause of that very issue, the spirit of the rule.
id be fine with that, I think it needs to be clear that the only part of the statement that would be taken into the account would be the canonicity part, if for example there is something else in the statement the only part we would use would be the part affirming something is canon.

 

[FinePoint]

Canonocity should preferably still be taken into account. I feel we are all aware of the spirit of the rule, but if we wanted to adjust the phrase to "All Word of God statements and feats are completely disallowed for Ninjago for reasons mentioned in this thread. An exception is given to statements regarding the canonicity of certain materials.", I think that would be fine.

I'm fine with this exception.

 

[Ebihara]

So this looks good to apply the new wording for the rule?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yeah. I'll adjust the rule.

 

[Ebihara]

Sounds good, thank your for your help. I guess this can be locked again unless there is more that needs to be discussed.