• 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.

Clarifying Non Combat Versus Threads

Ebihara said:
Hmmm can we clarify that then? To me it reads they should be the only the only people involed. No refs, nothing.
Click to expand...
Any ideas? I think:
The only fictional characters involved in these matches should be the competitors themselves.
Click to expand...
Is fairly clear on that front, since any real-world entities wouldn't be fictional.
 
Agnaa said:
Any ideas? I think:

Is fairly clear on that front, since any real-world entities wouldn't be fictional.
Click to expand...
not entirely sure. maybe somthing like "referees and other juding enties are allowed" wording can be messed with, just somthing to point out others are allowed. Cause to me It read like no other charcters are allowed to be inolved, cause while we dont have only fictional charcters it is most of what we do and If i had this mistake in assumption others will also make similar ones.
 
Is this good to implement now or waiting for more staff?
 
Bambu agreed with my initial wording, FinePoint wanted it trimmed down (to which I disagree), and Ebihara requested an addition which no-one has evaluated.

I think that's not enough.
 
(I don't mind the wording adjustments, they meet the spirit of the change fine enough)

(I should clarify that this doesn't allow real people to be used as versus characters still, we still would avoid killing real people in threads- but for these non-combat things idrc)
 
Mr. Bambu said:
I should clarify that this doesn't allow real people to be used as versus characters still, we still would avoid killing real people in threads- but for these non-combat things idrc
Click to expand...
should we change some other wording then? Cause in the new propsed wording it says one of the examples is " aiming to kill the most civilians are allowed
 
Ebihara said:
should we change some other wording then? Cause in the new propsed wording it says one of the examples is " aiming to kill the most civilians are allowed
Click to expand...
I don't think that conflicts with the rule. It would still be against the rules to say those civilians are X or Y real world people. You couldn't throw a musician in there and be content to describe their death. That particular example is rather grisly, however, so I suppose I'd be fine with changing it if we wanted.
 
I don't really want to rule out situations like "Which of these two characters with Accelerated Development can adapt to beat Garry Kasparov in chess first?"

Even if we include real people in combat-related scenarios, I don't think anyone would end up writing multi-paragraph fanfics about how exactly they'd dismember a particular person. And I think we could just delete such posts anyway.
 
Agnaa said:
I don't really want to rule out situations like "Which of these two characters with Accelerated Development can adapt to beat Garry Kasparov in chess first?"

Even if we include real people in combat-related scenarios, I don't think anyone would end up writing multi-paragraph fanfics about how exactly they'd dismember a particular person. And I think we could just delete such posts anyway.
Click to expand...
I don't mind the first part, I'm saying that the phrasing as-is wouldn't overrule our standards of using real world characters. I would suggest the correct interpretation here is that for these non-combat threads, including someone like Garry Kasparov would be fine, you just can't shoot Garry Kasparov in the head.
 
Where are those standards? I think it'd make sense to link them if possible.
 
 
If those are what you're referring to, I don't think these sorts of matches having the involvement of real-world people, even in a violent capacity, would actually be against them.

It more seems aimed at stopping confusion over the idea that we're indexing the real person in one of these profiles.

And even if avoiding violent interactions with real-world people was the intention of that rule, those rules don't really indicate that, so it'd make little sense to link them.

At most, I'd want to amend it to:
Real people, both individual celebrities and generic classes of people, are still allowed to be incorporated, as long as specific real-world individuals aren't singled out for violent discussions.
Click to expand...
 
Agnaa said:
If those are what you're referring to, I don't think these sorts of matches having the involvement of real-world people, even in a violent capacity, would actually be against them.

It more seems aimed at stopping confusion over the idea that we're indexing the real person in one of these profiles.

And even if avoiding violent interactions with real-world people was the intention of that rule, those rules don't really indicate that, so it'd make little sense to link them.

At most, I'd want to amend it to:
Click to expand...
Those rules are written the way they are because of our wish to avoid describing violent interactions involving a real, living person, yes. This is why we do not index them.

I'd want to keep that spirit in whatever rules are applied. Can't shoot Garry Kasparov in the head.
 
If you really need to involve specific real life people for whatever reason, at least add a clause that they are to be treated respectful or something, before someone makes a thread about which prankster has the best ideas for humiliating Donald Trump or something.
 
Then let's go with:
Real people, both individual celebrities and generic classes of people, are still allowed to be incorporated, as long as specific real-world individuals aren't singled out for violent or disrespectful discussions.
Click to expand...
 
Just a late note that I do not think that we should explicitly mention competitions about killing the greatest number of civilians as a suggestion in our rules. Besides moral concerns, it would be absolutely terrible for our reputation, including with Fandom staff members. 🙏
 
Should we replace that with members of an army, then?
 
That is less extreme, but still comes across as very unsympathetic. Can't we use an example that doesn't revolve around competitive mass-murder? 🙏
 
We already have a non-violent example (in a chess match). I think it's important, for distinguishing these sorts of threads, to mention a competition that is violent in some way, but doesn't involve the two characters directly fighting each other.
 
Well, something that does not involve indiscriminate mass-murder would be a much preferable example. 🙏
 
The only ideas I can come up with fail on other fronts.

"Who can destroy a mountain more quickly" would almost never interestingly rely on the particulars of a characters' feats, and could be abused to give characters wins against characters with insurmountable abilities for no good reason.

"Who can beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match" seems a bit pointless; the two characters should just fight each other at that point.
 
Maybe: "Who can beat the largest number of opponents with comparable statistics, due to superior skill and tactics?" 🙏
 
Trouble is, the only fictional characters we want to involve are the two combatants. By creating new entities with new statistics, we'd be creating new fictional characters. Or we'd be having them fight their clones, which is a bit of a non-conversation.

We could do something like "Who would get furthest in a 100-man kumite". While that would require them to be fairly weak, I think it could work?
 
Agnaa said:
Trouble is, the only fictional characters we want to involve are the two combatants.
Click to expand...
Are you implying the intention of the original wording was them killing real people?
 
FinePoint said:
Are you implying the intention of the original wording was them killing real people?
Click to expand...
No.

I'm implying that the intention of the original wording was that other fictional characters wouldn't be included.

AAAAAAA
 
Agnaa said:
No.

I'm implying that the intention of the original wording was that other fictional characters wouldn't be included.

AAAAAAA
Click to expand...
Then why was a competition about killing as many random civilians as possible ever included?

Either they're apparently real people, which is problematic, or they're other fictional characters, which violates the rules.
 
FinePoint said:
Then why was a competition about killing as many random civilians as possible ever included?

Either they're apparently real people, which is problematic, or they're other fictional characters, which violates the rules.
Click to expand...
Because it didn't click for me (although it does now that it's been pointed out) that such things would be considered problematic, since discussions similar to this happen all the time on other websites.

Reddit:
YouTube:
SpaceBattles:
This would just be turning those more into our format, where instead of them talking about one character in a vacuum, or listing numbers for a series of characters, it would be a direct comparison between two different ones.

The main thing I immediately understood as problematic was selecting specific people to face a gruesome outcome.
 
Agnaa said:
Because it didn't click for me (although it does now that it's been pointed out) that such things would be considered problematic, since discussions similar to this happen all the time on other websites.
Click to expand...
Well, I think in these examples we sort of implicitly process it as a hypothetical, including the 'people' (we assume they're nondescript, fictional people).

To imagine any actual person (your sister, your brother, who you saw yesterday on the sidewalk) being murdered is a very dark and gruesome thought.

That is to say, we definitely meant the latter, and so it's definitely not a good example if we don't want other fictional characters, which is all I was attempting to affirm. I realize in hindsight I may have sounded a little accusatory with my last couple messages, and apologize if it was taken that way.

In terms of alternatives, I think something kinda open-ended for abilities and application would be:
"Who can cause the most property damage in an hour (in USD)?"

That would include things like selecting good targets (intelligence), AOE, range, speed, etc, and no murder required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DontTalkDT
If we can add games to profiles, then we can add fights with restricted standard equipment, too
Replies
9
Views
1K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
XSOULOFCINDERX
  • Locked
Important Staff Discussion In Regards To Lifting Strength
Replies
36
Views
3K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Bobsican
  • Locked
SBA: Death as a win condition
Replies
32
Views
4K
Reiner04
Reiner04
Phoenks
Average Travel Speed Until Proven Otherwise
Replies
15
Views
3K
Phoenks
Phoenks
WeeklyBattles
(Staff Only) Regarding Non-Physical Interaction and Intangibility/Incorporeality Part 2
2 3 4
Replies
120
Views
12K
WeeklyBattles
WeeklyBattles
Back
Top