Cool Cat series explicit indexing ban Discussion Rule (Staff only)

[Bobsican]

Continuing from the Rule Violations Reports thread, the Cool Cat series has been deemed as not fitting for indexing, and this has been reiterated to death that at this point a section in the Discussion Rules would be best. Some of these reasons include there being possible law-suit problems even with the g-mail "stating" that the author wouldn't mind him being indexed here out of sheer potential questionability on trust, the cast being on tier 10, 9 with a weapon that was never actually used, hardly any legitimate feats to use for our purposes and so on from what I recall.

 

[Antvasima]

To simplify what Bobsican is saying, we need a new discussion rule to not allow Cool Cat to be featured in this wiki, if we do not have one already.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

We need a rule for discounting Cool Cat and all profiles like it

 

[Antvasima]

I think that we have some more generalised part of the Editing Rules page that covers ridiculous characters such as Barnie and the Teletubbies. Cool Cat would fit under that, but we may need something more specific.

 

[The_Impress]

I felt the rule must've always been that the character must belong to a combat-centric verse or have notable enough abilities to be listed i.e. Non-mudane P&A or 9-C or higher statistic and I will 110% stand by the notion that if any characters don't fit either, they can be removed.

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

I think 10-Bs and 10-As can stay as long as they have something to bring t the table, like some martial arts or athletics, but that's probably not totally relevant here.

My issue with the Cool Cat profile issue is so one is doing proper research for it, they want it for meme value, but they're not putting in the work to make it proper. I personally disagree with a full ban but a topic ban for the people for the current people asking for it

 

[Antvasima]

I think that this is what we currently have as a general restriction:

• Preferably avoid adding character profiles that may be inappropriate or perceived to be in poor taste. This may include characters, weapons, etcetera, that are ill-suited for a statistics-indexing wiki, due to having no reliable feats, or ones from media which may be too controversial or otherwise unnecessary to be featured. This includes pages that would strictly be written as a joke, and as such more suitably belong in the Joke Battles wiki. Although we do feature some franchises with mature content, those that are primarily focused on, or are only composed of, excessive levels of sexual content will not be featured here, and the pages have to be kept clean, without erotic images. For further information, please read our Acceptable content rating scale.

 

[Bobsican]

I think that we have some more generalised part of the Editing Rules page that covers ridiculous characters such as Barnie and the Teletubbies. Cool Cat would fit under that, but we may need something more specific.

That got removed long ago as "joke" profiles were too subjective and arbitrary to ban, now it is rewritten so pages that are "written as a joke" aren't allowed.
Barney the Dinosaur even has a page now after a whole deal with revisions and all of that.

Edit:This is the rule Ant quoted, and of course, Cool Cat needs a better reason than only "It's inappropiate to index out of its pre-schooler kid-friendly status"

I also agree with Amelia, if the issue was that each time the profile was attemped to be indexed ended up being done poorly, a full rule may not be necessary beyond just keeping as a sort of spoken rule to those users that they're not allowed to try to get Cool Cat being indexed.

This is like as if we banned Dora the Explorer from being indexed out of constantly poorly done research being pushed for an actual profile from a few users, even though she has plenty of feats to fit for our purposes, fighting isn't something always needed for indexing, after all, and someone actually willing to do proper research of all the series could theorically get the case indexed so long it gets actually indexable stuff in the first place.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

Bringing up Cool Cat to finish the discussion
"Thank you for the draft, but it should preferably explain a bit more regarding why exactly that the page is not allowed, if we do not have a rule for the character previously." (From Ant).

"Please do not insist on adding Cool Cat or any character from his verse. Not only does he lack any notable indexing feats whatsoever, but staff are sick and tired of having to inform people why he is not allowed due to the persistent calls to no avail. If you do constantly persist on this, there is a high chance for a block" (My original Draft)

Here is my edit which elaborates on why he should be banned:
"Please do not insist on adding Cool Cat or any character from his verse. As a character, Cool Cat lacks n notable feats whatsoever, all the instances in the series that can be stated as "feats" are in reality gross exaggerations at best or blatant lies at worst. All the best feats in Cool Cat fall under the lack of indexing purpose rule. On top of which, the author Derek Savage has been famously known to be touchy on copyright about the verse. And finally, the amount of times people have requested Cool Cat ad-nauseum, without taking "no" for an answer have tired our staff tremendously. Repeated pleas about adding Cool Cat may cause for you to be blocked"

Part 2, my other thoughts​

However, I honestly disagree with banning Cool Cat with a specific rule, I honestly think having a general rule for these kinds of characters is more simple and more encompassing which prevents any new problem with say Greg Heffley or Diego in the future, because in the end of the day, the main problems with Cool Cat can be applied to many others.

 

[Antvasima]

"Please do not try to add any characters from the Cool Cat verse. They lack any reliable and notable feats, the author has been notoriously touchy regarding copyright for the franchise, and the main character has been treated as a joke meme, and spammed in versus threads after a profile page was added in the past. Our staff have also grown tired of the repeated requests to add the character."

Is this acceptable for our Editing Rules or Discussion Rules page?

 

[Bobsican]

I would replace "verse" with "series" or so, and the "joke meme usage" part and the like also shouldn't be listed, Barney the Dinosaur and some others ended up the same on that regard and the match-ups just got banned with it as they kept up remaining in low quality, meaning that listing that as a reason could be detrimental for other legitimate profiles.

So perhaps it could be something like:
"Please do not try to add any characters from the Cool Cat series. They lack any legitimate or notable feats to index, and the author has been notoriously touchy regarding copyright for it. Our staff have also grown tired of the repeated requests to index this."

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that might work as well, but I would prefer some input from other staff members regarding which version that we should use.

@Theglassman12 @Schnee_One @Crabwhale @Warren_Valion @GyroNutz @DarkGrath @The_Wright_Way @Ogbunabali @Moritzva

What do you think?

 

[Ican'tthinkof1goodname]

I'm aware of the fact I'm not staff but Cool Cat is actually a franchise not a series.

 

[Warren_Valion]

As a YMS fan, this entire discussion is hilarious.

As for the content of the thread, I am somewhat indifferent. I am personally against profiles being made for characters like this or Barney, but my will is not law, so I don't question said profile's existence anymore.

Bobsican's postings seem to be fine - so I guess I am in support of his views of the topic, he seems to be more of an expert than I in these regards.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the input.

 

[The_Wright_Way]

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more general rule that will help avoid this problem in the future? Because just banning Cool Cat will just lead to the problem repeating itself with, say, Blue's Clues or some other verse with no real indexing purpose.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I'd expect people to just use common sense and not create profiles that don't belong here, but that's probably not gonna happen.

 

[Antvasima]

Cal:

I think that would be overoptimistic, yes.

 

[Crabwhale]

Cool Cat is a horrible enough character so as to have me not want to keep him here on principle alone, without even getting to the legal issues. I don't even think a rule is necessary.

 

[Bobsican]

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more general rule that will help avoid this problem in the future? Because just banning Cool Cat will just lead to the problem repeating itself with, say, Blue's Clues or some other verse with no real indexing purpose.

Well, "no real indexing purpose" is quite variable, Blue's Clues has some tier 5 feats and some cartoony abilities here and there, but to do such profile reliably is another story. If a rule over this is made, it should just focus on that we're simply more strict to preschool-aimed media on indexing quality than others sorts of media to keep a good standard or so.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

"Please do not try to add any characters from the Cool Cat verse. They lack any reliable and notable feats, the author has been notoriously touchy regarding copyright for the franchise, and the main character has been treated as a joke meme, and spammed in versus threads after a profile page was added in the past. Our staff have also grown tired of the repeated requests to add the character."

Is this acceptable for our Editing Rules or Discussion Rules page?

Perhaps it could be something like:
"Please do not try to add any characters from the Cool Cat series. They lack any legitimate or notable feats to index, and the author has been notoriously touchy regarding copyright for it. Our staff have also grown tired of the repeated requests to index this."

So is either of these suggestions acceptable to use? Which one do you all think is preferable?

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

I think your's is good because it talks about how Cool Cat was banned because he just turned into a useless meme character

 

[Bobsican]

As said before, being a "meme character" is not a legitimate criteria to ban the indexing of something and could easily be detrimental to other legitimate profiles. I'm not defending the page for being indexable, but the reasons for it should be solid, which thankfully the other reasonings cover.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

As said before, being a "meme character" is not a legitimate criteria to ban the indexing of something and could easily be detrimental to other legitimate profiles. I'm not defending the page for being indexable, but the reasons for it should be solid.

While not all meme characters need to be banned (As some like Barney and Thomas have feats), but in some cases, being a meme character is just supporting proof of their deletion. Meme Characters won't be banned

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I think that a character that is only used as a dumb gag by our community can have that as part of legitimate justifications to ban it.

 

[Bobsican]

As the rule over this sort of profiles says, the problem is if the page is written as a joke, not if the mere idea of it being indexed is laughable or so.
Pepe the Frog is indexed and all we did for its cultural status was just locking the page, as another example.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that seems like a good point.

We could technically just remove the versus threads sections for such characters.

 

[Bobsican]

If they're match-banned that can be the case, yes, which should be case by case.
Pepe surprisingly didn't lead to as much controversy match-up wise as some could have expected, so he's fine to stay as he is, but cases like Barney, Najimi Ajimu and Patchy the Pirate can get such section removed without issue.

 

[The_Impress]

I felt the rule must've always been that the character must belong to a combat-centric verse or have notable enough abilities to be listed i.e. Non-mudane P&A or 9-C or higher statistic and I will 110% stand by the notion that if any characters don't fit either, they can be removed.

QWQ everyone ignored my rule suggestion

 

[Antvasima]

Impress:

Did we not already have a discussion about and add a rule related to that not so long ago?

 

[Bobsican]

Well, yes, but as it was mentioned even there, it was still left arguably too undetailed.
That would be another rule and may deserve its own thread, however.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, let's focus on the relevant issue here please.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

I suppose that seems like a good point.

We could technically just remove the versus threads sections for such characters.

I don't see much issue with doing that

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, let's focus on the Coolcat rule please.

 

[Bobsican]

I guess the only thing left is just a bit more staff input to apply the Discussion Rule addition.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

@Warren_Valion @The_Wright_Way @Crabwhale @The_Impress @The_real_cal_howard

What do you think about this?

 

[Warren_Valion]

--->Cool Cat discussion

--->Me

---

So is either of these suggestions acceptable to use? Which one do you all think is preferable?

To be serious, I assume what you wanted me to look and give my input on was which of the two discussion rules would I prefer - I think the smaller one is best, short, sweet, and simple.

If that was not what you wanted me to review, please write a Tl;DR of the information because I couldn't find it out otherwise.