• 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.

Discussion Rule Controversy

Sera_EX

Sera_EX

She Who Dabbles in Fiction
VS Battles
Retired
6,104
5,102
So, after a little spout I had on a Dragonball discussion thread regarding our Discussion Rules and the effect of their practice, Assaltwaffle came to me to discuss solutions.

At the moment, we have too many Discussuon Rules that prevent those with varying opinions to challenge our decisions in certain CRTs. Rules preventing people from downgrading Base Goku from 3-A or upgrade Kaguya to 4-C or higher, simply because we've debunked them multiple times.

I realize these rules were made under pressure and stress, which is why I need to tell you all that no rule should be made under pressure or stress. We have to respect everyone's opinion. So what do I propose we do? Make a single Discussion Rule, something along the lines of "Please do not create Content Revision threads that have been repeatedly debunked without new evidence to support it". Simple enough, right? Assaltwaffle of course agrees.

"Maybe we can link blogs for that one rule that contain the reasons why we currently accept the more controversial topics. That way if someone makes a thread we can give them the respective blog of reasoning and, if that user has nothing else to provide for the discussion, then close the thread.

Preventing them outright in the current manner really makes VSB prone to circle-jerking and the suppression of possible new interpretations or opinions that aren't just recycled." - Assaltwaffle

So, that's the basic premise.
 
As a supporter of the verse, which also has such a rule, I agree. In our case, when we discuss any sort of an upgrade, the prohibited topic is almost always brought up as well. It's not that it is being circle-jerked, it's just that I find it unnecesary, especially when it was made right after Matthew's downgrade thread.
 
I agree, but let's not center this around Dragonball, since it's mainly about discussion rules of that nature as a whole.
 
Oh yeah, you said so on chat. I misread what you said. My mistake.

But yeah. There shouldn't be a rule against 3-A DMC, I don't even think that's been debunked as many times as people claim and if better evidence is brought to light it should be able to be proposed in a CRT. Same with 4-C Kaguya or anything else.

Verse specific things like "the reason we don't tier something this way" should be on verse pages under "Notes" as well.
 
I agree with the change as well. It was always odd for me that we outright prevent CTRs just because they were "debunked" prior. While i do agree that repeating the same point over and over again leads to redudant, heated discussions, its still silencing others and prevent potential positive growth. I do remember a case were a CTR based on a banned topic got through. This would have been impossible if the staff at that time would have decided to hold onto that rule, thus preventing progress.

The way Sera (or Assalt, im not sure who made the wording) worded, sounds reasonable, dosnt target any specific Verse (thus preventing bias) and dosnt eliminate the chance of progression, instead preventing repetition of the actual problem, Debunked points.
 
Well, my opinion here should be fairly obvious. The rules are just... ridiculous in their current state, and that is ignoring the downright condescending wording of some of them.

We have ~2800 words worth of Franchise Specific Discussion Rules. 8 1/2 pages of Times New Roman 11 point font Double Spaced paragraph style Discussion Rules. What even is this?

No one is going to read this. Even if you want to CNTL-F keywords like "Dragon Ball", too freaking bad, since some of the rules don't even use the words "Dragon Ball" but instead force you to look for more specific words like "Skinny Buu". The Discussion Rules aren't just limiting and make VSB look like a set-in-stone circlejerk, but also are just formatted poorly and with no foresight for the future. When it was made and there were only a couple this wasn't too bad, but now it's just terrible.

Even disregarding the circlejerk-ness, overblown number of rules, condescending tone, and lack of viable update-able formatting, the rules themselves will be subject to become outdated. In the future new evidence may come out against them, and those unfamiliar with the series or new content can point to one of the rules and have the thread closed without properly analyzing the new material.

It's a big oof all the way around.
 
This makes sense to me, though somebody may want to catalog all of the topics that cause such controversy.
 
I strongly agree with Assalt.
 
It seems that many of these rules, especially the ones with just explanations and no links to threads or anything, would just be better suited to be a "why we don't accept this" type deal on the verse page.
 
Wokistan said:
It seems that many of these rules, especially the ones with just explanations and no links to threads or anything, would just be better suited to be a "why we don't accept this" type deal on the verse page.
Click to expand...
I already mentioned this in an earlier reply, so I clearly agree with this.
 
I extremely strongly disagree.

The rules were added to not work ourselves to death arguing over and over and over and over regarding the same topics that had been debunked multiple times before in several different threads.

The rules were not written under stress, they were each carefully added and worded after deliberation to not get constantly swarmed by the same debunked topics, as was the case before we added them.

Suddenly mass-removing them is an extremely bad idea, and I ask the staff members who wish to rush into this to reconsider, unless they personally wish to work for several several dozen hours more every month arguing about these topics rather than delegate the responsibility to somebody else, such as myself.

Also, to clarify, it is still fine to argue about the topics if new information is brought to light, just not to relentlessly pester us into submission with the same tired arguments until we simply cannot take it any more and give up out of sheer exhaustion, which is the realistic alternative to maintaining them.
 
I am also not a fan of rushing into suddenly overhauling everything in multiple threads right after becoming a staff member again.

Some of it has been fine, but all at once risks to turn outright destructive and extremely chaotic.

I am also unable to keep up with them to avoid potential disaster if you constantly relentkessly start them right as I am going to bed.

Our systems are mostly working fine. Drastic overhauls without prior consultation are unnecessary.
 
The rules aren't so much being removed as relocated. What's being suggested is to catalog all the stuff that lead to the creation of the rules, save that in its own place, and probably put verse specific stuff on verse pages. As is, people aren't gonna read through the wall of text of rules especially when people aren't gonna care about all the topics on it. If someone brings up one of these topics, they can still be redirected to the collection of why it's not accepted, its not like everything is open for equal consideration again.
 
@Wokistan

Regular members revise the verse pages all the time and can easily remove or modify such pseudo-regulations.

If you wish to add them there as well, that is fine, but the regulations should still also be assembled in a safe place that is protected from editing.
 
The rules themselves, and links to all the threads and other stuff that explains why some things aren't accepted, would probably end up in someone's blog that is linked from the verse page. Having every rule in one place leads to people missing stuff during lapses in attention or just not wanting to read it due to how much there is at once, much of it which may be irrelevant to the series they care about.
 
Anyway. I am exhausted and dizzy to the point of falling over, and have to go to sleep now, so I hope that nothing drastic and extremely unwise is rushed into while I am away.
 
@Ant

To be frank, it doesn't matter if she is staff or not. Being staff doesn't suddenly enable you to do this kind of stuff, nor should being a normal user inhibit your influence should your arguments, reasoning, and understanding be identical.

Also, we aren't suggesting to just copy-all+backspace everything currently there, but rather organize it into categories under something like a "stance on controversial topics" and linking to a blog explaining franchise specific stances. The way we currently use them even if they aren't condescending (using "complain" shouldn't be a thing in an official page) implies that VSB is 100% right and they are 100% wrong, when the fact of the matter is that different interpretations can exist or something can just be misunderstood.

Then there is still the formatting issues, which need to be addressed if literally nothing else.
 
@Wokistan

Again, as I stated above, nothing is preventing you from copying the regulations to the individual verse pages as well, but the backup should still remain in the discussion rules page.

Also, it is easy to use CTR F to find the name of whichever franchise or character that somebody wants to start a discussion about.
 
@Assaltwaffle

Reformatting and rewording for improvements, and restructuring the discussion rules page to make it easier to find the different topics is fine, but removing them altogether is definitely not. I and other staff members who bother to help out with lots of content revision discussions would be destroyed from ridiculous amounts of overwork.
 
So again, this boils down to me trying to "change the system just because I've become staff again"? I've had these thoughts for over a year and half. I've never ever been a fan of constantly making discussion rules simply because something has been debunked. Also nothing is even becoming chaotic. I'm not some damn Chaos Magnet and I absolutely am getting sick and tired of being treated as one every time I open my mouth about something I don't like! Every single time! Be it challenging High 2-A, or simply asking to change some confusing wording on the Tier System page, or whatever. It's always the same knee-jerk reaction. Yet let someone else make this thread and it doesn't have any such resistance force from you. To be blunt, it's offensive.

Why is that? No one else is saying this? I had a brief talk with Assaltwaffle, who I assume you trust a great deal long before I made this thread. I won't say I'm surprised. I almost asked Assalt to be the one to make the thread instead because I knew you were gonna come at me hard.

I even moved the thread to staff discussions, I did not highlight it, and this still happens? Why? This is so annoying and does nothing but seriously make me just want to drop off. I don't need this.

So fine, have your cake. Talk to your staff members and see what they think. They can speak of themselves. I just don't need this right now, especially when all I'm trying to do is be helpful. I'm unfollowing this thread.
 
I spend most of my time on the Wiki looking over discussion threads. I, nor anyone else, would be "destroyed" by the work unless they let themselves be, and such lack of self control/judgement is more of a person problem than a systemic issue. Also, having blogs for these issues would allow someone to give a quick "here is why we think *accepted opinion*" link. If the person making the thread has anything new to say, we hear him/her out, but if the OP doesn't have anything currently undiscussed he/she will have to accept that we just don't accept that opinion and move on/have the thread closed. However, if that user does have new insight, the thread won't just get closed because of a rule.

Also, if you say "well those threads don't cite the rule usually so saying such threads will just get closed is over-dramatizing their impact" I must ask you "then why are they called rules?"
 
@Sera

My apologies if I brought offence. I am extremely tired at the moment, and this has nothing to do with past history. It is just that dealing with several massive overhaul threads in the span of a few days is very tiring for me, especially this late in the evening.

I also appreciate your help with Umineko, Marvel, and DC. I am just exhausted at the moment, and get grouchy if there is too much to deal with.

In addition, I am extremely stressed out due to various other reasons that have nothing to do with you, so I am testy overall.
 
@Assaltwaffle

Well, I am already extremely overworked from simultaneously monitoring all suspicious edits and keeping all unattended content revision threads that I notice organised. If we additionally removed all discussion rules for the most popular repeat topics, that have strictly been added because we were exhausted from constantly dealing with them, that would be almost all that we would be forced to dealing with at the exclusion of other important discussions.
 
@Assaltwaffle

Linking to explanation blogs (preferably ones that are closed for comments) for additional information within the discussion rules page wouldn't hurt, but somebody would also have to write all of them, which would be a massive endeavour.
 
I can see strong points from both side, but I think there needs to be some kind of "Middle ground." Some of the Dragon Ball related discussion rules are pretty outdated and could be worded better. Like, "Don't even ask why the Buu saga characters are 4-B?" It is worded in a way in which people as if people are not even allowed to ask a simple question. That being said, not saying we should allow people to try to constantly attempt to upgrade Buu saga characters to 4-A or above, just that it shouldn't be worded as "Don't even ask."

But it might be a better idea to have one rule that perhaps has a link to a big list of repeatedly debunked topics rather than a big list of specific TLTR rules. I definitely agree that we need to be more open-minded; but at the same time, the constant JRPG character downplay does get overly obnoxious. There were also rules that forbid MLP, Dragon Ball GT, Gurren Lagann upgrades that were eventually removed given the better evidence it should be mentioned.
 
Since this leaves the discussion rules intact but just moves them to a place where it's more easy to digest for readers, this seems like a great proposal.
 
I'm currently working on a VERY rough draft in my sandbox. Please note that I would like the franchise sub-sections to have their own blogs instead of creating a list with too many layers.
 
I also should add, that rules worded as, "Simply bringing them up is a block worthy offence without warning" should have that segment contained in the quotes removed or worded differently. No amount of wanking or downplaying, especially if it's a joke is ban worthy, it's just people being rude, obnoxious, condescending, or strait up hostile about it is.
 
Man, looking over these rules hurts. Some of them are just outright contradictory as a result of being outdated.

Bleach for example has these two.

"Please note that a franchise that does not have anything indicating beyond planet level feats..."

"Please do not attempt to upgrade Bleach to 5-B again."

So basically saying "Bleach maxes at Planet level" and immediately following it with "Don't upgrade Bleach to Planet level". Brilliance.

I'm really glad Sera brought this up, because man alive some of these really suck.
 
What does Sera recently becoming staff again have to do with anything? You do realize she's practically complied with your wishes right? That's not at all fair. You can not accuse her of creating chaos where there is none. The thread was going smoothly until you came at her like that and, excuse my French, pissed her off. Well whatever. I'll leave that alone...

Regarding the actual matter at hand, Sera nor Assalt actually suggested deleting the rules, if you've read the OP you'd know Sera wants there to only be one rule about this. And yeah the rules themselves are very condescending, so of course people are going to challenge it. This is VSBW. Not FBO.
 
@Assalt, It was arguing against Tier 0 to be specific and saying a verse that doesn't have any feats that exceed 5-B shall not be Low 2-C or above under any circumstances. But I agree with how outdated that one is.
 
@DDM

So many are. Part of my sandbox is just thrown out rules because of their complete lack of relevance, and that is still confined by my knowledge of what we accepted and what series have progressed past the dated rules.
 
Some discussion rules can be seen as rough, then there is this:

  • Please refrain from making content revision threads on Dragon Ball Super, as recently we have received an extreme number of them and the staff has got tired of the subject due to how numerous they are. Preferably, comment on already existing threads, if you can, in order to elevate this issue.
I think rules like this one are currently not necessary since the threads about it are rare, same for Boruto.
 
@Dark

The entire thing is just a big ouch. The more I read the more I see that we need to do something about them, whatever that "something" may be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ImmortalDread
  • Locked
Tokyo Revengers: Discussion Rule
2 3
Replies
100
Views
5K
Antvasima
Antvasima
DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
ImmortalDread
  • Locked
Most Important Discussion Rule Section - Staff Thread Creation Guidelines
2
Replies
63
Views
5K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Deagonx
  • Locked
New rule regarding inaccessible content
2
Replies
70
Views
5K
Dereck03
Dereck03
Back
Top