Discussion Rule Controversy

[Sera_EX]

Let's not forget that people abuse the discussion rules. Upgraded a verse? Make a rule to stop people from downgrading it.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

I agree with Sera and Assalt here. I also feel that this went downhill when it did not need to. Certain things just should not be said. Especially when this thread is not going to dismantle the wiki system. It is just a removal of this over restriction. Nothing mentioned in the OP should have even remotely caused a mess.

 

[Antvasima]

I am also frankly extremely disappointed with Antvasima's paranoid, knee-jerk, exaggerated and honestly arrogant response. It's the same old things.

Well, I was trying to apologise, and clarify that reading into my comments as that I have something against Sera is very inaccurate.

I was just very tired and stressed out in general, and noticed that Sera was launching a lot of revision thread in a short period of time, which I found taxing to deal with so late at night. That is all.

I only react when I think there is a suggestion that could be detrimental to the overall health of the wiki, such as removing all of the discussion rules, but it seems like I may have misunderstood. The ADHD and tiredness in combination may have affected my reading comprehension.

It was strictly intended as an offhanded comment regarding that I found the several revision discussions hard to deal with so late in the evening. That is all. Then things were interpreted as far worse than what was intended.

Anyway, could we return to the main topic please? I am still not sure if what is suggested is strictly to reword and restructure the rules, which is fine, rather than getting rid of all of them, which would be extremely bad for the workload of myself and others who constantly have to deal with content revision discussions.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Ant, may I recommend that you actually commit to having proper daily sleep? You seem to sleep like 6 - 7 hours a day and spend the rest of the day at least partially on the wiki. If your habits and routine were healthier, with more sleep, and less constant wiki activity, you wouldn't be so exhausted all the time.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the concern. I am trying to be more efficient and exercise more, but do not always sleep well when I am worried in general.

 

[Sera_EX]

Essentially, the elitist and outright condescending rules is what bothers me most. It violates the most basic principle of any wikia/fandom/encyclopedia, which is the Neutral Point of View policy.

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a policy contained in almost every wiki or encyclopedia, including Vs Batlles Wiki. This policy states that all articles are to be written without bias and with fair views. The purpose of this is to deal with conflicting viewpoints by taking a stand in not leaning to one view or another, but by remaining neutral. When bias is included into an article or rule, it must be removed or written differently.

This is my golden rule for not just discussions, but the entire wiki across the board. This should be the discussion rule which all other discussion rules and versus thread rules are based on. Sure we have a rule clearly stating to not show severe irrational bias (like claiming Archie Sonic is omnipotent), but no bias whatsoever should be on these pages or in these forums. Period. Yes, I believe that includes some of our "Power of this Verse" descriptions, but that's a topic for another time.

This is why I simply want every discussion rule that is based on a specific verse being upgraded/downgraded to be categorized into one NPOV rule that claims that it is against the rules to make CRTs about subjects that have been repeatedly debunked. So if someone makes such a CRT, it is a discussion moderator's job to inform them that the topic has been debunked several times.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I still think that we should keep the list in some form. Better organising it, updating it, and rewriting it to a more neutral point of view is fine, but it would be a nightmare to continue to discuss the same topics over and over in dozens of threads each spanning hundreds of posts, especially if we let the floodgates for all of them loose at once.

 

[Sera_EX]

That's fine, but yes some of them really need to be reworded. Also I noticed people even try to pass these rules after a revision gets accepted immediately. That's suspicious to say the least.

For example, let's say I managed to upgrade Archie Sonic to Low 1-C. Even though technically the size of the Archie Sonic multiverse has been debated for years on this site, I should not be allowed to try and push for a discussion rule to not try to downgrade the verse, again, despite the fact that it technically has been repeatedly discussed.

While most of the verse CRT rules, in principle, are fine, I don't think DMC needs one. Was that even debunked "numerous" times?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I think that a clear majority of the rules were added after multiple threads discussing the same thing, but several of them likely have to be removed if the related franchise statistics have changed since they were added.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, a note that I have repeatedly apologised to Sera elsewhere and she has accepted it. Just so we move on and focus on the issue at hand.

 

[Sera_EX]

Well I know that, but has 3-A DMC been repeatedly debunked? I only remember Matt making that one downgrade thread. Also Weekly wanted a discussion rule preventing Bayonetta from being downgraded (at least using the same arguments as before), but I only recall that one big Bayonetta thread, not many of them.

 

[Kepekley23]

Bayoneta actually did get downgraded, with the same arguments as all the other threads before the successful one no less.

 

[Antvasima]

@Sera

I am not sure, but I vaguely recall Matthew dealing with several long threads about DMC quite a long time ago.

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

The point is that the rule for DMC was made right after Matthew's thread was concluded, not after those threads.

Also, I've counted 4 threads, and one was actually derailed to a 3-A discussion.

But let's stick to the general topic.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, discussing which rules that should be removed is part of the general topic now.

 

[Sera_EX]

Bayoneta actually did get downgraded, with the same arguments as all the other threads before the successful one no less.

This is evidence that you can downgrade/upgrade a verse based on old arguments. So unless it's been repeatedly debunked and the opposing arguments are just bad overall.

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

I think Bayonetta's case is more of an expection than anything. Just saying. But yes, the opposing arguments for 5-B were bad.

 

[Andytrenom]

I agree with Sera and Assalt completely. Personally, reading some of these rules actually makes me worried as to what kind of attitude we are showing to the users here.

 

[Antvasima]

Public image is important, but it is even more important to make sure that the staff members who help out with discussion threads don't get completely overworked and worn down from repeating themselves regarding the same topics year in and year out.

 

[First_Witch]

How about using Seras idea for a rule rewrite and add the older as a sort of list instead. We would have professional sounding rule and we would still keep the banned topics as a list.

"Please do not create Content Revision threads that have been repeatedly debunked without new evidence to support it. This includes:

• Simplified rule regarding Dragon Ball Super
• Simplified rule regarding Dragon Ball Z
• Simplified rule regarding Naruto
• Etc "

Naturally rewordable, this example here is just to show what i mean, due to my lackluster english. Doing So allows us a more compact list, we can reduce uneeded and condecending sounding wording and its easier to maintain.

 

[Antvasima]

That sounds like a good idea, if other staff members agree. The outdated rules still need to be removed though.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Assalt Do you by chance have a draft, of what the blogs you mentioned would look like?

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I'm already doing something similar, but I think having a "stance" on something rather than an outright "rule" that implies total correctness (because some of these issues are opinion based) is the way to go. Here's what I have so far.

Stance on Controversial Topics
While we acknowledge that some elements of fiction are open to interpretation or easily misunderstood, the Wiki's community has adopted certain stances on the following potentially controversial topics. If you wish to revise something that is listed in the following issues, please read over the respective topic. If your argument does not bring any new information to the discussion, please accept that the community has accepted another stance, and that such information has already been covered and discussed at length. Should you find that your stance has not yet been addressed, please proceed with the creation of a Content Revision Board post to address your concerns.

Verses and Controversial Topics
The following is extremely barebones and doesn't represent what the final version will look like.

IGNORED RULES:

• "Don't complain about Dragon Ball power ratings without explicit feats from the new anime series. We have heard all of the arguments many times before, and are so sick and tired of constantly dealing with it that bringing them up has turned into a block-worthy offence." - Outdated, as DBS is complete

• "Given that the only explicit gauges that we have to scale the tiers by are from Frieza's first form, and Super Perfect Cell, we had to estimate roughly where in-between that all of the characters would fit during these time periods, as this was the least bad available option. We have spent a massive amount of time arguing about this, and are not willing to waste any more further rearranging the statistics." - This one literally got revised already even with 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." - Made as a temporary response and is incredibly outdated, as DBS is complete; redundant with the other rules as well

• "Please delay the making of content revisions based on the Boruto manga until a particular, relevant arc has concluded. The manga is still in the beginning stages of development making it difficult to accurately review feats." - Made as a temporary response and is outdated, as such threads aren't showing activity or unmanageably high interest

• Dragon Ball (Link blog with the following topics here when completed)
  • Dragon Ball Z
    • Buu Saga Character Tiering (Gap between 4-B and 4-A too large)
    • Skinny Buu's Tiering (Doesn't scale to Goku for being inconsistent with his main fight against Basil)
    • Buuhan's Vice Shout (Anime only and very inconsistent)
    • Fusion Reborn Goku and Janemba (Shaking the afterlife deemed an illegitimate feat; Janemba's reality warping not applicable to AP)
  • Dragon Ball Super
    • Scaling to Base Goku (Some characters deemed fit to scale, others not)
    • Gods of Destruction Clashing (2-C from the hypothetical Beerus/Champa clash cannot be divided in half) NOTE: The original listed reason as to why this is a rule aren't even universally accepted here.
    • Vegito's Tier (Vegito is listed as he appeared: a fusion of the Zamasu Saga Goku and Vegeta, not a hypothetical future/current merging of Goku and Vegeta. While a Universe Survival Arc Vegito may be able to contest Kefla and thus reach Low 2-C, no such Vegito exists and the profile, as stated before, does not cover any hypothetical merging.)
  • Dragon Ball Heroes & Xenoverse
    • Infinite/Immeasurable Speed (Clearly effected by time and has been discussed several times)

• Bleach (Link blog with the following topics here when completed)
  • Yhwach's Omnipotence (Omnipotence and Omniscience were misused. Nothing in the series indicates anything near omnipotence and Yhwach even died despite his powers)
  • Planetary Top Tiers (Accepted here that only the flow of souls would be disrupted, making this feat indirect and unreplicable, and thus not applicable for Attack Potency)
  • Gin Ichimaru's Bankai (The stated speed was deemed to be unreliable here, and thus is not used)
  • Memories of Nobody (Despite the including of the Valley of Screams in Chapter 627, the movie was deemed unreliable as a canon source and will not be used to scale)

• Naruto (Link blog with the following topics here when completed)
  • Storm Release Light Fang (The Wiki's standards for light dodging are strict, and Storm Release Light Fang does not meet them, thus the Naruto cast is not accepted as light speed)
  • Kaguya's Dimensions (The Wiki has dismissed the idea of scaling Kaguya to star creation, as it was accepted that Kaguya's dimension size was too hard to ascertain, and thus unusable. Dimensional creation on less than a universal scale is not regarded as valid reason for High 3-A or Tier 2 power, as well)
  • Truth Seeking Orbs Soul Destruction (It was accepted that the Truth Seeking Orbs do not destroy souls, but rather nullify Edo Tensei Ninjutsu)
  • Databook Statements (Because of the questionability of the databook, it was accepted that the databook should only be used if the claim is consistent with the manga and deliberately non-hyperbolic)

• JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (Link blog with the following topics here when completed)
  • Johnny Joestar's Tier (It was accepted that his power hitting "with the force of infinite universes" is a contradicted interpretation of his power's functionality)
  • Giorno Giovanna's Tier (It was accepted that the description of Giorno's abilities are limited to the currently accepted levels)

• Yu Yu Hakusho
  • Destroying the world (It was accepted that "destroying the world" in the given context does not indicate outright planet busting)
  • Continental S-Class (It was accepted that the S-Class heroes lack feats at this level, and therefore should not be given such high tiers)

• To Aru Majutsu No Index
  • Beyond Dimensions (Any indication of such a transcendence of dimensions was agreed to be heavily contradictory when examining other parts of this series)

Keep in mind that this is very unpolished, but it's a proof of concept.

 

[Antvasima]

@Assaltwaffle

That seems like a good idea.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Assalt I like it. It sounds very professional and easy to understand.

 

[SomebodyData]

@Assalt that looks good.

Off topic: Though in regards to Janemba RW, why is it a banned topic? Not sure if I've heard people bring it up that often.

 

[Kepekley23]

I don't remember it ever being brought up.

 

[First_Witch]

I avocated for a similar idea so i naturally agree with Assalts version. Looks more polished and better organized

 

[The_Causality]

Maybe a mention for Touhou with Yukari's tiering?

 

[Antvasima]

@SomebodyData

From what I recall, it was repeatedly brought up a few years ago.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Maybe a mention for Touhou with Yukari's tiering?

If there is a Touhou rule I'll go to it. I didn't get done with the list.

 

[Dark649]

Goku shaking the afterlife feat was calced at 4-B to 4-A, so its not illegittimate.

 

[SomebodyData]

Do you have the link? @Dark Would be go to put on the rule (Basically change it to say that its a 4-B/4-A feat instead of the usually assumed 3-A). Plus kinda need it for my toei goku page.

 

[Dark649]

It's this one, also SS3 Goku already scales to Kid Buu, both feats were calced by Kep.

 

[Sera_EX]

Do we really need one for Yhwach? Anyone claiming he is Tier 0 is either ill-informed or showing irrational bias, which by itself is against the rules.

 

[Sigurd_Snake_in_The_Eye]

I've never seen anyone claim he is omnipotent,maybe nigh-omniscenet.

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

The definition of "omnipotent" has been twisted by many in many different ways, so it's not surprising.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Anime versions of Dragon Ball Super cast are definitely still 3-A given their other details; feat performed at the edge of the universe as the starting point which would be around 8x baseline at bare minimum, SSG Goku as his weakest could do it in 6 punches, which 8/6 is still above baseline, but only the final clash is relevant given reactive PL so still 4x, afterlife has to be considered, doubling it back to 8x, and Kepekley did say that having an Earth located at the edge of the universe requires a universe far bigger than the observable universe. But, manga DBS characters and other general universe shaking feats could scale to that calc.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I've never seen anyone claim he is omnipotent,maybe nigh-omniscenet.

There is a user called "Yhwach" in Spacebattles who has claimed that Bleach has "two omnipotents".

 

[Konaguna]

I have a better idea

Simply Link the threads where things have been debunked and specify that if one should delve into such, they should bring new evidence to support such, or evidence that furtherly support the dismissed ones.

Just my suggestions,

Peace