-
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
- Thread starter Sera_EX
- Start date
-
- Tags
- discussion rules
- 29,979
- 31,097
I also approve of AssaltWaffle's list.
- 18,659
- 5,859
I also like Assalt's version
- 4,863
- 1,311
I agree with Assalt's proposition as well.
- 1,459
- 248
One little thing: the skinny buu rule should be under DB Super, not DBZ
- 8,438
- 3,292
You're right. If someone wants to continue working with the same format he/she can.
- 8,438
- 3,292
It fell to the wayside of my attention. Now that the format is set, though, this should be easy to do for anyone who wishes to continue it.
- 1,459
- 248
Another thing we may want to added: CRTs ir arguments in general about Sans' KARMA attacks doing more damage based on sins. Almost every Sans thread has something come upo about it, and I've seen multiple CRTs relatively recently
- 8,438
- 3,292
Stance on Controversial Topics - The Draft
It's finally done! After finally getting some time to just sit down and little else pressing for my time, I managed to just sink some hours into this thing and bang it out.
That's a weight off me, I'll tell ya' what.
It's finally done! After finally getting some time to just sit down and little else pressing for my time, I managed to just sink some hours into this thing and bang it out.
That's a weight off me, I'll tell ya' what.
- 29,979
- 31,097
About time, and looks great.
- 15,345
- 11,145
Given I don't remember what's going on, can someone tell me what's trying to be accomplished here?.
- 8,438
- 3,292
I'll admit it took way WAY longer than it should have thanks to a mix of lack of motivation, procrastination, and IRL time contraints, but it's done.
- 29,979
- 31,097
@LordGriffin, basically putting all the franchise specific discussion rules into a blog format. Some of them were really redundant, and were worded in rather aggressive matters. AssaltWaffle was basically trying to make it more organized while also more newcomer friendly.
- 8,438
- 3,292
Short version: The discussion rules suck harder than a vacuum cleaner and needed to be majorly reworked.LordGriffin1000 said:
Long version: The discussion rules suck harder than a vacuum cleaner since not only did they present us as all-knowing and outright correct on opinion-based or open to interpretation topics, but were also condescending and outdated. I remade them and put them into a "stances on topics" format rather than "rules", filtering out what didn't need to be said while preserving the core of the valid "rules". Some rules were just ridiculous and I didn't even bother touching them.
- 15,345
- 11,145
I see what y'all mean, looking at the blog I agree. Good job to by the way.
- 4,152
- 2,209
I am well aware this is a staff discussion, but there's something important I'd like to point out. The blog Assaltwaffle wrote "DBS is complete." Thing is, it's actually NOT complete. As I type this, Dragon Ball Super had a Broly movie that was recently released, and parts of it was adapted into the DBS Manga. The manga, of course, is still ongoing, with the main villain right now being a goat man who happens to be a wizard. Considering how ridiculously popular Dragon Ball is, I have little or no doubt that the anime would return and focus on retelling the Broly movie and focusing, too, on the goat man later on.
- 165,111
- 72,025
@Assaltwaffle
First of all, thank you very much for taking the time for this.
However, I would greatly appreciate if you please provide just as precise and in-depth explanations as previously for the various topics, that you do not filter out any of them that have not been outdated with new revisions, and that you clarify in the beginning that the subjects in question are heavily discouraged to bring up. Otherwise my and other staff members' work will turn much harder by having to recurrently deal with these topics over and over again.
Thanks in advance for any help.
First of all, thank you very much for taking the time for this.
However, I would greatly appreciate if you please provide just as precise and in-depth explanations as previously for the various topics, that you do not filter out any of them that have not been outdated with new revisions, and that you clarify in the beginning that the subjects in question are heavily discouraged to bring up. Otherwise my and other staff members' work will turn much harder by having to recurrently deal with these topics over and over again.
Thanks in advance for any help.
- 8,438
- 3,292
@Ant
Well Ant, one of the main things about this was to remove the idea that these topics are "heavily discouraged" but rather of little consequence. Many of those threads that we previously posted dismissed arguments based off of opinion or interpretation as factually incorrect, despite having no basis for being presented as such.
What VSB communities accept is driven very much on interpretation or opinion, and very rarely are we objectively right if there is a divide over what is accepted. We need to stop acting objectively right.
If someone makes a thread we can point to why we don't accept them and that's it, imo.
Well Ant, one of the main things about this was to remove the idea that these topics are "heavily discouraged" but rather of little consequence. Many of those threads that we previously posted dismissed arguments based off of opinion or interpretation as factually incorrect, despite having no basis for being presented as such.
What VSB communities accept is driven very much on interpretation or opinion, and very rarely are we objectively right if there is a divide over what is accepted. We need to stop acting objectively right.
If someone makes a thread we can point to why we don't accept them and that's it, imo.
- 165,111
- 72,025
My apologies, but I am already extremely overworked, and cannot deal with handling any more repeat topics over and over and over again, and neither can most of the other staff members who help out with solving content revision discussions.
There are a far greater number of regular members than there are staff, and new ones regularly stream to the site with concerns about the same topics as other members have had. There are definitive limits to what we can deal with in terms of time and energy.
I am fine with getting rid of an absolute restriction and replacing it with "heavily discouraged", with rewording the regulations to sound more neutral and formal, and to get rid of outdated rules for which the pages have since been updated.
However, I am extremely strongly opposed to getting rid of all in-depth context and explanations for the regulations and to state that we should let loose all restrictions whatsoever for them. Nor do I think that I ever remotely agreed with such a procedure.
As such, I would greatly appreciate your cooperation in this regard, as this change risks to strongly damage the overall stability of the wiki otherwise.
There are a far greater number of regular members than there are staff, and new ones regularly stream to the site with concerns about the same topics as other members have had. There are definitive limits to what we can deal with in terms of time and energy.
I am fine with getting rid of an absolute restriction and replacing it with "heavily discouraged", with rewording the regulations to sound more neutral and formal, and to get rid of outdated rules for which the pages have since been updated.
However, I am extremely strongly opposed to getting rid of all in-depth context and explanations for the regulations and to state that we should let loose all restrictions whatsoever for them. Nor do I think that I ever remotely agreed with such a procedure.
As such, I would greatly appreciate your cooperation in this regard, as this change risks to strongly damage the overall stability of the wiki otherwise.
- 8,438
- 3,292
I help out with content revisions when I can. To my knowledge 90% of any of the topics on these "rules" haven't been brought up in earnest in some time.
These changes do not risk "strong damage" to the stability of the wiki. What we did in this thread will have almost zero impact on our workload, since we can still direct someone who makes a thread on one of these topics to why we don't accept it. If they have nothing new to add there is nothing else to be done, but if they have something novel we can't just say "that's a no-no cause we don't want the work". That was why Sera made this thread, that is why it go the backing it did, and that's why I went through all of these and rewrote and updated them.
None of us did this to leave some rule of heavy discouragement in place. If they make it, whatever. We direct them to the page in a single post and that's that if nothing else is to come on it. Almost nothing changes from the way we currently do it.
These changes do not risk "strong damage" to the stability of the wiki. What we did in this thread will have almost zero impact on our workload, since we can still direct someone who makes a thread on one of these topics to why we don't accept it. If they have nothing new to add there is nothing else to be done, but if they have something novel we can't just say "that's a no-no cause we don't want the work". That was why Sera made this thread, that is why it go the backing it did, and that's why I went through all of these and rewrote and updated them.
None of us did this to leave some rule of heavy discouragement in place. If they make it, whatever. We direct them to the page in a single post and that's that if nothing else is to come on it. Almost nothing changes from the way we currently do it.
- 165,111
- 72,025
With no offense intended, I likely have a longer and wider range of experience on this particular topic than anybody else in the wiki, given that I have been here for so long and have monitored such a massive number of discussions.
We used to have considerable problems with all of these topics reemerging over and over and over to the point of extreme exhaustion, and the available experts in the staff unwilling to repeat themselves by handling the topics any more, which is why we started to impose the regulations in the first place, which is the reason for why people do not bring them up nearly as much anymore.
This will definitely damage the stability of the wiki, as constantly dealing with already handled repeat topics severely diminishes our energy and focus for new and more important tasks.
In any case, all that I am asking is that you leave the more detailed explanations for all of the regulations intact, but reworded to be more formal/neutral, and that we use the term "discouraged" or "heavily discouraged" in the beginning.
Again, I actually do have considerable experience regarding this topic, and it would cause me and others considerable trouble otherwise.
We used to have considerable problems with all of these topics reemerging over and over and over to the point of extreme exhaustion, and the available experts in the staff unwilling to repeat themselves by handling the topics any more, which is why we started to impose the regulations in the first place, which is the reason for why people do not bring them up nearly as much anymore.
This will definitely damage the stability of the wiki, as constantly dealing with already handled repeat topics severely diminishes our energy and focus for new and more important tasks.
In any case, all that I am asking is that you leave the more detailed explanations for all of the regulations intact, but reworded to be more formal/neutral, and that we use the term "discouraged" or "heavily discouraged" in the beginning.
Again, I actually do have considerable experience regarding this topic, and it would cause me and others considerable trouble otherwise.
- 8,438
- 3,292
If the topics become significantly problematic maybe I would change my stance, but I can't foresee this being a massive problem. At the end of the day if no one can put forth the energy to look after them, leave them unanswered.
Also I am aware you are the most experienced about this, but you're also the most paranoid, to be blunt.
Also I am aware you are the most experienced about this, but you're also the most paranoid, to be blunt.
- 165,111
- 72,025
I would use the word informed caution rather than paranoia in this case. I get that way from extensive experience and/or overflow of reliable real world statistics and information. It is a side effect of having very limited mental filters and being fairly literal-minded, given the autism.
Anyway, if you get rid of the indepth explanations it will become much harder to justify regular members staying away from the topics, or staff members remembering the reasons years afterwards.
Also, it is a definitive fact that we have had to deal with extensive repeat discussions that were severely exhausting before adding most of the current rules. Unless you were there yourself and constantly monitored all of the threads in question it is likely hard to relate to, but it is nevertheless true.
I have been very willing to compromise here. I am just strongly opposed to a complete overhaul that would lead to bad consequences going by my experience.
Anyway, if you get rid of the indepth explanations it will become much harder to justify regular members staying away from the topics, or staff members remembering the reasons years afterwards.
Also, it is a definitive fact that we have had to deal with extensive repeat discussions that were severely exhausting before adding most of the current rules. Unless you were there yourself and constantly monitored all of the threads in question it is likely hard to relate to, but it is nevertheless true.
I have been very willing to compromise here. I am just strongly opposed to a complete overhaul that would lead to bad consequences going by my experience.
- 8,438
- 3,292
I'd want other users to comment on the matter.
- 8,438
- 3,292
If other trusted users desire it, then yes, but right now I would like more consensus aside from our two different opinions on the matter.
- 165,111
- 72,025
Well, I would very much appreciate if you could do me the favour of restoring the full contexts for the regulations, as they currently barely give any information at all.
I am extremely overworked from taking care of all the regular tasks of keeping this wiki running properly, and do not have the time and energy to do so myself.
I am extremely overworked from taking care of all the regular tasks of keeping this wiki running properly, and do not have the time and energy to do so myself.
- 8,438
- 3,292
By "full contents for the regulations", what do you mean?
- 165,111
- 72,025
I just mean that I noticed that you had shortened down several text segments so they did not properly explain why the regulation/suggestion is in place anymore, which will likely cause us problems down the line.
- 32,327
- 20,206
I 100% agree with Assaltwaffle here and think he did a very good job on the blog.
- 29,979
- 31,097
The blog does look very good, but there are a few things here and there that still need to be adjusted. By the looks of it, he said the reasons for the 2-B Mario discussion rule being lifted was, "Mario is 2-B". But the rule was against base Mario being that high which still needed to be clarified in the rules section. Same with Sonic's 5-A rating; he has it in Super form, not in base.
Similar threads
- Locked
