• 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

Yes, I think it was a bad idea to remove entries without clarifying why to the rest of us. It can easily cause mistakes to be made.
 
Just to clarify, it is nice of Assaltwaffle to help out with this, and the structure style of the blog is good. I just don't want any important information to be lost in the conversion.
 
So, would it be acceptable to expand on the explanations closer to their original size, and to note down which entries that were removed and why?
 
I dont know how feasible that would be, but how about linking example threads onto the respective rules?

We woudnt need to write leangthy explanations and people would know if the stuff they present is new or not.
 
I don't think that most of the current rules have any thread links available.
 
Thats kind of problamatic though. How can we claim that we debunked those ruled topics if we dont have any threads regarding them?
 
Well, that is why it is important to include the full explanations.
 
But thqt stkll doesn't provide a place to see rebuttals. In a thread, the person not sure as to why we have something can read both the arguments for and against and the rebuttal. To include that in the blog would make it an insane amount larger.

Also, I agree with First Witch: if there isn't a thread where it was debated, it shouldn't be banned.
 
There were threads, but we generally were bad at finding the old discussions when the rules were instated.

Basically, we didn't add the rules during the first long discussions, but at the point when they had been repeated several times and nobody had the energy to argue about it anymore, hence the common lack of thread links.

Nevertheless, it is a very bad idea to not provide full explanations or to wipe out most of our discussion rules. We would end up with a lot more pointless constant work.
 
Antvasima said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just to reiterate what I said a few months ago.
 
Antvasima said:
.
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.
Click to expand...
Digimon is a good example of this. It has a bunch of equivalent tier digimon. That are extremely confusing, as to why they rated as such.

The summary of the games, to explain zeedmillenniummon, tier was most helpful. And necessary given his strength. (which was on top of his profile page.)

Because alot of them have 4B, which is quite high.
 
I think we need a discussion rule to prevent threads which try to upgrade the Greek God of War setting / characters to 3-A.

I can link to about 4 or 5 different threads in which this was attempted and they always end the same way, with in-fighting, drama, and the proposal ultimately being rejected. They are almost always made by the same people and from my experience which includes multiple years of these threads on multiple wikis and unrelated sites like Narutoforums, they always use the same arguments and scans.
 
I am fine with if you add a new discussion rule for this.
 
Okay. That is fine as far as I am concerned.
 
@Matthew

Okay. Are you beginning to see my side of why it is important to underline that it is heavily discouraged to bring up these topics again, and that it is important to keep full length explanations for them?

If we get rid of several rules without any justifications, severely cut down the length of the rest, and do not in any way discourage that they are brought up anymore, the staff will end up severely exhausted in the long run, and not be able to handle other tasks.
 
That said, I am perfectly fine with rewording the list for better structure and text flow, and removing outdated entries.
 
I think that for topics which are truly controversial and which have users who constantly insist on them, it's important to have very clear, very loud rules. But not for every thing, though.

3-A God of War is definitely among the things which need clear rules.
 
@Acheron

Can we not do this here, please? You've already tried to undermine the opposition not only on both threads, but also on Kep's wall despite him asking not to be bothered, and now him.
 
Hmm. No much seems to be happening here.

@Assaltwaffle

Would you be willing to keep your intended improved structure of the page, but also the full explanations for the current regulations?
 
I'm bumping this.

But basically I'm not going to make my blog into essentially just "rules 2.0".

By adding full explanations, what exactly do you mean by that?
 
Well, I am perfectly fine with if you wish to improve on the structure and tone of the regulations, but am definitely not willing to constantly tear my hair out in frustration for several years due to dealing with the same topics over and over and over and over ad nauseum.

I mean that you shouldn't shorten down the old regulation texts to nearly become nonexistent, as I think you did here. Our visitors must know why they should not bring them up unless they have something genuinely new to add.
 
I mean, examples of problems with the new blog was you mentioning the 2-B Mario or 5-A Sonic being removed completely due to them, "Already being at that tier". I think you might have misunderstood the context of those rules; it's that their Base forms are too controversial to be that high. Mario is 2-B with Pure Hearts, and Sonic varies from 5-A to 2-C with Chaos Emeralds, but the fact is none of that scale to their base forms; which is why those rules were in place.

The blog is good for the most part, but those 2 rules can't just be removed completely for those reasons I mentioned. They should still have some of the bulleted details.
 
Given that I am the one who would have to take the full brunt of the consequences of almost getting rid of our discussion rules, and am already almost working myself to death so the rest of you can take it comparatively easy when visiting the wiki, I vehemently oppose doing so. There are limits to how much this community can demand of me.
 
@DDM

I'm fine with making needed changes to it. I don't fully understand the scope of all the rules.

@Ant

There will be no unmanageable influx of such threads. We have Discussion Mods for a reason, as well, and we can simply tell people that make such a thread that we have already accepted/rejected topic X with reasons Y in mind. Functionally not much would change.

Also, stop. You don't have to reply to every CRT. No one is forcing you. We have a moderation and administrative team. This isn't just "Ant versus the world".
 
There will definitely be an unmanageable influx of such threads, and by my experience, without me trying to keep things organised nothing will happen in a high percentage of content revision discussions.

I think that forcing such a drastic change, regardless of the consequences to me personally, is extremely inconsiderate. I am not making things up regarding my situation, and do have more experience than anybody else in the wiki regarding how it fundamentally tends to work.

I have already stated that I am fine with a compromise of keeping the full regulation texts, but rewording them into a more appropriate structure when necessary, and possibly even stating that it is strongly suggested to avoid the topics without new information rather than outright forbidden. Cutting down the text segments to become nearly nonexistent, or removing them entirely is completely unacceptable however.
 
Ant, you really should stop acting like you're the Emperor of Mankind keeping the dark powers of Chaos at bay from consuming existence.
 
Basically, keeping the discussion rules mostly as they are is a very minor temporary inconvenience for you at best, whereas almost getting rid of them would be a massive long term inconvenience for myself if I am going to continue to work hard to make sure that the wiki functions properly. I have a lot to lose here, whereas you have very little to gain.
 
But nobody suggested we should get rid of them. Just that they are currently unacceptable and unbearable signs of our personal arrogance with how the page is worded and set-up, and that they need to be majorly reworked and stated that it's merely considerably suggested not to try to bring the same things up again and again and expect it to be accepted.
 
@Ant

If you think I cut too much out, what specifically do you want me to add in? I'd need details to make proper modifications.
 
We aren't getting rid of the discussion rules, we're just trying to reword them in a less aggressive manner. But I do agree with the part for Antvasima on that the details do need to be a bit more elaborate.
 
@DDM

Would you help me expand the explanations by enlightening me on the points I don't have expertise in? The rules cover so many franchises I may have improperly explained them.
 
I know I'm not staff, sorry but I have a really important question:

I can understand where people are coming from in terms of censoring what revisions can be made, how we've already discussed tiers before, etc etc... but what about rules against certain matchups?

We've made a few rules on banning Naruto vs Bleach I believe, one on Son Goku vs Superman too, because said threads tend to devolve into non-sensical rants and insult matches. Are way now saying we're willing to accept these matchups by respecting and adopting Sera's new mindset as a community?

(I can see pros and cons to both, I just want staff to comment on this as it's very important and I haven't seen a lot of responses yet.)
 
@Matthew

Thank you ever so much for taking my experiences and concerns gained from 5 years of hard overwork for the sake of the community seriously, rather than offhandedly dismissing them. It is nice to be appreciated.

For your information, lying is anathema to me. It feels extremely unnatural due to the autism. I think in terms of statistics and patterns. As far as my experiences add up, everything that I said is true. I am being overwhelmed as it is, due to not getting remotely enough help for such a ridiculously active wiki, and the discussion rules serve as a bulwark against a flood of exasperating repetition.

@Assaltwaffle

Look, all I want is for all the entire regulation texts to remain intact, so our members know why they should avoid the topics, but reworded when necessary, if they sound too arrogant. I also want them to know that the topics are heavily discouraged unless they bring something new to the table.
 
Kepekley23 said:
But nobody suggested we should get rid of them. Just that they are currently unacceptable and unbearable signs of our personal arrogance with how the page is worded and set-up, and that they need to be majorly reworked and stated that it's merely considerably suggested not to try to bring the same things up again and again and expect it to be accepted.
Click to expand...
This.

The rules are best described as passive-aggressive and consdescending. These are rules, not arguments in a CRT, so they should be written from a neutral POV and without bias. We don't need to get rid of them, but most of them are redundant and fall under the category of "do not try to revise certain topics that have been repeatedly discussed without additional evidence". It shows blatant bias against certain verses as the result of personal frustration from the staff in dealing with those topics over and over again, yet that does not even remotely stop people from doing it anyway (for example, speed of light Naruto). Being conceited about it hurts our cause, it doesn't help it.
 
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
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
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