Fixing the Situation With Locations...

[Tllmbrg]

You mean like Man-Thing? I thought we just Match Banned Characters like that?

I think his match ban is wrong
I was more so meaning stuff we're incapble of indexing properly or characters that are just regular humans with no skills (They offer no real matches)

 

[KieranH10]

But Locations still have 3 or 4 reasons as to why they were accepted. Battles are simply not the only reason they would be made.
We are also an Indexing wiki, for the record, Indexing is the primary function of us, not VS Debating.

 

[Tllmbrg]

But Locations still have 3 or 4 reasons as to why they were accepted. Battles are simply not the only reason they would be made.

Not the only one, but the primary reason why
If they can't be properly used then they shouldn't be here

We are also an Indexing wiki, for the record, Indexing is the primary function of us, not VS Debating.

An indexing site in regards of statical information that can be used for vs matches
We ain't wikipedia where you can index almost anything, we have a certain type of things we index

 

[KieranH10]

Not the only one, but the primary reason why
If they can't be properly used then they shouldn't be here

There is no "primary reason" to create them, every reason is just as important, making them for matches is arguably the least useful to us though.

We are very far beyond this subject. With respect, it has already been brought up multiple times in this thread alone.

 

[Antvasima]

An indexing site in regards of statical information that can be used for vs matches
We ain't wikipedia where you can index almost anything, we have a certain type of things we index

This is correct, yes.

 

[KieranH10]

If this is true, there are dozens of profiles that should be deleted.
Perhaps eventually down the line a profile we have will help another profile be indexed for a versus match, but the likes of Man Thing, The Entire Unknown Tier, and more generally cannot be used in them directly.

Locations would be exactly the same case if we want to dig that deep into the rule, every other usage for locations would eventually help another profile in some way, just like some of our current profiles do. So the point is barely relevant at all at this point.

 

[Antvasima]

Sorry, I made an ill-considered post. I meant that we are mainly here to index character statistics, and shouldn't deviate too much into other areas.

 

[KieranH10]

That makes more sense. I understand characters are our main focus. But we already have deviated into weapons, and civilizations. Locations is not any further out of a subject than these in my opinion.

 

[Antvasima]

Weapons are still used by characters as power sources and for other purposes, and civilisations are admittedly a gray area, but can still have tiers and serve a supplementary information purpose for statistics. Locations on the other hand deviate quite a lot from our intended purpose, so if we necessarily have to feature them, our standards must at least be very strict in this regard.

 

[KieranH10]

Locations can be just as useful as weapons given the original usages listed for them. Much like weapons, they can act as equipment for characters, and can empower them.

This is one reason out of many that locations were agreed, and all of should be taken into account when making rules regarding the format, which the OP goes into detail about.

 

[Tllmbrg]

Locations can be just as useful as weapons given the original usages listed for them. Much like weapons, they can act as equipment for characters, and can empower them.

What
How does a location act as equipment lol
I'd agree that we locations can effect matches depending on characters but this doesn't put them on the same level as weapons nor it justifies locations which we can't even use as a proper arena that have no reason in canon for why they're inconsistent

 

[Promestein]

Locations can be just as useful as weapons given the original usages listed for them. Much like weapons, they can act as equipment for characters, and can empower them.

Just list it in equipment and explain it there then, I've said this a hundred times

(And just for the record I do feel the same way about most weapons; unless a weapon or any other bit of equipment is / can be used by multiple distinct characters and/or has noticeable variation in abilities or statistics, we should just list it on a character's page and detail what it can do there. So don't pull that 'but weapons' card with me.)

I also think that, even if we aren't purely a versus debating wiki, a location that serves only to make a fight easier for a specific, certain character or several characters is just a bad idea versus match wise, and shouldn't be supported. If a location isn't still interesting in a fight with two characters who have no connection to it, it shouldn't be made into a page, I think. In other words, location pages shouldn't be made for the purpose of specific characters, unless it's impossible to fight a given enemy elsewhere.

Even then, though, you could always just list the relevant things about the boss' surroundings and abilities and how they make use of them on their own page, I think. Let's be honest though, the specifics of many boss arenas aren't exactly relevant, especially not to the extremely vague details of a versus match.

 

[KieranH10]

Just list it in equipment and explain it there then, I've said this a hundred times

Or we could use the new type of profile we just allowed.
Why would we list everything about a location on a character profile? That makes very little sense.

And just for the record I do feel the same way about most weapons; unless a weapon or any other bit of equipment is / can be used by multiple distinct characters and/or has noticeable variation in abilities or statistics, we should just list it on a character's page and detail what it can do there. So don't pull that 'but weapons' card with me.

That ending seemed somewhat hostile for something I didn't, not was I gonna do.

I also think that, even if we aren't purely a versus debating wiki, a location that serves only to make a fight easier for a specific, certain character or several characters is just a bad idea versus match wise, and shouldn't be supported. If a location isn't still interesting in a fight with two characters who have no connection to it, it shouldn't be made into a page, I think. In other words, location pages shouldn't be made for the purpose of specific characters, unless it's impossible to fight a given enemy elsewhere.

I never once said this. Fights that are majorly one sided due to a location aren't allowed to be added to profiles. Seems like a given honestly, we cant put John wick on another planet without air in a battle...

Even then, though, you could always just list the relevant things about the boss' surroundings and abilities and how they make use of them on their own page, I think. Let's be honest though, the specifics of many boss arenas aren't exactly relevant, especially not to the extremely vague details of a versus match.

Boss areas aren't a relevant subject anymore.
And once again, why give the information unformated on a character page? When we have a format for locations.

 

[Promestein]

When a location is notable because it has equipment, just list the equipment on the page. That's what I mean.

 

[KieranH10]

I don't believe that has been brought up? The current discussion is about the location itself being a form of equipment or attack/ability.

 

[Promestein]

Such as? We've been talking about shit like Avengers Tower, and your examples there have been the Iron Legion, which is regular equipment.

 

[KieranH10]

That was a very long time ago lol.
Such as the Mirror Dimension (MCU), Spirit Realm (Kung Fu Panda), or more, would be some in this category afaik.

Although, I do still believe that Avengers Tower and more would also be a similar case, just in a different way.

 

[Promestein]

Ehhh, maybe in those cases.

 

[KieranH10]

Ok. Would you be OK with the rule staying then, or do you still disagree?

 

[Promestein]

It's a case-by-case basis. We should judge every page on its own merits rather than making a lot of specific, sweeping rules.

 

[KieranH10]

That seems like a lot of work in my opinion. And could be considered unfair to certain pages, a ruleset that applies to everything is more fair imo, as everything would be judged exactly the same.

Would you like me to place you as neutral, considering you say the rules work for some but not others, or would you still more so disagree?

 

[Promestein]

Don't put me on the chart at all, it's misleading. You have a lot of points and suggestions and a lot of people agree with some and disagree with others, and a lot of them offered no argument either way.

 

[KieranH10]

I'm confused at this point. Zark implied a vote should be done, and Ant mentioned it was a good idea.

Nobody commented whether my disagreement with the idea was worth anything, while I also gave what would be considered the "vote", to which nobody also said anything.

I'm trying to keep this thread working smoothly, we can either use the figures Zark and Ant wish to. Or we can continue discussing.
Either way, users have confirmed their stance on the subject. So it is not misleading.

 

[AKM sama]

Can you go through your suggested changes and mention the points which haven't been disagreed with?

 

[KieranH10]

points have been disagreed with, I have crossed out points which have had actual reason to be rejected, of which I and other agreed that they were better rejected.

Many points have been disagreed with, but reasons have not taken into account many things, so they have stayed open. But many users who have disagreed or stayed neutral have not gone into more detail about their points.

My points are what is still open in the OP, those who are marked as agreed have confirmed that they generally agree with those too.

Disagreeing users have been noted too, which their disagreements being summarized, as have neutrals.

 

[AKM sama]

You don't need to find those reasons completely acceptable according to your point of view.

My purpose for asking that was simply to find out the accepted things that can be implemented due to having little/no disagreements, since I feel this thread has been dragging out for a long time.

 

[KieranH10]

I mean to a degree I'd imagine pretty much everything has been disagreed with at some point considering some people have just preferred Zark version in general.

I'd prefer the changes were applied all at once anyways personally, it would be generally simpler and easier to do.

 

[Promestein]

points have been disagreed with, I have crossed out points which have had actual reason to be rejected, of which I and other agreed that they were better rejected.

Many points have been disagreed with, but reasons have not taken into account many things, so they have stayed open. But many users who have disagreed or stayed neutral have not gone into more detail about their points.

My points are what is still open in the OP, those who are marked as agreed have confirmed that they generally agree with those too.

Disagreeing users have been noted too, which their disagreements being summarized, as have neutrals.

You don't understand, much of these arguments are based on completely subjective grounds. You can't disprove me and I can't disprove you.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out Promestein and AKM.

 

[KieranH10]

You don't understand, much of these arguments are based on completely subjective grounds. You can't disprove me and I can't disprove you.

I'm aware. But that means it is a matter of opinion, and the majority opinion at the moment is in favor of the OP. Staff included. But upon asking whether we should use the majority opinion, others said no, but when somebody else said should we use it, it was considered fine.

Pretty much everyone who's had disagreements has stopped commenting here, either by the fact that they've changed their minds, have nothing more to say, or simply don't want to. We are running out of options.

 

[Antvasima]

Can you and Impress summarise the arguments for and against each point here please?

 

[KieranH10]

It'll be a long summary as there's a lot of points to go over, but i'll do it when I get home.

 

[Antvasima]

Please write it in a concise easy to understand manner.

 

[The_Impress]

It's a long summary

...isn't this a paradox tho :/

 

[KieranH10]

Upon attempting a summary of the nature requested (every point for and against every subject), I realized that the job was going to take forever...
Instead I have updated this further and mentioned every point the members have addressed each. To the members, if I've missed something, please tell me.

The current consensus seems to be:
Agree: (13, 5 Staff)

• Keeweed
• TheDivineHost
• MidnightDawn1
• Colonel_Krukov (Has confirmed they agree with the OP)
• Therefir
• AbaddonTheDisappointment
• XSOULOFCINDERX
• Fastestthingalive50
• KingTempest (Has confirmed they agree with the OP)
• Greenshifter
• Emirp sumitpo
• ElixirBlue (Has confirmed they agree with the OP)
• Starter_Pack (Has confirmed they agree with the OP)

Disagree: (5, 4 Staff)

• AKM sama (Seems to generally disagree with the OP, and prefers Zarks version)
• Promestein (Seems to disagree with what should qualify for a profile, generally agrees with Zark)
• Antvasima (Agrees with AKM and Promestein)
• NomsNoms (Supposedly agrees with AKM, Prom, and Bambu)
• The_Impress (Believes irregular structures should be completely disallowed, profiles for sub-location of existing areas should be disallowed, believes the Hazards section isn't needed, )

Neutral: (4 Staff)

• Mr._Bambu (Agrees with the points he hasn't commented on, disagrees with Merging Formats, believes if a Profile is better covered by another format, it should be that, neutral on changing "Passive Effects")
• Sir_Ovens (Hasn't given a major stance)
• DarkDragonMedeus (Has stated the OP has made good points, but wishes to be considered neutral)
• DontTalkDT (Uncertain, opinions seemingly generally similar to what is being proposed, minor differences)

 

[The_Impress]

So ignoring regular users, this is a staff discussion afterall, we have 5 in agreement, 4 in disagreement, and 4 neutral.

Near-even split it seems, better to work on compromises

 

[KieranH10]

Regular users can help with discussion. Yes this is a staff thread, but many of them are long time trusted users, their opinions matter.
That said, I believe we should ask more staff here, as it would be helpful.

Also, @Sir_Ovens @DarkDragonMedeus @DontTalkDT My apologies, each of you has commented already, but I'm unsure if your placement in neutral is correct for various reasons. Could you confirm your stances please.

 

[Antvasima]

Look, all bureaucrats still disagree, and given that this is an official policy discussion, I am afraid that only staff members have a true say in this. You and Impress need to try to work out some kind of compromise solution, and preferably also write the summaries that I asked about earlier if you want more staff members to get interested.

 

[KieranH10]

The staff vote is majority agreed. A thread is not concluded just because each of the Bureaucrats disagree. Else we'd have no need for the other staff in discussions anyway, because it'd be up to the Bureaucrats. The Bureaucrats have disagreed, but stated they no longer wish to give further discussion about their points. Other staff have since agreed with the OP, making it a majority in favor of it, also taking into consideration disagreeing points. This cannot be said for the other party, the points for the OP were made after the points against it, those that disagree have yet to give a response to those that have been made against them, so those that disagree can not be considered to legitimately disagree with points they haven't even taken into account.

I have been completely fair in this thread, and the last one, and the one before that, I have rejected subjects that have had genuine reason, backing, or numbers to be rejected. I have requested further discussion on every dropped or disagreeing point, but those who disagree insist they have nothing more to say, and I have continued to discuss with those still willing to.
Some of the disagreeing party have stated that this is nothing more than opinion, others have asked this is put to a vote. To which you yourself said would be a good idea.
What happened to that? I gave the numbers of the vote and it was against the Disagreement, so it was dropped and ignored.

The ending of the original thread had none of this. Because the entire format was applied at a moments notice, no compromise, very little discussion, and nothing came of that behavior, and we're here now.

If you want to keep this thread going, the disagreeing parties should continue discussing, or more staff should be brought here. If you don't want this thread to continue, we know the members who agree and disagree.
A large amount of reasonable ideas have been brought up in this thread, but upon the disagreement realizing that they're the minority, dragging the thread along. To anybody else, that is called stonewalling.

If we want a conclusion we have it, i've seen many threads which have concluded with this kind of backing.
If we want to continue we can continue. But I do not want for this thread to be over complicated by various repetitive, unnecessary, and pointless attempts at the minority party trying to get their way.

For the record, I'm sorry if this comes off as any kind of aggressive. I don't mean it like that, I'm simply being up front about how this thread and subject has gone so far.

 

[AKM sama]

The staff vote is majority agreed.

If it's 5 against 4, that's not nearly enough agreement to change anything. You'd need a considerable staff support in order to push for some change. I'd argue that some of the people in the neutral list are also more along the lines of disagreement.

A thread is not concluded just because each of the Bureaucrats disagree. Else we'd have no need for the other staff in discussions anyway, because it'd be up to the Bureaucrats.

This is a matter of wiki policy. Bureaucrats are the highest authority on the site to decide which policies to implement. If all of them share the same opinion on something like this and when there is no overwhelming support on the other side, I'm afraid there's nothing much to do about it. Not to take anything away from staff members or even regular users, but ranks and authority are there for a reason.

The Bureaucrats have disagreed, but stated they no longer wish to give further discussion about their points.

You're asking people to either agree with you, or keep debating with you until they give up and agree with you. You just have to accept that not all things get accepted.