• 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.

Important: CRTs Creation Limits

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antvasima said:
Well, I meant more that there is a massive quantitative difference in all of the stories produced for Marvel Comics and DC Comics compared to those of Naruto and One-Punch Man, for example.
Click to expand...
Do we refer to those stories as “versions”? If so, each of them should be allowed to have up to three CRTs limits.

I believe I understand your point, and the rule needs to be modified to include this issue.
 
I'm alright with enforcing the rule more, though from what I remember it was meant to be a temporary measure during the forum move.

But in all seriousness, 3 CRTs per verse at a time is more than reasonable. It's not as though the members can't organise themselves better and include more into a CRT before posting them anyway.

Though, if any new information or opinion cropped up in the thread then let me know, I've just read the OP and skimmed this thread.
 
A single verse shouldn't have more than three content revisions threads running simultaneously, regardless of the perceived importance of the verse.
If three content revision threads are already running for a verse, the community should prioritize concluding one of them before creating a new one.
  • Marvel and DC Comics are an exception to this rule because of the unique setting of their canonicity and plot.
    They are allowed to have a maximum of six threads running simultaneously.

@Antvasima You meant this?
 
Last edited:
Planck69 said:
But in all seriousness, 3 CRTs per verse at a time is more than reasonable. It's not as though the members can't organise themselves better and include more into a CRT before posting them anyway.
Click to expand...
Ay thank you for your input Planck!
Planck69 said:
Though, if any new information or opinion cropped up in the thread then let me know, I've just read the OP and skimmed this thread.
Click to expand...
We are discussing whether the canonicities of said verse gets its own three CRTs limits or not.
 
ImmortalDread said:
A single verse shouldn't have more than three content revisions threads running simultaneously, regardless of the perceived importance of the verse.
If three content revision threads are already running for a verse, the community should prioritize concluding one of them before creating a new one.
  • If a verse has multiple versions or canonicities, each of them is allowed to have a limit of three CRTs.

@Antvasima You meant this?
Click to expand...
Well, Marvel Comics and DC Comics both have several hundred protagonist characters, so three allowed threads for each of them seems far too excessive, but I could see these two verses respectively being allowed at least six active CRTs each at a time.
 
We can create an exception for this obscure large verses since they got unique setting for their plot.
 
Well, the settings are not obscure, but they are very abnormally large in the quantity of the story material that has been produced within them.
 
I have modified my draft:

A single verse shouldn't have more than three content revisions threads running simultaneously, regardless of the perceived importance of the verse.
If three content revision threads are already running for a verse, the community should prioritize concluding one of them before creating a new one.
  • Marvel and DC Comics are an exception to this rule because of their enormous quantity of story material produced within them
    They are allowed to have a maximum of six threads running simultaneously.
 
I made some modifications to your suggested new rule structure:

A single verse shouldn't have more than three active content revisions threads running simultaneously, regardless of the perceived importance of the verse. If three content revision threads are already active for a verse, our community should prioritize concluding one of them before creating a new one.
  • Marvel and DC Comics are an exception to this rule because of the enormous quantity of story material produced within them. They are respectively allowed to have a maximum of six threads running simultaneously.
  • If a certain recent content revision thread is very clearly ill-considered and of poor quality, please ask a thread moderator or administrator to close it to provide room for more useful alternatives.
However, where should we draw the line of considering a content revision thread inactive? No replies for the last month or so?
 
Antvasima said:
However, where should we draw the line of considering a content revision thread inactive? No replies for the last month or so?
Click to expand...
Inactive CRTs are different ones. Also, they are inactive when they are not bumped for over three months according to our discussion rules.
So I assume, the rule here already clarify it:
  • Please do not bump topics that have been inactive for over three months without a legitimate argument, and entirely avoid bumping topics that have been concluded. However, we make exceptions for versus threads. There is no exact time limit as long as the characters in question are not outdated.
 
Okay. Does three months of inactivity seem like a workable limit for the rest of you?
 
Yes, three months is a sufficient period to confirm that a CRT has had no activity.
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. I meant if it is a too long time to wait.
Click to expand...
Typically, members should either bump or close CRTs that have not had any activity. Members can review existing CRTs
and, if necessary, conclude them before creating new ones.
 
One CRT per verse should be active and worked on at a time until it is closed

That's how it should be

Doing multiple CRT's at once is why we get overworked to begin with
 
Antvasima said:
I made some modifications to your suggested new rule structure:

A single verse shouldn't have more than three active content revisions threads running simultaneously, regardless of the perceived importance of the verse. If three content revision threads are already active for a verse, our community should prioritize concluding one of them before creating a new one.
  • Marvel and DC Comics are an exception to this rule because of the enormous quantity of story material produced within them. They are respectively allowed to have a maximum of six threads running simultaneously.
  • If a certain recent content revision thread is very clearly ill-considered and of poor quality, please ask a thread moderator or administrator to close it to provide room for more useful alternatives.
However, where should we draw the line of considering a content revision thread inactive? No replies for the last month or so?
Click to expand...

The one issue I have about this, is what about large shonen verses that have weekly releases? These verses need to be updated frequently to keep up with new releases. Crts, depending on the content/and if staff are even knowledgeable/interested in the content., can take days or weeks to pass. As a result, actively enforcing this limit could make the profiles lag behind the official release.
 
Antvasima said:
I made some modifications to your suggested new rule structure:

A single verse shouldn't have more than three active content revisions threads running simultaneously, regardless of the perceived importance of the verse. If three content revision threads are already active for a verse, our community should prioritize concluding one of them before creating a new one.
  • Marvel and DC Comics are an exception to this rule because of the enormous quantity of story material produced within them. They are respectively allowed to have a maximum of six threads running simultaneously.
  • If a certain recent content revision thread is very clearly ill-considered and of poor quality, please ask a thread moderator or administrator to close it to provide room for more useful alternatives.
However, where should we draw the line of considering a content revision thread inactive? No replies for the last month or so?
Click to expand...
I think 3 months is a good starting point for being inactive, but can be tweaked over time.

Do we have a way to automatically close threads in the CRT forum after 3 months of inactivity?
 
After the rule is published? Yes, but only if members request it.

An automatic way would be inappropriate
 
If there are three active CRTs and all of them have been accepted and are only waiting for the 48hrs to pass, no CRT can be created until the 48hrs finish or can it be created from the moment they were accepted?
 
There are important factors to consider such as the differences between minor, somewhat controversial, and highly important CRTs. There should also be differences in limits depending on the verse sizes too.
I feel that it would be much more appropriate as a general flexible guideline than as an official rule.
 
The philosophy behind the rule contradicts your suggestion.

Therefore, it is not advisable to make any distinctions in the quality and significance of the verse, as I mentioned in my first line in the rule.
 
Deagonx said:
I think 3 months is a good starting point for being inactive, but can be tweaked over time.

Do we have a way to automatically close threads in the CRT forum after 3 months of inactivity?
Click to expand...

Please 1 month imo. Why should a thread be inactive for more than a week☠️.
 
That’s completely impractical, because all verses can’t and won’t receive equal attention, that’s just the truth
you can’t stack up a verse that 5 or 6 people support and them put it up against iconic things like dragon ball or opm and say that they can be treated the exact same
it should be adjusted for size
 
Imagine a verse like Dragonball having to wait for months for a crt to be considered dead before another one is put out. I recommend 5 CRTs max if that’s the case. To somewhat account for dead unfinished CRTs and size of fandom. However if you guys insist on 3 CRTs then 3 months of inactivity for a CRT for it to be considered dead just seems unreasonable and unfair.
 
Or conclude the current CRT?

You are complicating, don't start a CRT if you don't want to finish it.
 
Yes, it is easy since your interest is attached to the closure of CRT, so people mostly will conclude the thread, so they can start a new one.


This is the point of rule, it's not to create dead CRTs, it is to create more productive CRTs and faster results.
 
there is nothing faster about forcing massive verses to a small crt limit, all that does is slow down revisions
We should hold smaller verses to smaller standards, and allow big ones more breathing room
 
Your arguments lack very much any reasoning for not explaining why would members not target other CRTs to conclude it and re-create a new one.
I am not really here trying to argue with you on this.
 
Great idea, let’s give people an incentive to rush CRTs more in order to cram in revisions for their 100 supporter verse, I’m sure that won’t make debating here even dumber.
 
Or to create more unproductive threads to let them die/or gets inactive within your perspective, so no conclusion will never meet?

Ziller, you can continue this argument forever, you ain't really giving any valid reasoning and simply wanting a forth and back discussion.
 
Imaginym said:
I'm concerned that this may be difficult if threads aren't tagged.

Many users often don't tag, either out of negligence or other reasons.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to have some Staff Members to apply Verse &/or Character Tags to CRT they see that lack tags?
Click to expand...
I always do this when the situation arises.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Or to create more unproductive threads to let them die/or gets inactive within your perspective, so no conclusion will never meet?

Ziller, you can continue this argument forever, you ain't really giving any valid reasoning and simply wanting a forth and back discussion.
Click to expand...
No conclusion is always better than a rushed and stupid conclusion
If you think I’m not giving valid reasoning then you’re just not reading my posts. Rushing CRTs creates problems and leads to false productivity, the illusion of faster = better while lowering the quality
It’s just a bad idea.
 
Also CRTs that more than 2 people care about basically always reach a conclusion, so that’s never been a problem to begin with.
 
I don't see how it is even rush if there is staff member presence in the thread.

This is really a pointless discussion currently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Catzlaflame
  • Locked
Sandboxes and CRTs
Replies
11
Views
2K
Catzlaflame
Catzlaflame
ImmortalDread
  • Locked
Most Important Discussion Rule Section - Staff Thread Creation Guidelines
2
Replies
63
Views
7K
Antvasima
Antvasima
GrathOfLux
Proposal for Site/Forum Image Standards Revision
3 4 5
Replies
175
Views
10K
CloverDragon03
CloverDragon03
DontTalkDT
Logic Manipulation Ability Page Creation
Replies
28
Views
6K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top