Legitimacy of Matches

[Arkenis]

Got permission from Mr.Bambu.

Alright, so I'm sure everyone knows and has seen the infamous FRA trains that happen in matches, especially with popular characters where little reason is presented besides previous arguments that are either still in contention, have been shot down, or the opposition has little support to engage continuously. Secondly is the matches done illy (unknowingly or knowingly) with outdated pages or glaringly unfavorable sides.

So, I'd like to set up two requirements for FRAs and then a simple "Outdated Warning" for outdated pages that have been abandoned or are being updated. The outdated warning isn't for pages like Deku or Gojo where they are receiving updates throughout the year or the supporters are attentive, it's for pages where the cast or character is lacking overall in abilities/descriptions, supporters are making/revising a verse specific power system page or overhauling several characters. If the outdated warning is something too big to be done as it is thousands of likely outdated pages, then the verse page itself can have an outdated warning on it instead.

FRA

• When commenting FRA, one must give their own opinion on the reason(s) mentioned above. And it is required for those FRAing to acknowledge refutations and engage with those if they still stand, otherwise the vote should be ignored.
• Generally, FRAs should not be within the first page as this can create a premature cascade of votes without both sides being fleshed out. Though, when a match is decided within the first page, grace applies and the first page rule can be ignored.

The match which prompted me to make this was Toji vs Uvogin. A clear example of an outdated character page and little support for the HxH verse made it so Toji would be voted for before the second page was even made. If others could, please post other examples to get my point across. I'm sure there's numerous examples. And just to clarify, I don't think these matches are done maliciously, they just aren't thought out well enough.

They Agree: AbaddonTheDisappointment, CloverDragon03
Doesn't Like Cool Ideas:

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

Agree FRA (had to say it)

Anyways, I think most of this is fine though the no FRA in the first page I do think there could be a potential issue with that. If there aren’t any counter arguments, the opponent doesn’t have many options, and it doesn’t go past the first page it kinda just makes it sound like people cant vote. Could probably just be fixed by rewording it or something.

 

[M3X_2.0]

If others could, please post other examples to get my point across. I'm sure there's numerous examples.

(GRACE) Kashimo VS Yuta (again) (15-11-0)

Yuta: Quantu MintyBoi1 ReaperAndBlues Milly_Rocking_Bandit Zabazab M3X_2.0 PsychoWarper DragonEmperor23 Lukewoesal007 GunshyFever Tony_di_bugalu TheRustyOne Strife304 Undylan Jackof_noTrades068 Kashimo: Arkenis Robo432343 Catbowtie LIFE_OF_KING EldemadeDityjon Redite250 Oliver_de_jesus...

vsbattles.com

People supporting Kashimo were clearly lying about a bunch of stuff regarding Yuta (like they literally made up stuff that Kashimo CANNOT counter) and the massive FRA train came. Until me and some other oppositors came and actually presented arguments for Yuta & debunked the previously told lies.

 

[Arkenis]

Agree FRA (had to say it)

Anyways, I think most of this is fine though the no FRA in the first page I do think there could be a potential issue with that. If there aren’t any counter arguments, the opponent doesn’t have many options, and it doesn’t go past the first page it kinda just makes it sound like people cant vote. Could probably just be fixed by rewording it or something.

Grace itself should be fine.

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

Grace itself should be fine.

What do you mean? I’m saying assuming counter arguments are dealt with but it doesn’t go past the first page the rule would imply they’d just have to either make useless posts to get it past the first page or just wait til someone bumps it to the second page. Not sure how grace would deal with that

 

[Arkenis]

What do you mean? I’m saying assuming counter arguments are dealt with but it doesn’t go past the first page the rule would imply they’d just have to either make useless posts to get it past the first page or just wait til someone bumps it to the second page. Not sure how grace would deal with that

I'm saying if the match is decided within the first page, the fras are fine as both sides have argued enough and grace comes into play so there's no need for useless posts to get past first page. I've updated the wording now.

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

I'm saying if the match is decided within the first page, the fras are fine as both sides have argued enough and grace comes into play so there's no need for useless posts to get past first page. I've updated the wording now.

Welp that was my one gripe. Full agree now

 

[Arkenis]

Guys... it's a Staff thread.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I won't speak yet but I will be removing non-staff replies.

 

[DontTalkDT]

We have an outdated template already. However, that's something supporters of the verse should add to the verse if they want to. It's not something to be placed on pages based on suspicion or on everything that didn't have the latest thing on it yet.
For every wiki the standard is that all pages are constantly assumed under revision, so that in itself needs no disclaimer. It's when the supporters agree that they want to avoid vs-debates being made since the characters are currently not correct or if a CRT left something in an inconsistent state (e.g. some scaling that's on the page stops making sense, because the character its scaling to has yet to be revised). Should stay a voluntary thing for those involved with a verse.

Don't much favor the FRA thing. Length of debate is no measure of validity and one reason can easily be enough for the FRA. More likely it's a combination of all reasons mentioned in most cases, though.

 

[Arkenis]

We have an outdated template already. However, that's something supporters of the verse should add to the verse if they want to. It's not something to be placed on pages based on suspicion or on everything that didn't have the latest thing on it yet.
For every wiki the standard is that all pages are constantly assumed under revision, so that in itself needs no disclaimer. It's when the supporters agree that they want to avoid vs-debates being made since the characters are currently not correct or if a CRT left something in an inconsistent state (e.g. some scaling that's on the page stops making sense, because the character its scaling to has yet to be revised). Should stay a voluntary thing for those involved with a verse.

I think it should be enforced or the very least encouraged. A few prominent verses like hxh, mha, naruto have numerous pages not updated like other pages from the verse are. I’ll show some examples later when I get the time. And how would we know the supporters don’t want the pages in vs matches without going and asking supporters who are either too busy with irl or simply not interested anymore? I’m sure we’ve all seen a supporter need to comment “yeah the pages are outdated and shouldn’t be used in matches” a simple outdated warning on verse pages would remedy this.

Don't much favor the FRA thing. Length of debate is no measure of validity and one reason can easily be enough for the FRA. More likely it's a combination of all reasons mentioned in most cases, though.

You’re right length isn’t a measure, that’s why I updated the description to include that it should be a general thing but isn’t necessary to apply all the time like when people agree the match is decided within the first page. As you say it’s a combination of all reasons, meaning two reasons is a fine standard to get from people voting. It demonstrates they read the thread to an extent and didn’t just comment fra because they favor the character.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I think it should be enforced or the very least encouraged. A few prominent verses like hxh, mha, naruto have numerous pages not updated like other pages from the verse are. I’ll show some examples later when I get the time. And how would we know the supporters don’t want the pages in vs matches without going and asking supporters who are either too busy with irl or simply not interested anymore? I’m sure we’ve all seen a supporter need to comment “yeah the pages are outdated and shouldn’t be used in matches” a simple outdated warning on verse pages would remedy this.

All the verses you mention have active supporters, who you can ask if they think that the pages require it. Whether something is outdated at all is also a matter of opinion btw. I have many times seem people call pages outdated because upgrades hadn't been done yet which in the end simply didn't pass.
Also, you will in no case get around debating changes to a verse, like marking a page as outdated, with the verse's supporters first. We don't make decisions over people's heads like that.

If there are no supporters (i.e. everyone's busy and not interested) then any page has to stand on its own. If someone says "this page is wrong, here's why, but I ain't going to fix it", and it's found that the page likely indeed is just wrong in its current state (and an outdated page is essentially wrong), then the page simply gets deleted.

Either a verse has supporters or its pages are correct or its a candidate for deletion. We don't keep wrong pages around that have nobody to defend and/or improve them.

Quite frankly, most of the time you are better off just making a CRT to fix a page, as opposed to putting an "Outdated" to it, as by the time you have proven to everyone that the page is indeed outdated you already have provided all prove needed to just update the page. It has its applications, but they are niche and uncommon.

You’re right length isn’t a measure, that’s why I updated the description to include that it should be a general thing but isn’t necessary to apply all the time like when people agree the match is decided within the first page. As you say it’s a combination of all reasons, meaning two reasons is a fine standard to get from people voting. It demonstrates they read the thread to an extent and didn’t just comment fra because they favor the character.

A character might win for a single reason, like for example in cases where the opponent can absolutely not kill them due to immortality. That makes expecting two reasons just not feasible.

In general, expecting the users to essentially just crtl+c crtl+v the comment they agree to is just... not helping.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I support this revision, yeah. If anything, it should be applied to CRTs too, but that's for another time

Blatantly bad stuff like what was shown by the OP and M3X shouldn't be happening, yet it does as a result of FRA trains from people that probably didn't even read the entirety of the arguments

 

[Arkenis]

All the verses you mention have active supporters, who you can ask if they think that the pages require it. Whether something is outdated at all is also a matter of opinion btw. I have many times seem people call pages outdated because upgrades hadn't been done yet which in the end simply didn't pass.
Also, you will in no case get around debating changes to a verse, like marking a page as outdated, with the verse's supporters first. We don't make decisions over people's heads like that.

I'm asking for supporters to do this is all, for us to encourage outdated warnings on blatantly outdated stuff. This isn't just upgrades or pna sections although I'm 99% sure I could find numerous pages missing abilities as we've seen already happen and get crts for.

Hxh: Without being a knowledgeable supporter, you would not know who scales where within this scaling on profiles: Leol, Morel, Nobunaga, Kite to name a few. We have no idea what 8-A value they scale just going off their scaling and the one character that seems to give a clear description is Bonolenov which means you'd have to go from page to page to find this. Who are the characters who scale to 5x the 20% Uvogin durability feat? Who are the strongest 8-A characters?

• The weakest 8-A characters are scaled to half of Uvogin's full power (139.36 Tons)
• The 8-A characters are scaled to five times the 20% Uvogin's durability feat (278.73 Tons)
• The strongest 8-A characters are scaled to ten times the 46 tons value (464.5 Tons)
• The Low 7-C characters are scaled ten times half of Uvogin's power (1.39 Kilotons)
• The strongest Low 7-C characters are scaled ten times Uvogin's full power (2.79 Kilotons)

Naruto: There's dozens like this, as even I've gone through some pages and updated them before because they didn't mirror other pages. But Kisame, Jiraiya, Minato their pna section is updated even had stuff added from crts iirc meanwhile pages like Orochimaru, Kabuto, Kakuzu aren't updated to match the same aesthetic and clearness of the other pages.

Soul Eater: I'm preparing a crt for the verse and without contacting really just me no one would know this unless they're in the know. The crt goes over numerous scaling for several characters, pna sections and other stuff like a whole verse power page/physiology.

It's not a massive problem, and like I said there's no need to enforce the outdated warning, the supporters should just be encouraged to put an outdated warning on some characters or just the verse to make it clear to unknowledgeable viewers the pages aren't up to date and could be missing something or something may be removed.

If there are no supporters (i.e. everyone's busy and not interested) then any page has to stand on its own. If someone says "this page is wrong, here's why, but I ain't going to fix it", and it's found that the page likely indeed is just wrong in its current state (and an outdated page is essentially wrong), then the page simply gets deleted.

Or an outdated warning can just be added as we have that for this.

Quite frankly, most of the time you are better off just making a CRT to fix a page, as opposed to putting an "Outdated" to it, as by the time you have proven to everyone that the page is indeed outdated you already have provided all prove needed to just update the page. It has its applications, but they are niche and uncommon.

In the meantime someone not knowledgable on the crt being prepared wouldn't know and may go make a match. And crts take time, letting a page sit there or verse wait for us to go from one crt to another for another verse crt can just be remedied with the outdated warning.

A character might win for a single reason, like for example in cases where the opponent can absolutely not kill them due to immortality. That makes expecting two reasons just not feasible.

In general, expecting the users to essentially just crtl+c crtl+v the comment they agree to is just... not helping.

Yeah that is an exception which I haven't seen happen for majority of matches but maybe you've seen different. And I'm not asking for a copy paste, I'm asking for the people to give their own take on reasons above to show they actually paid attention to the match and know what they're talking about.

For example: There's three pages made, both characters have three win cons, someone new who hasn't participated for those three pages should give us two explanations on the reasons above is all. "I think character A wins due to his fire magic have wide range and uh I think he's better at fighting" obviously be more descriptive and if their reasons for voting were refuted or countered already then their vote probably shouldn't be counted unless they decide to refute the previous refutation as I've seen done multiple times as well.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I will speak on the OP now.

So, I'd like to set up two requirements for FRAs and then a simple "Outdated Warning" for outdated pages that have been abandoned or are being updated. The outdated warning isn't for pages like Deku or Gojo where they are receiving updates throughout the year or the supporters are attentive, it's for pages where the cast or character is lacking overall in abilities/descriptions, supporters are making/revising a verse specific power system page or overhauling several characters. If the outdated warning is something too big to be done as it is thousands of likely outdated pages, then the verse page itself can have an outdated warning on it instead.

I think an Outdated Warning may be simply unfeasible to add. It would require evaluation on the legitimacy of noting a verse as outdated, which could require back and forth over vague lines drawn. I think it also feeds into the mass misconception that something not being changed recently means it is outdated- it doesn't, sometimes changes are just actually built to last, and verses with less of a diversity of opinions on the powerscaling enjoy an amount of stability that does not require a CRT every other day.

Thus, I foresee this sort of thing being applied because a verse page hasn't been changed, for a verse from years ago that doesn't need updated, supporters or not. I then see people arguing over it, and false flags arising... and ultimately I just don't consider it worth it, for Versus Threads. Versus Threads are significantly far down the list of our potential concerns, they are there for the fun of it rather than as a core element of our wiki. Our main interest as a site is the offering of collective information, Versus Threads are just a contrivance we've developed to allow people to toy around with that. So, if the risk is potentially harmful in the name of making better Versus Threads, I'd sincerely rather people just work it out as they have so far.

When commenting FRA, one must offer two reasons for why they are voting based off the reasons above.
Generally, FRAs should not be within the first page as this can create a premature cascade of votes without both sides being fleshed out. Though, when a match is decided within the first page, grace applies and the first page rule can be ignored.

I do not like FRA trains, but this seems remarkably arbitrary. What if a character wins for but one reason? What if no argument is had but the position in favor of X verse is made by a supporter of Y verse? It seems these rules assume a (possibly common, admittedly) series of requirements to be directly useful, whereas in some cases it is merely decided very early, without debate but with consensus, that one character simply wins.

I do not say this to mean that a rule cannot be made: I say this to say that this particular rule ought to be refined to be more general and broadly-applicable. I'd like to think that as a staff force we are capable of understanding the spirit of the rules, and can thus allow for more general rules, although they still ought to be as explicit as is feasible.

Now, onto the discussion following the OP:

(GRACE) Kashimo VS Yuta (again) (15-11-0)

Yuta: Quantu MintyBoi1 ReaperAndBlues Milly_Rocking_Bandit Zabazab M3X_2.0 PsychoWarper DragonEmperor23 Lukewoesal007 GunshyFever Tony_di_bugalu TheRustyOne Strife304 Undylan Jackof_noTrades068 Kashimo: Arkenis Robo432343 Catbowtie LIFE_OF_KING EldemadeDityjon Redite250 Oliver_de_jesus...

vsbattles.com

People supporting Kashimo were clearly lying about a bunch of stuff regarding Yuta (like they literally made up stuff that Kashimo CANNOT counter) and the massive FRA train came. Until me and some other oppositors came and actually presented arguments for Yuta & debunked the previously told lies.

This just seems like a separate issue, to be honest. It is an issue, but it isn't quite the same as an FRA train, it's people being misleading and deceptive to garner votes.

I think it should be enforced or the very least encouraged. A few prominent verses like hxh, mha, naruto have numerous pages not updated like other pages from the verse are. I’ll show some examples later when I get the time. And how would we know the supporters don’t want the pages in vs matches without going and asking supporters who are either too busy with irl or simply not interested anymore? I’m sure we’ve all seen a supporter need to comment “yeah the pages are outdated and shouldn’t be used in matches” a simple outdated warning on verse pages would remedy this.


You’re right length isn’t a measure, that’s why I updated the description to include that it should be a general thing but isn’t necessary to apply all the time like when people agree the match is decided within the first page. As you say it’s a combination of all reasons, meaning two reasons is a fine standard to get from people voting. It demonstrates they read the thread to an extent and didn’t just comment fra because they favor the character.

This is the word I like to see. "Encouraged". I do not think it should fall within formal policy to establish when a verse is outdated, although if verse supporters broadly agree that it is outdated (and are enacting one of those long strings of CRTs they never seem to get tired of), then I believe that to be fine.

I do suspect, though, that this will be used counter to your wishes: as a wiki, I have observed a trend of behavior for years. CRTs do not end. No verse with an active number of people on it will ever cease getting CRTs. There will be no end to the diversity of opinion so long as two souls have seen the same thing. Now, there may be prevailing schools of thought amongst fans, but there will always be the micro-adjustments, the pushing for this lightning speed statement to be taken literally, or this statement about fate to be stricken out for flowery language... there will always be CRTs. And so every verse can be claimed to be outdated, it's more a matter of perspective than anything.

Blatantly bad stuff like what was shown by the OP and M3X shouldn't be happening, yet it does as a result of FRA trains from people that probably didn't even read the entirety of the arguments

Bad things ought not happen; it falls to us to create a system of rules that allow for the proper attendance and thus negation of bad things. Failure on our part can only do more harm than good.

 

[Arkenis]

I do not like FRA trains, but this seems remarkably arbitrary. What if a character wins for but one reason? What if no argument is had but the position in favor of X verse is made by a supporter of Y verse? It seems these rules assume a (possibly common, admittedly) series of requirements to be directly useful, whereas in some cases it is merely decided very early, without debate but with consensus, that one character simply wins.

I do not say this to mean that a rule cannot be made: I say this to say that this particular rule ought to be refined to be more general and broadly-applicable. I'd like to think that as a staff force we are capable of understanding the spirit of the rules, and can thus allow for more general rules, although they still ought to be as explicit as is feasible.

Yes I am going for the common cases, this is why I think for exceptions the rule can be ignored. I'm fine with broadening it, though I'm not sure how right now.

This is the word I like to see. "Encouraged". I do not think it should fall within formal policy to establish when a verse is outdated, although if verse supporters broadly agree that it is outdated (and are enacting one of those long strings of CRTs they never seem to get tired of), then I believe that to be fine.

I do suspect, though, that this will be used counter to your wishes: as a wiki, I have observed a trend of behavior for years. CRTs do not end. No verse with an active number of people on it will ever cease getting CRTs. There will be no end to the diversity of opinion so long as two souls have seen the same thing. Now, there may be prevailing schools of thought amongst fans, but there will always be the micro-adjustments, the pushing for this lightning speed statement to be taken literally, or this statement about fate to be stricken out for flowery language... there will always be CRTs. And so every verse can be claimed to be outdated, it's more a matter of perspective than anything.

I think I can set up a more strict perception of outdated. Although I think the template already kinda does this with "important information" used to describe it. The character lacking proper scaling would be something important for example. Supporters opinions on what they think is missing like people thinking Gojo should be Universal and Limitless should operate at H1B can be ignored as we already do ignore ridiculous opinions. If a verse has certain statements and its been shot down several times then that probably doesn't apply since its had its share of attempts and people agree its not to be added. Though of course new arguments can be made and new info can come out so those cases wouldn't fall under this. And verses with constant crts and active supporters over the years won't apply to this, it's for verses like HxH or Soul Eater where little attention is given and the supporters aren't active.

The article is outdated and is missing important information. It is highly recommended that this page be revised to be more complete and up-to-date. Please be sure to read the Editing Guidelines before you begin revising it.

 

[Arkenis]

When commenting FRA, one must offer two reasons for why they are voting based off the reasons above.

Instead could be

When commenting FRA, one must give their own opinion on the reason(s) mentioned above. And it is required for those FRAing to acknowledge refutations and engage with those if they still stand, otherwise the vote should be ignored.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

This verbiage seems to change it into a suggestion, rather than a rule?

 

[Arkenis]

This verbiage seems to change it into a suggestion, rather than a rule?

Right, I changed it to fit more as a rule now. I figured it sounded too much like a choice.

 

[Arkenis]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

How about if we simply require that people should at least briefly mention what preceding reasoning they agree with in conjunction with their votes, if they do not want to explain personal reasoning on their own?

 

[Arkenis]

bump

 

[Arkenis]

bump

 

[Antvasima]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

We need further input here.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I am in agreement with DontTalkDT.

 

[Agnaa]

Usually outdated profiles are handled by some supporters seeing a match on an outdated character, saying "There's gonna be a CRT on this soon, you shouldn't make a match for them right now", and then the word getting around until the CRT is done. idk if it's worth the extra bureaucracy to add a disclaimer to pages when that situation arises.

I understand the frustration with FRAs, but I don't actually see the point in changing it. 99% of the time it's obvious who they're agreeing with, I don't think requiring people to write that out in a more elaborate way adds much. "I disagree FRA", "I disagree for DT's reasons", and "I disagree for DT's reasons about the flux of profiles and difficulty of evaluating good debates" all seem to have about the same utility for a reader. And I don't know what bad behaviour it meaningfully dissuades on the FRA'er's end.

 

[Arkenis]

Usually outdated profiles are handled by some supporters seeing a match on an outdated character, saying "There's gonna be a CRT on this soon, you shouldn't make a match for them right now", and then the word getting around until the CRT is done. idk if it's worth the extra bureaucracy to add a disclaimer to pages when that situation arises.

It's not extra bureaucracy to have supporters use the thing already existing on site, I want it encouraged so it doesn't happen anymore. And besides matches, this helps viewers who don't use the forum know why a character's page is outdated.

I understand the frustration with FRAs, but I don't actually see the point in changing it. 99% of the time it's obvious who they're agreeing with, I don't think requiring people to write that out in a more elaborate way adds much. "I disagree FRA", "I disagree for DT's reasons", and "I disagree for DT's reasons about the flux of profiles and difficulty of evaluating good debates" all seem to have about the same utility for a reader. And I don't know what bad behaviour it meaningfully dissuades on the FRA'er's end.

I think this specific part is the point. One's vote shouldn't be taken if they are disregarding stuff that refuted why they're voting which would invalidate their fra.

And it is required for those FRAing to acknowledge refutations and engage with those if they still stand, otherwise the vote should be ignored.

Generally, FRAs should not be within the first page as this can create a premature cascade of votes without both sides being fleshed out. Though, when a match is decided within the first page, grace applies and the first page rule can be ignored.

And this is really just to create better quality vs matches honestly.

 

[Agnaa]

It's not extra bureaucracy to have supporters use the thing already existing on site, I want it encouraged so it doesn't happen anymore. And besides matches, this helps viewers who don't use the forum know why a character's page is outdated.

The extra bureaucracy is in creating and managing threads to mediate disputes over whether it should be added to pages.

I think this specific part is the point. One's vote shouldn't be taken if they are disregarding stuff that refuted why they're voting which would invalidate their fra.

This is often subjective, and can already be weeded out with bare FRAs.

Either all the arguments supporting a character have been invalidated, and so all FRAs would be invalid. Or only some of them are, so some elaborate-FRAs would need to make another post saying "actually I care about these other arguments instead", while bare FRAs would get off scot-free.

That doesn't seem like much of a gain to me. Not one worth the extra moderation of rule violations.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

I agree that there needs to be some sort of requirement to stop mindless "FRA" trains. I think it that if you are going to the same as someone else, you should include both who you're agreeing with, and your own subjective reason why you think it ends in such a way 8f you haven't been involved in the discussion that came to this conclusion.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

While I do agree that there should be less dependency on FRA trains preferably, and people should be encouraged to write up other reasons, not everyone has all the time in the world to go over everything. And it's common for PC or internet connection issues to render people unable to write up lengthy posts as well as the stress it causing making it difficult to also do so respectfully, and adding to an FRA train could be the least bad option left. And Agnaa is correct that we cannot just simply force people to to agree or disagree if they already decided which side to support.

 

[Arkenis]

The extra bureaucracy is in creating and managing threads to mediate disputes over whether it should be added to pages.

There's no need for that. The discussion can be done by the main supporters of the verse aka the knowledgeable supporters, which isn't a lot for most verses. I believe Honkai Impact went through a major crt where almost all their scaling on page had to be redone, something like that could have benefited from the outdated title.

That doesn't seem like much of a gain to me. Not one worth the extra moderation of rule violations.

It isn't a rule, its more of a standard to set in vs matches. The OP won't include the vote, no one needs to be taken to the rule violation thread.

While I do agree that there should be less dependency on FRA trains preferably, and people should be encouraged to write up other reasons, not everyone has all the time in the world to go over everything. And it's common for PC or internet connection issues to render people unable to write up lengthy posts as well as the stress it causing making it difficult to also do so respectfully, and adding to an FRA train could be the least bad option left. And Agnaa is correct that we cannot just simply force people to to agree or disagree if they already decided which side to support.

They don't have to go over everything, most matches come down to maybe four things being considered for who wins. And writing up a paragraph at most to explain why you're voting doesn't take long and it isn't as though its needed within the day.

 

[Agnaa]

There's no need for that. The discussion can be done by the main supporters of the verse aka the knowledgeable supporters, which isn't a lot for most verses.

But if there's a disagreement over whether the being-discussed changes are actually likely to pass, that'd be a dispute that would need to be taken to a thread to stop an edit war.

It isn't a rule, its more of a standard to set in vs matches. The OP won't include the vote, no one needs to be taken to the rule violation thread.

No-one needs to, but I think some people will kick up enough of a stink over it for that to happen from time to time.

We've had people brought to the RVR over the (never actually true) idea that the OP of a thread can't vote in it, and over how many votes are needed to get a match removed from a profile. I have no doubt that a rule about FRA counting will lead to similar outcomes.

 

[Arkenis]

But if there's a disagreement over whether the being-discussed changes are actually likely to pass, that'd be a dispute that would need to be taken to a thread to stop an edit war.

Why would there be an edit war or a dispute if the crt for the changes hasn't been accepted or rejected yet? And locking the page fixes this also.

We've had people brought to the RVR over the (never actually true) idea that the OP of a thread can't vote in it, and over how many votes are needed to get a match removed from a profile. I have no doubt that a rule about FRA counting will lead to similar outcomes.

You have a point here, but this can be said for essentially any misunderstanding of something on the wiki and when this happens people tell them about the rule and link the thread or page where it was created to clear up the misunderstanding. And considering how many people participate in vs matches I'd think this crt and the addition of it would become common knowledge overtime like many other rules.

 

[Agnaa]

Why would there be an edit war or a dispute if the crt for the changes hasn't been accepted or rejected yet?

Because adding/removing that disclaimer would prevent/allow matches from being made, which is something that a fair few people care about.

And locking the page fixes this also.

It fixes the edit war, but requires moderation and deliberation.

You have a point here, but this can be said for essentially any misunderstanding of something on the wiki and when this happens people tell them about the rule and link the thread or page where it was created to clear up the misunderstanding. And considering how many people participate in vs matches I'd think this crt and the addition of it would become common knowledge overtime like many other rules.

It would definitely be feasible, I just think the gain is too small to be worthwhile.

 

[Antvasima]

So what are the staff conclusions here so far in summary?

 

[Arkenis]

So what are the staff conclusions here so far in summary?

Would it be a bother to get other staff involved? Only four have commented here so far.

 

[Antvasima]

It depends on if those staff members consider it necessary, or if they have already conclusively accepted or rejected this thread. We do not have limitless amount of available work time.

 

[Agnaa]

Agree with OP Entirely: 2 (AbaddonTheDisappointment, CloverDragon03)

Suggested A Different FRA Rule: 2 (Antvasima, Colonel_Krukov)

Disagree with OP Mostly, But Thinks A Different FRA Rule Could Be Made: 1 (Mr. Bambu)

Disagree with OP Entirely: 3 (DontTalkDT, DarkDragonMedeus, Agnaa)

Overall, things are very split.