Morality categories

[Antvasima]

Hello.

I am sorry about being a bother, but Arc7Kuroi has made a significant uproar regarding that I removed the "Good Characters" category from Kenpachi Zaraki, and has so far refused to provide evidence that Zaraki is in fact an unequivocally consistently good character, as our fundamental standards demand for qualifying to the category in question.

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com

As far as I am aware from reading at least half of the Bleach series, Zaraki is a thrill-killing, mass-murdering, battlecrazed, bloodthirsty psychopath without empathy or conscience, just a code of conduct that restricts his urges to slaughter, which I find absurd for us to claim that this is a valid high standard for goodness.

Characters that do in fact qualify for this category, should have displayed considerable amounts of conscience, compassion, empathy, altruism, good intentions, and moral conduct.

Take note that I did not insert a definitive "Evil Characters" category in the page, even though I think that Zaraki likely qualifies, I merely removed a "good characters" official stamp of approval, but that does not seem to satisfy Arc7Kuroi.

Even the vast majority of humanity do not qualify as being genuinely good either, just tribalist and easily swayed neutral, and I think that Zaraki's sheer bloodthirst and past acts of amoral enjoyment of mass-slaughter makes him considerably worse than average.

Ambiguous characters should also not receive any moral category at all per definition. I do not want to see the wiki I facilitated the building of turn into something that actively propagates an amoral lack of moral standards.

Again, Zaraki does per definition not qualify for any rational standards of goodness. He takes excruciating amounts of pleasure from slaughter and carnage, has a history of mass-murder, and seems very amoral. Even the author has portrayed Zaraki in a demon form, despite his own apparent leanings towards amorality and fascism. I do not think that we should try to publicly and officially whitewash this character or any others like him.

STAFF ONLY

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Arc7Kuroi

 

[Antvasima]

Arc7Kuroi repeatedly insisted on making this into a public discussion instead of being reasonable, and I do not have the time and energy to argue with a few dozen hostile Bleach fans during my vacation, so I would much rather keep the discussion contained to only the most trusted members, meaning our staff.

Edit: The member who posted above removed their post.

 

[Agnaa]

I think this sort of thing should generally be handled by verse experts.

With large verses, the amount of non-staff that involves can get overwhelming, but that's mitigated by those series typically also having quite a few staff members that are knowledgeable.

So I'd rather leave it to that bunch.

Although, since Arc is a central member of this dispute, I think he should be allowed to comment here.

Since I'm not a part of any of those groups, I'm gonna unfollow, and hope my ideals are upheld.

 

[Psychomaster35]

Technically, wouldn't "Good Characters" and "Evil Characters" be the same as "Heroes" and "Villains"? What is the point of keeping those separate?

 

[Antvasima]

I already notified Arc7 about this thread, so he is allowed to post here, and morality alignment categories should only be assigned in clean-cut cases (hence why I avoided labelling Zaraki with an "Evil Characters" category) and comply to our universal requirements for all verses.

 

[Agnaa]

I would also like to add, taking a similar thought pattern as Bambu's recent thread about categories, I think an arbitrary category that leads to heated disputes like this, which isn't very relevant to wiki functions, might be better off being deleted.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Well the character being a Blood Knight character doesn't mean they aren't Good, they just aren't a paragon like Superman or a generally good person like Goku. In addition after the last arc he had notable character development and become not only calmer but more critical of his actions (for example Shadow the Hedgehog has also done a lot of evil actions but went through character development and ks generally a hero now).

Overall I don't think removing it without a proper thread is really a good move. You would have to prove why he doesn't fit the nebulous criteria of good.

 

[Antvasima]

Technically, wouldn't "Good Characters" and "Evil Characters" be the same as "Heroes" and "Villains"? What is the point of keeping those separate?

No, they are not. A person who regularly does good deeds and has high amounts of conscience and empathy does not necessarily have to actively physically fight against evil people.

 

[Antvasima]

I would also like to add, taking a similar thought pattern as Bambu's recent thread about categories, I think an arbitrary category that leads to heated disputes like this, which isn't very relevant to wiki functions, might be better off being deleted.

I think that we should keep them, but that they should only be applied in self-evident and consistent cases, such as Superman and Darkseid.

 

[Crabwhale]

I don't think categories are so important as to warrant large scale moderation by staff (within reason of course). Generally speaking I'd leave the addition and removal of such things as a matter to regular users who know the profiles and the verse in question.

I don't think this is a large issue in any regard either way it swings.

 

[Antvasima]

Well the character being a Blood Knight character doesn't mean they aren't Good, they just aren't a paragon like Superman or a generally good person like Goku. In addition after the last arc he had notable character development and become not only calmer but more critical of his actions (for example Shadow the Hedgehog has also done a lot of evil actions but went through character development and ks generally a hero now).

Overall I don't think removing it without a proper thread is really a good move. You would have to prove why he doesn't fit the nebulous criteria of good.

The big problem is that Zaraki really really enjoys bloodshed and carnage, and has a history of mass-murder. That means that he is a villain who happens to be on the protagonists' side.

 

[Deagonx]

I would also like to add, taking a similar thought pattern as Bambu's recent thread about categories, I think an arbitrary category that leads to heated disputes like this, which isn't very relevant to wiki functions, might be better off being deleted.

That was the first thought that I had upon reading this. There's no unified moral framework that everyone could agree upon. We should probably just not have categories like that.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't think categories are so important as to warrant large scale moderation by staff (within reason of course). Generally speaking I'd leave the addition and removal of such things as a matter to regular users who know the profiles and the verse in question.

I don't think this is a large issue in any regard either way it swings.

People who support a verse do not automatically follow our required standards and are often prone to being biased and falling into protagonist-centered morality without deeper analysis.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I feel like the "Morality" section does have a lot of case by case behind it. But simply fighting on the side of good or evil would not qualify as good or evil. Likewise there is a difference between the Heroes/Villains category and the Good/Evil characters category. One basically means someone who fights for the side of good or evil while the other specifically are states of being good or evil. But at the same time, I feel like Anti-Heroes, Anti-Villians and Neutral characters are all categories that are overlooked. I definitely disagree with getting rid of the categories outright; lots of people making Vs threads are looking for good guys vs good guys debate or bad guys vs bad guys debate. Or good guys fighting for the wrong side are match up ideas that characters could have in common. There is also the existence of Fallen characters and Redeemed characters as categories. And while we don't make categories for such, there is also stuff like Lawful which =/= good and chaotic which =/= evil. Though going full D&D might lead to some complications though don't mind if we make distinctions for things like that.

As for Zaraki, he seems like an Anti-Hero with a Neutral morality and used to be like a Lawful Evil type. But I basically think there are most definitely things to take into account.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Uh I haven't really made any significant uproar. I also have explicitly told Ant, that I will address my thoughts on the matter in the future, so I don't appreciate how I'm being painted out to be a nuisance here. Personally, I would like to take my time to collect scans regarding the matter to substantiate my point, and rather than rush brashly into this, I'd prefer to take my time and give it the care it deserves. Respectfully, I'd like this to be suspended until I have time to provide what Ant asked, which is an argument for why Zaraki should be an Antihero and to evaluate whether or not Zaraki is Good (I explicitly mention to Ant that I don't hold a concrete position on how Good Zaraki is, but rather think it should be discussed and debated rather than someone who admittedly hasn't consumed the media proper enforce their own opinion as fact).

Again, I really don't appreciate how Ant slanders me (insisting I am not reasonable), when you can view very blatantly here my overt attempts to maintain a civil and level-headed discussion. I even directly advocate for a good faith discussion absent of any ill will. I genuinely don't know where this "Arc lacks reasonability" slander comes from, but I believe it is wholly unjustified from the person who is the head of the wiki.

I'm in a busy period of my life, currently preparing to move out and start work, and I know Ant is on vacation. So, I don't understand why this discussion needs to happen now anyway. It disappoints me that we cannot have a civil conversation regarding this subject, and regarding that matter, I agree with the staff in here who have advocated for removing said categories if certain members on this site cannot help but get heated over it. And if the plan is to remove said categories, then I'll just drop the matter in its entirety, as to not engage in an exercise in futility.

 

[Antvasima]

That was the first thought that I had upon reading this. There's no unified moral framework that everyone could agree upon. We should probably just not have categories like that.

There actually are some quite straightforward moral frameworks that I listed below. As long as characters consistently follow them, they can be added. I do not want us to propagate power-mad amorality any more than we already do.

Good Characters

vsbattles.fandom.com

Neutral Characters

vsbattles.fandom.com

Evil Characters

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

No offense, Ant, but I feel like you're blowing this way out of proportion.

By my estimation, Arc has not been unreasonable in the slightest. He was simply expressing his disagreement with a change you made to the profiles in a civil manner. A change which you did without consulting any of the Verse experts who are largely responsible for working on those profiles. Also comments such as the following are, in my opinion, completely uncalled for and come off as needlessly hostile, unreasonable, and biased on your part,

Significant uproar, despite his own apparent leanings towards amorality and fascism, a few dozen hostile Bleach fans, Arc7Kuroi repeatedly insisted on making this into a public discussion instead of being reasonable

Additionally, having read both this OP as well as the exchange between yourself and Arc on the message wall, it is very evident that you have a specific bias towards Bleach as a whole, including its author, which is not only strange, but I believe renders your judgment regarding the series rather questionable. Compound that with the fact that you are not an expert on the verse, and have not read it to its completion even once, as opposed to Arc who has likely read it over a dozen times by now. So I wholeheartedly agree with Agnaa in that you should likely leave the arbitration of such things to people who are actually knowledgeable on them.

Furthermore, I do not believe you need to be some infallible paragon of virtue and goodness to be considered "good". That is a rather shallow and close-minded view in my opinion, but to each their own. I have no interest in going through a morality or philosophy debate here.

 

[Antvasima]

Uh I haven't really made any significant uproar. I also have explicitly told Ant, that I will address my thoughts on the matter in the future, so I don't appreciate how I'm being painted out to be a nuisance here. Personally, I would like to take my time to collect scans regarding the matter to substantiate my point, and rather than rush brashly into this, I'd prefer to take my time and give it the care it deserves. Respectfully, I'd like this to be suspended until I have time to provide what Ant asked, which is an argument for why Zaraki should be an Antihero and to evaluate whether or not Zaraki is Good (I explicitly mention to Ant that I don't hold a concrete position on how Good Zaraki is, but rather think it should be discussed and debated rather than someone who admittedly hasn't consumed the media proper enforce their own opinion as fact).

Again, I really don't appreciate how Ant slanders me (insisting I am not reasonable), when you can view very blatantly here my overt attempts to maintain a civil and level-headed discussion. I even directly advocate for a good faith discussion absent of any ill will. I genuinely don't know where this "Arc lacks reasonability" slander comes from, but I believe it is wholly unjustified from the person who is the head of the wiki.

I'm in a busy period of my life, currently preparing to move out and start work, and I know Ant is on vacation. So, I don't understand why this discussion needs to happen now anyway. It disappoints me that we cannot have a civil conversation regarding this subject, and regarding that matter, I agree with the staff in here who have advocated for removing said categories if certain members on this site cannot help but get heated over it. And if the plan is to remove said categories, then I'll just drop the matter in its entirety, as to not engage in an exercise in futility.

You are free to post your evidence here if you wish, in case Zaraki has redeemed himself. The main problem is that you refused to show any evidence to me earlier.

 

[Crabwhale]

People who support a verse do not automatically follow our required standards and are often prone to being biased and falling into protagonist-centered morality without deeper analysis.

I was referring to trusted knowledgeable members and people who constantly work on the verse.

 

[Deagonx]

There actually are some quite straightforward moral frameworks that I listed below.

I am not saying moral frameworks don't exist, I am saying agreeing upon them with unanimity is not likely and it puts us in challenging situations like this. I would agree that Zaraki quite obviously doesn't meet the criteria, his characterization is similar to Vegeta in that regard. But we shouldn't put ourselves in this position at all, I feel. I don't see how this category serves a significant purpose.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

The main problem is that you refused to show any evidence to me earlier.

Dude I told you several times, that I need time to procure said evidence and construct said arguments. I never once refused to do that, I only ever said I need time to do so.

Spoiler: I'm only human after all

 

[Antvasima]

No offense, Ant, but I feel like you're blowing this way out of proportion.

By my estimation, Arc has not been unreasonable in the slightest. He was simply expressing his disagreement with a change you made to the profiles in a civil manner. A change which you did without consulting any of the Verse experts who are largely responsible for working on those profiles. Also comments such as the following are, in my opinion, completely uncalled for and come off as needlessly hostile, unreasonable, and biased on your part,

Well, I apologise if I was being rude. I am under stress to finish as quickly as possible, as I have other much more important matters to attend to, and am on vacation.

Additionally, having read both this OP as well as the exchange between yourself and Arc on the message wall, it is very evident that you have a specific bias towards Bleach as a whole, including its author, which is not only strange, but I believe renders your judgment regarding the series rather questionable. Compound that with the fact that you are not an expert on the verse, and have not read it to its completion even once, as opposed to Arc who has likely read it over a dozen times by now. So I wholeheartedly agree with Agnaa in that you should likely leave the arbitration of such things to people who are actually knowledgeable on them.

No. Bleach is just one of lots of verses that I consider evil, and far from the worst of them. I do not have a specific mad-on against it alone.

See here:

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com

Furthermore, I do not believe you need to be some infallible paragon of virtue and goodness to be considered "good". That is a rather shallow and close-minded view in my opinion, but to each their own. I have no interest in going through a morality or philosophy debate here.

And that is not what is required either. See the "Good Characters" link above please.

However, we do need to maintain some degree of self-evident standards for it, rather than go for the lowest common denominator.

 

[Antvasima]

Dude I told you several times, that I need time to procure said evidence and construct said arguments. I never once refused to do that, I only ever said I need time to do so.

Spoiler: I'm only human after all

Okay. My apologies if I misunderstood then. We can close this thread in the meantime and continue here later if you wish.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Okay. My apologies if I misunderstood then. We can close this thread in the meantime and continue here later if you wish.

Thank you for hearing me out, I'd prefer this to be closed then

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

Well, I apologise if I was being rude. I am under stress to finish as quickly as possible, as I have other much more important matters to attend to, and am on vacation.

Okay, but Arc literally said you don't have to worry about any of this right now, and to just enjoy your vacation...
You're the one who decided to make this thread at this time.

No. Bleach is just one of lots of verses that I consider evil, and far from the worst of them. I do not have a specific mad-on against it alone.

See here:

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com

Ant, seriously disliking a series is one of the most sure-fire ways to know someone has a bias against a verse. It's like, the textbook example. I'm not saying that you're not allowed to engage with the verse because you dislike it. I'm just saying that having a clear bias against a verse kind of disqualifies you from being the arbiter of anything related to the verse. Which brings me to my next point.....

And that is not what is required either. See the "Good Characters" link above please.

However, we do need to maintain some degree of self-evident standards for it, rather than go for the lowest common denominator.

I don't know nor care whether Zaraki is a "good dude" or not. That's not the issue at hand here.

The problem is that you sidestepped the proper due process for editing profiles. You consulted no one. You didn't discuss the change with anyone knowledgeable about the verse, nor with any Staff member. You just decided to make this change of your own volition, which is where the aforementioned lack of knowledge and bias come into play. For the same reason that we don't allow people who are big supporters to make changes without making a proper CRT first (even if they happen to be trusted, knowledgeable, and a part of the Staff), we shouldn't make exceptions for verse opponents.

Frankly, you made this a bigger issue than it needed to be, in my humble opinion.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Well, I apologise if I was being rude. I am under stress to finish as quickly as possible, as I have other much more important matters to attend to, and am on vacation.

If you're on vacation then why did you get into an argument, remove a category from a character without talking to others and then make a thread with inflammatory language about another user?

No. Bleach is just one of lots of verses that I consider evil, and far from the worst of them.

I mean, this right here is a rather biased statement Ant. I have no idea how you can write that without seeing this.

 

[Propellus]

Is this all really necessary? I feel like stuff like this rather requires supporter knowledge in some of these criteria for these kinds of analysis

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

This seems blown out of proportion in my opinion.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I think we should honestly remove categories we can't objectively assign pages.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I feel like there are overreactions on both sides. First of all, there are verses all over the world from a wide variety of places. So in other words, there are plenty of verses based on wide variety of ideals and religion basically influences good vs evil debates on verses and some verses don't really have any good guys and is really just a debate between morally grey sides. At the same time, some verses are legit written by authors who demonize various people's religions and it shows in their works that some verses are centered on being "Pro secularism on a creation vs evolution thematic." And some verses are legit written by people who literally "Worship the devil" and it shows in their work; prime example being the His Dark Materials trilogy.

However, Antvasima is allowed to have his general opinions if he notices occurring themes in verses. Also, him not liking verses can also be based on other reasons such as thinking the writing isn't so entertaining, not just because a common theme of a verse that glorifies things that he finds morally displeasing. I also think him including Bleach as one of those verses that "Demonizes Abrahamic religions" is a bit of an overreaction. And I am saying this as a Nondenominational Christian myself; I mostly see Bleach as not much different from other typical Polytheistic in nature verses. Themes such as even gods are portrayed as imperfect are just common in general and there are mixed moralities among them just like humans. I also think a character's religion should not dictate what makes them good or evil and that there should be common sense in categorizing them. I obviously agree characters who are too blood thirsty or take far too much pleasure in torturing or killing various creatures should not be categorized as good even if they fight for a good side; methods are just as important as motives with it comes to morality. But there is definitely some lines that should be drawn regardless of what the narrative tells us or who fights as an ally to who.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for hearing me out, I'd prefer this to be closed then

No problem. That is fine with me.

Okay, but Arc literally said you don't have to worry about any of this right now, and to just enjoy your vacation...
You're the one who decided to make this thread at this time.

I misunderstood and thought that he intended to quickly create a thread in our content revision forum with dozens of angry Bleach fans that would waste my time and ruin my vacation.

Ant, seriously disliking a series is one of the most sure-fire ways to know someone has a bias against a verse. It's like, the textbook example. I'm not saying that you're not allowed to engage with the verse because you dislike it. I'm just saying that having a clear bias against a verse kind of disqualifies you from being the arbiter of anything related to the verse.

No, it isn't. People should be free to analyse verses regardless if they like or dislike them.

Which brings me to my next point.....

I don't know nor care whether Zaraki is a "good dude" or not. That's not the issue at hand here.

The problem is that you sidestepped the proper due process for editing profiles. You consulted no one. You didn't discuss the change with anyone knowledgeable about the verse, nor with any Staff member. You just decided to make this change of your own volition, which is where the aforementioned lack of knowledge and bias come into play. For the same reason that we don't allow people who are big supporters to make changes without making a proper CRT first (even if they happen to be trusted, knowledgeable, and a part of the Staff), we shouldn't make exceptions for verse opponents.

Frankly, you made this a bigger issue than it needed to be, in my humble opinion.

It is a part of my edit patrolling work to correct what seem like blatant minor mistakes, occasionally including cases of stamina and intelligence sections and morality categories that are very self-evident to evaluate. It is not remotely realistic for me to start revision threads for every single small correction, and I am the facilitator of the building of this community and the head bureaucrat, with very extensive experience, so I usually have a very good sense of judgement in these areas. Also, again, I did not add any morality category to the page, I just removed one that seemed to be completely misplaced.

 

[Antvasima]

If you're on vacation then why did you get into an argument, remove a category from a character without talking to others and then make a thread with inflammatory language about another user?

I did not intend to use inflammatory language, but I was stressed out when I created this thread.

As I stated above, I thought that Arc7Kuroi intended to quickly create a discussion thread in our content revision forum that would largely mess up my vacation, so I felt forced to create one myself here instead.

I mean, this right here is a rather biased statement Ant. I have no idea how you can write that without seeing this.

By that logic nobody who has positive views of verses should be allowed to comment or analyse either, and again, I am not targetting Bleach or any of the other verses that I dislike. I have almost completely left them alone.

 

[Antvasima]

I think we should honestly remove categories we can't objectively assign pages.

As long as people stick to the requirement to only assign morality categories in clear-cut cases, it is fine. The problem is if they don't.

 

[Antvasima]

I feel like there are overreactions on both sides. First of all, there are verses all over the world from a wide variety of places. So in other words, there are plenty of verses based on wide variety of ideals and religion basically influences good vs evil debates on verses and some verses don't really have any good guys and is really just a debate between morally grey sides. At the same time, some verses are legit written by authors who demonize various people's religions and it shows in their works that some verses are centered on being "Pro secularism on a creation vs evolution thematic." And some verses are legit written by people who literally "Worship the devil" and it shows in their work; prime example being the His Dark Materials trilogy.

However, Antvasima is allowed to have his general opinions if he notices occurring themes in verses. Also, him not liking verses can also be based on other reasons such as thinking the writing isn't so entertaining, not just because a common theme of a verse that glorifies things that he finds morally displeasing. I also think him including Bleach as one of those verses that "Demonizes Abrahamic religions" is a bit of an overreaction. And I am saying this as a Nondenominational Christian myself; I mostly see Bleach as not much different from other typical Polytheistic in nature verses. Themes such as even gods are portrayed as imperfect are just common in general and there are mixed moralities among them just like humans. I also think a character's religion should not dictate what makes them good or evil and that there should be common sense in categorizing them. I obviously agree characters who are too blood thirsty or take far too much pleasure in torturing or killing various creatures should not be categorized as good even if they fight for a good side; methods are just as important as motives with it comes to morality. But there is definitely some lines that should be drawn regardless of what the narrative tells us or who fights as an ally to who.

Just a note that I do not think that Bleach demonises Christianity. My problems with it are that it seems to promote an amoral, bloodthirsty, power-crazed, and fascist type of society, where even extremely evil characters such as Mayuri are accepted on the protagonist side, despite performing Nazi-level torture and experimentation on human subjects.

 

[Qawsedf234]

By that logic nobody who has positive views of verses should be allowed to comment or analyse either, and again, I am not targetting Bleach or any of the other verses that I dislike. I have almost completely left them alone.

You can comment, but you also have to be self-critical in engaging with things you know you dislike. For example I don't actively get involved in a lot of stuff regarding Chinese Web Novels because I don't really understand the culture associated with it (which heavily influences the tiering) and have embarrassed myself before when commenting on it.

I'll comment now when asked, but I'm self-critical of my bias when I do so. The following is just biased Ant:

Arc7Kuroi has made a significant uproar

I do not want to see the wiki I facilitated the building of turn into something that actively propagates an amoral lack of moral standards.

Even the author has portrayed Zaraki in a demon form, despite his own apparent leanings towards amorality and fascism. I do not think that we should try to publicly and officially whitewash this character or any others like him.

Arc7Kuroi repeatedly insisted on making this into a public discussion instead of being reasonable

All of the above shows a heavy negative outlook. In your linked wall you also showcase this same bias

However, I did not insert an "Evil Characters" category, even though I think that a large part of all Bleach characters, and the author, seem to be genuinely evil people. I am afraid that will have to satisfy you.

I get that you don't think Kenpachi is good, but this entire thing was a self inflicted injury. You're blaming Arc for talking to you about a change you made after talking to no one about it. If any of us were to do the same you would be critical that we didn't follow the proper process.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

I misunderstood and thought that he intended to quickly create a thread in our content revision forum with dozens of angry Bleach fans that would waste my time and ruin my vacation.

The fact that this is the conclusion you immediately jumped to is a problem, Ant. You can't demonize an entire fan base like this, and immediately assume the worst about them. Arc has said and done nothing throughout your entire conversation that would logically lead you to any such conclusion.

Anyway, I won't reply to the rest since this discussion has been put on hold for now. But just know that changing something regarding the profiles that others spend many hours working towards improving the quality of requires a CRT, unless it's something blatantly obvious like a grammatical, formatting, or any such error that does not require verse-specific knowledge. That's where you specialize and do your finest work. Work which we all greatly appreciate, by the way. It's just the verse-specific stuff that we'd prefer if you asked for input on first, that's all.

With that being said, forget this mess, and enjoy your much deserved vacation, alright?

 

[Damage3245]

I think we should honestly remove categories we can't objectively assign pages.

Personally I agree with this. Trying to boil down complex characters so that they can neatly fit into piles such as "Good", "Neutral" and "Evil" is a terrible idea.

 

[Antvasima]

Personally I agree with this. Trying to boil down complex characters so that they can neatly fit into piles such as "Good", "Neutral" and "Evil" is a terrible idea.

Well, that is why our standards clearly say that they should only be added in very clear-cut and consistent cases, but our members do not always seem to follow that requirement.

 

[Antvasima]

The fact that this is the conclusion you immediately jumped to is a problem, Ant. You can't demonize an entire fan base like this, and immediately assume the worst about them. Arc has said and done nothing throughout your entire conversation that would logically lead you to any such conclusion.

That was not my intention, but I do have past experiences of several of them being angry with me because I dislike Bleach.

Anyway, I won't reply to the rest since this discussion has been put on hold for now. But just know that changing something regarding the profiles that others spend many hours working towards improving the quality of requires a CRT, unless it's something blatantly obvious like a grammatical, formatting, or any such error that does not require verse-specific knowledge. That's where you specialize and do your finest work. Work which we all greatly appreciate, by the way. It's just the verse-specific stuff that we'd prefer if you asked for input on first, that's all.

The problem here is that morality categories should only be added in very clear-cut cases, and I think that almost all of us can agree that Zaraki is not unambiguously morally good.

With that being said, forget this mess, and enjoy your much deserved vacation, alright?

Thank you. I will try.