• 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.

Narutoverse Discussion Rule Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
3,678
Reaction score
3,958
Hello people, in light of recent events, I (and others) believe an update to our discussion rules are warranted, there have been some topics repeated way too much for our liking and often times the old counters for these get ignored for the sake of agenda which feels exhausting given how we spent so much time and energy into establishing those counters to be wrong at a core level and when they are casually overlook and people repeat the same arguments it feels as though all we had accepted was for nothing, this typa repetition generates discussion fatigue, it’s disrespectful and dishonest. More so when certain staff (singular ; you know who you are) are willing to accept poorly rehashed arguments as long as the premise is favorable, who refuse to engage in a debate with the supporters that are defending their side, it becomes nigh necessary to suggest these rules

Does this mean it’s forever cemented and you’re not allowed to challenge it?
Naturally no, this only stays in place to prohibit arguments that are (poorly) rehashed versions of each other, the same god damn lines just paraphrased, it leads to us dropping the same debunks across multiple threads, each Kirin thread brings the same points from both sides, they’re like recap filler episodes with consequences

So to prevent these, My proposal are updates to the following discussion rules :

Databook Discussion Rule :​

Use caution when proposing content revisions using information from the Naruto Databooks. While accepted as a supplementary canon directly overseen and authorized by Kishimoto & his staff to explain Naruto’s story, it is important to keep in mind that like the manga and many other forms of literature they contain a mix of literal descriptions, figurative expression, and the occasional exaggeration used for dramatic emphasis or stylistic effect. Such literary devices are normal within narrative writing and are not, by themselves, grounds for dismissal. When dealing with hyperbolic phrasing it is paramount to use discretion to separate the explicit information from dramatic texts. Each databook entry should therefore be assessed, (preferably referencing the original language text of the source material to ensure maximum contextual accuracy) ; on a case-by-case basis, weighing its tone, context, and compatibility with canon sources rather than applying a blanket assumption of accuracy or inaccuracy.

Kirin Discussion Rule :​

Any attempt to downgrade, reinterpret, or otherwise commit blasphemy against the established light-speed status of Kirin and Light Fang will be met with immediate ridicule, scorn, and potentially a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation. These topics have been dissected more times than Orochimaru’s moral compass, and every possible counterargument has been vaporized with the precision of a Chidori to the face. Re-posting the same “b-b-but lightning speed” nonsense after this point will result in your thread being yeeted into the void, your account being exorcised from the platform, and your chakra network permanently sealed by the nearest bureaucrat.
Continued offenses will lead to temporary bans, permanent bans, shadow bans, brand bans, spirit bans, and ultimately banishment to a remote island where you’ll be forced to explain your scaling logic to seagulls for eternity. Should you persist further, your IP address will be forwarded to your local government, your browsing history will be printed and handed to your grandma, and you (and Damage) will be legally required to apologize to Kishimoto personally.
If, after all of that, you still try to reopen this debate, a team of over-caffeinated thread moderators will descend upon your home like the ANBU at 3 AM, confiscate your router. Any remaining resistance will be met with swift divine judgment, lightning bolts, and a strongly worded email from the universe itself reminding you that Kirin and Light Fang are, and forever shall be, light-speed

Light Fang Discussion Rule :​

Just kidding, here’s the real version (I merged Kirin and LF together since both are victims to databook incredulity arguments)

Do not attempt to remove the light-speed ratings of Kirin and Light Fang, given their respective compositions as natural lightning and Storm Release ninjutsu. This topic has been addressed extensively in prior discussions and should not be revisited without the introduction of substantially new evidence or arguments. Both techniques have been explicitly described as moving at the speed of light in the official databooks, this being reaffirmed multiple times in Kirin’s case. Furthermore, Zetsu’s commentary should not be interpreted as contradicting Kirin’s stated light-speed nature, as his observation was a hypothetical inference based on Sasuke’s seeming use of traditional lightning. His analysis within that encounter is generally inconsistent with his own awareness of events as well as the explicit and implicit scaling established by prior statements and feats.

Credits to @Godernet and co for helping refine and expand on these rule proposals.

Agree : DarkDragonMedeus, KLOL506, Damage3245 (All but Kirin), Planck69 (All but Kirin), LephyrTheRevanchist (All but Kirin), Qawsedf234 (Same as Lephyr) LordTracer (All but Kirin), Nierre (All but Kirin)
Disagree : Damage3245 (Kirin) LordTracer (Kirin)
Neutral : Planck69 (Kirin), LephyrTheRevanchist (Kirin) Nierre (Kirin)
 
Last edited:
Proposals for Discussion Rule-based threads should be Staff-Only threads.

That being said, while I wholeheartedly agree with this, IIRC you need at least 4-5 threads to have had happened and be rejected in a short amount of time to enact such a rule. I only see one.
 
Proposals for Discussion Rule-based threads should be Staff-Only threads.

That being said, while I wholeheartedly agree with this, you need at least 4-5 threads to enact such a rule. I only see one.
I had seen, discussion rules implemented in regular CRTs so I went with that, as for requiring 4-5 threads is that a hard boiled rule?
 
I had seen, discussion rules implemented in regular CRTs so I went with that, as for requiring 4-5 threads is that a hard boiled rule?
Honestly, it depends. Usually I've seen rules passed with as much as 4-5 admin votes. I'll tag 'em now.
 
I disagree with including Kirin in the discussion rule - I don't think the amount of discussion on it warrants a rule against any possible changes to it or that we should take a hardline stance against pieces of evidence such as Zetsu's statements. It's fair if you believe that Zetsu's statements is overruled by more significant pieces of evidence but I do not think that should be considered the same thing as disallowing the statements altogether.

As for Light Fang and the databook in general though, I think that's fair.
 
as for requiring 4-5 threads is that a hard boiled rule?
Is not a explicit rule. However, if there exist reason to believe not all possible arguments have been exhausted, then a rule against the topic might not be warranted.

If you can find the threads where the topics have been explored (preferably more recent ones, but old ones can also serve to make the case if the topics keep reusing the same arguments) we can evaluate if a rule should be in place.
 

For Kirin​

I believe I made a case as to why it is warranted even if it does not have 5 different threads mainly because of this and this
Hello people, in light of recent events, I (and others) believe an update to our discussion rules are warranted, there have been some topics repeated way too much for our liking and often times the old counters for these get ignored for the sake of agenda which feels exhausting given how we spent so much time and energy into establishing those counters to be wrong at a core level and when they are casually overlook and people repeat the same arguments it feels as though all we had accepted was for nothing, this typa repetition generates discussion fatigue, it’s disrespectful and dishonest. More so when certain staff (singular ; you know who you are) are willing to accept poorly rehashed arguments as long as the premise is favorable, who refuse to engage in a debate with the supporters that are defending their side, it becomes nigh necessary to suggest these rules
Normally you wouldn't need that because staff would reject arguments that aren't new or place a 3 month cool down depending on the situations but if they don't enforce it, I'd say it would be warranted having an official rule spell it out for them if (certain) staff won't

For Light Fang​

It follows the general issue similar to Kirin and Databooks in general I had it added due to popular demand but if it is absolutely obligatory to have repeated threads for a discussion rule to pass then I would not mind axing this from my proposal, Given Lephyr answering that it is not compulsory and that the arguments are usually the same against it each time in a case like that I will defer to knowledgeable staff judgement for it

For Databooks​

I don't have several threads to show for this on hand at the moment but we already have an existing discussion rule, I simply to wish to update the old one with my newer one, unlike that one this new one targets both sides of spectrum, aka the people that try to inflate the ratings using hyperboles/similes as well as the people that try to dismiss the guidebooks altogether by using a non literal scan to discredit a literal scan. It also reinforces the priority to inspecting raws as well as to use caution when using them for scaling because there are a lot of poorly translated scans spread across the internet (mostly due to lack of official translations) and it would be wise to have them validated with proper contextual translations so we don't have another instance like this

Lastly, I'd also find it favorable if knowledgeable staff be the ones to evaluate this, having experience in naruto scaling discussions in the past would give them an idea of how common the arguments (mainly against Databooks) are and they would have a better idea on what to vote for, possibly circumventing the need to show previous threads, This isn't to say normal staff should not engage/eval ofc.
 
Last edited:
Lastly, I'd also find it favorable if knowledgeable staff be the ones to evaluate this, having experience in naruto scaling discussions in the past would give them an idea of how common the arguments (mainly against Databooks) are and they would have a better idea on what to vote for, possibly circumventing the need to show previous threads, This isn't to say normal staff should not engage/eval ofc.
I was writing something until I saw this when quoting the post again. Which admins and bureaucrats would you deem knowledgeable enough to evaluate this? Because...
In wiki policy revision threads, bureaucrats have both voting and veto rights. Administrators also have voting rights, and all staff members are welcome to comment in these threads, regardless of whether they have evaluation rights or not.
 
I will resume my original evaluation then:

For Kirin​

I believe I made a case as to why it is warranted even if it does not have 5 different threads mainly because of this and this

Normally you wouldn't need that because staff would reject arguments that aren't new or place a 3 month cool down depending on the situations but if they don't enforce it, I'd say it would be warranted having an official rule spell it out for them if (certain) staff won't
The first linked comment has no relevance with whether to have a discussion rule. The second linked comment shows there's been a few kirin threads with lots of discussion... Made in the span of 3 years. That's definitely not enough for a discussion rule. While there's no hard rule among our discussion rules page to what defines making one, precedent has shown the entire purpose of these rules is to not relitigate the same arguments over and over. But for that, we do have a proper guideline defined:
When creating content revisions, it is essential to ensure that the topic has not been addressed previously. Rejected content revisions cannot be resubmitted within a short period of time (typically defined as within 3 to 4 months), except in cases where a staff member has a good reason to do so (e.g. important unconsidered information, violation of site standards, or flaws in a calculation). This only applies to threads that have received extensive debate or have been rejected due to a clear conflict with the wiki's rules or standards. If a thread passes or is rejected without significant opposition, then opposition should not be restricted from making a point.
The threads cited fall within that rejected period, and thus it followed the rules. You might be annoyed with certain arguments, you might be frustrated at having to defend something you firmly believe is practically set in stone. But nothing done that has been shown warrant restricting this topic from further discussion. That being said, I am more than willing to wait for more opinions, particularly from the staff members that regularly handle naruto threads.

For Light Fang​

It follows the general issue similar to Kirin and Databooks in general I had it added due to popular demand but if it is absolutely obligatory to have repeated threads for a discussion rule to pass then I would not mind axing this from my proposal, Given Lephyr answering that it is not compulsory and that the arguments are usually the same against it each time in a case like that I will defer to knowledgeable staff judgement for it
Fun fact: This was a rule at some point, but against discussing light fang as lightspeed (or more accurately, scaling them to SoL/FTL because of it and other feats). This was later changed per a lot of threads (there are many more, honestly). Fact of the matter is, I do believe this one should be an outright rule again, if only because of the extreme longevity of the topic and arguments (one of the threads I linked even mentioned how there was discussion on the topic "5 years ago" and I linked only stuff surrounding the removal of the original rule, which makes the topic having been around since 2014 at least). So there you go.

For Databooks​

I don't have several threads to show for this on hand at the moment but we already have an existing discussion rule, I simply to wish to update the old one with my newer one, unlike that one this new one targets both sides of spectrum, aka the people that try to inflate the ratings using hyperboles/similes as well as the people that try to dismiss the guidebooks altogether by using a non literal scan to discredit a literal scan. It also reinforces the priority to inspecting raws as well as to use caution when using them for scaling because there are a lot of poorly translated scans spread across the internet (mostly due to lack of official translations) and it would be wise to have them validated with proper contextual translations so we don't have another instance like this
The update is fine with me if anything because the current rule is also quite ancient and prone to be misinterpreted slightly. I will always prefer being more specific.
 
I think the additions for Light Fang and the data book discussions are fine. Neutral to Kirin, as I'm unsure of the extent to which that topic has been discussed.
  • I do believe this one should be an outright rule again
  • The update is fine with me if anything because the current rule is also quite ancient and prone to be misinterpreted slightly. I will always prefer being more specific.
Thanks for the evals
That being said, I am more than willing to wait for more opinions, particularly from the staff members that regularly handle naruto threads.
Shall I count you neutral on Kirin until the naruto staff have voted?
 
Would be appreciated if y'all could waste just 5 minutes of your time evaluating this poor soul's proposals.
I'm with Lephyr. The databook and Light Fang rules are fine and needed. The Kirin rule seems more of a knee jerk reacrion than anything.
 
I agree with discussion rules for the databook and Light Fang, but not with Kirin. I don’t think there’s been enough discussion on it to warrant a rule yet.
 
I'll separate when applying if we conclude with majority not favoring the Kirin discussion rule
 
Grace has passed and 2/3rds of my proposals have been pretty much universally been agreed upon
Would someone mind opening this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top