• 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 AKM sama if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.

Off-Site Respect Threads on Wiki Pages (Staff Only)

16,715
3,198
I know I'm not staff and all, but I got authorization from Ant to do this thread.

Anyways, it has been noticed recently that there's some profiles that link to off-site "Respect Threads", which list a bunch of miscelaneous feats and statements.
The problem?
Such threads don't follow our standards, but rather the ones of elsewhere if anything, and so are misleading for our purposes, for example, a respect thread can "conclude" that X character is MFTL+, but in our terms it's actually deemed an outlier, or in other words it's about the same as featuring vs threads from other sites on our profiles, which currently isn't allowed.
If we're going to feature feat/statement compilations on pages without the purpose of explaining a setting as a whole (As many explanation pages currently do in here), they should be posted in the site first as a blog post or page (This is pending consistency, but that's an issue for another day), and be accepted for it.

In a nutshell, we need some guideline to (most likely) ban the featuring of off-site respect threads on profiles and probably specify that this content is allowed if it's made within this site and accepted or so.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
I strongly agree with this. The problem is especially bad when it is respect threads for Marvel and DC Comics characters, given that those verses run on "everybody can fight everybody" plot-induced stupidity.
 
Last edited:

DarkDragonMedeus

Hard Working Individual
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Sysop
21,475
12,994
I agree; we should avoid linking random respect threads from places like Reddit or DeviantArt. If people want to make a respect thread, they may make a blog post that pretty much lists all those feats and/or calculates them.

And this is especially true since some respect threads have not made proper calculations, and/or the rely to heavily on assumptions; such as an off panel bullet timing feat being treated as a physically outpacing the bullet type of feat when the most common sensical interpretation is that it's an aim dodging feat, and the list goes on. And some of those respect threads even mixed canon and non-canon sources.
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,500
3,541
I've always been against using them, for Bob's reasons and because often they take feats and statements from a many different media, regardless of them coming from a different canon, side-material and such.

They can also perfectly be against our standards or even include lies for all we now, as they don't conform to our standards and have not been evaluated or approved by anyone.
 

Planck69

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
10,015
3,904
I agree with this. Always found it weird how we used offsite unevaluated material on our pages.
 

KingTempest

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
9,576
8,385
What's the point of the thread exactly (no disrespect)? Is it to implement a rule? Is it to revise profiles?
 

Planck69

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
10,015
3,904
What's the point of the thread exactly (no disrespect)? Is it to implement a rule? Is it to revise profiles?
From what I undertsand, it's to implement a rule that respect threads should first be posted as blogs or pages so that they may be properly evaluated before being used on profiles. Our current stance on allowing offsite respect threads means that threads with feats that don't meet our standards, non-canon feats or even completely fabricated feats may be posted on pages and that sets a bad precedent.
 

KingTempest

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
9,576
8,385
From what I undertsand, it's to implement a rule that respect threads should first be posted as blogs or pages so that they may be properly evaluated before being used on profiles. Our current stance on allowing offsite respect threads means that threads with feats that don't meet our standards, non-canon feats or even completely fabricated feats may be posted on pages and that sets a bad precedent.
To implement a rule and then get rid of all external respect thread links from our character profile pages.
Understood, I agree w/ the OP then.
 

Antoniofer

VS Battles
Retired
8,939
1,427
I agree with this. Always found it weird how we used offsite unevaluated material on our pages.
To be fair, respect threads (at least the one from reddit) doesn't give values nor does math like we do; they simply archive scans and statements of what the character has done. So yes, its unevaluated, but is not really that misleading considering it gives us how the event happened.

Not against removing the RT links, just kind of neutral. And sorry for commenting in this Staff only Thread.
 

Qawsedf234

VS Battles
Sysop
11,129
3,697
The reason most profiles have respect links is because someone just sorta copy pasted everything from the RT and never gave credit to it. Look at the old Spider-Woman page for example, which literally just copy-pasted an entire Reddit RT.

I'm fine with removing off-site stuff. What I'm not good with is removing them but still keeping the feat section that just copy pastes them without any credit.
 

DarkDragonMedeus

Hard Working Individual
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Sysop
21,475
12,994
To my knowledge, @Tonygameman is one of the main people adding them. Which he's a cool person who probably was unaware; albeit we never made an official statement. I know he isn't staff, but I'll ping him since he can be aware of the practice and might be able to help out with removing things he added. But a lot of Obscure video game characters and/or characters not so popular on the wiki but popular elsewhere those links added. Such as the Battletoads profiles and also Master Chief from Halo both have links to respect blogs containing inappropriate evaluations on certain feats.
 

DarkDragonMedeus

Hard Working Individual
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Sysop
21,475
12,994
I'm pretty sure there might be a lot more than the ones I'm familiar with, others mentioned ones for other verses and it's especially ones on Marvel/DC characters that are especially bad. We're just adding a rule to basically say avoid blindly adding respect threads from different websites whether it be Reddit, Spacebattles, DeviantArt, ect to profiles. VSBW blog posts are a different story that may use staff evaluation, but it's just linking random posts from different websites without really asking especially should not be allowed. It's easier to evaluate if it's our platform.

And besides, the point about feats without calculations or context, non-canon material thrown in, out of context or falsified feats, borderline hyperboles, and the list goes on should make us question the source.
 
Last edited:

Qawsedf234

VS Battles
Sysop
11,129
3,697
VSBW blog posts are a different story that may use staff evaluation, but it's just linking random posts from different websites without really asking especially should not be allowed. It's easier to evaluate if it's our platform.
Just being added without evaluation sure. But if its a verified source why not use it?
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,500
3,541
Verified or not they should still be evaluated, and at that point it's just better to move them on a wiki blog, perhaps crediting the original author (and link) if it ends being used.

If we credit the author and then make some modifications, they should be noted in some way, to mark the difference between what was originally posted and what was handled by us.
 

DontTalkDT

A Fossil at This Point
VS Battles
Consultant
Sysop
5,440
3,413
While one should ensure that a respect thread reflects our evaluations of the character, I personally don't mind off-site linking.
Let's be honest here, such respect threads are added because it is easy. If we prohibit them the result wouldn't be that more people write their own respect thread to paraphrase what was priorly linked in the respect thread (those willing to write their own respect threads would have done so anyways), but more likely that no respect thread is listed for the character anymore. Which I think is a loss.

I think making the addition of an external respect thread a subject of a CRT for more popular characters, to ensure they don't go against our page, is sufficient precaution.
 
16,715
3,198
While one should ensure that a respect thread reflects our evaluations of the character, I personally don't mind off-site linking.
Let's be honest here, such respect threads are added because it is easy. If we prohibit them the result wouldn't be that more people write their own respect thread to paraphrase what was priorly linked in the respect thread (those willing to write their own respect threads would have done so anyways), but more likely that no respect thread is listed for the character anymore. Which I think is a loss.

I think making the addition of an external respect thread a subject of a CRT for more popular characters, to ensure they don't go against our page, is sufficient precaution.

If we allow something just because it's easier, it's also opening gates to getting in content of lower quality or downright misleading for our purposes, the content that's featured requires to be properly evaluated for our purposes, and as the external content is also prone to change beyond what we can moderate, it's better if they're at least posted in this website in some way, rather than just being externally linked.

Feat Compilations are also entirely optional, as outlined in the Standard Format for Character Profiles, so it really isn't a big deal if they just get removed, especially considering that more often than not they're from useless to detrimental, given that for our purposes the important and accepted content is already within sections like Attack Potency and Speed.

Speaking of which, I wonder why there's many pages using off-site calculations, namely NarutoForums ones, especially considering that there's no evaluation to cite for our purposes for those from what I could find in them.
 
Last edited:
10,855
5,096
Such threads don't follow our standards, but rather the ones of elsewhere if anything, and so are misleading for our purposes, for example, a respect thread can "conclude" that X character is MFTL+, but in our terms it's actually deemed an outlier, or in other words it's about the same as featuring vs threads from other sites on our profiles, which currently isn't allowed.

Since this came up from linking to the /r/RespectThreads subreddit, I feel obliged to point out that that is nothing at all like how that battleboard works from what I've seen. They don't "conclude" that a character has certain ratings. They just list their feats without providing extraneous commentary on it.

And this is especially true since some respect threads have not made proper calculations, and/or the rely to heavily on assumptions; such as an off panel bullet timing feat being treated as a physically outpacing the bullet type of feat when the most common sensical interpretation is that it's an aim dodging feat, and the list goes on. And some of those respect threads even mixed canon and non-canon sources.

This, however, is a more valid worry.

If we're going to feature feat/statement compilations on pages without the purpose of explaining a setting as a whole (As many explanation pages currently do in here), they should be posted in the site first as a blog post or page (This is pending consistency, but that's an issue for another day), and be accepted for it.

A separate page is likely unnecessary, pages have an optional "Feats" section that can be used in this way. But I guess blogs could also be fine.

Speaking of which, I wonder why there's many pages using off-site calculations, namely NarutoForums ones, especially considering that there's no evaluation to cite for our purposes for those from what I could find in them.

They're grandfathered in, and I believe that most have been accepted at some point, even if those evaluations are near-impossible to find now (since at some point, just a calc member okay'ing it when asked in a random thread was enough).
 

DarkDragonMedeus

Hard Working Individual
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Sysop
21,475
12,994
What Bobsican said, and I'm also not the biggest fan of reading 50 paragraphs when there's really only one or two useful pieces of evidence out of dozens of additions being proposed. Narutoforum calculations are a different can of worms as they're things OBD accepted, are often made by people very good at calculations, have been evaluated by former staff members knowledgeable on calculation methods, ect. But even those could use recalculations based on formula updates and the like.

But I get uneasy when someone links a Reddit/Deviantart page and there's like 50+ Wall level feats the character struggles with an occasional "Survived a nuclear explosion but got knocked out and unknown how they escaped", 99% of the speed section is characters struggling to react to handgun fires, rockets, or speeding cars then there's 1 or 2 instances of evading a sniper laser from a distance which happens off panel and prone to being seen as aim dodging, a bunch of statements about Nth dimension being interpreted as a Tier 2/1 statement, some technobabble about quantum mechanics or probability being treated as manipulation when those are just scientists talking about those things with no actual control over those stuff being mentioned, and the list goes on. It's better if it's organized on an actual Content Revision, is more moderately paced, tackling things one category at a time, and the like.

So it's for that reason that I simply do not agree with having Reddit/Deviantart pages being linked on character profiles. It be better to handle at a reasonable pace and using reasonable amounts of text to address the points.
 

DemonGodMitchAubin

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
Calculation Group
11,238
6,228
Respect Threads didn't make much sense to me either

If we were to keep them, they should be turned into on-site User Blogs that have accepted calcs and feats on their pages
 

DontTalkDT

A Fossil at This Point
VS Battles
Consultant
Sysop
5,440
3,413
If we allow something just because it's easier, it's also opening gates to getting in content of lower quality or downright misleading for our purposes, the content that's featured requires to be properly evaluated for our purposes, and as the external content is also prone to change beyond what we can moderate, it's better if they're at least posted in this website in some way, rather than just being externally linked.
It can be properly evaluated in a CRT that proposes adding the thread.

Feat Compilations are also entirely optional, as outlined in the Standard Format for Character Profiles, so it really isn't a big deal if they just get removed, especially considering that more often than not they're from useless to detrimental, given that for our purposes the important and accepted content is already within sections like Attack Potency and Speed.
Disagree there. Respect threads have the advantage that you can see the character do more than just the bits we consider most relevant. Those kinds of feat dumps tend to mention a load of the less impressive showings as well.
Considering that our profiles always are what we go by they overrule everything in external respect threads anyway. The only way they are ever actively detrimental is if someone goes to that thread, sees something out of context, and then wastes our time by making a CRT based on that understanding.
So as long as respect threads are checked before being added to such popular profiles everything should be fine.

Heck, any respect thread to be added coming from this page needs to be evaluated just as much.

Speaking of which, I wonder why there's many pages using off-site calculations, namely NarutoForums ones, especially considering that there's no evaluation to cite for our purposes for those from what I could find in them.
Calcs need to be checked. Where they come from never mattered. We were never prone to commit to the genetic fallacy of only accepting what comes from us.
We allow off-site calcs to be used after they were evaluated in a calc group forum thread.
 
16,715
3,198
It can be properly evaluated in a CRT that proposes adding the thread.


Disagree there. Respect threads have the advantage that you can see the character do more than just the bits we consider most relevant. Those kinds of feat dumps tend to mention a load of the less impressive showings as well.
Considering that our profiles always are what we go by they overrule everything in external respect threads anyway. The only way they are ever actively detrimental is if someone goes to that thread, sees something out of context, and then wastes our time by making a CRT based on that understanding.
So as long as respect threads are checked before being added to such popular profiles everything should be fine.

Heck, any respect thread to be added coming from this page needs to be evaluated just as much.


Calcs need to be checked. Where they come from never mattered. We were never prone to commit to the genetic fallacy of only accepting what comes from us.
We allow off-site calcs to be used after they were evaluated in a calc group forum thread.
Yeah, but that would have to be done for any future additions if anything, as I don't think anyone is going to actually bother all the ones that are currently around filled with "misleading" content for our purposes more often than not.

And this advantage is outside the premise of the wiki, we index the statistics as they fit the system that has been carefully crafted with filters against outliers, "lies", calc standards, etc., users are free to come up with their own conclusions from other sources, but for consistency and reliability we should stick to featuring what we've properly accepted, rather than any kind of "shown" feat. The way they can be detrimental is that they give an inappropiate portrayal of how we actually rate each character, and thus being misleading to the idea we want to give, hence why I still don't support using off-site respect threads and the like as something to feature on pages.

Actually, calcs have been dismissed pretty often because of that, generally they're asked to be copy-pasted to a blog post then ask for an evaluation these days, or else they aren't usable for profiles on the site, several NarutoForums calcs also now have broken links for citations/pictures that seemingly used pixelscaling or the like, but that's another can of worms either way.
 
Last edited:

DarkDragonMedeus

Hard Working Individual
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Sysop
21,475
12,994
As someone who is friends with some other offsite people, I should mention that some people have made calculations on other wikis then they basically copy/pasted it on a new blog post on this wiki to have our staff evaluate it here. Or I and some others also have copy/pasted things from other wikis or sites, posted them in our blogs, and it started with us giving credit to the original calculation creator. Antvasima and several others have often reverted edits based on calculations made on other wikis even if someone who is a current calc group has commented on said wiki saying it was fair game. It's less messy if it's a page on our wiki regardless of the information being sufficient or not.
 

Eficiente

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
13,312
2,902
I believe that we should allow people to link this things but rule out how if anything differs with our stuff (minimum as it might be) then that's to be ignored, that while also encouraging people to go make their own calcs, CRTs and research about it. See, if we just disallow this it can lead to we missing out feats and stuff others may list outside the wiki, and it can be seen like we are missing those things in cases when we do know the feats and how they're wrong. But if we do show them, and we don't use the things that are different, then that shows our standards, how we know X claims exist and ignore them, be it because they're wrong or because nobody bothered to bring them up in profiles doesn't matter.
 
16,715
3,198
I mean, to keep clear that we're aware of feats that have been dismissed countless times we already have the Editing Rules clarifying those out for several cases.
If we're going to feature off-site respect threads and so on, at the very least a proper approval is to be done in here for each one first by a staff member, and then if it has content that differs from our standards (Which is most likely the case), it's to be specified, rather than just leaving a "blank" link saying "Respect Thread", cases that differ too much or are deemed as too unreliable and so on may also be declined by the staff for featuring.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,524
3,418
Alot of our users use respect threads to make pages, or at the absolute least derive scans from them, which I think it would be dickish of us then, to not list their original source on the page itself. Why use respect threads? Coming from a more expansive verse, it's a more convenient, if not admittedly inadvisable, way to gather feats for the characters, and in cases such as Iron Man and most X-Men characters, who rack up thousands of issues needed to be read, they're often the only way

And I am with DT's stance on the matter, what's on the profile should automatically be apparent as what matters, and offsite respect threads should stay on files
 

KingTempest

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
9,576
8,385
I have an alternative issue.

A lot of offsite links get deleted from their website, which the respect threads fall under.
We get a lot of calcs from Narutoforums, and the calc might get deleted or the origin/important parts of the calc gets deleted, and then we'll have to redo it in the future since we don't have it.

This same issue happens with some respect threads I've seen. Whenever I want to find a feat to add on to a page or a CRT
Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/respectthreads.
Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose.
In all honesty, I have no issue with offsite respect threads, but it'll be much safer if we could transfer it here so it doesn't get deleted under our watch.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Fo once I disagree with DontTalk, as according to my experiences, these threads mainly focus on comic book characters with feats all over the place, even more so in terms of fighting characters with power levels all over the spectrum, with no regard for if it makes any sense or not, if the feats were outliers, PIS, "everybody can fight everybody" insanity, taken out of context, or all of the above.

As such, I think that we are shooting ourselves in the feet by allowing them to be listed without any editorialising whatsoever on our part, as we will essentially help to incite our visitors who are fans of the characters against us. If necessary, our members can just copy the feat lists to blogs in our wiki instead, and preferably edit away the ones that we have previously rejected.
 
16,715
3,198
Alot of our users use respect threads to make pages, or at the absolute least derive scans from them, which I think it would be dickish of us then, to not list their original source on the page itself. Why use respect threads? Coming from a more expansive verse, it's a more convenient, if not admittedly inadvisable, way to gather feats for the characters, and in cases such as Iron Man and most X-Men characters, who rack up thousands of issues needed to be read, they're often the only way

And I am with DT's stance on the matter, what's on the profile should automatically be apparent as what matters, and offsite respect threads should stay on files

Users are free to use any research they find for our purposes, but we aren't obligated to feature credits of that kind to begin with.

If we want to give credit for the one that "found" the feats, just keep that on the verse page if anything in some new section, currently we don't even give credit to users that have helped far more on keeping a page up to date and reliable, than a list filled with content that's easily questionable for our standards to begin with, if we want to get there.
 
Last edited:

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,524
3,418
Users are free to use any research they find for our purposes, but we aren't obligated to feature credits of that kind to begin with.
You aren't obligated to do alot of things, Bob, like using fan renders without crediting the artist than worked days off on it.

Doesn't mean it's not dickish if you don't do them.
If we want to give credit for the one that "found" the feats, just keep that on the verse page if anything in some new section
This is the same shit but far worse and cluttered.
currently we don't even give credit to users that have helped far more on keeping a page up to date and reliable
They're on the edits, external contributors aren't.
than a list filled with content that's easily questionable for our standards to begin with, if we want to get there.
I think any user with basic comprehension skills can infer what's on the profile is more consistent than just a collection of feats, which is what respect threads are.

I don't think we should pander our pages to non-existent people with the lowest thought capacity possible, and honestly, for one I just don't think wiki's stance on outliers should be to never address them and other feats, this is literally just hiding context.

What's on the respect thread isn't meant to be an index to comprehensively derive tier from, it's a collection of all the feats performed by a character, and us as a wiki's job is to illustrate said collection of feats into a comprehensive compilation. They're not our rivals by any means and neither are contradicting us, if anyone who understands the purpose of a respect thread is asked.

If anything a good respect that lists all the significant feats performed a character, of course it shouldn't be the end-all, be-all for researching, yet still there are just characters that honestly can't be indexed otherwise unless the user takes months on a single file.

Also we're just straight up forgetting alot of other verses, like comic strips and TV shows, aren't really as easy to come by online, so researching them is a hellhole unless we decide to use the respect threads, made by people who either own these resources, or have the months on end of time to collect these feats.

At the end of the day I just don't think wiki should focus on feat-exclusion for any verse, hell for Marvel we just have an entire page explaining the reasons for feat exclusions, that anyone can read, so what's even the problem.
 
16,715
3,198
You aren't obligated to do alot of things, Bob, like using fan renders without crediting the artist than worked days off on it.

Doesn't mean it's not dickish if you don't do them.

This is the same shit but far worse and cluttered.

They're on the edits, external contributors aren't.

I think any user with basic comprehension skills can infer what's on the profile is more consistent than just a collection of feats, which is what respect threads are.

I don't think we should pander our pages to non-existent people with the lowest thought capacity possible, and honestly, for one I just don't think wiki's stance on outliers should be to never address them and other feats, this is literally just hiding context.

What's on the respect thread isn't meant to be an index to comprehensively derive tier from, it's a collection of all the feats performed by a character, and us as a wiki's job is to illustrate said collection of feats into a comprehensive compilation. They're not our rivals by any means and neither are contradicting us, if anyone who understands the purpose of a respect thread is asked.

If anything a good respect that lists all the significant feats performed a character, of course it shouldn't be the end-all, be-all for researching, yet still there are just characters that honestly can't be indexed otherwise unless the user takes months on a single file.

Also we're just straight up forgetting alot of other verses, like comic strips and TV shows, aren't really as easy to come by online, so researching them is a hellhole unless we decide to use the respect threads, made by people who either own these resources, or have the months on end of time to collect these feats.

At the end of the day I just don't think wiki should focus on feat-exclusion for any verse, hell for Marvel we just have an entire page explaining the reasons for feat exclusions, that anyone can read, so what's even the problem.
Giving credit on sources of research is quite lacking standards to say the least, if you want to go like "Credit to X for finding this series of feats" just because without it a ton of accuracy would most likely have been compromised, the Standard Format for Character Profiles would have to be adjusted accordingly to keep this kind of stuff listed consistently, and most likely at around the bottom of the page, this probably should also be done for fanart and the like while we are on that, assuming we end up doing this, which I'm neutral on.

I mean, our demographic isn't exclusively people that are already familiar on the vs debating community at all, most of it is filled with casuals that just read and may not be aware of our proper standards to begin with, making stuff foolproof doesn't hurt. We also aren't hiding outliers, we are preventing contradicting ourselves by featuring content that isn't even explained on how it fits for our purposes, meaning that at least some explanation on our part would have to be included to make it more reasonable to consider, as said before.

The purpose of the wiki isn't to "illustrate said collection of feats into a comprehensive compilation", but rather "discuss how to properly index the statistics of characters from a wide variety of different fictional franchises", or in other words, we don't just collect and feature feats regardless of what they are, we rate them and obtain stats from the case in question for others to be aware of the information we got based on our resources and standards, not the standards of elsewhere, at the very least some moderation would be required as Ant said before, like how we do with off-site calcs being mandatory to at least post to this site then get it approved by a staff member, doing so also gives a "layer" of protection against whatever may go on the other website editing or removing details we were originally using, sometimes the entire page to begin with.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't use that sort of resources for our purposes, it's perfectly fine to go to another battleboard website to gather stuff you probably wouldn't easily find otherwise, the problem is featuring that content on profiles out of many before-mentioned reasons, you can always just make a Sandbox or blog post where you compile them and use them as needed later, with no direct mentioning of them on profiles.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,524
3,418
I mean, our demographic isn't exclusively people that are already familiar on the vs debating community at all, most of it is filled with casuals that just read and may not be aware of our proper standards to begin with, making stuff foolproof doesn't hurt. We also aren't hiding outliers, we are preventing contradicting ourselves by featuring content that isn't even explained on how it fits for our purposes.
This extends beyond just "not familiar with Vs. Debating" you're presenting a scenario where people will not use basic common sense and will rather just believe anything shown on the screen.

If people like that exist then they definitely shouldn't be in our community in the first place.
The purpose of the wiki isn't to "illustrate said collection of feats into a comprehensive compilation", but rather "discuss how to properly index the statistics of characters from a wide variety of different fictional franchises", or in other words, we don't just collect and feature feats regardless of what they are, we rate them and obtain stats from the case in question for others to be aware of the information we got based on our resources and standards, not the standards of elsewhere, at the very least some moderation would be required as Ant said before, like how we do with off-site calcs being mandatory to at least post to this site then get it approved by a staff member, doing so also gives a "layer" of protection against whatever may go on the other website editing or removing details we were originally using, sometimes the entire page to begin with.
Which is what I already addressed, nonsensical point reiterating here.

"I'm not saying that we shouldn't use that sort of resources for our purposes, it's perfectly fine to go to another battleboard website to gather stuff you probably wouldn't easily find otherwise, the problem is featuring that content on profiles out of many before-mentioned reasons, you can always just make a Sandbox or blog post where you compile them and use them as needed later, with no direct mentioning of them on profiles."

This is "just be a content vampire", I'd rather not have people's credits for their months and months of research be hidden under bureaucratic structure instead of the file reliant on it.
 
16,715
3,198
This extends beyond just "not familiar with Vs. Debating" you're presenting a scenario where people will not use basic common sense and will rather just believe anything shown on the screen.

If people like that exist then they definitely shouldn't be in our community in the first place.

Which is what I already addressed, nonsensical point reiterating here.

"I'm not saying that we shouldn't use that sort of resources for our purposes, it's perfectly fine to go to another battleboard website to gather stuff you probably wouldn't easily find otherwise, the problem is featuring that content on profiles out of many before-mentioned reasons, you can always just make a Sandbox or blog post where you compile them and use them as needed later, with no direct mentioning of them on profiles."

This is "just be a content vampire", I'd rather not have people's credits for their months and months of research be hidden under bureaucratic structure instead of the file reliant on it.
If you want so badly to credit off-site users for the way they made research easier or the like, which would be optional as usual, it could be a good idea to only do so in a way that clearly states that we're not "formally" affiliated with them and that we disagree with certain aspects, most of the staff seem to currently agree on this, as just blindly listing "Respect Thread" with a link and absolutely nothing else (As we currently do) brings the issue that has been outlined across the entire thread.

There's also the matter that unlike fanart they can't really sue as this kind of information can't be "owned" beyond what Fair Use covers anyways (Unless you straight up want to also give credits to piracy websites out of featuring the feats themselves), but I can get that you want to just be nice to them.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,524
3,418
If you want so badly to credit off-site users for the way they made research easier or the like, which would be optional as usual, it could be a good idea to only do so in a way that clearly states that we're not "formally" affiliated with them and that we disagree with certain aspects, most of the staff seem to currently agree on this aspect, as just blindly listing "Respect Thread" with a link and absolutely nothing else brings the issue that has been outlined across the entire thread.
lol yeah i forgot people just listed respect threads with no context whatsoever

I mean doesn't matter what most staff think, I'm not a staff member to conform to others' opinions, I am just putting out points needing addressed and my concerns to proposals
 
2,377
657
I frankly find the main concern about RT here overblown
As Zark said the people in theory that we’re worried about likely don’t exist and if they did they shouldn’t be using the site to begin with

Plus if someone’s RT thread paints a whole different picture then their profile I think that’s more telling about the page rather then the RT, since as mentioned they just index feats
Plus we already forced citations on comics in general so it could be viewed as merely an add on to that since a decent amount of scans we use is from RT and we’re at least I hope not total ***** who can acknowledge when we burrowed stuff from others
 

Armorchompy

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
Calculation Group
7,824
3,024
I'm of the opinion they should be kept as well. I sure as hell would have struggled a bit more in making a profile or two without the appropriate respect threads, I'd feel like a piece of shit if I didn't at least credit the person making them.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,524
3,418
I think the better option is to reword the way we list Respect Threads, and instead have it be "This profile was made with assistance from this respect thread by u/[name]"
 

Armorchompy

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
Calculation Group
7,824
3,024
I think that's such a minor change that it feels like a waste of time. It also makes it sound like that person was straight-up asked for permission which often isn't the case
 
10,855
5,096
I think the better option is to reword the way we list Respect Threads, and instead have it be "This profile was made with assistance from this respect thread by u/[name]"
Uh, I'd hesitate to put something as universal as that. Sometimes Respect Threads are added in by later editors simply because it's an RT for the character, even if it wasn't used in creating the profile. Also, I was considering writing an RT for a character and linking it on the profile, simply because I'd prefer listing 20 near-identical hax feats there instead of trying to squeeze them somewhere into a profile.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Well, the main problem here is that we have up to 583,000 individual visitors per month to the wiki, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of them (97.2% to be exact) are not diehard regulars. As such, they will easily be misled by threads featuring all of Superman's most impressive sounding feats out of context, for example.

However, this is mainly a problem for Marvel and DC Comics, due to being two of the most irrational and inconsistent fictional settings ever, so maybe we could restrict the rule to these franchises only, and move all of the respect threads for such characters to a blog post?
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Btw: Speaking of giving proper credit to artists of fan images: Does anybody have a link to the thread where I talked about creating a wiki management thread for that purpose (along with the main topic of if we should use unrelated images to illustrate character profile pages or not)? It seems quite important to finish that discussion.
 
16,715
3,198
Btw: Speaking of giving proper credit to artists of fan images: Does anybody have a link to the thread where I talked about creating a wiki management thread for that purpose (along with the main topic of if we should use unrelated images to illustrate character profile pages or not)? It seems quite important to finish that discussion.
Here, it's still non-concluded, however
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Well, the main problem here is that we have up to 583,000 individual visitors per month to the wiki, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of them (97.2% to be exact) are not diehard regulars. As such, they will easily be misled by threads featuring all of Superman's most impressive sounding feats out of context, for example.

However, this is mainly a problem for Marvel and DC Comics, due to being two of the most irrational and inconsistent fictional settings ever, so maybe we could restrict the rule to these franchises only, and move all of the respect threads for such characters to a blog post?
Anyway, about this...
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,500
3,541
I still believe we shouldn't link anything that has not been evaluated by us, for a series of reasons I've already expressed.

I also disagree with crediting who made the RT on the profile, it may not be honest to just copy paste them, but we don't credit any single user that had a major role in creating or revising a profile.

I agree with giving them credit if we copy paste their RT into a wiki blog.
 
Last edited:

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Bump.

This seems like an important discussion to finish.
 
16,715
3,198
So far it seems everyone but DontTalk, The Impress and maybe Eficiente agree on not featuring off-site respect threads on the pages.
However, we have yet to agree how to deal with them, so I'll drop some ideas:

1: Off-Site Respect Threads are removed from all pages, instead they are replaced with a link to a blog post (emphasis on this part, they must be hosted in this website, as we do with calculations) that contains the accepted content after it was evaluated by at least one staff member, and thus basically evaluated like a calculation before being linked to in the profile, based around on factors regarding how it fits our standards and the phrasing used not confusing our audience with stuff that goes against our standards with no explication (for example, "this feat is an outlier for X reason", or "sections such as Y were skipped as they didn't serve for our purposes out of Z"), as this isn't as technical, knowledgeable members on the subject can evaluate as well.
Such blog post also would give credit to the user that originally did this.

2: Off-Site Respect Threads are still featured on pages, but now they must contain a detailed summary on what they hold and what parts do fit for our purposes, such links also have to be archived in archive.org to avoid having to deal with such page not being avaiable for reasons that are simply beyond us (separate site and all). Such alternative wouldn't be as reliable, especially if the same respect thread is used for multiple pages, let alone the process evaluation being even more messy here out of basically requiring a full CRT each time, so I would suggest option 1 more.

If we go with option 1, we could also make a "Respect Thread Evaluation Thread", to deal with them like how we do with calculations for pages, such accepted Respect Threads can also be featured in the respective verse page.

In any case we also probably require to edit a bit the Standard Format for Character Profiles, and the Standard Format for Verse Pages to remain consistent on how these are added to profiles, if at all.
 
16,715
3,198
16,715
3,198
Well, the main problem here is that we have up to 583,000 individual visitors per month to the wiki, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of them (97.2% to be exact) are not diehard regulars. As such, they will easily be misled by threads featuring all of Superman's most impressive sounding feats out of context, for example.

However, this is mainly a problem for Marvel and DC Comics, due to being two of the most irrational and inconsistent fictional settings ever, so maybe we could restrict the rule to these franchises only, and move all of the respect threads for such characters to a blog post?
Here, it seems
 
10,855
5,096
I'd prefer Option 1. I'm not sure if a dedicated thread is the best way to go about it, I'd suggest them being added during CRTs, or accepted by knowledgeable members in the blog posts themselves, like calculations are.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
I am also fine with the blog post hosting solution.

Quite a lot of work would be required though.
 
10,855
5,096
I am also fine with the blog post hosting solution.

Quite a lot of work would be required though.
Hmm, that may be an issue there. This isn't an exact estimate, but since most pages with "Feats" sections link to respect threads, whatlinkshere gives us a good idea of how many pages would need to be looked at, and there's over 1500...

With that in mind I think I'm pushed to the Disagree camp. If y'all are worried about inaccuracies on Marvel/DC respect threads I think that can/should be handled separately from nuking all across the site.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Okay. So should we only use this rule for Marvel and DC Comics instead, given that they are the most inconsistent?
 
16,715
3,198
Okay. So should we only use this rule for Marvel and DC Comics instead, given that they are the most inconsistent?
Most of the staff already agreed on doing this in general, not just for Marvel and DC.

By the way, most of the Feats sections don't actually feature an off-site respect thread from what I recall, they generally are just listed separately at the bottom of the profile from what I recall, but in any case it seems they'll have to be found manually if we can't filter them like how we once did with piracy websites.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Okay. Most of the feats threads can probably be found via external links searches for Reddit and maybe Deviantart links.

Hpwever, I am very uncertain if it is a good idea to remove all of them, as they can be useful for scaling most types of fictions/verses, just not Marvel and DC.
 
16,715
3,198
Well, the pages that have remained until now have enought of a base by themselves, as they don't rely on such respect threads for scans to begin with from what I'm aware.
But doing a filter first so nothing isn't compromised doesn't hurt, such respect threads are to be ported to blog posts and so on as outlined in the before-mentioned option 1 I mentioned before (which seems to be agreed on).
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
That would be an awful lot of work though, and we are overworked enough as it is right now, so only restricting them for Marvel and DC seems far more realistic to apply.
 
16,715
3,198
Well, this revision can just be done in the long run, as we seemingly did with off-site versus threads before, a note could be added to the Editing Rules over this kind of content to encourage users to remove the ones they find, and while we are on that explain the reason why they aren't allowed to be featured like this.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
In retrospect I think that it seems to give a negative impact if we remove respect threads for comparatively quite consistent verses. It is likely not a good idea.
 
16,715
3,198
Well, they still have to be monitored in any case, so we can also just not remove them, but require to do a revision over each one that may be removed, or otherwise be featured as a blog post instead.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
The blog posts would need to have all of their links and images individually copied, due to different editing formats, so it is not realistic to apply for possibly a few hundred of them.
 
16,715
3,198
It wouldn't be applied to most of them, as most profiles don't rely on them to begin with and go into the issues that have been outlined across the entire thread.

Also, what verses would even qualify as "quite consistent"? Virtually any respect thread is just going to list a ton of tier 9 feats even for character that we currently rate as tier 7 or above from a few feats, so our consistency and their consistency don't match to begin with.
 

Armorchompy

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
Calculation Group
7,824
3,024
I still am of the opinion that it's pretty scummy to just copy the work made by others for our wiki, which is basically what copying them to our blogs would be.
 
16,715
3,198
I still am of the opinion that it's pretty scummy to just copy the work made by others for our wiki, which is basically what copying them to our blogs would be.
We would still give credit to them at the top of the respect thread blog post by linking their post.
 

Armorchompy

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
Calculation Group
7,824
3,024
That implies we asked them for permission, which I doubt was always the case, and with how other battleboarders sometimes view VSBW, there's a decent chance they wouldn't be willing to give it. Unless you're willing to contact each and every single one of them, that doesn't really work.
 
16,715
3,198
That implies we asked them for permission, which I doubt was always the case, and with how other battleboarders sometimes view VSBW, there's a decent chance they wouldn't be willing to give it. Unless you're willing to contact each and every single one of them, that doesn't really work.
Well, do you have any better ideas? As we still need moderation over this sort of stuff, even if it won't be removed, it's a hard task and all, but it's of a good priority to fix the issues that have been outlined across the thread. Also, if they don't want to, they can just ask for us to just remove them, as we do with fanart currently, no profile relies on them for justifications on what's on the profile beyond the research some users do in some cases, after all, so it wouldn't compromise the profiles themselves if they were removed.
 

Armorchompy

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
Calculation Group
7,824
3,024
Well, do you have any better ideas? As we still need moderation over this sort of stuff, even if it won't be removed, it's a hard task and all, but it's of a good priority to fix the issues that have been outlined across the thread. Also, if they don't want to, they can just ask for us to just remove them, as we do with fanart currently.
All I know if that if someone put the effort in a respect thread, stealing their content is absolutely unacceptable. Either way, yall do whatever,
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Well, I think that collecting all of the Marvel and DC respect thread links into a single sandbox page that we can reference if necessary, and keeping the others, seems like the best solution here.
 
16,715
3,198
The others still need to be moderated, however, if they can't be done now it can be something done in the long run, as said before.

Keeping the Marvel and DC respect threads all in a single blog post also is pretty messy, there should be only one per respect thread, rather than merging all of them to a single one per series or so.
 

Armorchompy

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
Calculation Group
7,824
3,024
I can confirm that the respect threads used in my profiles are all very accurate and high quality.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,886
Well, each respect thread link in the sandbox page should obviously state which Marvel or DC character that it is for.
 
Top