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

[Antvasima]

If the standard format pages need a rewrite, we likely need help from a content moderator or administrator who used to be a content moderator.

 

[Dino_Ranger_Black]

I agree with these adjustments.

 

[Antvasima]

Just as we do with calculations, the comment section remains open, but the blog post, once accepted, can then just be linked accordingly to the respective page.

Okay, but we need to decide some rules for this. Should the respect thread blogs be in-depth evaluated by staff members who are written as knowledgeable members for a series before they are accepted and linked to in character profile pages?

The Standard Format for Character Profiles and the Standard Format for Verse pages also requires a minor rewrite to have a proper section to feature them consistently. The former can specify that this stuff can be featured in the Feats section, rather than just arbitrarily at the end of the profile, and the latter probably below the calculations section.

@Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @Shadowbokunohero @Mindovin @Jvando @SamanPatou @Just_a_Random_Butler

Would any of you be willing and able to help out with this?

 

[Bobsican]

Okay, but we need to decide some rules for this. Should the respect thread blogs be in-depth evaluated by staff members who are written as knowledgeable members for a series before they are accepted and linked to in character profile pages?

Preferably, non-staff knowledgeable members can also evaluate accordingly, but like most verses in here, we can't expect the staff (or even other regular members) to be knowledgeable of the series in question, so in such cases some scrutinity over the featured content may be applied to avoid counterproductive content from being brought up on pages.
We do need a proper wording for this kind of rules, however.

 

[AKM sama]

My opinion on the matter is that we feature information on our profiles that is accepted in CRTs. We link scans in the justifications of the AP, speed, dura, etc. sections. If it's too much, we create a blog of accepted feats.

That is the only information that matters for our purposes.

But it's also fine to use respect threads in the feats section since they are a compilation of the character's many feats, as long as its use is approved in a CRT. Just make sure these respect threads don't contradict our ratings. Low end feats not performed at full power, etc. are absolutely fine, but they should not contain feats that are out of context, or those that are rejected or deemed outlier by us. Such respect threads should be removed, since we can't feature contradictory information on our page.

It must be decided on a case-by-case basis in CRTs.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so we should initially remove all respect threads that are currently featured in our character profile pages, and back them up to archive.vn, and post the resulting links in blog posts, and after that these threads can be individually evaluated in content revision threads by our knowledgeable members, to see if they are acceptable to reinsert into the profile pages, and in the cases where they are accepted, references to the relevant content revision threads should be inserted into the pages? Is that a good summary of our plan of approach here? It seems like a rather complicated procedure though.

 

[Bobsican]

Okay, so we should initially remove all respect threads that are currently featured in our character profile pages, and back them up to archive.vn, and post the resulting links in blog posts, and after that these threads can be individually evaluated in content revision threads by our knowledgeable members, to see if they are acceptable to reinsert into the profile pages, and in the cases where they are accepted, references to the relevant content revision threads should be inserted into the pages? Is that a good summary of our plan of approach here? It seems like a rather complicated procedure though.

Yes, that's a good summary, regardless of the procedure all of the ones currently featured are to be removed, then eventually evaluated, and the ones that are allowed afterwards are readded.

I'll also remind that we still have to add some formatting over how they would be featured in character and verse pages, I'll remind that I suggest adding it to the former in the Feats section, rather than arbitrarily at the end of the profile, and in verse pages below where calculations are.

 

[Firestorm808]

Spacebattles technical threads tend to be vast repositories of information with dozens of pages of tests without actual interpretation. At the very least, allow it for science fiction verses due to the latent different standards in analyzing them.

 

[Antvasima]

Firestorm808 makes a good point. Perhaps we should make exceptions for more rational and internally consistent verses?

 

[Bobsican]

Firestorm808 makes a good point. Perhaps we should make exceptions for more rational and internally consistent verses?

It seems he's quoting FanOfRPGs. Anyways, that would have to be evaluated regardless in a case-by-case basis, as even if a verse in general has no feats beyond tier 9 to speak of, that doesn't prevent off-site users from exaggerating their rating for our purposes, so I would say that this isn't a good idea as it unecessarily risks what's featured just to get the process done faster with no one even evaluating the content beyond than the one adding it, which goes back to the sort of issues we've been trying to fix across the entire thread.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I sort of agree with some of his points, but I can still think of other examples where linking respect blogs to SpaceBattles lead to a lot of misinformation. To the point where it was even worse than some various Reddit or DeviantArt links.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Neverr mind then.

So how should we apply the agreed upon changes in practice?

 

[Bobsican]

- A Editing Rule is added, based on previous consensus, this seems to be what's currently agreed on that regard:
"Do not add any respect thread links from external sites to our pages, as they can't be properly monitored to keep their content of sufficiently high reliability for our purposes, and they recurrently do not meet our standards. Feel free to remove any such existing links that you come across. The same applies to calculations hosted in external sites, however, exceptions are made for the ones that were hosted in the NarutoForums as they were previously accepted. If one desires to feature them, they should must be backed up to archive.vn, after which the backed up pages are linked to in blog posts in the wiki (only link to one respect thread or calculation per blog post), with credit given to the original creator(s). Our staff and knowledgeable members can then evaluate which of the feats that seem reliable or not in the blog post comment sections."

The bolded parts are some additions I noticed would fit, the "must" is because "should" gives the idea of the link being archived being optional, when it's a requirement to even be considered for featuring, and the "or calculation" part complements to keep it clear that an off-site calculation can also be similarly treated.

It's to be noted that it may require further rewriting if we go with AKM Sama's idea of doing a CRT for them each time, which I don't find necessary as we don't do that for each and every calculation unless they become pretty argumentative or something, in which case it could just be mentioned that if the off-site respect thread/calculation becomes controversial or just can't be properly argued with the limited capabilities of the blog post comment section, a CRT can be done, and it would be best also being featured in the blog post afterwards if it does happen for reference purposes regarding its acceptance, especially considering the "What Links Here" feature in the wiki doesn't include this forum as well. I'll also suggest this being added to the editing rule as otherwise it won't be enforced at all and we'll end up eventually with tons of links with hardly any citations regarding evaluation in a future date.

- The Standard Format for Character Profiles, the Standard Format for Verse Pages, the Standard Format for Civilization Profiles, the Standard Format for Weapon Profiles and the Standard Format for Vehicle Profiles are updated in the "Feats" section to also be explicitly where respect threads may also be featured, and as outlined in the before-mentioned rule, by linking to the blog post that got accepted, which then links to the calculation and gives credit and so on, this is done to make it consistent on regards of where they are featured and ease the work of bot tasks in the future.
Civilization and Verse Pages currently don't have proper places to feature this kind of stuff, the former could have this section right below the Weaknesses section, to remain consistent with the other formats that have it in the same way, and verse pages could feature them below the Calculations section.

- All and every single one of the currently featured off-site (Emphasis on this part, on-site respect threads are far less problematic as they have been evaluated already (Being generally used for CRTs before being then recycled for featuring and all) and their content isn't as easy to suddendly get compromised as non-archived links to external websites of variable reliability, so they can stay by default) respect threads are removed from the pages, then they are manually eventually (re)added as certain users may desire with the process outlined in the first-mentioned editing rule on this post.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you. That seems to make sense to me.

What do you think @AKM sama ?

We also need help from our Administrators/Sysops and/or Content Moderators with updating our standard format pages.

 

[Crabwhale]

Honestly neutral on this.

 

[AKM sama]

What do you think @AKM sama ?

Well, I already said my piece.

I don't see anything wrong with having a respect thread linked on a profile in the Feats section as long as it is approved in a CRT and does not contain information that contradicts our ratings. The proposed rule seems to be saying that we disallow RT altogether.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that Bobsican considers it more practical to evaluate if they should be included via blog posts, as we already do with calculations, and I am inclined to agree with him.

 

[Armorchompy]

I think it's dishonest to just copy them ourselves into a blog, even with credit. Besides, it's the same information, we're just retyping it in our wiki without permission.

 

[Antvasima]

We will just link to the threads backed up to archive.vn within the blogs, as we have detailed previously.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It's relatively okay for offsite respect blogs to be linked within our blogposts or even on content revisions for that matter. But even so it's better to the main info directly in the OP for easy read and people do not have to flip flop tabs to read it. It's more so profiles. And it's more so borrowing some info but then analyzing which feats are good and which ones either need better calculation or scrapped due to being either out of context or outlierish.

 

[AKM sama]

I think it's dishonest to just copy them ourselves into a blog, even with credit. Besides, it's the same information, we're just retyping it in our wiki without permission.

Adding to that, it will also be a lot of effort for something useless. People wouldn't want to redo something that is already available just for the sake of adding it to the Feats section. It's not something important that needs so much effort. For RTs that are not completely approved, a blog with only accepted feats can be made. But for accepted RTs, I really don't see the need to copy it all to a blog.

 

[Armorchompy]

There's also the fact that most respect threads I've seen don't give their own opinion on a character's tiering, they just present the feats. I understand it's an issue for outlier-heavy stuff like comics, but I think it's perfectly fine if a respect thread for an 8-C character shows a bunch of 9-B feats alongside ones closer to our tiering of them.

 

[Bobsican]

Indeed, it has been generally agreed on already that the respect threads won't be copy-pasted to blog posts, but rather, they'll just link to an archived link oversion of the respective respect thread.

Sure, several cases may just give the feats with no speculation or given thoughts at all, but that doesn't mean that's always the case, especially considering we aren't even limiting to a single website, and no monitorization at all regarding them would just bring us back where we started, which is counterproductive to say the least, if anything such cases should be evaluated quickly without issue, so that shouldn't be a big concern.

 

[Agnaa]

@Akm @Armor The plan isn't to have people completely redo RTs within blog posts. The idea is that they'd link the respect thread, and list any corrections. Such as missed feats, or feats we don't consider valid.

 

[Bobsican]

As it seems the "rule" currently written now lacks some aspects, I'll suggest yet another rewrite, from:
"Do not add any respect thread links from external sites to our pages, as they can't be properly monitored to keep their content of sufficiently high reliability for our purposes, and they recurrently do not meet our standards. Feel free to remove any such existing links that you come across. The same applies to calculations hosted in external sites, however, exceptions are made for the ones that were hosted in the NarutoForums as they were previously accepted. If one desires to feature them, they must be backed up to archive.vn, after which the backed up pages are linked to in blog posts in the wiki (only link to one respect thread or calculation per blog post), with credit given to the original creator(s). Our staff and knowledgeable members can then evaluate which of the feats that seem reliable or not in the blog post comment sections."

To:
"Do not add directly any respect thread links from external sites to our pages, as they can't be properly monitored to keep their content of sufficiently high reliability for our purposes, and they recurrently do not meet our standards. Feel free to remove any such existing links that you come across. The same applies to calculations hosted in external sites, however, exceptions are made for the ones that were hosted in the NarutoForums as they were previously accepted. If one desires to feature them, they must be backed up to archive.vn, after which the backed up pages are linked to in blog posts in the wiki (only link to one respect thread or calculation per blog post), with credit given to the original creator(s), and the blog post(s) being linked on the respective page(s) after positive evaluation and corrections requested, if any. Our staff and knowledgeable members can then evaluate which of the feats that seem reliable or not in the blog post comment sections, argumentative cases may be handled in a Content Revision Thread as well."

What's in bold are the new additions, "directly" relates to essencially just dropping the link with no intermediary blog post that showcases its evaluation, especially if it doesn't even link to an archived link version, the second part clarifies on the before-mentioned part as it wasn't specified before that what's going to be linked in a page is the blog post itself, not the "raw" link to the respect thread, and the last part is self-explanatory.

The second bolded part surely needs a rewrite to have a better flow of expression, as it now makes the sentence that goes right after it quite redundant as well among some other issues for the sake of clarity, but I can't think of a better way of saying it, so ideas on alternatives are welcome.

 

[AKM sama]

I am thinking something like:

Do not directly add any respect threads from external sites to our pages. To use any external respect threads, it should be approved in a Content Revision thread. Once it is accepted, it should be backed-up to archive.vn and the backup can be added to pages. In case a respect thread requires some changes, such as missed or invalid feats, a blog post should be made containing the backed-up respect thread and the information about the required changes.

And a separate rule for calculations.

 

[Bobsican]

I'm fine with separating the rule between off-site calculations, and another one for off-site respect rhreads, however, skipping entirely the reasoning may not be a good idea as it would keep the reasoning for it way harder to be aware of in the long run.

 

[Antvasima]

I tried to make Bobsican's text easier to understand:

"Do not directly add any respect thread links from external sites to our pages, as they can't be properly monitored to keep their content of sufficiently high reliability for our purposes, and they recurrently do not meet our standards. Feel free to remove any such existing links that you come across. The same applies to calculations hosted in external sites, although exceptions are made for the ones that were hosted in the NarutoForums if they were previously accepted. If one desires to feature them, they must be backed up to archive.vn, after which the backed up pages are linked to in blog posts in the wiki (only link to one respect thread or calculation per blog post), with credit given to the original creator(s). It should then be requested that our staff and knowledgeable members evaluate which of the feats that seem reliable or not in the blog post comment sections, and uncertain cases may be handled in a content revision threads as well."

 

[AKM sama]

I don't understand the need of making a blog post about a RT that doesn't need any changes. Why not simply link the backed-up RT on the page.

And I also don't understand the need to use blog post comments for figuring out what feats are usable or not. Blog post comments are inefficient as they don't give notifications, nobody keeps up with them or even uses that functionality. Why can't a RT be discussed in a CRT and after a proper decision has been reached regarding which feats are usable and which ones are not, a blog post containing the link to the RT and all that information can be created?

 

[Agnaa]

I don't understand the need of making a blog post about a RT that doesn't need any changes. Why not simply link the backed-up RT on the page.

I think doing that would be fine, but their stated reason for doing that is so that people don't get confused and assume that RTs can be added to pages as long as there's an archive link.

Why can't a RT be discussed in a CRT and after a proper decision has been reached regarding which feats are usable and which ones are not, a blog post containing the link to the RT and all that information can be created?

Because creating an entire CRT every time anyone wants to add something that won't change a character's statistics or abilities sounds excessive.

 

[ByAsura]

I don’t entirely agree with the premise of this CRT, but I’m relatively fine with it. Most of the verses I’m into have most of the highest feats on the pages, anyway.

As an alternative to creating entirely new CRTs or respect threads, would it also be ok if we continue to use small collapsible bracket with feats, like the Exelion’s page (keep in mind there’s more visible expanding brackets and tags)? Although, the Exelion’s feats are directly copy-pasted from a reddit RT that employs a lot of speculation, which is why I partially agree with the OP.

 

[Bobsican]

I don’t entirely agree with the premise of this CRT, but I’m relatively fine with it. Most of the verses I’m into have most of the highest feats on the pages, anyway.

As an alternative to creating entirely new CRTs or respect threads, would it also be ok if we continue to use small collapsible bracket with feats, like the Exelion’s page (keep in mind there’s more visible expanding brackets and tags)? Although, the Exelion’s feats are directly copy-pasted from a reddit RT that employs a lot of speculation, which is why I partially agree with the OP.

On-site respect threads like this should be fine, although some evaluation even in those cases probably wouldn't hurt, as even on-site profiles can be unreliable at times as we all know.

 

[ByAsura]

I know they're fine with evaluation, but I think my idea is a lot easier, albeit the trade-off is probably a smaller feat selection and some measure of moderation. I'm not trying to supplant anything or create a standard, just suggesting another alternative that could be used in addition to wiki and moderated RTs in case anyone forgot it was a possibility.

Anyway, that's my piece and I'm finished derailing (slightly).

 

[Bobsican]

Well, listing on-site feats directly on that section was the original purpose of that optional part of a profile, so that shouldn't be too affected beyond what may be allowed to be listed from now on, with that being the basic thing to feature.
Tabbers are also a good way to make reading easier, so long section of feats having them is a good thing overall, and the new rule(s) we get over the content featured shouldn't change this aspect, that being said, questionable speculation and the likes are still to be watched for and cleaned up accordingly, just as we do a CRT for any kind of debatable content in a page.

 

[ByAsura]

That's what I meant when I said I was derailing a tad.

Anyway, like I said before, I do somewhat agree with the general premise. At the very least, we need much stronger moderation on RTs.

 

[Bobsican]

Uh... Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

There is an awful lot going on right now for me, so it is hard to focus on getting this properly done at the moment.

 

[Bobsican]

How about now?

 

[Antvasima]

I tried to make Bobsican's text easier to understand:

"Do not directly add any respect thread links from external sites to our pages, as they can't be properly monitored to keep their content of sufficiently high reliability for our purposes, and they recurrently do not meet our standards. Feel free to remove any such existing links that you come across. The same applies to calculations hosted in external sites, although exceptions are made for the ones that were hosted in the NarutoForums if they were previously accepted. If one desires to feature them, they must be backed up to archive.vn, after which the backed up pages are linked to in blog posts in the wiki (only link to one respect thread or calculation per blog post), with credit given to the original creator(s). It should then be requested that our staff and knowledgeable members evaluate which of the feats that seem reliable or not in the blog post comment sections, and uncertain cases may be handled in a content revision threads as well."

Are the rest of you fine with if we add this?

 

[GyroNutz]

Seems fine to me