• 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.

Organizing The Site Rules, Part 3 - Discussion & Versus Thread Rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
FinePoint

FinePoint

He/Him
VS Battles
Thread Moderator
Messages
7,823
Reaction score
11,751
Continuing from here.
Also, don't forget to look at this thread by Bobsican, correcting a couple mistakes from the previous thread.

I have completed my first draft for the General Discussion Rules and the Versus Thread Rules.

Here is the sandbox.
Note that this only includes "General Rules" (and the content revision rules) from the first page, and "The Rules" from the second.

Like last time, I made no (intentional) substantial changes, I merely organized the existing rules and made some minor grammatical changes as needed for the new format.
Last time a couple errors slipped through, so please let me know what you think, including any errors you can spot, or suggested changes.
 
Last edited:
Deagonx said:
This looks like an improvement to me, but I think a larger rewrite is in order.
Click to expand...
I agree, but that is not the project being discussed here, that project would likely take far longer and involve evaluating each individual rule.
I may draft and propose that after all the rules are at least organized, though, since it makes that task immensely easier.
 
Okay. The draft needs to be updated in that case.
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. The draft needs to be updated in that case.
Click to expand...
Which of the rules related to content revision are new/changed?
It's difficult to tell from the change log because there's so many structural changes.

Regardless, the versus thread rules section of my draft should be unaffected, so that can be evaluated in the meantime.
 
@Just_a_Random_Butler

Would you please be willing to reformat the drafts linked to above according to what you did with our site rules and editing rules pages earlier, if necessary?
 
Thank you for helping out. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

Also, @Bobsican, would you be willing to help verify that nothing important has been accidentally significantly changed or removed please?
 
Thank you very much for helping out. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
 
I already gave my input in it looking good, wasn't sure why I was pinged again.

But as I said, the proposals look good.
 
Okay. My apologies about the mistake then. 🙏
 
Thank you. Your help is very appreciated. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
 
In all honestly, his draft is a bit complicated to read in the comparison with the original site. Not sure if I can help here, if I don't understand his styling principles as they are different to mines.

And I am using my PC that is a bit large, we need to consider mobile users' perspective as well.
 
Okay. Thank you anyway. 🙏
 
Okay. So everything here has already been properly handled then?
Antvasima said:
@Bobsican, would you be willing to help verify that nothing important has been accidentally significantly changed or removed please?
Click to expand...
 
General Rules -> General Discussion Rules
  • Seems fine. Nothing in the content of the General Rules has been taken out or removed, only recategorized under a different category like Content Revision section for example. The massive change in that section would be the first text under "General Discussion Rules", which seems to be a combination of two bullet points previously.

Content Revision
1. General Rules
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.
Click to expand...
  • Can you tell me where this text ended up? I attempted to locate any other bullet points pertaining to this text, but I was unable to identify any instances of it being divided into sections.
  • Apart from that, it doesn't seem like any text has been deleted. Some of the longer texts have been divided into multiple parts, but that's all.

2. Approval of Revisions
Interesting, a new section, I like it.
In cases where the series verse has a significant following or a large amount of material has been published based on its content, it may be necessary to seek approval from a minimum of three staff members to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed revisions. I
Click to expand...
  • Apologies, I'm a bit confused. Is there supposed to be additional text following that statement? Or should I remove that?

Until this grace period has elapsed since the time of the thread's creation, the revision should not be applied to the profiles.
Click to expand...
  • I can't seem to locate this text anymore. It was originally associated with the 48-hour grace period bullet point.

Other notable points:
  • It appears that the "Minor content revisions" mini-section has been merged with this section.
  • Additionally, the "For self-approval of content revisions" mini-section has also been incorporated here, with only minor rearrangement of its text.

3. Handling Disagreements

Compact title, I like it.
  • There appear to be minimal alterations in this section. It looks acceptable.



Versus Thread Rules
  • There don't seem to be any points that have been removed, but some have been combined or reorganized. Overall, the restructuring looks good.
 
Last edited:
Just_a_Random_Butler said:
General Rules -> General Discussion Rules
  • Seems fine. Nothing in the content of the General Rules has been taken out or removed, only recategorized under a different category like Content Revision section for example. The massive change in that section would be the first text under "General Discussion Rules", which seems to be a combination of two bullet points previously.

Content Revision
1. General Rules

  • Can you tell me where this text ended up? I attempted to locate any other bullet points pertaining to this text, but I was unable to identify any instances of it being divided into sections.
  • Apart from that, it doesn't seem like any text has been deleted. Some of the longer texts have been divided into multiple parts, but that's all.

2. Approval of Revisions
Interesting, a new section, I like it.

  • Apologies, I'm a bit confused. Is there supposed to be additional text following that statement? Or should I remove that?


  • I can't seem to locate this text anymore. It was originally associated with the 48-hour grace period bullet point.

Other notable points:
  • It appears that the "Minor content revisions" mini-section has been merged with this section.
  • Additionally, the "For self-approval of content revisions" mini-section has also been incorporated here, with only minor rearrangement of its text.

3. Handling Disagreements

Compact title, I like it.
  • There appear to be minimal alterations in this section. It looks acceptable.



Versus Thread Rules
  • There don't seem to be any points that have been removed, but some have been combined or reorganized. Overall, the restructuring looks good.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for helping out. 🙏

Feel free to suggest solutions to the problems that you noticed.

@Bobsican @FinePoint @Dereck03 @ImmortalDread

Do you have any comments?
 
I will verify the sandbox in terms of contents myself as well, since double check is always a good move.
 
Okay. Thank you for helping out. 🙏

Are there other members that I should summon here due to helping to revise our rule pages quite recently?
 
(My workplace looks like that)

So the introduction section is not included, so I assume it won't be changed once this has been applied.

​

Discussion Rules​

General Discussion Rules​

Seems the first paragraph does not exist in the original page, since the staff member used them as a sub-introduction (first line and third line are combined)
Statistically speaking, there are 14 points in the section while in his sandbox there are 8 points (assuming that 2 points have been removed, there are logically speaking two points are missing).

I have noticed there are some points that are moved upside and downside differently from original page, but it should not be that important and I assume it is part of the idea.
  • For verse-specific threads, if the only opposing party does not reply for over 2 weeks without any notice or known/suspected extenuating circumstances, then the moderators should try to get the thread to completion without them, assuming that they'd probably not reply. However, their points should not be discarded, and this should not be treated as that user conceding. Their arguments and votes should be kept in mind while the thread goes on and anybody else is free to argue in their stead.
Click to expand...
This has been removed from the first section (General discussion rules) and moved to content revision section.
  • When arguing for changing character statistics, do not assume that the staff will have in-depth knowledge about the fictional franchise in question. Make sure to explain your suggestions in a structured manner that is easy to comprehend. You will not be allowed to change any statistics if people cannot understand what you mean.
Click to expand...
This has been removed from the first section (General discussion rules) and moved to content revision section.

Content Revisions​

My favorite section (since I evaluated it completely last time). So one thing should be clear, there are two new sections that have been moved from General Discussion Rules which fits its purpose. (This is evaluation in General Revision Rules)

(THIS TEXT HAS BEEN REMOVED/OR NOT ADDED YET)
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.
Click to expand...
I can't find this rule (which I am the one who created it) but it is nowhere located in the sandbox, so this is essential as it was recently has been added.
I don't think he removed it, I believe since it was created by me previously, he had no chance to update the sandbox.

Likewise, I disagree with her styling on the content revisions, they are completely confusing. For example, he removed subsections that I added:
  • Minor content revisions,
  • For self-approval of content revisions,
  • Guideline for handling disagreement between staff members during content revision threads, (has been changed to Handling Disagreements)
Responding to @Just_a_Random_Butler (for a second if you don't mind)
In cases where the series verse has a significant following or a large amount of material has been published based on its content, it may be necessary to seek approval from a minimum of three staff members to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed revisions. I
Click to expand...
This is not a new section, he simply divided it here.

(THIS TEXT HAS BEEN REMOVED/OR NOT ADDED YET)
Until this grace period has elapsed since the time of the thread's creation, the revision should not be applied to the profiles.
Click to expand...
This also has been removed from this part.

Versus Thread Rules​

Introduction​

The introduction has been not added at all. So I think it is similar to the first page, this won't be changed or removed once it is accepted.

The Rules​

When creating a versus thread, preferably add links to the relevant character profiles to make it easier to compare their abilities.
Click to expand...
Has been adjusted to
Preferably add links to the relevant character profiles to make it easier to compare their abilities.
Click to expand...

Otherwise, I checked every line individually, there is nothing missed. All are being added to their respective section which the OP made it very good.
 
So what should we do here, except for remove the redundant "I" and re-add the accidentally removed rule text section?
 
Add the subsections:
  • Minor content revisions,
  • For self-approval of content revisions,
Also, there are some removed texts, they should be re-added.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

StarShooter80
Establishing Gap Needed for LS Stomps
Replies
14
Views
1K
StarShooter80
StarShooter80
Phoenks
Average Travel Speed Until Proven Otherwise
Replies
15
Views
3K
Phoenks
Phoenks
Catzlaflame
The One Big Beautiful Revision (Cutting Discussion Rules not Govt. Spending)
Replies
21
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Cipher72
  • Locked
Instant Death Verse Discussion Rules (Accepted)
Replies
18
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
Staff From Other Wikis In Staff Discussions
Replies
7
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top