• 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.

Our Stage Persona Rules Suck

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not sure. I obviously do not want any Logan Paul versus Donald Trump arguments, but those pages would not be allowed anyway.
 
If it makes the question any clearer, Roman Reigns is one of the ones that do not use their real name for their persona, I believe, and thus I believe the page would be permitted under your suggestions.
 
Equal treatment should be given to stage personas, including wrestling characters who primarily use nicknames instead of real names and maintain a clear separation between reality and fiction. This applies to various situations such as VS threads, general discussions, tournaments, and similar activities.

However, if there are concerns about potential controversies arising from including controversial characters or pitting them against fictional ones, it may be worth considering whether such characters should be allowed to exist at all.

To determine eligibility, the following criteria should be met:
  • Characters should possess notable feats that surpass the abilities of the actors portraying them.
  • They should have an original story or setting that is distinct from their real-life counterparts.
  • Characters with minimal impact on the actual storyline of a work, such as guest appearances on TV shows, or those existing within a partially fictionalized presentation such as, but not limited to, certain TV shows, YouTube videos, and music videos)
If characters possess a fictional setting, storyline, and mechanics, as argued by many members, meeting these criteria should not be an impossible task.

Alternatively, we could consider an exceptional inclusion for the verse, given the substantial number of active supporters within this community, comparable to the dedicated fan bases of Dragon Ball or Naruto. It would be unfortunate to eliminate the entire verse solely based on this, although it may not be a strong argument (as we could apply the same reasoning to the SCP verse, where there are conflicting opinions among active members).

There's much to discuss, but ultimately, we have three options:
  1. Completely disregard the issue and remove all verses without any hesitation (a callous and heartless approach).
  2. Grant them complete freedom without any restrictions (excessively unrestrained).
  3. Find a middle ground by allowing these verses while implementing reasonable limitations.
 
Last edited:
I'd replace "like educational TV shows, YouTube videos, or certain music videos" with "such as, but not limited to, certain TV shows, YouTube videos, and music videos".

I disagree with the rest of your post; I'd rather just remove all verses that don't meet those limitations without hesitation. No exceptions for being popular.
 
Agnaa said:
I'd replace "like educational TV shows, YouTube videos, or certain music videos" with "such as, but not limited to, certain TV shows, YouTube videos, and music videos".
Click to expand...
Done!
Agnaa said:
I disagree with the rest of your post; I'd rather just remove all verses that don't meet those limitations without hesitation. No exceptions for being popular.
Click to expand...
(tough guy)
 
I still feel like it should be specified a little what "educarional" means, like, dora the explorer is an educational show that is constantly trying to teach a lesson to the viewer, yet it is still a cartoom, would this not be allowed since it is "educational"? What exactly does "educational" means in this context? Because teaching something does not nescesaraly imply that it is not fictionalized
 
Allow me to provide further clarification on the context and premise, @omegabronic

We are not revising the inclusion guidelines in their entirety. Rather, we are specifically introducing guidelines pertaining to persona stages. When we mention “characters” in this context, we are specifically referring to persona stages and not characters or fictional characters in a general sense.

Therefore, the comparison you made to Dora is invalid, as Dora is undoubtedly a fictional character, as you previously stated, considering she is a cartoon figure.

Although I have already addressed and resolved the issue based on the suggestion from the esteemed Agnaa, it is worth noting that there was a fundamental misunderstanding on your part from the outset. In reality, there was no actual requirement for us to define the term since the context should have provided sufficient clarity.
 
Last edited:
ImmortalDread said:
Allow me to provide further clarification on the context and premise, @omegabronic

We are not revising the inclusion guidelines in their entirety. Rather, we are specifically introducing guidelines pertaining to persona stages. When we mention “characters” in this context, we are specifically referring to persona stages and not characters or fictional characters in a general sense.

Therefore, the comparison you made to Dora is invalid, as Dora is undoubtedly a fictional character, as you previously stated, considering she is a cartoon figure.

Although I have already addressed and resolved the issue based on the suggestion from the esteemed Agnaa, it is worth noting that there was a fundamental misunderstanding on your part from the outset. In reality, there was no actual requirement for us to define the term since the context should have provided sufficient clarity.
Click to expand...
Agnaa said:
Who cares, the word has now been removed.
Click to expand...
Sorry for my confusion then, thank you both for the explanations
 
So basically the whole consensus behind these comments is the same consensus we've been basically having since the start?

Stage personas are fine to use as long as they follow certain standards?
 
Mr._Bambu said:
If it makes the question any clearer, Roman Reigns is one of the ones that do not use their real name for their persona, I believe, and thus I believe the page would be permitted under your suggestions.
Click to expand...
Well, it depends on if he mixes real life and performance too much, or if he is genuinely playing out a role with a story.
 
RandomGuy2345 said:
So basically the whole consensus behind these comments is the same consensus we've been basically having since the start?

Stage personas are fine to use as long as they follow certain standards?
Click to expand...
If they are genuinely sufficiently fictional they should be fine, but then they are technically not merely stage personas anymore.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Equal treatment should be given to stage personas, including wrestling characters who primarily use nicknames instead of real names and maintain a clear separation between reality and fiction. This applies to various situations such as VS threads, general discussions, tournaments, and similar activities.

However, if there are concerns about potential controversies arising from including controversial characters or pitting them against fictional ones, it may be worth considering whether such characters should be allowed to exist at all.

To determine eligibility, the following criteria should be met:
  • Characters should possess notable feats that surpass the abilities of the actors portraying them.
  • They should have an original story or setting that is distinct from their real-life counterparts.
  • Characters with minimal impact on the actual storyline of a work, such as guest appearances on TV shows, or those existing within a partially fictionalized presentation such as, but not limited to, certain TV shows, YouTube videos, and music videos)
If characters possess a fictional setting, storyline, and mechanics, as argued by many members, meeting these criteria should not be an impossible task.

Alternatively, we could consider an exceptional inclusion for the verse, given the substantial number of active supporters within this community, comparable to the dedicated fan bases of Dragon Ball or Naruto. It would be unfortunate to eliminate the entire verse solely based on this, although it may not be a strong argument (as we could apply the same reasoning to the SCP verse, where there are conflicting opinions among active members).

There's much to discuss, but ultimately, we have three options:
  1. Completely disregard the issue and remove all verses without any hesitation (a callous and heartless approach).
  2. Grant them complete freedom without any restrictions (excessively unrestrained).
  3. Find a middle ground by allowing these verses while implementing reasonable limitations.
Click to expand...
@Antvasima
 
Antvasima said:
Not quite as far as I recall.
Click to expand...
Presently, there is cause for concern, as it appears that there may be a disagreement regarding one of the three options mentioned. Could you kindly clarify which of the options you currently find yourself in disagreement with?
  • Characters should possess notable feats that surpass the abilities of the actors portraying them.
  • They should have an original story or setting that is distinct from their real-life counterparts.
  • Characters with minimal impact on the actual storyline of a work, such as guest appearances on TV shows, or those existing within a partially fictionalized presentation such as, but not limited to, certain TV shows, YouTube videos, and music videos)
 
Here is roughly what I have in mind:

"To be allowed pages in our wiki, stage personas:
  • Must be part of a genuine narrative. Characters must have original stories or settings, that are not just a reflection of their real life, and they should not use their real world names.
  • Must be genuinely fictional, not blend fiction and reality. For example, real life people with some exaggerated personality traits and special effects, such as education or YouTube show hosts are not allowed, and neither are music videos of this nature.
  • Must not have little to no impact on an actual ongoing narrative, such as via guest features on TV shows, or be easily identifiable real world celebrities.
  • Must have actually notable feats that go beyond what the actor they're played by can do."
 
Antvasima said:
Here is roughly what I have in mind:

"To be allowed pages in our wiki, stage personas:
  • Must be part of a genuine narrative. Characters must have original stories or settings, that are not just a reflection of their real life, and they should not use their real world names.
  • Must be genuinely fictional, not blend fiction and reality. For example, real life people with some exaggerated personality traits and special effects, such as education or YouTube show hosts are not allowed, and neither are music videos of this nature.
  • Must not have little to no impact on an actual ongoing narrative, such as via guest features on TV shows, or be easily identifiable real world celebrities.
  • Must have actually notable feats that go beyond what the actor they're played by can do."
Click to expand...
@Agnaa @Mr._Bambu

Would this be acceptable for you?
 
I am struggling to comprehend the differentiation between the first and second points you mentioned. It seems that these two points aligns with my second requirement, and your final point corresponds to my concluding remark. Additionally, your fourth point appears to align with my first point.
 
Yes, they largely overlap, but not entirely.
 
I kinda disagree with parts of it, but our difference may be irreconcilable.

Specifically, I don't care about using real-world names, and worry that such a standard could remove some currently accepted profiles. Especially if it applies even if they primarily take on other names.
ImmortalDread said:
I am struggling to comprehend the differentiation between the first and second points you mentioned. It seems that these two points aligns with my second requirement, and your final point corresponds to my concluding remark. Additionally, your fourth point appears to align with my first point.
Click to expand...
The first one is "Must have an actual story", second is "Must not blend that story with reality".

Many of the cases we talk about do the former but not the latter. And I can easily imagine cases that would do the latter but not the former.
 
Would this work?
  • Characters must possess notable feats that surpass the abilities of the actors portraying them.
  • They should have an original story or setting that is distinct from their real-life counterparts.
  • Characters must be part of a genuine narrative and have original stories or settings that are not mere reflections of their real lives. The use of real-world names should be avoided.
  • The characters must be genuinely fictional and should not blend fiction and reality. For instance, real life people with exaggerated personality traits and special effects, such as education or YouTube show hosts, are not permitted. Additionally, music videos of this nature are also prohibited.
  • Characters should not have little to no impact on an actual ongoing narrative, such as through guest features on TV shows, or be easily identifiable as real-world celebrities.
 
Sorry if I break in, but why would WWE characters whose name is the same as the real actor not be allowed? I mean, the WWE character that John Cena plays is not really him, but is still a character within the WWE narrative. It's nothing different than your average fictional version of Jesus or Albert Einstein which appear in some fictional verses if I got it right.
 
Well, Dread's second and third columns should be merged together, but except for that it seems fine.

Also, I think that we can loosen my suggested standard regarding real world names to a "preferably should" rather than a "must".
 
ImmortalDread said:
Would this work?
  • Characters must possess notable feats that surpass the abilities of the actors portraying them.
  • They should have an original story or setting that is distinct from their real-life counterparts.
  • Characters must be part of a genuine narrative and have original stories or settings that are not mere reflections of their real lives. The use of real-world names should be avoided.
  • The characters must be genuinely fictional and should not blend fiction and reality. For instance, real life people with exaggerated personality traits and special effects, such as education or YouTube show hosts, are not permitted. Additionally, music videos of this nature are also prohibited.
  • Characters should not have little to no impact on an actual ongoing narrative, such as through guest features on TV shows, or be easily identifiable as real-world celebrities.
Click to expand...
No, that just makes Ant's proposal worse by duplicating one of the points for no real reason (3 is now a composite of 2 and 4).
StrymULTRA said:
Sorry if I break in, but why would WWE characters whose name is the same as the real actor not be allowed? I mean, the WWE character that John Cena plays is not really him, but is still a character within the WWE narrative. It's nothing different than your average fictional version of Jesus or Albert Einstein which appear in some fictional verses if I got it right.
Click to expand...
The difference would be that it draws too close of a parallel between the character and the person.

So yes, that is actually quite different from a 20-year-old today writing about Albert Einstein.

EDIT: Also, I disagree with disqualifying them because they're easily identifiable as real-world celebrities. I think that Family Guy's "Mayor Adam West" should be allowed, due to his importance to a long-running fictional series. Despite him being identifiable as and played by the real-world actor.
 
Agnaa said:
No, that just makes Ant's proposal worse by duplicating one of the points for no real reason (3 is now a composite of 2 and 4).
Click to expand...
I guess this because I could not really understand the difference, apologies.

This is the current draft:
  • Characters must possess notable feats that surpass the abilities of the actors portraying them.
  • They should have an original story or setting that is distinct from their real-life counterparts and preferably should not use their real-world names.
  • Characters must be genuinely fictional, without blending fiction and reality. This means that real-life people with exaggerated traits or special effects, such as education or YouTube show hosts, are not allowed. The same applies to music videos of this nature.
  • Characters should not have little to no impact on an actual ongoing narrative, including guest features on TV shows or easily identifiable real-world celebrities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Locked
Music stage personas (Staff only)
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Theglassman12
  • Locked
Fighting game standards
Replies
29
Views
3K
Theglassman12
Theglassman12
Expectro2000xxx
Absolute Zero Standard Revision
Replies
34
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Locked
Slightly adjusting our rules for bolded "powers and abilities" links
Replies
32
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
H3110l12345I20
  • Locked
Adding Standards for Scaling Real World Animals.
Replies
34
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top