Our Stage Persona Rules Suck

[Antvasima]

I modified your suggestion a bit:

• Characters should possess notable feats that surpass the abilities of the actors portraying them.
• They must 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 must not have little to no impact on an actual ongoing narrative, including guest features on TV shows or be easily identifiable real-world celebrities.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Agnaa would you to clarify more on why there should be exceptions for characters that are significant to a long-running fictional series, even if they are identifiable as and played by real-world actors?

 

[Agnaa]

Kinda similar to the reason we have an exception for author avatars if they're important to the story's cosmology, except a bit more generalised, since they can just be important to understanding feats/story events in general.

 

[ImmortalDread]

So I was thinking of middle-ground draft. What do you think?

• Characters should possess notable feats that surpass the abilities of the actors portraying them.
• They must have an original story or setting that is distinct from their real-life counterparts.
• 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 must not have little to no impact on an actual ongoing narrative, including guest features on TV shows or be easily identifiable real-world celebrities.
• Characters whose names are the same as the real actors are not allowed. Exceptions may be considered for characters that are significant to a long-running fictional series, even if they are identifiable as and played by real-world actors. These exceptions would be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Kinda similar to the reason we have an exception for author avatars if they're important to the story's cosmology, except a bit more generalised, since they can just be important to understanding feats/story events in general.

Basically yes.

If they're just cameos of real-world people with no real impact on the narrative (like Donald Trump) then they should not be allowed. But if they're actually important for feats and/or story, then even if they have the name of the irl actor they should be allowed due to their relevance.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I kinda disagree with parts of it, but our difference may be irreconcilable.

Aye.

Let me be perfectly blunt: I would not be satisfied with any position that allows anything that may be construed as a real life person possessing a page on this wiki. This means YouTubers like AVGN (mostly, I'm aware he has games and such), wrestlers such as the Undertaker, etc, etc.

I interpret their personas as bits, maybe with fictional flair added to them, maybe not, rather than the vast totally fictional story they are allegedly a part of.

So I don't think my beliefs can be reconciled with Agnaa's. As I have said, I think we ought to be as strict as is reasonably possible on these cases.

 

[Antvasima]

What do you think about my various suggested regulations, Bambu?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Characters should possess notable feats that surpass the abilities of the actors portraying them.

Pointless the instant any given character does anything slightly superhuman, as the argument will exist that they scale to X or Y and thus have such feats. I think this will even be used for slightly superhuman feats- falling a little too high for realistic math to place in normal human levels, despite normal humans having taken such falls, for example.

They must have an original story or setting that is distinct from their real-life counterparts, and preferably should not use their real-world names.

I think being more firm on the naming bit is good, but this one isn't offensive to me.

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.

This one does still leave room for debate and, I think, may be too broad. I am not the sole decider, of course, but I've found that my own interpretation of blending reality and fiction draws a line far sterner than others. I'll defer to you folks but I think that the general consensus of this thread renders this one moot, anyone will put anything as acceptable.

Characters must not have little to no impact on an actual ongoing narrative, including guest features on TV shows or be easily identifiable real-world celebrities.

I like this one for the simple fact that we will not have to debate whether Donald Trump (WWE) can be made.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we have to find some sort of compromise solution here, so feel free to write your own version of my suggestions that goes as far as you can live with.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Well, we have to find some sort of compromise solution here, so feel free to write your own version of my suggestions that goes as far as you can live with.

I can live with yours, as a compromise. Anything I write would be unacceptable for the other point of view, I think.

 

[ImmortalDread]

What about Agnaa's concerns?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think his complaint regarding real world names isn't particularly true, given I've already pointed out the fringe cases (Austin Theory may go for using his real name, Kane probably wouldn't).

I think the real-world celebrity thing could probably be swapped out with just noting a character could be disqualified for extreme controversy (since the main concern with that one seems to be Logan Paul or Donald Trump).

Are there any other criticisms of his you'd like me to speak on?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Are there any other criticisms of his you'd like me to speak on?

So I was thinking of middle-ground draft. What do you think?

• Characters whose names are the same as real actors are generally not allowed to maintain a clear distinction between the character and the real-world person, minimizing the potential for confusion and blurring of fiction and reality. However, exceptions may be considered for certain fringe cases where the use of real names is justifiable, taking into account the specific context and narrative requirements.
• Characters may be disqualified if they are associated with extreme controversy or generate significant debate. This criterion broadens the scope to include characters tied to controversial public figures, ensuring that the narrative remains free from excessive controversy that could overshadow the intended fictional elements.

To confirm, what do you think of this?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The first one is a bit fucky because the way you've written it makes it sound as though you're trying to prevent those characters from doing... something. I think rather than leaving it at fringe cases you could make a distinction for verses that are not being considered for these rules- Family Guy is fine, the Spongebob Movie is fine, WWE would need scrutiny.

Second one seems perfectly fine to me.

 

[Unkn0wnAether]

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.

I’m pretty sure these rules allow every character we’ve been asking for so I’m all for it

 

[ImmortalDread]

The first one is a bit fucky because the way you've written it makes it sound as though you're trying to prevent those characters from doing... something. I think rather than leaving it at fringe cases you could make a distinction for verses that are not being considered for these rules- Family Guy is fine, the Spongebob Movie is fine, WWE would need scrutiny.

I adjusted it a bit:

— However, exceptions may be considered for certain fictional verses where the use of real names aligns with the established narrative style and creative choices.

Second one seems perfectly fine to me.

Aye, thank you

 

[ImmortalDread]

Alright. I hope this is a final draft:

• Characters should possess notable feats that surpass the abilities of the actors portraying them.
• They must have an original story or setting that is distinct from their real-life counterparts.
• 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 must not have little to no impact on an actual ongoing narrative, including guest features on TV shows or be easily identifiable real-world celebrities.
• Characters whose names are the same as real actors are generally not allowed to maintain a clear distinction between the character and the real-world person, minimizing the potential for confusion and blurring of fiction and reality. However, exceptions may be considered for specific fictional verses where the use of real names is a deliberate creative choice that aligns with the established narrative style and does not undermine the intended separation between fiction and reality.
• Characters associated with extreme controversy or prone to significant debate may become disqualified. This criterion broadens the scope to include characters tied to controversial public figures, ensuring that the narrative remains free from excessive controversy that could overshadow the intended fictional elements. Each case will undergo a comprehensive evaluation based on its unique merits, considering the specific circumstances and a range of perspectives and factors. The evaluation process will be conducted on a case-by-case basis, ensuring a thorough assessment of each individual situation.

@Mr._Bambu @Antvasima I apologize if my presence or comments are causing any disruption or discomfort. Please let me know if I am being helpful, or if you prefer that I refrain from participating in the discussion.

Thanks, @IdiosyncraticLawyer, for re-phrasing my last point better for the sake of clarity.

 

[Antvasima]

Alright. I hope this is a final draft:

• Characters should possess notable feats that surpass the abilities of the actors portraying them.
• They must have an original story or setting that is distinct from their real-life counterparts.
• 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 must not have little to no impact on an actual ongoing narrative, including guest features on TV shows or be easily identifiable real-world celebrities.
• Characters whose names are the same as real actors are generally not allowed to maintain a clear distinction between the character and the real-world person, minimizing the potential for confusion and blurring of fiction and reality. However, exceptions may be considered for certain fictional verses where the use of real names aligns with the established narrative style and creative choices.
• Characters associated with extreme controversy or prone to significant debate may become disqualified. This criterion broadens the scope to include characters tied to controversial public figures, ensuring that the narrative remains free from excessive controversy that could overshadow the intended fictional elements.

@Mr._Bambu @Antvasima I apologize if my presence or comments are causing any disruption or discomfort. Please let me know if I am being helpful, or if you prefer that I refrain from participating in the discussion.

Thanks, @IdiosyncraticLawyer, for re-phrasing my last point better for the sake of clarity.

This seems good to me at least. Thank you for helping out.

@Mr._Bambu @Agnaa

Is this acceptable for you?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think this is also something worth noting, but characters named after real people are considered less controversial if it's Historical people as opposed to modern day people since those people aren't around to be offended by some statistics ratings page. And shows such as Deadliest Warrior (The series that inspired Death Battle) focus basically on Historical figures such as Alexander the Great vs Atilla the Hun. That was a response the Styrm's concern of comparing the WWE version of John Cena to the various American Gods characters among other things.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

wrestlers such as the Undertaker, etc, etc.

I interpret their personas as bits, maybe with fictional flair added to them, maybe not, rather than the vast totally fictional story they are allegedly a part of.

The Undertaker is objectively one of the most outlandish and distinct characters in the verse. The Undertaker and Mark Calaway are very distinct from each other.

There are a lot of better examples you could've chose instead of that.

Alright. I hope this is a final draft:

• Characters should possess notable feats that surpass the abilities of the actors portraying them.
• They must have an original story or setting that is distinct from their real-life counterparts.
• 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 must not have little to no impact on an actual ongoing narrative, including guest features on TV shows or be easily identifiable real-world celebrities.
• Characters whose names are the same as real actors are generally not allowed to maintain a clear distinction between the character and the real-world person, minimizing the potential for confusion and blurring of fiction and reality. However, exceptions may be considered for certain fictional verses where the use of real names aligns with the established narrative style and creative choices.
• Characters associated with extreme controversy or prone to significant debate may become disqualified. This criterion broadens the scope to include characters tied to controversial public figures, ensuring that the narrative remains free from excessive controversy that could overshadow the intended fictional elements.

@Mr._Bambu @Antvasima I apologize if my presence or comments are causing any disruption or discomfort. Please let me know if I am being helpful, or if you prefer that I refrain from participating in the discussion.

Thanks, @IdiosyncraticLawyer, for re-phrasing my last point better for the sake of clarity.

I basically agree with all of this.

Based off of this, we're going to have to sacrifice quite a few WWE profiles (Logan Paul, John Cena, Brock Lesnar etc.), but it's worth it as long as the verse is kept and we can continue doing versus matchups.

I assume I might have to justify a few of the other profiles as to why they should be kept?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The Undertaker is objectively one of the most outlandish and distinct characters in the verse. The Undertaker and Mark Calaway are very distinct from each other.

There are a lot of better examples you could've chose instead of that.

The fact that he is one of the safest options in terms of staying is exactly why I chose him, actually.

It is my belief that he shouldn't be safe, which is why it is good evidence that my line is drawn significantly differently from an individual's like Agnaa.

That was the entire point.

I think this is also something worth noting, but characters named after real people are considered less controversial if it's Historical people as opposed to modern day people since those people aren't around to be offended by some statistics ratings page. And shows such as Deadliest Warrior (The series that inspired Death Battle) focus basically on Historical figures such as Alexander the Great vs Atilla the Hun. That was a response the Styrm's concern of comparing the WWE version of John Cena to the various American Gods characters among other things.

I don't think Atilla the Hun was ever in breach of our standings, but the specific characters Agnaa (rightfully) brings up on this front is Adam West from Family Guy, who portrays an extremely silly version of "himself".

Alright. I hope this is a final draft:

• Characters should possess notable feats that surpass the abilities of the actors portraying them.
• They must have an original story or setting that is distinct from their real-life counterparts.
• 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 must not have little to no impact on an actual ongoing narrative, including guest features on TV shows or be easily identifiable real-world celebrities.
• Characters whose names are the same as real actors are generally not allowed to maintain a clear distinction between the character and the real-world person, minimizing the potential for confusion and blurring of fiction and reality. However, exceptions may be considered for certain fictional verses where the use of real names aligns with the established narrative style and creative choices.
• Characters associated with extreme controversy or prone to significant debate may become disqualified. This criterion broadens the scope to include characters tied to controversial public figures, ensuring that the narrative remains free from excessive controversy that could overshadow the intended fictional elements.

The standards proposed are, I feel, the closest to "acceptable" as I shall see. They disbar named individuals, controversial figures, and give some wiggle room on other unacceptable instances. So while I do not agree with them 100%, I would accept them.

@Mr._Bambu @Antvasima I apologize if my presence or comments are causing any disruption or discomfort. Please let me know if I am being helpful, or if you prefer that I refrain from participating in the discussion.

I'm not inclined to whine about a helpful blue-name, you've caused me no discomfort nor any disruption on the thread itself. I think the standards could have probably been done by a single individual but it's not exactly harmful.

 

[ImmortalDread]

The standards proposed are, I feel, the closest to "acceptable" as I shall see. They disbar named individuals, controversial figures, and give some wiggle room on other unacceptable instances. So while I do not agree with them 100%, I would accept them.

In my opinion, your complex multiperspectivism, which is actually a positive attribute, makes it impossible for me to achieve your complete satisfaction.

I'm not inclined to whine about a helpful blue-name, you've caused me no discomfort nor any disruption on the thread itself. I think the standards could have probably been done by a single individual but it's not exactly harmful.

Aye, appreciate your words.

 

[Omegabronic]

I have a question tho:

"Characters whose names are the same as real actors are generally not allowed to maintain a clear distinction between the character and the real-world person, minimizing the potential for confusion and blurring of fiction and reality. However, exceptions may be considered for certain fictional verses where the use of real names aligns with the established narrative style and creative choices"

What wxactly does this mean?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Family Guy.

 

[ImmortalDread]

What wxactly does this mean?

It means that in specific fictional settings or storylines, there may be circumstances where characters with names identical to real-world actors could be allowed. This exception would only apply if using real names is a deliberate creative choice that fits within the established narrative style of that particular fictional verse.

For example, in a satirical or comedic television show or movie, the use of real names may be acceptable as part of the humor or parody. In such cases, the narrative style and creative decisions of that specific verse or universe would be taken into account when considering whether to allow characters with real-world names.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

The fact that he is one of the safest options in terms of staying is exactly why I chose him, actually.

It is my belief that he shouldn't be safe, which is why it is good evidence that my line is drawn significantly differently from an individual's like Agnaa.

That was the entire point.

Fair enough.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

Based off of this, we're going to have to sacrifice quite a few WWE profiles (Logan Paul, John Cena, Brock Lesnar etc.), but it's worth it as long as the verse is kept and we can continue doing versus matchups.

I assume I might have to justify a few of the other profiles as to why they should be kept?

Should I make a separate CRT based on this?

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Should I make a separate CRT based on this?

Probably, yeah.

If Bambu is willing to compromise on some of these proposals, can we apply them and close the thread?

 

[RandomGuy2345]

Probably, yeah.

If Bambu is willing to compromise on some of these proposals, can we apply them and close the thread?

Yes. A majority of staff agree with this, so it should okay to close it.

Thanks for helping out everyone!

 

[Agnaa]

Alright. I hope this is a final draft:

Again, I don't like the inclusion of "identifiable real-world celebrities" as a disqualifier.

"Established narrative style and creative choices" feels like an extremely vague way to get stuff like Family Guy's Adam West and Homestuck's Andrew Hussie back in. But that vagueness will absolutely get it pushed further as-is.

Again, I don't like "controversy/debate" as a reason against. While standards are chosen by our preferences, I don't like the idea that half a dozen people could suddenly decide they hate something, causing it to go from acceptable to against the rules (unless that route is by convincing other members to change our standards).

Again, I don't think we'll be able to come to an actual compromise, since Bambu's position and my position are mutually exclusive.

However, I think you're conceding too much ground to Bambu's position for no good reason. Like ffs, my position has 8 staff members (4 with voting rights) agreeing with it, Bambu's has 2 (1 with voting rights), and Ant's position in-between seems to just have himself. Why are we rewriting such a landslide to a middleground?

I've once had to concede entirely on a thread because the votes were 7-2-7 (4-0-4 in staff), since 2 of the people on my 7(/4) side were only leaning to it, and no-one else could evaluate it.

 

[Eseseso]

Just saw the final draft of the rules, and I think my old Dontavious page is allowed by them, so I'm in agreement LFG.

 

[Da3ggman]

If the final draft goes through, would it completely disbar Youtubers?

 

[Dalesean027]

Again, I don't like the inclusion of "identifiable real-world celebrities" as a disqualifier.

"Established narrative style and creative choices" feels like an extremely vague way to get stuff like Family Guy's Adam West and Homestuck's Andrew Hussie back in. But that vagueness will absolutely get it pushed further as-is.

Again, I don't like "controversy/debate" as a reason against. While standards are chosen by our preferences, I don't like the idea that half a dozen people could suddenly decide they hate something, causing it to go from acceptable to against the rules (unless that route is by convincing other members to change our standards).

Again, I don't think we'll be able to come to an actual compromise, since Bambu's position and my position are mutually exclusive.

However, I think you're conceding too much ground to Bambu's position for no good reason. Like ffs, my position has 8 staff members (4 with voting rights) agreeing with it, Bambu's has 2 (1 with voting rights), and Ant's position in-between seems to just have himself. Why are we rewriting such a landslide to a middleground?

I've once had to concede entirely on a thread because the votes were 7-2-7 (4-0-4 in staff), since 2 of the people on my 7(/4) side were only leaning to it, and no-one else could evaluate it.

I'm in agreeance with this as well not that it matters, I'm not seeing the need for the middle ground but that's just me

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Respectfully, none of those with voting rights (Deagon, Damage, Maverick) who previously agreed with the deletion of WWE from the previous thread have spoken here to change their views- Deagon objected to certain conceptions early in this thread, Maverick liked Ant's sentiment stating he was against stage personas, and Damage has not been seen. I do not think it is as one-sided as is presented by votes solely voiced here, and excluding those from the previous thread.

If we're not aiming for a middle ground, that's obviously disagreeable for me. Is it your opinion, Agnaa, that we ought not to do that?

I will also note that the "controversial people" bit is what, presumably, sets Logan apart, which most people seemed in favor of doing in the last thread (the exceptions being yourself, Qawsedf, and Tllmbrg), with even supporters of keeping WWE standing at neutral regarding him.

 

[Agnaa]

The extent to which there's a middleground should be determined by the amount of votes. Not the simple fact that at least 1 person disagrees.

For me, the bit that sets Logan apart is his relatively few appearances. Which I expect will probably make him allowable in the future, and may or may not make him allowable now.

@Deagonx @Damage3245 @Maverick_Zero_X Do you have any thoughts on how the rules for stage personas should be written?

 

[RandomGuy2345]

Bump?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Alright. I hope this is a final draft: (TRYING MY best)

• Characters should possess notable feats that surpass the abilities of the actors portraying them.
• They must have an original story or setting that is distinct from their real-life counterparts.
• 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 must not have little to no impact on an actual ongoing narrative, including guest features on TV shows or be easily identifiable real-world celebrities.
  • Exceptions can be made for certain characters, like "Mayor Adam West" from Family Guy, who are important to a long-running fictional series despite being identifiable as and played by real-world actors.
• Characters whose names are the same as real actors are generally not allowed to maintain a clear distinction between the character and the real-world person, minimizing the potential for confusion and blurring of fiction and reality. However, exceptions may be considered for specific fictional verses where the use of real names is a deliberate creative choice that aligns with the established narrative style and does not undermine the intended separation between fiction and reality.
  • For example, in the context of a show like Family Guy or a movie like The SpongeBob Movie, the use of real names may be acceptable due to the satirical or comedic nature of the storytelling.
  • However, in the case of WWE or similar contexts, stricter scrutiny would be applied to ensure a proper separation between the fictional characters and the real actors.
• Characters associated with extreme controversy or prone to significant debate may become disqualified. This criterion broadens the scope to include characters tied to controversial public figures, ensuring that the narrative remains free from excessive controversy that could overshadow the intended fictional elements. Each case will undergo a comprehensive evaluation based on its unique merits, considering the specific circumstances and a range of perspectives and factors. The evaluation process will be conducted on a case-by-case basis, ensuring a thorough assessment of each individual situation.
  • For instance, public figures like Logan Paul or Donald Trump, whose presence may generate substantial debate and potential negative impact on the narrative will not be allowed to be added.

I have now changed my draft, otherwise if there are still issues, do address them.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

I have no gripes with it.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Yeah, that seems to work for me.

 

[Eseseso]

Works for me!

Now I can bring back the Dontavious profile!