• 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.
My prior gripes still largely exist, but I expect they always will.

We absolutely do not need 5 non-staff users FRAing something in a staff only thread.
 
ImmortalDread said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think that this seems good to apply.
 
I feel the need to reiterate that I think it sucks to apply a compromise given the difference in votes.
 
Although I am willing to wait for @Mr._Bambu to review the most recent draft, I am skeptical that he will alter his viewpoint, considering that I merely included examples and added more details to certain lines.

If you are unwilling to reach an agreement or actively seek a solution to the “unfixable issues", and If you are unable to provide detailed explanations for your reasoning even after several attempts, I regret to inform you that I cannot offer substantial assistance.

Moreover, I see no benefit in prolonging the discussion to ten pages. I must express my dissatisfaction with situations where someone disagrees but fails to propose an alternative solution.
 
I have given a solution; I gave my ideal rules in my very first post in the thread. And I've explained my issues with the changes Bambu/Ant wanted when they first suggested them. One could also just take your draft, and remove the last two major bullet points (no sharing names, and no controversy).

I don't want to pointlessly argue in circle for 10 pages, I just want to wait for more staff input. Since the staff split on this is either 8-5, 8-2, 4-1, or 4-4 (depending on whether you count all staff votes or not, and whether you count people who seemed to side with Bambu last thread but haven't really responded here).
 
I have no intention of engaging in endless and futile arguments spanning 100 pages. However, I can assure you that everyone desires the inclusion of the last two points, particularly the final one, as Ant aimed to avoid any conflicts involving Donald Trump and Logan.

I must emphasize that allowing these two controversial characters to participate will only lead to further drama, punishments, and an influx of RvR reports. Hence, it cannot be considered a viable “solution."

Furthermore, please refrain from incessantly discussing the voting matter. It has been exhaustively addressed, and as Bambu pointed out, none of the staff members you mentioned have displayed any genuine interest or provided additional input on the topic. Calling upon them again will not significantly alter the situation.

I also request that you cease accusing me of unfairness or vote manipulation. I proposed a compromise, which Bambu supported with additional points. Furthermore, I subsequently revised my draft based on his feedback. Ant later confirmed that the last two points align with his perspective, prompting me to include them.

You are the only opposition, and while I don't mind that, it is important to note that you haven't offered a concrete solution. Merely stating that you mentioned it initially does not assist me in any way. You are expected to address each point individually, present counterproposals, or suggest middle ground solutions.

Please understand that I am exhausted. I have been writing for hours, and I am seeking responses that are more helpful than short comments repeating past statements or references to being mentioned before.
 
ImmortalDread said:
I have no intention of engaging in endless and futile arguments spanning 100 pages. However, I can assure you that everyone desires the inclusion of the last two points, particularly the final one, as Ant aimed to avoid any conflicts involving Donald Trump and Logan.
Click to expand...
This is demonstrably false. 9 staff members agreed to standards without them. Do you need me to go grab links to those posts?
ImmortalDread said:
I must emphasize that allowing these two controversial characters to participate will only lead to further drama, punishments, and an influx of RvR reports. Hence, it cannot be considered a viable “solution."
Click to expand...
I think you're seriously overstating the issue here. We've had Logan around for 4 months without issue, until people started complaining about it a few weeks ago. We didn't have a torrent of drama, bans, and RVR reports.
ImmortalDread said:
Furthermore, please refrain from incessantly discussing the voting matter. It has been exhaustively addressed
Click to expand...
How was it addressed? Bambu just pointed out that there were three more people we could count for his side. That doesn't change the broader trend of the votes.
ImmortalDread said:
and as Bambu pointed out, none of the staff members you mentioned have displayed any genuine interest or provided additional input on the topic. Calling upon them again will not significantly alter the situation.
Click to expand...
Then we can wait, and ask for the other 40 staff members who haven't commented, to comment.
ImmortalDread said:
I also request that you cease accusing me of unfairness or vote manipulation. I proposed a compromise, which Bambu supported with additional points. Furthermore, I subsequently revised my draft based on his feedback. Ant later confirmed that the last two points align with his perspective, prompting me to include them.
Click to expand...
I didn't accuse you of vote manipulation, c'mon mate. I don't think you're being deliberately unfair either, I think it's understandable to propose compromises and listen to the responses you get. I just don't think a compromise is justified given the vote landscape.
ImmortalDread said:
You are the only opposition
Click to expand...
I'm not. Do you want me to grab links to people agreeing with different standards to demonstrate that?
ImmortalDread said:
and while I don't mind that, it is important to note that you haven't offered a concrete solution. Merely stating that you mentioned it initially does not assist me in any way. You are expected to address each point individually, present counterproposals, or suggest middle ground solutions.
Click to expand...
I did that in my previous message.
One could also just take your draft, and remove the last two major bullet points (no sharing names, and no controversy)
Click to expand...
If it's about giving reasons why I don't like those points, I can repost those reasons as well.
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.
Click to expand...
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).
Click to expand...
ImmortalDread said:
Please understand that I am exhausted. I have been writing for hours, and I am seeking responses that are more helpful than short comments repeating past statements or references to being mentioned before.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, the only helpful path forward, is something simple that has already been suggested.
 
Agnaa said:
This is demonstrably false. 9 staff members agreed to standards without them. Do you need me to go grab links to those posts?
Click to expand...
The nine staff members failed to provide a substantive argument and did not stay updated on the latest developments in the discussion. I do not require any further explanation as Bambu has already addressed this issue, and I fail to comprehend why it continues to remain relevant.
Agnaa said:
I think you're seriously overstating the issue here. We've had Logan around for 4 months without issue, until people started complaining about it a few weeks ago. We didn't have a torrent of drama, bans, and RVR reports.
Click to expand...
And neither we are obligated to create them in the first place, which Ant actually is concerned about it.
Agnaa said:
How was it addressed? Bambu just pointed out that there were three more people we could count for his side. That doesn't change the broader trend of the votes.
Click to expand...
It does change a lot. Refer to my first sentence.
Agnaa said:
Then we can wait, and ask for the other 40 staff members who haven't commented, to comment.
Click to expand...
I don't mind, hell we can wait for years, sure but this became tiring how this system works to simply never solve issues and leave it dead.
Agnaa said:
I didn't accuse you of vote manipulation, c'mon mate. I don't think you're being deliberately unfair either, I think it's understandable to propose compromises and listen to the responses you get. I just don't think a compromise is justified given the vote landscape.
Click to expand...
The way you approached kinda implies this. If you did not mean it, it's completely fine to me and I apologize for the negative thoughts. ❤️
Agnaa said:
I'm not. Do you want me to grab links to people agreeing with different standards to demonstrate that?
Click to expand...
Let me rephrase: You are the only active, contributing, argumentative opposition which I love to debate with :3
Agnaa said:
I did that in my previous message. If it's about giving reasons why I don't like those points, I can repost those reasons as well.
Click to expand...
Alright, I guess the last thing we do is wait. Please quote my draft and ping all staff members, and if you don't mind, without notes. Let them decide by themselves.
Agnaa said:
Sometimes, the only helpful path forward, is something simple that has already been suggested.
Click to expand...
“Simple” is the wrong term here. I assume “short comments that basically does not solve anything" is the accurate interpretation.
 
ImmortalDread said:
The nine staff members failed to provide a substantive argument and did not stay updated on the latest developments in the discussion. I do not require any further explanation as Bambu has already addressed this issue, and I fail to comprehend why it continues to remain relevant.
Click to expand...
Jesus, so someone can just keep arguing after 9 staff members have denied a revision, and unless all of them stay around, their votes will be rendered irrelevant? That sounds like a terrible way to run revisions.

But I guess a potential solution would be to just ping them all and ask 'em about the changes, so I'll go do that next post.
ImmortalDread said:
And neither we are obligated to create them in the first place, which Ant actually is concerned about it.
Click to expand...
I don't get what you mean.
ImmortalDread said:
I don't mind, hell we can wait for years, sure but this became tiring how this system works to simply never solve issues and leave it dead.
Click to expand...
Jeez, if we've asked them and they won't contribute, then yeah, we can drop it then.
ImmortalDread said:
Alright, I guess the last thing we do is wait. Please quote my draft and ping all staff members, and if you don't mind, without notes. Let them decide by themselves.
Click to expand...
I think just doing that would be a bit biased towards your draft. I have an alt. solution I just messaged you about in Discord.

EDIT: Might as well I'll leave this post as a place to count new votes. Old list of votes is here.

Staff members with traditional voting rights are bolded.

Dread's Full Draft: Antvasima, Mr._Bambu, CloverDragon03, DarkDragonMedeus, Deagonx, CloverDragon03

Dread's Draft w/o Last 2: Agnaa, Dalesean027, Just_a_Random_Butler
 
Last edited:
@DarkDragonMedeus, @CloverDragon03, @QrowBarr, @KingTempest, @Duedate8898, @Just_a_Random_Butler, @Qawsedf234, @Flashlight237, @Deagonx, @Damage3245, @Maverick_Zero_X Does this draft seem fine? In particular, should the bolded parts be included or not?
ImmortalDread said:
  • 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.
Click to expand...
 

Current vote tally​

Dread's Full Draft​
Dread's Draft w/o Last 2​
Antvasima
Agnaa​
Mr._Bambu
Dalesean027​
CloverDragon03
DarkDragonMedeus
Deagonx
DarkDragonMedeus
Just_a_Random_Butler
7 votes (5 verified)​
2 votes (0 verified)

Note:
Staff members with a reddish name are the ones granted traditional rights (known as evaluation rights in VSBW terminology)
 
Last edited:
From a statistical standpoint and in accordance with our established standards, we do indeed have the necessary votes. However, I am willing to wait an additional 12 hours, if needed.
 
Just_a_Random_Butler said:
I'm late to the party because I was doing some wiki stuff. Felt obligated to comment because got tagged, ehem.

I am aligned with Dalesean on this one. But I guess at this point, it probably does not matter.
Click to expand...
Should I count you as the opposition or support?

Edit: In DMs, he said, he wants to be counted as opposition.
 
Last edited:
I actually agree with Agnaa's argument, but I'm willing to concede with the current draft Dread has proposed.

Like I said earlier in the thread, I'm planning to make a CRT determining how many out of the 20+ Pro Wrestling profiles we have on the wiki will be getting yeeted or not.

I've already made a decent amount of progress with the draft I'm making (it's on a Google Doc), but I'll probably ask if any of the wrestling supporters would be willing to help me.
 
Actually, now that I apply the rules, I'm getting cold feet about the first one.

With the way it's currently written, I worry that it could remove some currently accepted pages. Like, 10-C cartoon characters.
 
Agnaa said:
Actually, now that I apply the rules, I'm getting cold feet about the first one.

With the way it's currently written, I worry that it could remove some currently accepted pages. Like, 10-C cartoon characters.
Click to expand...
Don't these rules only apply to stage personas as opposed to profiles in general?
 
I guess I should rewrite that, to make it clear.

EDIT: Here it is after both changes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Locked
Music stage personas (Staff only)
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Tllmbrg
  • Locked
Historical Musicals Characters
Replies
2
Views
416
Antvasima
Antvasima
Wokistan
Vehicular Mastery and Large Vehicles
Replies
3
Views
389
Colonel_Krukov
Colonel_Krukov
DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top