Our Stage Persona Rules Suck

[Reiner04]

Looks gō_ōd

Now I can bring back the Dontavious profile!

Not w/o a war.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Dread's recent draft looks good to me

 

[Eseseso]

Looks gō_ōd

Not w/o a war.

It follows all the rules, hater.

 

[Agnaa]

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.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

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

It's quite literally the best we can do atp without anyone getting triggered over it.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm triggered over it, it's just pointless for me to present the same unfixable issues a fifth time.

 

[Antvasima]

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.

I think that this seems good to apply.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I will call butler to apply changes.

 

[Agnaa]

I feel the need to reiterate that I think it sucks to apply a compromise given the difference in votes.

 

[ImmortalDread]

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.

 

[Agnaa]

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).

 

[ImmortalDread]

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.

 

[Agnaa]

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.

This is demonstrably false. 9 staff members agreed to standards without them. Do you need me to go grab links to those posts?

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."

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.

Furthermore, please refrain from incessantly discussing the voting matter. It has been exhaustively addressed

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.

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.

Then we can wait, and ask for the other 40 staff members who haven't commented, to comment.

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.

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.

You are the only opposition

I'm not. Do you want me to grab links to people agreeing with different standards to demonstrate that?

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.

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)

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.

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).

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.

Sometimes, the only helpful path forward, is something simple that has already been suggested.

 

[ImmortalDread]

This is demonstrably false. 9 staff members agreed to standards without them. Do you need me to go grab links to those posts?

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.

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.

And neither we are obligated to create them in the first place, which Ant actually is concerned about it.

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.

It does change a lot. Refer to my first sentence.

Then we can wait, and ask for the other 40 staff members who haven't commented, to comment.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not. Do you want me to grab links to people agreeing with different standards to demonstrate that?

Let me rephrase: You are the only active, contributing, argumentative opposition which I love to debate with :3

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.

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.

Sometimes, the only helpful path forward, is something simple that has already been suggested.

“Simple” is the wrong term here. I assume “short comments that basically does not solve anything" is the accurate interpretation.

 

[Agnaa]

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.

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.

And neither we are obligated to create them in the first place, which Ant actually is concerned about it.

I don't get what you mean.

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.

Jeez, if we've asked them and they won't contribute, then yeah, we can drop it then.

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.

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

 

[Agnaa]

@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?

• 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.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@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?

Looks fairly good to me.

 

[Deagonx]

I think the bolded parts are good. What does Bambu think?

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for your evaluations.

 

[CloverDragon03]

@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?

Seems alright. Bolded parts are fine too

 

[ImmortalDread]

I think the bolded parts are good. What does Bambu think?

The same as the draft.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I've made my thoughts largely known throughout this thread, as tiring as that has been. I am in favor of compromise at the very least.

 

[ImmortalDread]

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)

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Do we have a sufficient consensus here to apply this now then?

 

[ImmortalDread]

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]

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.

 

[ImmortalDread]

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.

Should I count you as the opposition or support?

Edit: In DMs, he said, he wants to be counted as opposition.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

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.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

Is this thread eligible to be closed now?

 

[Antvasima]

No. We need to apply the accepted changes here first.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

Who's applying the changes?

 

[Agnaa]

I can apply it. I'll go ahead and do that.

EDIT: The deed has been done

 

[RandomGuy2345]

Thanks!

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Yippee

Can't wait to see all the new profiles that come out of this. Thank you to everyone who helped out here.

 

[Agnaa]

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.

 

[Eseseso]

Quick Question: How can one ask to have a deleted profile brought back, if that's even possible?

 

[Agnaa]

Quick Question: How can one ask to have a deleted profile brought back, if that's even possible?

The profile deletion requests thread may be your best bet. And that is possible.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

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.

Don't these rules only apply to stage personas as opposed to profiles in general?

 

[Agnaa]

I guess I should rewrite that, to make it clear.

EDIT: Here it is after both changes.