Our Stage Persona Rules Suck

[Mr. Bambu]

I'm presently at work, ought to get everyone on the WWE thread since we decided to close that.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

Should I contact the same staff members that gave their input on the previous thread?

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

Should I contact the same staff members that gave their input on the previous thread?

You should
Harrash them just like i did

 

[KingTempest]

-Total ban on VS discussions, or any extension of "who would win" discussions regarding stage personas.

No

-Characters must have actually notable feats that go well beyond what the actor they're played by can do.

Obviously

-Characters must have an original story or setting, one that isn't just a reflection of their real life.

Like any page

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Should I contact the same staff members that gave their input on the previous thread?

Aye, and any others you may wish to. The conversation has spread to include a large number of other potential issues regarding further loosening our standards, and ideally we'd hear from as many individuals as possible.

We also ought to add the deletion of WWE as a whole to the tally, since presently the main votes are regarding compromises.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

I contacted a couple of staff from the previous thread, as well as some new ones that weren't involved.

It seems that we're slowly but surely reaching a consensus here, but lets see how this plays out.

 

[Duedate8898]

I echo KingTempest's thoughts on the suggested rules.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

KingTempest's response perfectly encapsulates my thoughts after reading the thread.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I echo KingTempest's thoughts on the suggested rules.

KingTempest's response perfectly encapsulates my thoughts after reading the thread.

So what should we do here?

 

[TheMassivlyUnkn0wn]

how many people are in favor of adding the rules?

 

[Antvasima]

Aye, and any others you may wish to. The conversation has spread to include a large number of other potential issues regarding further loosening our standards, and ideally we'd hear from as many individuals as possible.

We also ought to add the deletion of WWE as a whole to the tally, since presently the main votes are regarding compromises.

Yes, I only agreed with a compromise, not a complete loosening of our standards.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, feel free to check through our other related thread and send notifications to all of the staff members who participated there, Mr._Bambu.

 

[TheMassivlyUnkn0wn]

yeah so we're gonna be allowing more youtube personas right

 

[RandomGuy2345]

I'll contact some more staff ig.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I don't think that anyone that can understand our wiki's rules, and is engaging sincerely, would need a detailed explanation of what a "partially-fictionalized educational series" is, when put into the context of stage persona rules.

For something like this, I would say it would be like Bill Nye or Crocodile Dundee as an example. Where there's a person who does the occasional goofy thing, but the core aspect is just a medium to convey a lesson in an easier format to the intended audience.

So for what isn't allowed, I think it would be best to list some examples of something that wouldn't qualify for a profile.

The rules clarification I'm fine with.

 

[TheMassivlyUnkn0wn]

yeah, but characters like AVGN and Eric Andre, who consistently perform feats and show abilities would be fine?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Early AVGN wouldn't (just angry man who does comedy), but modern/current AVGN would due to the movie and stuff.

Eric Andre idk.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

Agree: @DarkDragonMedeus, @CloverDragon03, @Antvasima, @Agnaa, @QrowBarr, @KingTempest, @Duedate8898, @Just_a_Random_Butler, @Qawsedf234
Disagree: @Mr._Bambu, @Flashlight237

 

[TheMassivlyUnkn0wn]

Early AVGN wouldn't (just angry man who does comedy), but modern/current AVGN would due to the movie and stuff.

Eric Andre idk.

i mean like at that point you might as well lump all the avgn videos together, it'd be kinda hard to set a deadline for what does and doesnt count

 

[RandomGuy2345]

i mean like at that point you might as well lump all the avgn videos together, it'd be kinda hard to set a deadline for what does and doesnt count

I mean that's literally what we're doing for the WWE verse and stage personas in general, unless this is different.

 

[Qawsedf234]

i mean like at that point you might as well lump all the avgn videos together

I was splitting AVGN to show my point. Early AVGN wouldn't be enough for a profile. But due to the amount of content he has along with dedicated story things like a movie it would count.

To use a similar situation, Angry Joe wouldn't qualify for a profile due to lacking that aspect of AVGN.

 

[TheMassivlyUnkn0wn]

ah, okay.

avgn profile will be awesome. hoping to get scott the woz up but i still have to propose my points for him

 

[RandomGuy2345]

How many votes do we need in order for this thread to be concluded?

 

[TheMassivlyUnkn0wn]

off a simple guess, 10?

we have 9, but ultimately yeah that's a major guess

 

[RandomGuy2345]

How many votes do we need in order for this thread to be concluded?

@Antvasima

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

It's up to staff, but I really don't see this getting rejected at this point.

 

[Tllmbrg]

Sure the current proposed criteria seems fine assuming the match ban isn't applied

 

[TheMassivlyUnkn0wn]

LETS GO I THINK WE HIT 10

CUE THE THEME SONG, EVERYONE

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Y'all, chill.

5 of the 10 do not have the authority. We also need to address what proposals are even being handled here- the rules proposed by Ant are those I accepted should WWE specifically not be deleted, which I am listed as opposing. We also have to address the fact that the agrees seem to disagree on where exactly the line is drawn- Ant's proposal was to cut any entity which shares a name with their IRL personage (i.e., Randy Orton, Logan Paul, arguably others such as Austin Theory, who shares a partial name with his ring-identity), I get the impression others disagree.

There's also a number of staff present on the previous thread who are not present here.

There's no need to rush this shit, nor clog the thread with unnecessary replies not contributing to the discussion.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

We also have to address the fact that the agrees seem to disagree on where exactly the line is drawn- Ant's proposal was to cut any entity which shares a name with their IRL personage (i.e., Randy Orton, Logan Paul, arguably others such as Austin Theory, who shares a partial name with his ring-identity), I get the impression others disagree.

The name thing I'm a bit neutral on, as Randy Orton and Austin Theory the characters are completely different from the people acting as them. Logan Paul is one of the exceptions, of course.

the rules proposed by Ant are those I accepted should WWE specifically not be deleted, which I am listed as opposing.

Can you quote those rules again for me for clarification purposes?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Well, the wrestling characters that do not use their real names, or at least mainly have and use specific nicknames, and do not blend reality and fiction to a great degree basically.

He mentioned this caveat here. In my mind, this is a significant distinction- I didn't agree that it solves everything, and I still do not, but it is much better than nothing.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

or at least mainly have and use specific nicknames

This applies to people like Randy Orton and Austin Theory.

Randy Orton is referred to as "The Apex Predator" or "The Viper" by commentary.

Austin Theory (while admittedly not as frequently) is referred to as "The Now" by commentary.

 

[DimeUhDozen]

I was splitting AVGN to show my point. Early AVGN wouldn't be enough for a profile. But due to the amount of content he has along with dedicated story things like a movie it would count.

To use a similar situation, Angry Joe wouldn't qualify for a profile due to lacking that aspect of AVGN.

Just piggybacking off of this, but due to him making like 4 movies with dedicated storylines, would the Nostalgia Critic qualify for this?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

This applies to people like Randy Orton and Austin Theory.

Randy Orton is referred to as "The Apex Predator" or "The Viper" by commentary.

Austin Theory (while admittedly not as frequently) is referred to as "The Now" by commentary.

With all due respect, Randy Orton is one I'm at least familiar with, and having a title is not the same as that title being their primary name. I don't actually know who Austin Theory is outside of what Wikipedia tells me so I suppose I'll defer to you on that one. Regardless, my point is that we may not even follow Ant's proposal- as I said, I suspect there's some discussion still to be had on where the official line falls. It may indeed fall considerably more liberally than I'd like.

 

[Qawsedf234]

With all due respect, Randy Orton is one I'm at least familiar with, and having a title is not the same as that title being their primary name.

Yeah this is overall something I don't like. You can't really just name drop some people that the other user is completely unfamiliar with as some gotcha thing.

Maybe those people do qualify for a proper stage persona. But saying John Everyman fought Bobby Blaster in 1998 in the Argentinian spider jungle expo means nothing without explaining why any of those would be relevant.

Nostalgia Critic qualify for this?

NC would count, but like AVGN it's more due to the level of material he has more so then being a stage persona automatically.

 

[DimeUhDozen]

NC would count, but like AVGN it's more due to the level of material he has more so then being a stage persona automatically.

That and the fact that The Review Must Go On portrays him as a character Doug Walker created and cannot get rid of, becoming powerful enough to even appear in the real world even after his existence was sacrificed to the Plothole and became another character in Demo Reel.

...Oh no, I'm going to become that supporter of the verse, aren't I?

 

[Agnaa]

So for what isn't allowed, I think it would be best to list some examples of something that wouldn't qualify for a profile.

The examples I gave were The Science Asylum and the stuff on AVGN's channel. I disagree with considering modern AVGN as a whole allowable, there's still a bunch of non-fiction parts to it. And it absolutely runs into fanfiction territory.

Just piggybacking off of this, but due to him making like 4 movies with dedicated storylines, would the Nostalgia Critic qualify for this?

From what I remember of those, they easily land into fanfiction territory.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

Regardless, my point is that we may not even follow Ant's proposal- as I said, I suspect there's some discussion still to be had on where the official line falls. It may indeed fall considerably more liberally than I'd like.

I mean, from what's been going on in this thread, it seems most people are agreeing on keeping stage personas, as well as being able to use them for vs matchups., as long as they follow these specific rules:

So what Should we Allow?

Obviously, we still need standards, because this still edges a little close to pages we wouldn't allow. Here's a short list of
-Characters must have actually notable feats that go well beyond what the actor they're played by can do.
-Characters must have an original story or setting, one that isn't just a reflection of their real life.

Well, the wrestling characters that do not use their real names, or at least mainly have and use specific nicknames, and do not blend reality and fiction to a great degree basically.

The rule against stage personas seems intended to disallow profiles that are for characters performed by the real-life equivalent of that character, and who either:

1. Have little to no impact on the actual story of something with one (guest features on TV shows).
2. Exist in a partially-fictionalised presentation (educational TV shows and YouTube videos, certain music videos).

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I mean, from what's been going on in this thread, it seems most people are agreeing on keeping stage personas, as well as being able to use them for vs matchups., as long as they follow these specific rules:

I asked Ant to clarify if that bit about "partially fictionalized" included his previous sentiment about removing entities that use their real world named, he said it did. I'd grab the specific post here but I am at work.

 

[Antvasima]

I am against stage personas of the variety that are not truly fictional, just real people who dramatise their own personalities and add some special effects, but are not actually a part of a narrative.

The wrestling profile pages seem like more of a borderline case in my mind, given that they seem to be a part of an ongoing narrative, and are more into public theater territory, so I am not really sure what to think about them beyond that celebrities that make guest appearances or similar should not be included.

Okay. If that is true I do not particularly mind if we keep the more prominent and blatantly fictionalised wrestling characters, as long as we are careful to install some safeguards against featuring Donald Trump or similar real world celebrities.

I think that @Agnaa had some suggestions in that regard.

Well, the wrestling characters that do not use their real names, or at least mainly have and use specific nicknames, and do not blend reality and fiction to a great degree basically.

I am personally not certain, but I am trying to be flexible since so many of our members seem to care so deeply about the wrestling pages.

We definitely do need to put strict safeguards in place to not ever allow real life people with some exaggerated personality traits and special effects though, such as show hosts. We cannot keep lessening our rules until we allow almost anything.

The rule against stage personas seems intended to disallow profiles that are for characters performed by the real-life equivalent of that character, and who either:

1. Have little to no impact on the actual story of something with one (guest features on TV shows).
2. Exist in a partially-fictionalised presentation (educational TV shows and YouTube videos, certain music videos).

So what should we allow?

Obviously, we still need standards, because this still edges a little close to pages we wouldn't allow. Here's a short list of
-Total ban on VS discussions, or any extension of "who would win" discussions regarding stage personas.
-Characters must have actually notable feats that go well beyond what the actor they're played by can do.
-Characters must have an original story or setting, one that isn't just a reflection of their real life.

These seem to be the current suggestions, which I think seem reasonable, although if characters do not break the other rules, meaning if they are much closer to fiction than reality, I do not personally mind if versus matches are created for them.

I only agreed with a compromise, not a complete loosening of our standards.

Here are my current views regarding this issue for clarification.