• 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.

Profile Deletion Requests Thread (New forum)

I'm aware, I've spoken on a couple of their threads, and I agree that it probably won't improve. Mayhaps, threatened with the potential deletion of the verse, they'll agree to see reason, who knows.
But even then when it's threatened to be deleted, there still hasn't been a single improvement for this verse since
 
I'm gonna start looking at some of the calcs soon, although it may take me a bit to go through the whole verse.

But frankly, I don't really see stonewalling as an impregnable issue when it comes to fixing a verse.
  • Issue: They stonewall a calc.
    • Solution: If their points aren't convincing, draw a line and assume that further conversation won't help. At the end of the day, they can't vote to have calcs approved, only CGMs can.
  • Issue: They stonewall a thread and fill it with comments.
    • Solution: Make the thread staff-only and moderate it stringently. Even if most of them disagree, as long as at least one person competent enough to edit the profiles exists, the thread can be applied.
I can't see how they can actually press the issue further than that. If they refuse to edit, a staff member can. If they claim that the staff member messed up the edits, they'd either need to substantiate what those claims are (after which a staff member can fix it), or we'd have to take them on their word (we won't).
 
If no-one's willing to bring the changes through to fruition, then ig deletion could be an option.

But if they don't want to babysit the verse after that, then the verse just won't get any CRTs or calcs accepted after that, and would slowly stagnate.
 
Said stagnation would lead to the deletion (as nothing's happening with it or improving it).
So it seems they're just ****** if a staff member doesn't have the patience to monitor it all the time.
 

Under the new stage persona rules, I think Dontavious's profile should be brought back.
 
I've reuploaded the latest revision of that profile here, for people to evaluate whether it breaks the rules or not.

I think it's probably fine, but I haven't seen the source material, so idk.
 
I've reuploaded the latest revision of that profile here, for people to evaluate whether it breaks the rules or not.

I think it's probably fine, but I haven't seen the source material, so idk.
  • Characters should possess notable feats that surpass the abilities of the actors portraying them.
    • Dontavious is shown to be one of the best athletes and football players on the planet in the story, so definitely not like the real-life actor.
  • They must have an original story or setting that is distinct from their real-life counterparts.
    • Follows this rule.
  • 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.
    • Follows this rule.
  • 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.
    • Follows this rule.
  • 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.
    • Follows this rule.
  • 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.
    • Follows this rule.
 
This is incredibly sloppy, also it has 0 references or scans, absolute dog shit profile.
 
It's not exactly unsalvageable (as someone knowledgeable in Henry Danger/Danger Force shit) so I'd say save it in a sandbox before it is deleted.
 
Old page; please track down supporters/creators of the pages so we can contact them.
 
The verse doesn't have a verse page, the Knowledgeable Members List section for it is empty, and the creator of the page left the site long ago.
 

Bad verse.

Barely any of the calculations are accepted by CGM's and several CGM's have straight-up said they refuse to evaluate calculations for this verse, and in general the verse is in a poor state that nobody seems to be fixing. I personally think it'd be best to restart this verse from scratch.
Bumping this proposal. I still think this verse is more than worthy of deletion.
 
Well, some Tokyo Revengers supporters tend to relentlessly spam the comments of any calc group members who evaluate and reject their calculations for this verse, so they do give the impression of recurrently having personal reasons for relating so strongly to a story about young criminal thugs being engaged in street fights...

I would prefer to have the character profiles pages for this verse cleaned up, turned reliable, and then locked from being edited further without help from content moderators or administrators though, given how much these pages have been vandalised in very biased manners in the past.
 
Just saying, look that @rainheart is working in the profile according to the last thread
What last thread? May you link it? If it was too long ago and there's been no significant progress since then an argument for the page just being removed in the meantime could be made.

Also...

Well, some Tokyo Revengers supporters tend to relentlessly spam the comments of any calc group members who evaluate and reject their calculations for this verse, so they do give the impression of recurrently having personal reasons for relating so strongly to a story about young criminal thugs being engaged in street fights...
Ant, as much as it may be a shock to you as it was to me as well, not everyone likes a verse out of finding any part of it relatable, some merely like the spectacle/visuals, feeling something besides wholesome emotions (most notably shock value), or merely thinking of how much can certain characters can get away with, some series even have a morally questionable at best villain as the protagonist, after all.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top