• 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)

Jaften said:
So, do we all support MGQ! and Redo of Healer verses being removed from the wiki, then? Or just MGQ!?
Click to expand...
Redo of Healer is fine. It's a revenge battle light novel/manga plot with sex throw in every now and then. It'd fall under Level 3.
From what I've seen, MCQ! is just an eroge.
 
He said, and I quote,

”tell them to go **** themselves
to read all the threads that has been made over it
and to stop sucking fandom's ****”

I think he disagrees.
 
I don't care either way. Go ahead and delete it if you all think that's fine.
 
except it doesn't have that?
The characters don't have official ages, if I recall correctly. Well, aside from Keyaru, but he's never even in his original body anymore.
And once again, Level 3.
 
I don't believe any new argument has really been made for MGQ's deletion, it has been discussed in the past and has been allowed to stay, so what's the change here?

I couldn't care less for the verse itself, but if there isn't exactly new reasoning for it's deletion I can't say I agree with removing it.
 
Keep discussion on-topic please.

I still support deletion, little else for me to say.
 
Also fwiw, I vaguely remember defenders of MGQ in the last thread saying something along the lines of "If it was just the first MGQ game it wouldn't be allowed to stay, but because later installments have moved from being an eroge the franchise as a whole should be allowed to stay."

I could be misremembering, of course.
 
DaReaperMan said:
oh right, because the later installments arent eroge that excuses the earlier installments being hardcore Eroge... that makes no sense
Click to expand...
Because it's evaluated as a series, not a singular title.
 
DaReaperMan said:
oh right, because the later installments arent eroge that excuses the earlier installments being hardcore Eroge... that makes no sense
Click to expand...
Oh? So a franchise having a single installment that's a 4 on the scale makes the entire franchise banned from the site?

It makes more sense to look at this kind of thing as a whole imo.
 
Might be stupid reasoning, but I think it should stay simply for consistency. The verse as a whole has managed to weather multiple deletion attempts by staff, iirc, so it must have some decent reasons for staying. Also, a verse starting out shitty should never be a reason for deletion, so long as it has seen improvement over it's lifetime.
 
Agnaa said:
MGQ was discussed extensively when the Acceptable Content Scale was being devised, and in the course of those discussions it was agreed to stay.

It's pretty funny to meme about "Even Zach wants this one banned!" but Zach fervently wanting MGQ deleted isn't new.

I find it pretty disappointing any time people incessantly argue for a verse being deleted, seemingly hoping that this time, despite their arguments being the exact same, people will look the other way and let it be deleted.

If you want to find out why it was allowed to stay, read the dozen threads we've already had on this topic which have led to it sticking around.

EDIT: This thread is the one where it was discussed at length, and the concept of the Acceptable Content Scale was formed. It was placed somewhere around a 3 to 4 but was considered okay.
Click to expand...
I disagree with that assessment. MGQ is about the ****. The reason it was allowed to stay is insufficient, to me, to prove it doesn't fit in the 5th classification of our scale. The series is a 5 with segments that are lower. Regarding Apies' most recent statement on the thing: tradition doesn't make it right. People passing something doesn't make it fit within our rules. It blatantly breaks the acceptable content rating thing, even if people claimed it was just "an RPG with **** tacked on". The purpose of the game is pornographic in nature.

I don't give much of a damn about those later installments if they have no ****, truthfully I've never played (shocking, I know). If that's genuinely the case, sure, whatever, keep them on. My issue is with the actual breakage of rules. The ****.
 
I disagree with that assessment. MGQ is about the ****. The reason it was allowed to stay is insufficient, to me, to prove it doesn't fit in the 5th classification of our scale. The series is a 5 with segments that are lower. Regarding Apies' most recent statement on the thing: tradition doesn't make it right. People passing something doesn't make it fit within our rules. It blatantly breaks the acceptable content rating thing, even if people claimed it was just "an RPG with **** tacked on". The purpose of the game is pornographic in nature.

Tradition doesn't make it right, what makes it right is that nothing has changed since the last time it was accepted, except for most of the staff who supported it distancing themselves from the wiki for various reasons.

You think it doesn't fit within our rules. A bunch of experienced people who were writing up the rules thought it did.

I don't give much of a damn about those later installments if they have no ****, truthfully I've never played (shocking, I know). If that's genuinely the case, sure, whatever, keep them on. My issue is with the actual breakage of rules. The ****.

I feel like this sort of thing becomes kind of all or nothing. It doesn't make a lot of sense to ignore one installment for the sake of profiles on the site.

As an aside, if you're worried about porngraphic images being on the wiki, they shouldn't be.
 
Regarding Abstractions' point real quick regarding "well this is nothing that hasn't been said before"... so what? If pointing out that it breaks our rules has been said before, that is a failure of ours to remain consistent in our handling. Double jeopardy is not a concept we have outside of a few select examples where it's clear progress cannot be made- I truly hope this ain't one of those. The verse is pornographic, if we'd like to solely include those trimmed pieces of it that are not, at their core, pornographic (from what I understand, the newer titles), I suppose I don't really care.

"Tradition doesn't make it right, what makes it right is that nothing has changed since the last time it was accepted, except for most of the staff who supported it distancing themselves from the wiki for various reasons.

You think it doesn't fit within our rules. A bunch of experienced people who were writing up the rules thought it did."

Then explain to me how it doesn't fit in the Extreme level of the Acceptable Content Scale. Because you admitted parts of it did. I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that it doesn't, really, and that level explicitly states verses in that rating aren't allowed. So what gives?

"I feel like this sort of thing becomes kind of all or nothing. It doesn't make a lot of sense to ignore one installment for the sake of profiles on the site.

As an aside, if you're worried about porngraphic images being on the wiki, they shouldn't be."

That's fine, as I said, I don't really care if the later titles sink or swim with the rest of the verse. It means, truthfully, very little to me. I'm trying to rectify a mistake of our system. Our rules, written by those experienced members, have a fairly clear and basic statement. MGQ violates that rule. I don't understand how it was allowed on outside of certain folks making a fuss.

My concern isn't solely about pornographic images, but aye, I agree with that, too. We made rules and standards, we violated them ourselves. I just want that fixed. A game about monsters raping the character, advertised as a chance to be raped by the monsters, and whose focus is more on this than any plot that might be prevalent, shouldn't exist here.
 
I didn't quite mean keep it outta tradition so much as it's survived multiple deletion attempts so it probably has valid reasons for staying. I'm honestly neutral on whether or not we keep it.
 
ApiesDeathbyLazors said:
I didn't quite mean keep it outta tradition so much as it's survived multiple deletion attempts so it probably has valid reasons for staying. I'm honestly neutral on whether or not we keep it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I think the valid reasons presented in earlier threads is rather weak, though ("it's an RPG with **** tacked on!") and is generally false. I understand the series as a whole graduated from just being straight up ****- I have no particular issue with those installments that aren't **** though I can understand how that might skew how the verse works without the context of previous works. This ain't really my concern, though.

So those earlier reasons don't sit right with me, basically. I find them lacking.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Regarding Abstractions' point real quick regarding "well this is nothing that hasn't been said before"... so what? If pointing out that it breaks our rules has been said before, that is a failure of ours to remain consistent in our handling. Double jeopardy is not a concept we have outside of a few select examples where it's clear progress cannot be made- I truly hope this ain't one of those. The verse is pornographic, if we'd like to solely include those trimmed pieces of it that are not, at their core, pornographic (from what I understand, the newer titles), I suppose I don't really care.
Click to expand...
If thorough discussion has happened in the past and has resulted in allowing it to stay, I want you to bring me a new reason as to why I should accept your proposal of deleting it.

This isn't about double jeopardy, but me asking you to convince me why it should be removed beyond the reasoning it has been allowed to stay, otherwise the same points arguing for it staying can be rehashed here and nothing would be of any change.

Is it a wrong request of mine to ask this of you?
 
Double jeopardy is not a concept we have outside of a few select examples where it's clear progress cannot be made- I truly hope this ain't one of those.

This really is one of those. There have been an astronomical amount of long threads about this topic. It has already been deleted, restored, deleted again, and restored again when the new rules were written up.

Then explain to me how it doesn't fit in the Extreme level of the Acceptable Content Scale. Because you admitted parts of it did. I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that it doesn't, really, and that level explicitly states verses in that rating aren't allowed. So what gives?

I'm not familiar with the games myself, just loosely familiar with the fact that this discussion has happened before. So I can't really answer it myself.

I don't mean to be a dick, but since you didn't mention it, have you read the last thread where this was discussed? If you have and you still find the reasons there unsatisfying, you can try getting in contact with Saikou, Sera, and Matt.

Fair enough. I think the valid reasons presented in earlier threads is rather weak, though ("it's an RPG with **** tacked on!") and is generally false. I understand the series as a whole graduated from just being straight up ****- I have no particular issue with those installments that aren't **** though I can understand how that might skew how the verse works without the context of previous works. This ain't really my concern, though.

So are you suggesting to not include feats from any excessively-pornographic MGQ games in the profiles? I'm really against selectively nuking installments like that.
 
Abstractions said:
If thorough discussion has happened in the past and has resulted in allowing it to stay, I want you to bring me a new reason as to why I should accept your proposal of deleting it.

This isn't about double jeopardy, but me asking you to convince me why it should be removed beyond the reasoning it has been allowed to stay, otherwise the same points arguing for it staying can be rehashed here and nothing would be of any change.

Is it a wrong request of mine to ask this of you?
Click to expand...
xDcdwFL.png

This is our rules. MGQ (at least, the earlier parts of it) break said rules. From what I can tell, the sole reason it was kept was because people portrayed it as an RPG with **** as a side bit. This is objectively not the case (again, specifically talking about those earlier bits). What the later games do does not change what the earlier games are. So no, I don't consider it wrong of you to make the request, I just think your request ignores the actual content of our rules.
 
"This really is one of those. There have been an astronomical amount of long threads about this topic. It has already been deleted, restored, deleted again, and restored again when the new rules were written up."

I'm aware of these. I read through the one linked earlier here. I'll mention it again, I find the arguments for keeping it to be lacking, from what I have read thus far. Unless some golden goose exists at the end of this tunnel that somehow renders the entirety of the verse devoid of strongly, explicitly pornographic content, I don't think I can be convinced of the verse's legitimacy.

"I'm not familiar with the games myself, just loosely familiar with the fact that this discussion has happened before. So I can't really answer it myself.

I don't mean to be a dick, but since you didn't mention it, have you read the last thread where this was discussed? If you have and you still find the reasons there unsatisfying, you can try getting in contact with Saikou, Sera, and Matt."

First bit's fair, suppose I'm speaking moreso of "you" in general (as in, everyone but me that disagrees). No worries.

I have, I thought I had mentioned it. Clearly at least contacting Saikou isn't on the table, given the response he gave Mori (something something sucking fandom's dick). Sera's busy but I'd be happy to discuss with her even if my own points of view tend to be different from hers.

"So are you suggesting to not include feats from any excessively-pornographic MGQ games in the profiles? I'm really against selectively nuking installments like that."

I'm suggesting we follow our own rules. How that is applied to MGQ doesn't matter to me so long as it is applied.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
This is our rules. MGQ (at least, the earlier parts of it) break said rules.
Click to expand...
What I can gather from this sentence is the admittance that later parts of the series do not break said rules, no? In which we evaluate the series as a whole and not just singular parts?
Mr._Bambu said:
From what I can tell, the sole reason it was kept was because people portrayed it as an RPG with **** as a side bit. This is objectively not the case (again, specifically talking about those earlier bits).
Click to expand...
Yet you acknowledge that later media this wouldn't be the case. In which one could then argue that very thing and it be valid.
Mr._Bambu said:
What the later games do does not change what the earlier games are. So no, I don't consider it wrong of you to make the request, I just think your request ignores the actual content of our rules.
Click to expand...
This first bit sounds like something that can be solved by simply removing content from the earlier material and I would be agreeing with you should that be what you were arguing, however, you are calling for the deletion of the entire verse, which includes the later games as content. So I simply don't agree based on the current standards we have in place unless you provide me more.
 
"What I can gather from this sentence is the admittance that later parts of the series do not break said rules, no? In which we evaluate the series as a whole and not just singular parts?"

We evaluate it as a whole, yes. Meaning the series, when viewed as a whole, has broken our rules, posted above.

"Yet you acknowledge that later media this wouldn't be the case. In which one could then argue that very thing and it be valid."

I have no issue if you want to lop off the pornographic installments of the game and consider the later portions as a non-rule breaking entity. I think that means the verse will be a bit lopsided and incorrect, but that really isn't my concern at the moment. My concern is that the entity we currently have on our wiki breaks our rules. You do not seem to be denying this.

"This first bit sounds like something that can be solved by simply removing content from the earlier material and I would be agreeing with you should that be what you were arguing, however, you are calling for the deletion of the entire verse, which includes the later games as content. So I simply don't agree based on the current standards we have in place unless you provide me more."

That is an option, yes. As I've repeated, doesn't matter to me, I just want to be faithful to our rules. **** gone. If the later installments are ****-free then I don't care if they stay, should they be adjusted accordingly to disregard the ****. The current standards we have in place are fairly straightforward, as posted above.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
"What I can gather from this sentence is the admittance that later parts of the series do not break said rules, no? In which we evaluate the series as a whole and not just singular parts?"

We evaluate it as a whole, yes. Meaning the series, when viewed as a whole, has broken our rules, posted above.

"Yet you acknowledge that later media this wouldn't be the case. In which one could then argue that very thing and it be valid."

I have no issue if you want to lop off the pornographic installments of the game and consider the later portions as a non-rule breaking entity. I think that means the verse will be a bit lopsided and incorrect, but that really isn't my concern at the moment. My concern is that the entity we currently have on our wiki breaks our rules. You do not seem to be denying this.

"This first bit sounds like something that can be solved by simply removing content from the earlier material and I would be agreeing with you should that be what you were arguing, however, you are calling for the deletion of the entire verse, which includes the later games as content. So I simply don't agree based on the current standards we have in place unless you provide me more."

That is an option, yes. As I've repeated, doesn't matter to me, I just want to be faithful to our rules. **** gone. If the later installments are ****-free then I don't care if they stay, should they be adjusted accordingly to disregard the ****. The current standards we have in place are fairly straightforward, as posted above.
Click to expand...
I agree with this assessment.
 
This thread already got derailed horribly. Well, not sure about derailed, but it got blown out of proportion. I think some of those other verses might need discussions of their own; example, some complaints about Monster Girl Quest and the like. I know we already had one a long time ago, but even so. If people are going to "Beat dead horses" with this, I'd at least think it would be better if they had their own threads instead of turning a wiki management thread into a general discussion thread.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
This thread already got derailed horribly. Well, not sure about derailed, but it got blown out of proportion. I think some of those other verses might need discussions of their own; example, some complaints about Monster Girl Quest and the like. I know we already had one a long time ago, but even so. If people are going to "Beat dead horses" with this, I'd at least think it would be better if they had their own threads instead of turning a wiki management thread into a general discussion thread.
Click to expand...
Fair. I suspect that this horse cycles through life and death fairly often, though, given the controversy. Still, I'll happily make another thread and repost arguments there later. It means little to me.
 
We evaluate it as a whole, yes. Meaning the series, when viewed as a whole, has broken our rules, posted above.

I feel like this is an inconsistent way of looking at things which isn't supported by the wording on the rules page, or the discussions when the rules were drafted. I essentially think it's wrong on every level.

Inconsistency: I don't think you'd apply the same standard to a smaller segment of a verse. i.e. you wouldn't say that because a series has a single sex scene that the series as a whole has broken the rules. I think we should always hold that view when zooming out. One scene being Level 4 doesn't make the entire series Level 4. Neither does one chapter being Level 4. Neither does one book/game being Level 4 (unless that book/game is the whole series). I think you'd end up being inconsistent by only scaling this up once it reaches the level of one "installment".

Wording: The acceptable content rating scale page phrases it as "Verses that have high sexual content as the main focus of the material. The majority of the media content is sexual for verses that fall under this rating." Your idea falls out of line with the wording in two places; the first sentence frames it as discussing verses as a whole, rather than installments in verses. The second sentence explicitly says the majority of the media for the verse has to be sexual to count for this rating.

Discussion: I haven't bothered to go back to verify this/grab quotes but if people were, as I remember, saying that MGQ wouldn't be allowed if it was only the first installment, but is since its later installments aren't as pornographic, that demonstrates that the intent when writing the rules was to look at the series as a whole, not to let one installment taint the entire thing.

(I know DDM said to bring this to a thread but I don't want to make one and wanted to get this point out asap).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Locked
Slightly adjusting our rules for bolded "powers and abilities" links
Replies
32
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Flashlight237
  • Locked
About The "Others" Section
2 3
Replies
84
Views
7K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Jinx666
'Continuity' Section for Verse Pages
Replies
37
Views
5K
Antvasima
Antvasima
DMUA
Removing Power of the Verse from Verse pages
2 3 4
Replies
147
Views
18K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
99K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top