-
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.
Questioning Stands Again
- Thread starter Arigarmy
- Start date
- Status
- 4,256
- 662
i dont think staff members are more correct?
I do think going by knowledgeable members is fine though. As of now there is two knowledgable members in favor of no, (myself and J-Man) and two knowledgable members in favor of yes (Arigarmy and Data)
I do think going by knowledgeable members is fine though. As of now there is two knowledgable members in favor of no, (myself and J-Man) and two knowledgable members in favor of yes (Arigarmy and Data)
- 4,256
- 662
staff still aren't inherently more knowledgeable is my point. ultimately they do decide when a content revision makes sense or not, but they are in no way the "end all be all" when it comes to knowledge. if a staff member just agrees with a revision saying "this makes sense" that is in no way suggesting that the revision is correct and must be put through, but that the logic provided is not inherently flawed and if it holds true, can be put through.
problem is, me and j-man have already provided counter-arguments as to why the revision should be refuted. these have yet to be addressed by arigarmy as far as im aware. currently it's just a bunch of un-knowledgeable staff members saying "this makes sense" (with the exception of data) without knowing the verse in-depth. (i'm going based off of the knowledgable members list)
problem is, me and j-man have already provided counter-arguments as to why the revision should be refuted. these have yet to be addressed by arigarmy as far as im aware. currently it's just a bunch of un-knowledgeable staff members saying "this makes sense" (with the exception of data) without knowing the verse in-depth. (i'm going based off of the knowledgable members list)
- 2,667
- 1,218
For now I agree with Ari but Lord's right, being a staff by no means makes your opinion more valid, specially considering Lord and J-Man are knowledgeable member and have put effort in their counter-arguments. Their points should be taken in consideration even if they don't have fancy colored names.
- 4,256
- 662
I just told you a better way to decide this revision, and it's certainly not to go by "how many staff members voted" or not. Staff Members are not always knowledgeable, and therefore there input shouldn't be 1000x more valuable. They are only more valid in the sense of approving a line of logic (you specifically do this alot, saying "this seems fine"), which in itself is not validating or confirming that the revision proposed is true or not, but is only used to to validate that the thought process proposed is correct IF the information provided was true, and there is no other information to contradict the revision.
The best way to decide whether or not we close this revision and approve it is to see how many knowledgeable members (as in those who are aware of any potential information to support or contradict statements and revisions) have agreed or not. You are not a very knowledgeable member on JoJo. Neither is WeeklyBattles, and neither is Pachi. Therefore their votes do not hold as much value as you seem to think. That is not to say that none of you are aware of the general plot, characters, fights, abilities, etc, you just aren't as aware as someone who has actually read the manga and watched the anime. Therefore you are not fully aware if there is any contradicting evidence or statements to the provided revisions. (I have to correct myself, the only knowledgeable member in favor of the revision is Arigarmy)
On the other hand, THREE knowledgeable members have just provided counter-arguments and reasoning as to why the proposed revisions are incorrect and flawed, with these reasons yet to been adaquately refuted in any way.
Therefore, the decision should be to keep this revision open until the counter-arguments have been refuted.
I'm not saying we always go by which side is more knowledgeable or not to determine a revision, then it just becomes a dick-measuring contest in terms of who's a bigger fan. I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to automatically approve a pending revision just because there are more (un-knowledgeable) admins in favor of it. There are currently counter-arguments that as of now, have not been disputed.
I don't know how this isn't common sense.
(Again, the reason i'm deciding who's knowledgeable and not is based on the knowledgeable members list.)
The best way to decide whether or not we close this revision and approve it is to see how many knowledgeable members (as in those who are aware of any potential information to support or contradict statements and revisions) have agreed or not. You are not a very knowledgeable member on JoJo. Neither is WeeklyBattles, and neither is Pachi. Therefore their votes do not hold as much value as you seem to think. That is not to say that none of you are aware of the general plot, characters, fights, abilities, etc, you just aren't as aware as someone who has actually read the manga and watched the anime. Therefore you are not fully aware if there is any contradicting evidence or statements to the provided revisions. (I have to correct myself, the only knowledgeable member in favor of the revision is Arigarmy)
On the other hand, THREE knowledgeable members have just provided counter-arguments and reasoning as to why the proposed revisions are incorrect and flawed, with these reasons yet to been adaquately refuted in any way.
Therefore, the decision should be to keep this revision open until the counter-arguments have been refuted.
I'm not saying we always go by which side is more knowledgeable or not to determine a revision, then it just becomes a dick-measuring contest in terms of who's a bigger fan. I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to automatically approve a pending revision just because there are more (un-knowledgeable) admins in favor of it. There are currently counter-arguments that as of now, have not been disputed.
I don't know how this isn't common sense.
(Again, the reason i'm deciding who's knowledgeable and not is based on the knowledgeable members list.)
- 177,398
- 90,308
My apologies, but we are not going to change the fundamental system by which we do things here, no matter how much you keep bringing it up.
The staff are largely selected due to their abilities to provide rational evaluations, and are necessary to provide this function, as the alternative would be complete anarchy. I would appreciate if you immediately and permanently stop bringing up your demands for change in this regard.
The staff are largely selected due to their abilities to provide rational evaluations, and are necessary to provide this function, as the alternative would be complete anarchy. I would appreciate if you immediately and permanently stop bringing up your demands for change in this regard.
- 4,256
- 662
So you wish to approve a revision despite valid counter-arguments still being unadressed?
I haven't suggested we change the fundamental system, that just proves to me you haven't been reading what I've said.
I haven't suggested we change the fundamental system, that just proves to me you haven't been reading what I've said.
- 4,256
- 662
You're really dodging the subject. You have said this:
Since 3 staff members have accepted Arigarmy's suggestion, I think that it should probably be fine to apply
There are still valid counter-arguments that have been unadressed. Do you wish to approve a revision despite this?
Since 3 staff members have accepted Arigarmy's suggestion, I think that it should probably be fine to apply
There are still valid counter-arguments that have been unadressed. Do you wish to approve a revision despite this?
- 21,392
- 2,986
I agree with Jman and Prof. Killer Queen4 and Killer Queen8 have very different abilties and are clearly not the same stand. However THE WORLD and The World not only have the same stats but even their special ability is the same. The timestop is a different amount of time but that's only because DIO could handle a longer time stop due to his vampiric body. If DIO had THE WORLD then it would also be just as long as his The World time stop.
- 4,256
- 662
@Antvasima, this is a big problem for me. Had I not objected and pointed out the obvious, you likely would have approved and accepted these invalid arguments and it would have affected a large portion of profiles.
If you aren't aware of the current status of a revison, please feel free to ask and I'm sure someone will happily fill you in. You also miscontrued a lot of what I was saying which ended up taking credibility of what I have been saying, I'm willing to accept some blame since I may have not done the best job at communicating it, but I'd like to ask you to not assume without clarification again.
We can resume with the revision.
If you aren't aware of the current status of a revison, please feel free to ask and I'm sure someone will happily fill you in. You also miscontrued a lot of what I was saying which ended up taking credibility of what I have been saying, I'm willing to accept some blame since I may have not done the best job at communicating it, but I'd like to ask you to not assume without clarification again.
We can resume with the revision.
- Status
