- 5,659
- 2,437
and i disagreed with that too
-
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.
Regarding the existence of Composite Human
- Thread starter Yobo_Blue
- Start date
-
- Tags
- the real world
- 21,390
- 2,978
Chuck Norris was fun. He didn't get a note on his page that let him stay.
- 15,436
- 7,857
But all we care about IS fun. The rules are what make it fun. This wiki wouldn't be fun if people could argue and say whatever the hell they want. CH as an exception to those rules also make it fun. Hense, CH should stay. Simple.
- 5,336
- 1,216
Chuck Norris isnt a coherent profile.
- 15,436
- 7,857
>FunDragonEmperor23 said:
>Passive 4-D fear hax
Bad example buddy.
- 9,528
- 1,823
@wright
An exception to the rules would have also made it fun when it came to youtube profiles, composite tree, Chuck Norris, etc.
We didn't make an exception for them, as you can see with a search on the wiki. They were fun too, that didn't get them special treatment. Fun alone is no excuse for CH staying then.
@yellow
You disagreeing with it wasn't the point, the point is that they were in fact, deleted. The fact that they were deleted shows that we don't make exceptions based purely off of popularity and fun
An exception to the rules would have also made it fun when it came to youtube profiles, composite tree, Chuck Norris, etc.
We didn't make an exception for them, as you can see with a search on the wiki. They were fun too, that didn't get them special treatment. Fun alone is no excuse for CH staying then.
@yellow
You disagreeing with it wasn't the point, the point is that they were in fact, deleted. The fact that they were deleted shows that we don't make exceptions based purely off of popularity and fun
- 15,436
- 7,857
Composite Tree was a meme, Youtubers were easily wanked, Chuck Norris was incoherent. CH is none of these things.
- 8,205
- 1,937
I mean, we make the rules however we want as a community. They aren't absolute or objective.
So the whole;
"This should be deleted because it's against the rules."
Is kind of irrelevant imo. We add and subtract rules all of the time, we even make exceptions for some rules as well.
How is this any different?
So the whole;
"This should be deleted because it's against the rules."
Is kind of irrelevant imo. We add and subtract rules all of the time, we even make exceptions for some rules as well.
How is this any different?
- 9,528
- 1,823
CH is absolutely a meme, and easily wanked.
@Moritzva
I mean
That is the reason though. As of now those are the standards, as seen in the cases of other profiles, we don't make exceptions based on popularity. There isn't a reason to make an exception for CH other than popularity.
Based on the above and the fact that he, as pointed out on the thread, breaks these standards, he should be removed. If people disagree, rather than arguing about why "CH is popular so the rules don't apply", they should make a thread arguing against these very standards if the profile means so much.
@Moritzva
I mean
That is the reason though. As of now those are the standards, as seen in the cases of other profiles, we don't make exceptions based on popularity. There isn't a reason to make an exception for CH other than popularity.
Based on the above and the fact that he, as pointed out on the thread, breaks these standards, he should be removed. If people disagree, rather than arguing about why "CH is popular so the rules don't apply", they should make a thread arguing against these very standards if the profile means so much.
- 15,436
- 7,857
Tell me, why do you go on VS Battles Wiki in the first place? To have fun. I get why we should take ourselves seriously, but at the end of the day we are a website where Thomas the Tank Engine can have a fair fight with Superman. Seriously. If we can't even have one exception to the rule for the sake of fun, what is even the point? It's not a career, it's a hobby. Why should we take ourselves this seriously?
Whatever, I'm out. Do what you will.
Whatever, I'm out. Do what you will.
- 6,033
- 8,713
Honestly the fallout of this debate, is what bothers me the most regardless of the outcome it's clear this is a very divisive topic and from my experience on being on this Wiki for about a year really polarizing subjects like this always leads to bad blood (be it open hostility or passive aggression); I too refuse to vote, this is too much of a headache for me.
Good luck on the discussion folks!.
Good luck on the discussion folks!.
- 9,528
- 1,823
I'm just responding to the arguments wright made against other similar profiles staying
- 5,336
- 1,216
I'm sorry but I think this is the very definition of doing something absolutely unnecessary. No I will not stop saying that because it's true. Can we ''please'' have one thing on this site thats meant for fun because of its an exception because of its uniqueness and charm? ''Please''?
- 5,659
- 2,437
you're talking as if nobody else on the wiki is ever wanked
- 9,528
- 1,823
@yellow
The wank argument is irrelevant to my point. Either way, of course other profiles are wanked, however that happening on profiles isn't a good thing and the classic "X does something bad so we can too" isn't a good excuse
@Goji
No, rather than have it be an exception to the rules that it has been shown to be against, just make a thread to change the rules. If you manage to change the rules then not only will the "unique, charming and fun" CH get to stay, but plenty of other profiles which were previously deleted, and/or denied due to breaking the rules, will be allowed to come to the site as well, maximizing the "fun" value
The wank argument is irrelevant to my point. Either way, of course other profiles are wanked, however that happening on profiles isn't a good thing and the classic "X does something bad so we can too" isn't a good excuse
@Goji
No, rather than have it be an exception to the rules that it has been shown to be against, just make a thread to change the rules. If you manage to change the rules then not only will the "unique, charming and fun" CH get to stay, but plenty of other profiles which were previously deleted, and/or denied due to breaking the rules, will be allowed to come to the site as well, maximizing the "fun" value
- 5,336
- 1,216
I dont care about those other profiles. There is nothing wrong with it being an exception.
- 9,528
- 1,823
@goji
Ok let me just double check
Your arguement is that CH should be an exception because it's fun and popular, and nothing we say will convince you that it shouldn't be an exception, correct?
Ok let me just double check
Your arguement is that CH should be an exception because it's fun and popular, and nothing we say will convince you that it shouldn't be an exception, correct?
- 5,659
- 2,437
and your arguement is just "rules >>> everything else. that's the way it is" your argument isn't any better by that logic
- 9,528
- 1,823
My arguement is literally just "We should follow the rules we made, we didn't make exceptions for other profiles so we shouldn't here just due to fun and popularity, which would have applied to the other profiles as well."
If you could give valid reasons as to why it should be an exception I'm open to hearing them
If you could give valid reasons as to why it should be an exception I'm open to hearing them
- 5,336
- 1,216
No, offer actual reasons why removing it wont be pointless and I'll be convinced or at the very least offer a better argument.Paul Frank said:
- 9,528
- 1,823
@goji
"No, offer actual reasons why removing it wont be pointless and I'll be convinced"
The problem there lies in the fact that, that is 100% subjective. One person may feel that removing it isn't pointless because following our rules is important, other people feel that it is pointless, some people think that keeping the profile as an exception is a good thing, others think that it is bad due to being a massive double standard that anyone could point out to justify similar profiles.
Some reasons for getting rid of it are:
Following the rules that we established is important
We have shown before with previous profiles that go against our standards, that popularity doesn't make you an exception and that we generally do not have exceptions to profile standards
Exceptions set a bad precedent as to what is allowed, allowing people to either point back to the exception in question, or simply say that another profile should be an exception as well
The profile can simply be moved to another wiki where it doesn't go against the standards, nothing is actually lost as you guys seem to be implying
"No, offer actual reasons why removing it wont be pointless and I'll be convinced"
The problem there lies in the fact that, that is 100% subjective. One person may feel that removing it isn't pointless because following our rules is important, other people feel that it is pointless, some people think that keeping the profile as an exception is a good thing, others think that it is bad due to being a massive double standard that anyone could point out to justify similar profiles.
Some reasons for getting rid of it are:
Following the rules that we established is important
We have shown before with previous profiles that go against our standards, that popularity doesn't make you an exception and that we generally do not have exceptions to profile standards
Exceptions set a bad precedent as to what is allowed, allowing people to either point back to the exception in question, or simply say that another profile should be an exception as well
The profile can simply be moved to another wiki where it doesn't go against the standards, nothing is actually lost as you guys seem to be implying
- 5,336
- 1,216
It will cause it to be lost. Iirc Promestein said she didn't want it on the FC\OC Wiki, and moving it to JBW will cause it to fall into obscurity and never be used or mentioned again. Plus CH isn't really a joke. Also, I personally dont see exceptions in that manner. It has been here for a while and to my knowledge no one has challenged it, tried to make another profile like it, called for a ban on matches for it, etc. One exception out of thousands of profiles, yeah that sure is a bad precedent. Having one example isn't enough to justify another exception unless it already had valid reasoning and logic backing it up in the first place.
- 3,493
- 1,360
In order for exceptions to exist, the rules must be well defined. Composite Human is a reflection of the culture of this site. It is a love letter from the users to this site. The users created their own "fiction", their own IP. We shouldn't remove it because, "Da Rules". The Rules exist so that the site can function properly, and to prevent factors from ruining other people's fun.
We must ask ourselves, "Does the existence of Composite Human create a detriment to this site and prevent it from functioning properly?" If the answer is Yes. Then delete it. If the answer is No, then there's no need to remove.
I think the conversation shouldn't be about, "Should CH exist?" it should be, "How do we make CH fit into our rules and standards for this site?
We must ask ourselves, "Does the existence of Composite Human create a detriment to this site and prevent it from functioning properly?" If the answer is Yes. Then delete it. If the answer is No, then there's no need to remove.
I think the conversation shouldn't be about, "Should CH exist?" it should be, "How do we make CH fit into our rules and standards for this site?
- 12,085
- 2,096
Gojoboi and I are clearly in the disagree camp.
- 12,085
- 2,096
At the VERY least, IF CH gets yeeted. I will move it to a blog post
- 5,336
- 1,216
I already did.
- 9,528
- 1,823
In order for exceptions to exist, the rules must be well defined. Composite Human is a reflection of the culture of this site. It is a love letter from the users to this site. The users created their own "fiction", their own IP. We shouldn't remove it because, "Da Rules". The Rules exist so that the site can function properly, and to prevent factors from ruining other people's fun.
The users created their own fiction, so an OC, aka something directly against our standards. We should remove it because, "Da Rules", in that case.
We must ask ourselves, "Does the existence of Composite Human create a detriment to this site and prevent it from functioning properly?" If the answer is Yes. Then delete it. If the answer is No, then there's no need to remove.
No, the question we ask should be "Does the existence of CH go against our established standards." If the answer to that is yes then we should delete it. Youtube profiles and composite tree "didn't cause a detriment either", they just broke our standards
I think the conversation shouldn't be about, "Should CH exist?" it should be, "How do we make CH fit into our rules and standards for this site?
That isn't the goal of this thread though, if that is your angle then you should make another thread, and within that thread try to rewrite the rules in such a way that they allow CH to stay
The users created their own fiction, so an OC, aka something directly against our standards. We should remove it because, "Da Rules", in that case.
We must ask ourselves, "Does the existence of Composite Human create a detriment to this site and prevent it from functioning properly?" If the answer is Yes. Then delete it. If the answer is No, then there's no need to remove.
No, the question we ask should be "Does the existence of CH go against our established standards." If the answer to that is yes then we should delete it. Youtube profiles and composite tree "didn't cause a detriment either", they just broke our standards
I think the conversation shouldn't be about, "Should CH exist?" it should be, "How do we make CH fit into our rules and standards for this site?
That isn't the goal of this thread though, if that is your angle then you should make another thread, and within that thread try to rewrite the rules in such a way that they allow CH to stay
- 12,085
- 2,096
The main reason for CH being removed is that it is against the rules and Composites are banned.
But,here is the thing. Doing composites for dogs is just a massive clutter of unessecary articles. Doing a composite tree was just a meme. Doing Chuck Norris was a meme. Youtubers didn't have canon feats and many of them were featless, plus many of them deserved to be more memes than VS Wiki profiles.
No matter of how popular ANY of these characters are.We should not have composite tree because it is just a joke and not an actual idea taken seriously. We should not have youtubers with no plot or any actual canon/feats because they violate the rule they must be from a fictional work with an established plot. We should not have Pornography because this is a wiki meant to be for as all ages as possible. We shouldn't have religious figures from modern religions because of controversy and this is a neutral place (DON'T try to start that argument again). Popularity shouldn't be a factor for them or an excuse to put them on this wiki.
CH should be an exception because not just of fun, but because he has feats, isn't meant to be a meme or not be taken seriously at all, and is overall not a clutter and over waste like doing composites of other animals.
Plus, out of all the scopes that the 3 wikis fit in, CH easily is closest to this 1. Joke Battles is meant to be, a joke, with bad grammar and terrible powers for all! FC/OC is meant to fictional fan fiction, which CH sticks out of like a sore thumb. So yeah, I feel like CH should be an exception or at LEAST a blog post(which already happened)
But,here is the thing. Doing composites for dogs is just a massive clutter of unessecary articles. Doing a composite tree was just a meme. Doing Chuck Norris was a meme. Youtubers didn't have canon feats and many of them were featless, plus many of them deserved to be more memes than VS Wiki profiles.
No matter of how popular ANY of these characters are.We should not have composite tree because it is just a joke and not an actual idea taken seriously. We should not have youtubers with no plot or any actual canon/feats because they violate the rule they must be from a fictional work with an established plot. We should not have Pornography because this is a wiki meant to be for as all ages as possible. We shouldn't have religious figures from modern religions because of controversy and this is a neutral place (DON'T try to start that argument again). Popularity shouldn't be a factor for them or an excuse to put them on this wiki.
CH should be an exception because not just of fun, but because he has feats, isn't meant to be a meme or not be taken seriously at all, and is overall not a clutter and over waste like doing composites of other animals.
Plus, out of all the scopes that the 3 wikis fit in, CH easily is closest to this 1. Joke Battles is meant to be, a joke, with bad grammar and terrible powers for all! FC/OC is meant to fictional fan fiction, which CH sticks out of like a sore thumb. So yeah, I feel like CH should be an exception or at LEAST a blog post(which already happened)
- 12,085
- 2,096
I think it is.
- 2,861
- 224
The problem fundamentally, with the assertion that we 'created' Composite Human in any meaningful sense is that it's... simply put, not true. I wish there were more to it but that's really just the size of it, Composite Human existed as a notion on the internet way before anyone on VsBW made a page for it. Go, just, look it up for yourself if you don't believe me, a single search will pull up a whole bunch of results. It is thus not an Original Character in the intended sense at all, and if that's really the main reason you're wanting to take it down then the premises are incorrect from the start.
What standards exist aside from that, then, that would justify its removal? That it lacks 'sufficient popularity/notoriety'? The Composite Human is very much a noteworthy enough character, especially in the Vs Debating community which, at the end of the day, we are. The exact line is rather fuzzy, because of course it is given the nature of the standards used, but I find it very hard to believe that Composite Human is less noteworthy overall than many of the pages here.
...you're only really giving me the opposite of reasons to want the page gone from the site, reading through all of this.
What standards exist aside from that, then, that would justify its removal? That it lacks 'sufficient popularity/notoriety'? The Composite Human is very much a noteworthy enough character, especially in the Vs Debating community which, at the end of the day, we are. The exact line is rather fuzzy, because of course it is given the nature of the standards used, but I find it very hard to believe that Composite Human is less noteworthy overall than many of the pages here.
...you're only really giving me the opposite of reasons to want the page gone from the site, reading through all of this.
- 12,085
- 2,096
The main argument for removing CH was that the VS Wiki Fellows made the idea of CH (making their own fiction).
IF The Perpetual is to be believed and others not just in the VS Wiki in the internet and in serious philosophical debates have brought up the idea of a composite of humanity. Then we can say that CH is a fiction that is widespread enough to not be an OC but a legitamate character. The only thing we need to change is that we have to remove him from the real world verse, but even that can be debated
IF The Perpetual is to be believed and others not just in the VS Wiki in the internet and in serious philosophical debates have brought up the idea of a composite of humanity. Then we can say that CH is a fiction that is widespread enough to not be an OC but a legitamate character. The only thing we need to change is that we have to remove him from the real world verse, but even that can be debated
Similar threads
