Regarding the legitimacy of Brandon Rogers and The Nameless One

[The_Impress]

The afformentioned profiles have a high possibility of being considered Author Self-Inserts as well as Screen Personas, since of the following reasons:

• They share their names with real life creators (pretending that your IRL name is a nickname doesn't count.), thus enforcing their likeliness of being a screen persona

• Both of them are supreme entities in their respective verses, and Brandon's profile makes him overly reliant on the fact that he's the creator of his realm.

• It's somewhat morbid to discuss death of certain entertainers, and can potentially give a rise to spite, stomp and forced threads surrounding these characters.

This should likely be discussed beforehand deleting or keeping these profiles.

Also, I'd prefer for a more defined stance on the creation of Author Avatar pages, since the current rule for it can be summed up as "Maybe not ig", and isn't clear enough when such a character is accepted or not.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that the entire verses need to be deleted, just that the characters themselves are inappropriate for the wiki.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Brandon Rogers is an actual character in Stuff & Sam! And the whole verse as a whole has a cohesive narrative and an overarching storyline.

Saying Brandon cannot be a profile is like saying The One Above All can't be a profile because it's a Stan Lee insert.

 

[Anttron224]

I don't know about the Brandon one, but The Nameless One should be fine. He isn't the creator, just an OP character within CalebCity.

 

[The_Impress]

Saying Brandon cannot be a profile is like saying The One Above All can't be a profile because it's a Stan Lee insert.

Jack Kirby actually, I think. Also, TOAA isn't literally called "Stan Lee (Character)", Rogers is an actual YouTuber who goes by this name and his character is reffered as such.

This is the same as me making a Pewdiepie profile based on the Beastmaster64 series of videos, or a Chip Zdarsky and (that one guy who wrote Squirrel Girl) profiles based on their appearance in Howard the Duck.

 

[The_Impress]

I don't know about the Brandon one, but The Nameless One should be fine. He isn't the creator, just an OP character within CalebCity.

Tbh I was unsure about TNO as well. I'd like further input in support of him though.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Jackie Chan was a self insert and literal star of Jackie Chan Adventures. We have a profile for him here. Brandon being himself in his own show can be considered similar. Brandon the character never suggested that he was a "real" person or broke the 4th wall. He was a character in a show, just as much as Sam or any of the other characters.

 

[The_Impress]

Tbh, I want the Jackie Chan profile gone as well, it breaks the editing rules pretty hard ("I wanna see who kills Jackie Chan guys!").

It is still morbid, and Brandon is literally the most powerful character, in the world he made himself. Reminiscent of Suggsverse.

 

[Blackcurrant91]

I think Caleb is probably okay because his character is a parody of over the top fights/anime cliches and I could honestly see the creator of the channel loving him being used in vs debates (personal head cannon, don't quote me)

I do get where you are coming from though.

 

[The_Impress]

Also, when I say breaking the rules, these are the ones I'm talking about:

• It is also prohibited to create profiles for fictionalised stage personas for other reasons, whether these have their origins in music videos, educational programs, or otherwise: For one thing, it is inappropriate for largely underage wiki members to discuss which real people that would hypothetically be most capable of killing each other.

• Preferably avoid creating any supposedly "all-powerful" 4th wall-breaking real life author avatar characters, or author avatars in general. Before doing so, please read our Reality - Fiction Interaction guidelines, and try to evaluate if the character in question is significant within its story. Meaningless 4th wall breaking, and winks at the audience, do not equate tier 0 in any way, shape, or form, and can potentially open doors for new members to start looking at real life humans as an "omnipotent species" that can fight with ideas, words, and pictures.

The first one is the one I'm most concerned about

 

[The_Impress]

This is more akin to when Bruce Lee (Composite Movie Version) was deleted

 

[Blackcurrant91]

Yeah both def break the first one. Caleb doesn't break second 1 though.

 

[Antvasima]

I am very tired at the moment, but I also think that the Brandon Rogers character may be inappropriate. It is probably a better fit for the Joke Battles wiki.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Ok 1) Brandon is not a stage persona. He's literally playing a character in the show. He doesn't break the 4th wall, he doesn't mention that he's a YouTuber, and he interacts organically with the story.

2) Brandon dies in the very episode he debuts in. He's literally a plot device used to motivate Sam. Quite literally the opposite of the second rule. He's not an author avatar. He's a character that just shares the name of the real life person.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Like Lebron James appears in Uncle Grandpa as himself. He's acting as himself and everything, but that does not mean that he's the real Lebron James. He's a character in an animated cartoon show for children.

 

[Blackcurrant91]

isn't a 'Stage persona' any persona used on your platform for the purposes of monetary or artistic gain? him being a character played by the owner of the channel makes him one doesn't it?

 

[Antvasima]

@Sir Ovens

Okay. I suppose that he may be acceptable then. It should probably be clarified in a footnote in his page though, or we will open the doors for regular YouTube show hosts.

 

[The_Impress]

Danny Sexbang is considered a stage persona, even though he's definitely playing a character in his videos. He's also not Omnipotent in his videos, and yet his profile's long gone.

Is it completely fine for me to make a Tom Cruise (South Park) profile then? He dies in the show, and is definitely not the IRL Tom Cruise.

That's the main problem here, on the technical basis, yes you BS your way through this, but it's extremely obvious this encourages more Youtuber self inserts into the wiki

 

[Sir_Ovens]

That would make James Gunn's character in GotG2 a 'Stage Persona' as well.

 

[Antvasima]

@Blackcurrant

As long as it is an actual fictional character in a coherent storyline, it is probably okay.

 

[Blackcurrant91]

Perhaps the issue here then is that the term 'Stage Persona' isn't defined? Is it just the show having lore and plot that makes it immune to this rule?

 

[Sir_Ovens]

What I'm saying is that there's a difference between acting a part in a story where you are someone who uses their real life name, and literally being the person both in canon and in reality.

One breaks the story and the other is just a character.

 

[Antvasima]

@Zark

Good point. I am way too tired to have a good sense of judgement at the moment, so I am not the best person to give input here.

 

[Blackcurrant91]

No issues then People seem to like Caleb's profile alot so that's good.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I think that people hosting a Youtube or TV show as themselves is what I meant with stage personas, but again, I am extremely tired. It is probably best if you ask for input from Matthew and other administrators.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I believe Ryukuma can handle this. I trust his judgement.

Plus he make heck a cool arguments so that's a plus.

 

[The_Impress]

What I'm saying is that there's a difference between acting a part in a story where you are someone who uses their real life name, and literally being the person both in canon and in reality.

One breaks the story and the other is just a character.

There literally isn't any. This breaks the afformentioned rules so hard, I'll make every WWE wrestler's profile on the wiki and claim it's all make-believe

 

[Anttron224]

WWE is a combat soap opera

 

[The_Impress]

@Antvasima I'll contact Ryukama then. Sorry for bothering you.

EDIT: Did so.

 

[Antvasima]

You should definitely contact Matthew as well. He has been an active part of similar discussions previously.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Danny Sexbang has no narrative or cohesive plot. It was literally a guy who appeared and stared in music videos.

I'd argue that you could make a Tom Cruise (South Park) profile because again, he's not actually Tom Cruise.

In both cases (Cruise and Brandon), using the real world actors as characters is supposed to be a gag, a narrative decision for the sake of comedy. In Rogers' case, I'd argue his role is even less extravagant as I could replace him with Bob the Builder and achieve the same effect on the story as I would have with Rogers.

He's a plot device. He's not an all powerful being who can't be killed because he's a self insert Gary stu. He's there to motivate Sam when he is at his lowest.

I'm for the removal of characters who play themsepves in a setting where they are the real person and character, but characters who just share names of their real world counterparts should be given a pass.

 

[The_Impress]

Danny Sexbang technically has about the same plot levels as any music verse. Main arguments was that he was a screen persona, which he is.

No. We likely don't wanna be sued or removed by FANDOM for making morbid discussion over how Justin Bieber can get destroyed by Tom Cruise

Doesn't matter whether he's a plot device or no, he's still the most OP thing in the verse and a stage persona at that.

It's almost impossible to distinguish between the two however, and would take eons of discussions to justify the existence of those pages.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

For crying out loud, Jackie Chan from Jackie Chan Adventures isn't even like the real life Jackie Chan. Sure he's voiced by him, but the character does so many things that could be considered out of character for his real life counterpart.

Again, I can apply the same rule. If I replace Jackie Chan with Bob the Builder, will it affect the story? No. Jackie Chan is only there because his name is known and the studio wanted to make money.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

How is he the most OP thing in the verse if he died?

 

[The_Impress]

See, this wouldn't be that sensitive a page to have if Jacke Chan were to die in a month.

If TOAA was named Stan Lee, and people had Vs threads up that discussed how every other Tier 0 annhiliates him, it isn't super nice, is it?

 

[Sir_Ovens]

The only thing that made Brandon OP was his book, a book Sam, Elmer, and Bryce all had at various points of the story.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

A Tier 0 can't annhiliate the other, 0 Vs 0 always end up in stalemate. Also, Andrew Hussie.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

If TOAA was named Stan Lee, and people had Vs threads up that discussed how every other Tier 0 annhiliates him, it isn't super nice, is it?

That's called a spite thread and is banned in the first place.

Intention is everything. If I put Brandon up against BlazBlue because I hated Brandon's sense of humor that match would be closed.

But if I make a thread about Brandon vs Thanos because I thought that would be a good match, it should be allowed.

 

[Antvasima]

Technically there are degrees of tier 0 as well. I think that The Creator, Featherine, The Law Of Identity, Azathoth, and Yog-Sothoth are on top of more impressive hierarchies than the others.

That is derailing though, so please ignore this comment.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Really? Well, that's new.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

The point I'm trying to get across here is that a name should not be the reason why a profile gets the boot.

If I replaced Reihard Heydrich with Donald Trump, does that devalue the plot of Dies Irae at all? If the name change was all that was made, I'd gurantee you you'd all would have been throwing Donald Trump at SCP-682 a long time ago.

That's why I think Brandon should stay.