Regarding the legitimacy of Brandon Rogers and The Nameless One

[Yobo_Blue]

You don't have to be driven by hypocrisy or any other vice to make a mistake. But you cannot just write off every mistake as being beneath our notice or too hard to fix. There is a feasible middle ground that would logically work best, at least in this specific situation.

 

[Antvasima]

It is building up. This thread is a example of it beginning to occur. More and more people are becoming aware of this rule, and due to its lack of clarity and definition it has become a major point of contention.

Large scale violence has occurred from the smallest of offenses. Even soccer/football games have been used as a excuse for widespread bloodshed. All I'm saying is that being stagnant is by no means a better solution than revisions outdated policy.

You are the only one who is blowing up this up into a problem, and wasting time that I do not have available.

If you want to create profiles for TV or Youtube self-insterts without a storyline, use the Joke Battles wiki. It is not really a big deal, despite how worked up you seem to be over this.

Nor is it that hard to understand the regulations for more clear-cut cases. What causes a problem is the borderline ones, such as the topic of this thread, but we are not experienced lawyers who can cover every angle. I did my best in wording a workable rule that would stem the tide of nonsense that we cleaned away to streamline the site long ago, and the community accepted them.

 

[Antvasima]

And regarding being stagnant, that is far from the case. We are constantly revising the wiki for the better, and it is literally 60 times as popular as when I first came here. However, constant ill-considered drastic change for the sake of change itself is an extremely bad idea, that severely destabilises any system that it is applied to.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

I did not make this thread that we are talking in, nor did I make these profiles, and the topic we are discussing is relevant, so I fail to see how I am the only individual that has a issue with this.

It is a issue that stems from various things, notable the leniency we seem to have with double standards on this wiki, which is fair more prevalent than it should be.

The rule as it is phrased now, however, is so difficult to interpret there are in reality very, very few clear-cut cases.

 

[CinnabarManx421]

I feel like this discussion is just turning into a questioning of the sites rules. Either way, most people have agreed that the profiles are good to stay so I think we can move this discussion you're having to another thread if you wish.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

And regarding being stagnant, that is far from the case. We are constantly revising the wiki for the better, and it is literally 60 times as popular as when I first came here. However, constant ill-considered drastic change for the sake of change itself is an extremely bad idea, that severely destabilises any system that it is applied to.

All the more reason that this should be accepted, as the wiki itself would be proof that change is feasible and sustainable. There as yet to be a tangible reason for why such a change would be bad, as well.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

I feel like this discussion is just turning into a questioning of the sites rules. Either way, most people have agreed that the profiles are good to stay so I think we can move this discussion you're having to another thread if you wish.

I will do this. I've been meaning to do it for a while

 

[Yobo_Blue]

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2966447

It is done.

 

[Andytrenom]

However, constant ill-considered drastic change for the sake of change itself is an extremely bad idea, that severely destabilises any system that it is applied to.

I don't really think discussing a rule and it's problems automatically translates to "ill considered drastic change for the sake of change". Just because Yobo said the rule should be changed doesn't mean it can only be changed in a hasty and unplanned manner without proper discussion prior.

So i am not sure why you are raising this complaint about a member just voicing his complaints about a issue, it can at least be looked into, and properly concluded if the issues are too severe or manageable through opinions from more than a few people.

 

[Antvasima]

The topic of the current thread should probably be fine to keep, yes, but loosening our restrictions completely while constantly screaming "You're a hypocrite if you disagree!" would per extension allow virtually any real world celebrity whatsoever into this wiki, which is a very bad idea.

Also, you are the one who started to hijack this thread for a much wider purpose than intended.

As for creating a new one, I would much prefer if you did not. We have already discussed this topic extensively several times previously, which resulted in the current standards, and I already have 12 hour+ work days, so I don't have enough time available.

 

[Agnaa]

Brandon does MCU style comedy sketches where he makes individual videos introducing characters and then makes these large scale serialisations involving his past made characters. The whole thing can be argued to be similar to the MCU television shows.

So, no, it is not like Filthy Frank where he's playing a persona in both trend videos and lore videos. Brandon plays actual characters and is involved in an actual story.

Responding to this before reading the rest of the thread for how awfully wrong it is.

This comparison to the MCU is insane. The MCU isn't done by a YouTuber. There's tons of pages where if they were done by a YouTuber instead of a large company they wouldn't be allowed. On top of this, the MCU is generally rather serious, while Brandon Rogers' videos are a series of comedy skits.

Filthy Frank doesn't just "play a persona". He plays a bunch of actual characters that are a part of an actual story.

 

[Antvasima]

@Andytrenom

Rewording the rule for better clarity is probably fine. Starting to use exaggerated loaded language and wanting to get rid of it entirely is not.

Anyway, given that a new thread has been created, I suppose that it would be a good idea to close this one?

 

[CinnabarManx421]

I suppose so yes.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

There is very obviously logical evidence that points to the hypocrisy of the rule. Just because it is a inconvenient truth does not change the fact that it is a issue. If the current rules are hypocritical, then they should be revised. I have also not accused anyone of being a hypocrite, just that this rule has a double standard which can be considered hypocritical, which may have occurred for any number of reasons.

Actually, I believe it was Agnaa who first began the discussion of topics other than these two profiles, which can be seen earlier in the thread.

I have already done so, unfortunately, and new arguments have been presented, so it is reasonable to do so. You do not have to participate if you do not feel up to the task and are by no means obligated to it. And forgive me if I sound harsh, but you are not imperative to its facilitation and stability, so you are welcome to take a break.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Responding to this before reading the rest of the thread for how awfully wrong it is.

This comparison to the MCU is insane. The MCU isn't done by a YouTuber. There's tons of pages where if they were done by a YouTuber instead of a large company they wouldn't be allowed. On top of this, the MCU is generally rather series, while Brandon Rogers' videos are a series of comedy skits.

Filthy Frank doesn't just "play a persona". He plays a bunch of actual characters that are a part of an actual story.

Why is being made by a YouTuber a instant disqualification for a profile? That seems very arbitrary

 

[Agnaa]

The Nostalgia Critic in particular has three movies which are recognized by IMDB, has a coherent storyline, and includes people from various parts of the Awesomeverse.

IMDB recognizes anything. IMDB recognizes a 5 minute joke video.

Have we reached a consensus on keeping The Nameless One and Brandon Rogers on the site?

Nope.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

That was merely a piece of supporting evidence which I not imperative to the overall argument.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Ant I don't think it should be closed, Agnaa seems to have some stuff to say.

 

[Agnaa]

Why is being made by a YouTuber a instant disqualification for a profile? That seems very arbitrary

Because people arbitrarily decided they didn't want profiles from YouTubers on here.

Also, we start getting into risk of crossover with the FC/OC wiki. How big does a YouTuber have to be to get their profiles on the site? How many subscribers/views? Because if we don't set a lower limit then anyone could put their OCs on YouTube and get them on here.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Also, keep in mind you should take issues on the rule as a whole to the other thread.

 

[Agnaa]

That was merely a piece of supporting evidence which I not imperative to the overall argument.

Sure, your whole argument isn't dismantled, but that piece of evidence is unusable.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Because people arbitrarily decided they didn't want profiles from YouTubers on here.

Also, we start getting into risk of crossover with the FC/OC wiki. How big does a YouTuber have to be to get their profiles on the site? How many subscribers/views? Because if we don't set a lower limit then anyone could put their OCs on YouTube and get them on here.

That's.... arbitrary.

This ruling is also very vague. We banned a published film series from the wiki for being "too obscure", despite having some of the most obscure novels and books which aren't published officially outside their native language most of the time.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Sure, your whole argument isn't dismantled, but that piece of evidence is unusable.

Glad to see we are in agreement.

 

[Andytrenom]

Because people arbitrarily decided they didn't want profiles from YouTubers on here.

Youtube profiles are fine, so why would something made by a youtuber be a disqualification...?

 

[Agnaa]

That's.... arbitrary.

This ruling is also very vague. We banned a published film series from the wiki for being "too obscure", despite having some of the most obscure novels and books which aren't published officially outside their native language most of the time.

I did say that it was arbitrary. It's arbitrary for us to not allow toxicity here. It's arbitrary for us to cap relativistic KE at 4x the result of non-relativistic KE. With a website like this arbitrary rulings are inevitable.

I'm not familiar with that instance of banning a published film series. From what you've described I'm against it being banned, but they may have had good reasons for banning it.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

There is no clearly defined limit on obscurity.

 

[Agnaa]

Youtube profiles are fine, so why would something made by a youtuber be a disqualification...?

No idea, I wasn't there when the rule was made.

 

[Andytrenom]

You really gonna tell me banning toxicity is an arbitrary rule?

 

[Agnaa]

There is no clearly defined limit on obscurity.

The one which I've generally said myself (and which staff have agreed with me on) is anything obscure is either:

1. Completely unknown outside of the vs battles community (i.e. Suggsverse),

2. So obscure that it's untranslated, with only one member being interested/capable of translating it into English (can't be allowed since we can't verify the statistics).

 

[Agnaa]

You really gonna tell me banning toxicity is an arbitrary rule?

Yeah, plenty of other battleboards get by without a rule like that.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

This is true. However, even those arbitrary topics have reasoning, such as a desire for a less volatile atmosphere.

I remember the specific incident well. Though I do not recall the name of the series, a certain user had a movies series that they had created for a film group if memory serves, and had it officially published and sold in stores. It was labeled as "too obscure" and "not professional enough" and was banned from having profiles.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

The one which I've generally said myself (and which staff have agreed with me on) is anything obscure is either:

1. Completely unknown outside of the vs battles community (i.e. Suggsverse),

2. So obscure that it's untranslated, with only one member being interested/capable of translating it into English (can't be allowed since we can't verify the statistics).

I'm not sure if 1 is necessarily true, as the Masadaverse did not have any real notability whatsoever outside the versus debating scene before it was introduced to places like the wiki and is still fairly obscure.

 

[Agnaa]

This is true. However, even those arbitrary topics have reasoning, such as a desire for a less volatile atmosphere.

I remember the specific incident well. Though I do not recall the name of the series, a certain user had a movies series that they had created for a film group if memory serves, and had it officially published and sold in stores. It was labeled as "too obscure" and "not professional enough" and was banned from having profiles.

It feels really weird to me to have the creators of a verse introducing it to this site and giving them profiles. This seems fine to have banned. If it's not, it sets a precedent of "Just get your supremely overpowered OC published somehow and it can go on this wiki!"

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not sure if 1 is necessarily true, as the Masadaverse did not have any real notability whatsoever outside the versus debating scene before it was introduced to places like the wiki and is still fairly obscure.

Dies Irae got an anime adaptation with 691 BD sales in Japan. That's almost as many sales as Flip Flappers. It may be obscure but it's not completely unknown outside of the versus debating scene.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

They didn't introduce it, actually, at least not in a Vs context. It was mentioned as a example in a topic regarding word of god.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Agnaa Arbitrary means something that isn't rooted in solid reasoning or fixed standards. Having a rule that other sites don't doesn't make that rule arbitrary, it just means the people in charge of the site have different ideas of what they want it to be than others.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Dies Irae got an anime adaptation with 691 BD sales in Japan. That's almost as many sales as Flip Flappers. It may be obscure but it's not completely unknown outside of the versus debating scene.

It was when it was introduced to the wiki as far as I know, however, which is the important part.

 

[Agnaa]

They didn't introduce it, actually, at least not in a Vs context. It was mentioned as a example in a topic regarding word of god.

If they didn't introduce it then imo it should have stayed.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

It was more complicated than that. I'll see if I can dig up the thread. You can judge it for yourself.

 

[Antvasima]

It is not "an inconvenient truth". There is a massive difference between something having a possibly lacking diffuse wording and being hypocritical. You are using a very exaggerated loaded term, and as I mentioned, absolute consistency is impossible in any type of system or society, certainly in as complicated a wiki as this one.

Here is the dictionary definition:

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hypocricy

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

2. An act or instance of such falseness.

Say what you want about me, but I and the standards that I have written are not deliberately deceitful, false, and insincere. My problem is more that I have a problem to shut up regarding what I really think.