Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are the only one who is blowing up this up into a problem, and wasting time that I do not have available.Yobo Blue said: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 All I'm saying is that being stagnant is by no means a better solution than revisions outdated policy.
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.Antvasima said: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.
I will do this. I've been meaning to do it for a whileCinnabarManx421 said: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 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.Antvasima said: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.
Responding to this before reading the rest of the thread for how awfully wrong it is.Sir Ovens said: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.
IMDB recognizes anything. IMDB recognizes a 5 minute joke video.Yobo Blue said: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.
Nope.Sir Ovens said:Have we reached a consensus on keeping The Nameless One and Brandon Rogers on the site?
Because people arbitrarily decided they didn't want profiles from YouTubers on here.Yobo Blue said:Why is being made by a YouTuber a instant disqualification for a profile? That seems very arbitrary
Sure, your whole argument isn't dismantled, but that piece of evidence is unusable.Yobo Blue said:That was merely a piece of supporting evidence which I not imperative to the overall argument.
Youtube profiles are fine, so why would something made by a youtuber be a disqualification...?Agnaa said:Because people arbitrarily decided they didn't want profiles from YouTubers on here.
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.Yobo Blue said: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.
No idea, I wasn't there when the rule was made.Andytrenom said:Youtube profiles are fine, so why would something made by a youtuber be a disqualification...?
The one which I've generally said myself (and which staff have agreed with me on) is anything obscure is either:Yobo Blue said:There is no clearly defined limit on obscurity.
Yeah, plenty of other battleboards get by without a rule like that.Andytrenom said:You really gonna tell me banning toxicity is an arbitrary rule?
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!"Yobo Blue said: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.
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 said: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.
If they didn't introduce it then imo it should have stayed.Yobo Blue said: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.