Request for Indexing Hax Layering/Smurf Hax on Profiles

[Antvasima]

Yes, that would be appreciated, and thank you for being reasonable.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Also, if someone could make a list of notable profiles where this format would be necessary or appreciated, that would also be immensely helpful. Characters like Anos Voldigoad and Arceus, for example. Having some popular pages make use of it right off the bat would likely normalize the format somewhat.

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. There is a big risk for inaccurate information if we are just going to quickly apply changes to different verses without proper investigation and discussion.

 

[azontr]

Hmm. There is a big risk for inaccurate information if we are just going to quickly apply changes to different verses without proper investigation and discussion.

Then don't. Discuss what's notable beforehand and add it to the page.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Then don't. Discuss what's notable beforehand and add it to the page.

This ^ Furthermore, in cases like Anos, some characters already have this information indexed on explanation blogs for their respective verses.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I just consider it risky to wantonly add layers to verses that have not been properly evaluated in this regard.

 

[azontr]

Why would anybody do that? Lmao.

In the first place, if there are no accepted layers in the verse then this format wouldn't be applicable in the first place, so your concern is really unfounded.

 

[Zeifyl]

I may not be a member of staff, but if I might add something to this... I think it might also be helpful to note if an ability is conceptual in nature, and potentially, what the trigger is (action, thought, passive, state of being, ect).

Of course, this would bring a much bigger change with it, requiring pretty much every page to be edited, but it would also make it much clearer what and how who does what.

 

[Antvasima]

Why would anybody do that? Lmao.

In the first place, if there are no accepted layers in the verse then this format wouldn't be applicable in the first place, so your concern is really unfounded.

Okay. That is not exactly what I meant though. I just want us to act in certainty in the cases where layers have been established. That is all.

 

[azontr]

Okay. That is not exactly what I meant though. I just want us to act in certainty in the cases where layers have been established. That is all.

And we will, of course. Nothing is being applied all willy nilly, and if it is, we can change it via CRT, so you've not much to worry about in this regard.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is good then.

 

[Agnaa]

I have only partially read the thread, but if the options are to list it in P&A, NA&T, or Explanations, I'd prefer having the option to list it anywhere. I think it would look ugly to give every single ability a potency/tier in the P&A section, but some pages already list extensive descriptions there. It also seems really redundant to go, like Causality Manipulation (1 layer, Low 2-C), Conceptual Manipulation (1 layer, Low 2-C), Time Manipulation (1 layer, Low 2-C)....

If that's unpalatable to people, I'd err on the side of listing it in Explanations, since that lets any redundant explanations be easily grouped up.

 

[Bobsican]

Allowing to list it anywhere would make us go back where we started with such information being difficult to find on pages out of being inconsistently anywhere on a page, which is why an standard on this regard is being done to begin with.

Anyways, while I can see why the Explanations section could work for that, my concern would be that verse-specific power pages don't have such a section for starters, unless we now allow that kind of section over there.

 

[Agnaa]

Verse-specific power and ability pages can have paragraphs of text just sitting there, it feels like the entirety of those pages are effectively explanations sections.

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

I have only partially read the thread, but if the options are to list it in P&A, NA&T, or Explanations, I'd prefer having the option to list it anywhere. I think it would look ugly to give every single ability a potency/tier in the P&A section, but some pages already list extensive descriptions there. It also seems really redundant to go, like Causality Manipulation (1 layer, Low 2-C), Conceptual Manipulation (1 layer, Low 2-C), Time Manipulation (1 layer, Low 2-C)....

If that's unpalatable to people, I'd err on the side of listing it in Explanations, since that lets any redundant explanations be easily grouped up.

I mean preferably, you don't give it to every single ability since that would just be ugly imo. When I said somewhere in P&A initially, I more meant it would look something like the list of abilities then a small section below or at the end of everything stating the general potency and tier. Obviously if one varies, it would be stated in that specific power.

 

[Agnaa]

Could you give an example of this small section in use?

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

Could you give an example of this small section in use?

Was thinking something like:
Mind Manipulation (Explination), Soul Manipulationg (Explination), Life Maniipulation(Explination), Death Manipulation (Explination) (1 layer, Low 2-C)

or something below it so its like:
Mind Manipulation (Explination), Soul Manipulationg (Explination), Life Maniipulation(Explination), Death Manipulation (Explination)
(1 layer, Low 2-C)

Preferably it would be still connected to the P&A list so it doesn't look like its encroaching on the AP section

 

[Agnaa]

Eh, that's an improvement. With that, I only very slightly prefer it being in explanations.

 

[Muchacho_mrm]

Optional explanation section at the bottom is good enough for verse wide layers...But even with that, I know of characters with some smurf hax so P&A is also fine. So one or the other, or a hybrid.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

I've updated the total votes. And yes, Abaddon is right, we wouldn't index the layers/smurfiness of abilities that lack both of those.

Anyways, the three options as of now seem to be:

-List them in the P&A section (12; Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara, Livinmeme, Dread, Bobsican, Scottycj256, FantaRin_The_First, Kirbonic_Pikmin, Panache_X, DueDate8898 [prefers using explanation section on profiles that have it], TheGreatJedi13, ActuallySpaceMan, Nehz_XZX, AbaddonTheDisappointment [last 4 also fine with explanation section])
-List them in the NA/T section
-List them in the optional explanations section (3; Antvasima, DontTalkDT, Agnaa)
Neutral (2; ElixirBlue, Muchacho_mrm)

I'd like to take a vote on which option is preferable, given that the general consensus is that indexing this information is a good idea.

 

[Agnaa]

"List them in explanations" says there's only 2 votes, despite there being 3.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Fixed.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that two bureaucrats and one content moderator and calc group member prefer the explanation section solution it certainly has considerably more staff vote power overweight. It seems like this thread is unnecessarily dragged out. Either we apply nothing here or the explanation section solution.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Considering other mods are fine with the explanation section being used, yeah, this is fine. Can someone draft an example of what the new format would look like? Would each ability have its relevant scaling listed independently, or would the explanation section be just one block of text?

 

[Agnaa]

Whatever ends up looking best, depending on the specifics of the verse, imo. The explanations section can be pretty freeform.

 

[Nehz_XZX]

Would each ability have its relevant scaling listed independently, or would the explanation section be just one block of text?

A list seems fine since the section should preferable be easy to read though if multiple abilities share the details and reasonings regarding their layers or other things, then summarizing would definitely be a sensible choice.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Alright, well in that case, I guess I can edit my original proposal. I'm not sure where this would go tbh

"While not strictly required, it is advisable to index the potency of a character's abilities in the optional Explanation section when creating or editing a profile. This can include the ability to overpower the resistances of characters who would ordinarily resist certain abilities (also known as 'hax layering'; Not to be confused with Resistance Negation), or whether or not the potency of an ability corresponds to that of a higher dimension (also known as 'smurf hax')."

Btw, it may be a good idea to compile a list of notable profiles where hax potency is in desperate need of indexing.

 

[Antvasima]

That seems fine to me, with the exception of that the term "smurf hax" sounds unprofessional and silly to a casual visitor, so I am not sure if it should be included.

I am not sure where we should mention this information either. The editing rules page could be used in lack of better options.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

That seems fine to me, with the exception of that the term "smurf hax" sounds unprofessional and silly to a casual visitor, so I am not sure if it should be included.

I am not sure where we should mention this information either. The editing rules page could be used in lack of better options.

Well, 'smurf hax' is generally what the concept is referred to as in VS terms, and I haven't really seen any alternatives. I'm open to suggestions, of course. I'm fine with it going in the editing rules page as well.

 

[Antvasima]

That seems fine to me, with the exception of that the term "smurf hax" sounds unprofessional and silly to a casual visitor, so I am not sure if it should be included.

I am not sure where we should mention this information either. The editing rules page could be used in lack of better options.

Well, 'smurf hax' is generally what the concept is referred to as in VS terms, and I haven't really seen any alternatives. I'm open to suggestions, of course. I'm fine with it going in the editing rules page as well.

What do other staff members here think about this?

 

[Bobsican]

I know I'm not staff and all of that, but if we want formalities and all, I'd suggest to just properly define the term without using the word "smurf", however, it wouldn't hurt to define "smurf" in the VS Battles Glossary.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with both of those sentiments.

 

[Arkenis]

Should a page just not be made detailing Hax potency? Titled Hax Tiering? Goes over things such as amount, level of effectiveness e.g souls, conceputal, mental, reality? And also detail the importance of "how many were effected"?

 

[Antvasima]

Should a page just not be made detailing Hax potency? Titled Hax Tiering? Goes over things such as amount, level of effectiveness e.g souls, conceputal, mental, reality? And also detail the importance of "how many were effected"?

That may be a good idea actually, but we need input from other staff members.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

I know I'm not staff and all of that, but if we want formalities and all, I'd suggest to just properly define the term without using the word "smurf", however, it wouldn't hurt to define "smurf" in the VS Battles Glossary.

I also think putting "smurf" in the glossary is a good idea.

Should a page just not be made detailing Hax potency? Titled Hax Tiering? Goes over things such as amount, level of effectiveness e.g souls, conceputal, mental, reality? And also detail the importance of "how many were effected"?

I agree with this but I think it's a little outside the scope of this thread rn. A new thread should be made for this.

 

[Bobsican]

I also think that'd deserve its own thread.

Anyways, let's start defining what's a smurf in more formal terms, shall we?

Smurf: A fan-term originated from MMORPG communities where a player restarts their game and is matched against newbies after having years of experience and resources. In this community it refers to characters that have abilities (notably Hax) that are of a dimensional level for the purposes of the Tiering System higher than their physical one, for example, any character from 10-C to High 3-A with abilities that can affect tier 2 characters, or tier 2 characters with Low 1-C or above abilities.

I don't recall too well the origins of the term but it apparently comes among those lines, in any case I'm open for changes or the like.

 

[Antvasima]

I also think putting "smurf" in the glossary is a good idea.

Since it is an uncontroversial issue, I can unlock the page for somebody knowledgeable to edit if you wish.

I agree with this but I think it's a little outside the scope of this thread rn. A new thread should be made for this.

Is somebody willing to add one to our staff forum? However, you are just supposed to discuss the creation of a new page that details our new standards, not push for changing what was accepted in this thread.

 

[Bobsican]

First we'll probably need the description of what constitutes a smurf to be accepted to then properly proceed on the ruling for the indexing of hax layers and smurf abilities standards.

 

[Antvasima]

How about the following rewrite?

"Smurf: A fan-term that originated in MMORPG communities where a player restarts their game and is matched against newbies after having years of experience and resources. In this community it refers to characters that have abilities (notably [[Hax]]) that are of a higher dimensional and/or infinite scale than their physical bodies. For example, any characters that are physically between tiers 10-C to High 3-A with abilities that can affect tier 2 or tier 1 characters."

 

[Dereck03]

The above draft seems fine to me at least.