- 8,855
- 4,132
I am responding to actual points against the thread tho? Literally my last response was responding against a guy
-
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.
Request for Indexing Hax Layering/Smurf Hax on Profiles
- Thread starter Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
- Start date
- Status
azontr
He/Him- 40,580
- 50,192
That post has nothing to do with the current points being argued by a staff member and us.
This is what you need to respond to.
- 167,857
- 76,474
That seems like a good solution to me. Turning this into a requirement and uniform standard for the entire wiki does not seem workable.
azontr
He/Him- 40,580
- 50,192
Nobody was planning to do that.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #245
That was never the intent. We want to strongly encourage it, but making it a requirement is obviously a bad idea. However, even if it is not required, we should have some standards on how hax layers and smurf hax should appear on profiles.
- 167,857
- 76,474
Well, I would prefer if we make it entirely case-by-case optional, and applied in the manner outlined earlier in this thread by DontTalk.
We would need to develop some proper standards for it though.
azontr
He/Him- 40,580
- 50,192
Ant, we are planning to make it entirely case-by-case optional. That was always the idea. We just need guidelines/standards, as you said.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #249
Well, in terms of the presentation, I would prefer indexing accepted layers and smurf hax in the P&A section itself, while other means of measuring potency (such as quantity, or verse-specific mechanics) are detailed in ability justifications or the NA/T section.
- 167,857
- 76,474
DontTalk seems to think that it is better to simply explain the mechanics of how each case works in a notes or explanation section, to avoid applying incompatible standards of comparison in this regard, and I think that makes good sense.
vsbattles.fandom.com
Standard Format for Character Profiles
When there are multiple versions of a character that are distinct enough to be split into several profiles, whether it is due to the length and complexity of the page or versions from different mediums, then the multiple pages that are created as a result of this have to be linked by a tabber...
vsbattles.fandom.com
Last edited:
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #252
Yes, I'm aware differing standards are an issue. That is why I encourage those cases to be indexed elsewhere. However, in the case of layers and smurf hax, I don't think the incompatible standards issue applies, as users already frequently compare instances of the two from different verses with each other without issue. I can pull up any number of VS threads that show this to be the case, if needed. So, I still believe layers and smurf hax can reasonably be indexed in the P&A section.DontTalk seems to think that it is better to simply explan the mechanics of how each case works in a notes or explanation section, to avoid applying incompatible standards of comparison in this regard, and I think that makes good sense.
Standard Format for Character Profiles
When there are multiple versions of a character that are distinct enough to be split into several profiles, whether it is due to the length and complexity of the page or versions from different mediums, then the multiple pages that are created as a result of this have to be linked by a tabber...
We also wouldn't need to make any alterations to the character profile format, as I imagine instances of layered/smurf hax would be indexed as follows:
Mind Manipulation (5 layers, 1-C; [justification here])
That shouldn't be a particularly difficult or complex change, especially since this IS optional.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #254
...How so? Even if that were true, this thread wouldn't be at fault for that. You already see arguments about who has more layers of hax or who has higher-dimensional hax, and you already see people making threads for the sake of giving characters more layers or more smurf hax.
Nothing about layers, smurf hax, or how we treat them is changing here. We are simply taking that information and placing it on profiles. That's it. If the existence of that information is a problem in your eyes, then by all means, take it out on the user blogs that already list layers and smurf hax. Either way, if those aren't a problem, then this shouldn't be either.
But above all else, I believe it is disingenuous to claim this site is for indexing first and foremost, then go against revisions such as this that seek to find a way to more properly index a significant component of many verses, just because people might use it to try and claim their verse is stronger or whatever.
- 167,857
- 76,474
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that layered hax is not even a defined concept in almost any verses, so we cannot enforce an official universal standard to compare them.
It is up to @DontTalkDT to decide exactly what we should do here though. I have already stated my conclusions so far, and do not have the available time and energy to argue extensively.
It is up to @DontTalkDT to decide exactly what we should do here though. I have already stated my conclusions so far, and do not have the available time and energy to argue extensively.
- 10,901
- 12,337
That would make it very misleading IMO as certain potency factors receive more attention than others and you would be stuck with the problem of the layers not getting detailed explanations. (Unless you put way too much text into the P&A section)
Like, you can still mention the numbers in the Notable A/T section when you explain the ability. You can even write "Mind Manipulation (See Hypnosis)" or something to direct to the correspondingly titled bullet point.
I would just rather promote a detailed explanation than numbers with little context. Especially since I'm familiar with how things work around here and know that slapping numbers on the profile like that will be used to push for higher numbers based on technicalities and shutting down debates of how things compare via "but higher number so you have to accept it's better".
( btw. I also agree with Sir Ovens in many points.)
- 167,857
- 76,474
DontTalk's solution seems fine with me. We should use that rather than waste everybody's time here by repeatedly arguing in circles. Our staff do not have endless time available to argue in all of the threads that we constantly need to simultaneously help out with, so I think that you will have to take what we offer here.
Arkenis
They/Them- 17,082
- 7,873
Literally did this on a page I made.
Layered Power Nullification (Four Layers: Great Yang's power nullifies both Yin and Yang energies.[14] Sakanashi's power null is above Gentai Yuto who in turn can nullify[19] Tenma and Rokuro's resonance which could overpower[20] Dark Embryo Yuto's nullification who can nullify Yin and Yang energy)
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #260
Nowhere am I saying to not provide greater context. That's obviously a standard we should push for all aspects of a profile, hax included. My issue with using the NA/T section for hax potency is that not all of a character's hax are listed there. If a character has layered mindhax, but those mindhax aren't in the NA/T section, what would you prefer we do? We also do not list resistances in the NA/T section, so what would you suggest we do in that circumstance? And while we could just... add more text to the NA/T sections, consider characters like Arceus, who have dozens of hax, most of which are layered to my knowledge. Asking people to write a detailed explanation of every single one of those hax AND an explanation for the layering AND their smurfiness (if any) seems to be asking a bit much.
This is a perfect example of what I was going for, yes. Even if descriptions end up being long, so what? We're supposed to index things first and foremost, and if long stretches of text are a consequence of that, so be it.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #261
Also, as someone pointed out earlier (I believe it was @AbaddonTheDisappointment), in cases where all of a character's hax are equally layered or higher-dimensional, we could just put a single explanation in or below the P&A section, so in some cases the issue of clogging up P&A sections wouldn't be a factor.
- 31,399
- 27,689
I don't really see the point in this "hax layering" approach.
Is it just going to lead to scenarios where people say "This character has 5 layers of overcome resistance to mind manipulation", so he is superior to this character from another verse who has "2 layers of resisting mind manipulation"?
Compared verses like that sounds like an awful idea.
Is it just going to lead to scenarios where people say "This character has 5 layers of overcome resistance to mind manipulation", so he is superior to this character from another verse who has "2 layers of resisting mind manipulation"?
Compared verses like that sounds like an awful idea.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #264
We literally already do that though. I can go to any VS thread and show you people arguing about layers, even if that information isn't on the profiles. This thread isn't introducing the concept of layers from scratch.
Whatever. Regardless, I think it's still important to point out the potential issues with DT's solution so we can work through those before applying it to any profiles. As I asked before, what do we do with profiles that have layered/smurf hax, but do not have a NA/T section where the techniques that would be layered/higher-dimensional are detailed? What do we do about layered/smurf resistances, given I have never personally seen resistances documented in the NA/T section before?
Arkenis
They/Them- 17,082
- 7,873
You would be devaluing the potency of a character's hax
if you did that though. Verses make this a clear feat in the story and you just wanna ignore it?
- 31,399
- 27,689
Pretty much, yeah.You would be devaluing the potency of a character's hax
azontr
He/Him- 40,580
- 50,192
Dude.
Arkenis
They/Them- 17,082
- 7,873
Why do you go against things clearly apparent when it comes to scaling?
- 5,279
- 4,172
We already do that and have been doing it for years. I don't know why everyone is suddenly speaking up against layered hax as if they have been living under a rock.
Bobsican
He/Him- 21,628
- 6,273
To be fair I'm sure a good portion of the staff doesn't check versus threads, so it'd be safe to claim that some do indeed live under a rock, and so it wouldn't hurt to establish some formal standards for layers and smurfness, as even if this has been in the site for years, it has also been unwritten for the most part.
- 15,998
- 6,001
I hope you have even the slightest idea of how terrible of an image you’re presenting for the wiki. For the second time this week.
- 31,399
- 27,689
I have a different perspective to others, that is all.
I'm not trying to be misleading at all in either of my posts there.
- 15,998
- 6,001
What, exactly, do you think this perspective sounds like - if not anything but dishonest?
Best believe I’m not the only one who’s caught wind of your perspective.
- 31,399
- 27,689
Trust me when I say that the last people's opinion that I care of is randoms on Tiktok.
- 5,279
- 4,172
Oh ya, that's really bad. Even if the tik-tok isn't popular it's just painting a bad image people can spread anywhere.
Edit; It's not about how you feel about people's opinions about you, your words represent how they see everyone.
- 15,998
- 6,001
It’s not about what you care about, it’s about the reputation you’ve just sowed into the wiki. Damage, do you have even an inkling of how many biases, preconceived notions, and overall perspectives against this wiki you’ve just reinforced - as a moderator?
Ant recurrently cites he wants this wiki to utilize “reliable statistics”. An impossible task, certainly, but you’ve just confirmed to so many onlooking eyes things can get denied because you just don’t like it, irregardless of objectivity and honesty.
- 31,399
- 27,689
Our statistics will be what they are regardless of what people on Tiktok think.
- 31,399
- 27,689
Look, I get that the majority of the people on the wiki are just trying to do the best they can and accuracy and reliability is the top priority. If I thought that the wiki had no flaws then I'd say that, but I'm not going to pretend that everything is completely perfect or that the wiki's history has been spotless.
That's all I've got to say. I think the thread should go back on topic now.
That's all I've got to say. I think the thread should go back on topic now.
Arkenis
They/Them- 17,082
- 7,873
how can we move on if you hold power over how things get passed on threads?
- Status
