- 31,399
- 27,689
More staff input can be gotten, unless the discussion is actually already over and I missed that.how can we move on if you hold power over how things get passed on threads?
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.
More staff input can be gotten, unless the discussion is actually already over and I missed that.how can we move on if you hold power over how things get passed on threads?
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?
General consensus seems to be that listing what hax are layered/higher-dimensional on individual character profiles is a good idea. The main issue now is how we index that. My suggestion is to put it in the P&A section (eg; Mind Manipulation (5 layers, 1-C; [justification here]). DT's suggestion is to just elaborate on each ability and its layers/smurfiness in the NA/T section. I outlined my personal issues with that solution in the post above, and have yet to receive a response to it.Peeking my head in here and I’m a bit lost. What’s the current summary of the discussion from all parties?
We do have an Explanations (Optional) section, if it does not fit in NA/T. Would you suggest making Explanations less optional, as in, the same tier as NA/T?An issue that quickly comes to mind when using the NA/T section for this is that, well, layers and smurfness are neither notable attacks or techniques per-say by themselves, and so it feels rather forced and non-intuitive to list such stuff there.
At the very least that should be the standard (more specifically listed so in the Standard Format for Character Profiles or so) if we want to at least keep some consistency for the sake of easing finding such information to begin with.
Sure, that works. Bobsican's reply seems like the best solution to me, and I hope it's close enough to DT's solution for him to accept it.We do have an Explanations (Optional) section, if it does not fit in NA/T. Would you suggest making Explanations less optional, as in, the same tier as NA/T?
That’s basically what happens already, it’s just that the debaters have to argue the layers firstI 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.
Hmm. Your idea sounds entirely reasonable, Fuji. Count me in the agree section... If my vote of agreeing counts for anything anymore, considering that this is in the staff discussion of the forum.General consensus seems to be that listing what hax are layered/higher-dimensional on individual character profiles is a good idea. The main issue now is how we index that. My suggestion is to put it in the P&A section (eg; Mind Manipulation (5 layers, 1-C; [justification here]). DT's suggestion is to just elaborate on each ability and its layers/smurfiness in the NA/T section. I outlined my personal issues with that solution in the post above, and have yet to receive a response to it.
Your vote would still be part of what is representative of what the people here think and you can still present your own arguments and viewpoints.Hmm. Your idea sounds entirely reasonable, Fuji. Count me in the agree section... If my vote of agreeing counts for anything anymore, considering that this is in the staff discussion of the forum.
Yes, I have a high degree of trust for Damage's overall reliabIlity.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.
Yes, especially as Tiktok is basically just an efficient means for the CCP to harvest personal or even dangerous data from all people that use their app, along with further destabilising all comparatively democratic countries as an extra bonus.Trust me when I say that the last people's opinion that I care of is randoms on Tiktok.
Okay. Sorry about that then.Topic is already back on track.
Negatively well-known (don't get me wrong, but this is what the majority say on TikTok)That just means that the Wiki is well-known which is a good thing for it.
Yeah, I was thinking of that as well but this also makes me think of Twitter negativity which apparently has a tendency of actually helping what is being criticized there.Negatively well-known (don't get me wrong, but this is what the majority say on TikTok)
No, generally everywhere. TikTok, Twitter, Quora, Reddit…etc. Vs Battle is not really positively famous. I am sure it is due to a strict moderation (staff opinion values higher than members) <--- the argument for example I found.Are you referring to specific highly popular Tiktok videos?
Last response to this (and we go back to our main topic, and I am incredibly sorry)Can we please get back on topic lmao
There is no possible way to please everyone when it comes to VS debating. For every prominent verse, you will find people arguing for every possible statistic under the sun, with the same character ranging from street level to outerversal depending on who you ask. From an outside perspective, we are either wankers or downplayers, so there is no way we can please everyone (nor should we). VS debating is highly subjective, so we simply need to do the best we can under the rules we have imposed on ourselves.
welp i guess sentiment against the wiki is invalid because "tiktok bad", yall heard it here folksYes, especially as Tiktok is basically just an efficient means for the CCP to harvest personal or even dangerous data from all people that use their app, along with further destabilising all comparatively democratic countries as an extra bonus.
Prefer this but i don't really care if the other options gets choosen-List them in the P&A section
Prefer P&A section. NA/T section is horrible idea.For the love of god can we please just decide on how we should index layered/smurf hax.
Anyways, the three options as of now seem to be:
-List them in the P&A section (1; Livinmeme)
-List them in the NA/T section
-List them in the optional explanations section.
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.