Revising the leading question rule

[Sdjlakjh]

I personally believe this rule should have been revised as mentioned in the rule, you can't ask the author no matter what regarding powerscaling, even if it's within the source material

Like say character A beaten character B, I believe it's okay to ask the author if character A is overall stronger than B as it's within source material. The only things that can't be asked is ofc if it's not within source material like "Is this character outerversal?" When nobody in the verse show such feat and statements

 

[Sdjlakjh]

This problem was first brought to me by @Mr. Bambu but @Ultima_Reality should give some input here

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

What do you think that we should do here?

 

[Damage3245]

I don't think we need any changes to that rule currently.

We should not relax the rules to encourage people to go out of their way to question authors and creators.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

I don't think we need any changes to that rule currently.

Well as the statement I proposed, seems pretty logical and respectful to the verse source material. It's the best way to clear vague things up instead of trying to assume for ourselves

An example would be the multitude revisions of DC cosmology where a lot is relied on people asking the author on the context behind the comic panels

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I don't think we need any changes to that rule currently.

We should not relax the rules to encourage people to go out of their way to question authors and creators.

I am in agreement with this sentiment, and said as much when it was brought up. It should not be a habit of powerscalers to pester creators, and we have seen in the past that creators are not inclined to give fully faithful answers when pushed to do so. I don't care what verses it might help get a more desired rating.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

I am in agreement with this sentiment, and said as much when it was brought up. It should not be a habit of powerscalers to pester creators, and we have seen in the past that creators are not inclined to give fully faithful answers when pushed to do so. I don't care what verses it might help get a more desired rating.

If the problem is people forcely pushing authors to answer their questions, what I about I propose something like "Twitter approved" role?

So only members that have this role, can ask authors on twitter regarding verses. To determine someone is valid for this role, is as long they show that their questions are respectful to the source material and have a decently time gap between questions. Like say you can only ask an author question after a week you ask the same author a question, a cooldown in simple terms

 

[Mr. Bambu]

We're not doing that. Outside of the insane level of maintenance and bureaucracy that would be necessary to maintain that, we don't want anyone harassing authors and creators about the incredibly niche questions we'd have. It's not about how many "thank yous" and "pleases" you throw into the mix, we do not support people going to get the author on the subject to begin with.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

We're not doing that. Outside of the insane level of maintenance and bureaucracy that would be necessary to maintain that, we don't want anyone harassing authors and creators about the incredibly niche questions we'd have. It's not about how many "thank yous" and "pleases" you throw into the mix, we do not support people going to get the author on the subject to begin with.

Well isn't this website purpose is to provide accuracy to the verse ratings? What I proposed would actively ending problems regarding things that were considered vague. It's respectful too since it limits to the source material and have a cooldown between questions

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Well isn't this website purpose is to provide accuracy to the verse ratings?

It is, this is not considered a reliable method of acquiring answers. As I've already gone over. What you propose actually exposes us to a great deal of damage we had undone in the past, when we did not have this rule. It is there for a Purpose, a Reason. As such, I'm against just nuking it.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

It is, this is not considered a reliable method of acquiring answers. As I've already gone over. What you propose actually exposes us to a great deal of damage we had undone in the past, when we did not have this rule. It is there for a Purpose, a Reason. As such, I'm against just nuking it.

Damage? Can you provide context of such events? It would help us progress the dialects here

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'll give the most notable example. For a long time, Devil May Cry as a verse had its ratings based on Twitter statements by a writer, who would answer questions about the power levels of the given characters and things like that. Specifically, a one-word tweet that said "Universal" when asked about the strength of a character. All of the ratings were Low 2-C at that time, entirely predicated upon these Twitter statements, until someone pointed out other Twitter information that suggested the author was, perhaps, only saying things to get powerscalers off his back. He responded sarcastically and said as much elsewhere. Not long after that, our rules on this subject were instated, for good reason.

I am not particularly interested in progressing this thread: I am in disagreement with it fundamentally. It is not my intent to seem rude or aggressive in saying as much, only to affirm that there is no compromise that would satisfy my sensibilities. I have seen the alternative to this rule, and quite frankly, it sucks. There are many sectors of our rules that could be argued to be imperfect, made by human error- I don't think this is one of them. We should in no way endorse, even if silently, the harassment of content creators to humor us for our CRTs. Outside of the maleffects it has on our actual wiki, outside of the reduction of reliability, it just seems like a great way to suck joy out of it all, to pull in creators who don't care about us or what we're doing. It's entirely unpleasant.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

I'll give the most notable example. For a long time, Devil May Cry as a verse had its ratings based on Twitter statements by a writer, who would answer questions about the power levels of the given characters and things like that. Specifically, a one-word tweet that said "Universal" when asked about the strength of a character. All of the ratings were Low 2-C at that time, entirely predicated upon these Twitter statements, until someone pointed out other Twitter information that suggested the author was, perhaps, only saying things to get powerscalers off his back. He responded sarcastically and said as much elsewhere. Not long after that, our rules on this subject were instated, for good reason.

As for this, I believe there is a solution. Would be similar to the twitter approved role but would tied to the CRT. An example if someone tries to use a leading author question to scale, the person make the CRT should provide their personal twitter account

The staff or a vsbw member reviewing the CRT, can check his and the author tweets to see if said person have forcely or actively asking questions. If the person asking questions was revealed that they tend to be aggressive/rapid with the questions, the CRT can be count as invalid and a warning be given to the Vsbw user

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I disagree.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

I disagree.

Well the solution I gave seems flawless and respectful imo but you can stay with your side, I'm not gonna force you to change your opinion

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I feel I have pointed out the flaws already, without any real consideration given to them. I have tried to explain it further, in spite of not receiving any adequate counters, even. At this point, without any heed given to the issues with a "Twitter Harassment Squad" role, all I can do is reiterate that I think it doesn't work, and cannot work.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

I feel I have pointed out the flaws already, without any real consideration given to them. I have tried to explain it further, in spite of not receiving any adequate counters, even. At this point, without any heed given to the issues with a "Twitter Harassment Squad" role, all I can do is reiterate that I think it doesn't work, and cannot work.

I do have change from a role purpose to a CRT one. But again if you wish to halt the dialects on the topic, it's your choice. This is powerscaling afterall, not meant to be taken seriously

 

[Agnaa]

I agree with Damage and Bambu.

No matter how kind we try to be, we'd be adding to the pile of annoyances that are these sorts of questions.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

I agree with Damage and Bambu.

No matter how kind we try to be, we'd be adding to the pile of annoyances that are these sorts of questions.

As I mentioned, a cooldown is proposed to avoid annoyances of question piles. As this website's main purpose is accuracy, I believe it would greatly enhance it's form

 

[Agnaa]

By "add to the pile" I mean every other random battleboarder on the internet who asks similar things.

As Bambu said, I don't think such statements are more reliable than the source material.

I don't view the benefits as outweighing the harms.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

By "add to the pile" I mean every other random battleboarder on the internet who asks similar things.

As Bambu said, I don't think such statements are more reliable than the source material.

I don't view the benefits as outweighing the harms.

Thing is what I propose, is the statements must be within the range of the source material. As the examples I gave, it would benefit to close arguments for the contexts that were considered vague

An example would be DC comics's controversy on whether the 6th Dimension is a geometric one or realm. It could only be clear up from people asking confirmations from the authors

 

[Agnaa]

I think it could be better cleared up by textual examples.

And regardless, we don't have an issue with using WoG ourselves, we just don't allow our users to go out and get it themselves.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

And regardless, we don't have an issue with using WoG ourselves, we just don't allow our users to go out and get it themselves.

What about allow users to ask writers but when they try use in like a CRT, they must provide their and the author's twitter account so the staff or members reviewing can see if they have been aggressive like asking too many questions from the author. If they are, their CRT can be count as invalid due to harassment

 

[Agnaa]

What about allow users to ask writers but when they try use in like a CRT, they must provide their and the author's twitter account so the staff or members reviewing can see if they have been aggressive like asking too many questions from the author. If they are, their CRT can be count as invalid due to harassment

No, I'd rather we just don't allow users to ask.

I don't think the potential slight increase in accuracy is worth pestering the authors.

The closest thing I could see to being acceptable is if the author runs a Q&A or something, but even then, I don't want to encourage swarming them with battleboardy questions in those types of things. They get enough of that from other communities anyway. I don't want to add to that, even if politely or dished out by a small team.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

No, I'd rather we just don't allow users to ask.

I don't think the potential slight increase in accuracy is worth pestering the authors.

The closest thing I could see to being acceptable is if the author runs a Q&A or something, but even then, I don't want to encourage swarming them with battleboardy questions in those types of things. They get enough of that from other communities anyway. I don't want to add to that, even if politely or dished out by a small team.

Thing is, it would also respect their work greatly if we can value a verse correctly. An example is that the old popular belief is that DC comics is only 6D due to the 6th dimension being the highest. But after we ask the author questions directly, we truly know what was his main intent when writing, by simply mentioning the 6th dimension is not any way geometric. It not only benefits this wiki purpose of being accurate, but also appreciate their works by actually understanding their vague contexts

 

[Planck69]

Thing is, it would also respect their work greatly if we can value a verse correctly. An example is that the old popular belief is that DC comics is only 6D due to the 6th dimension being the highest. But after we ask the author questions directly, we truly know what was his main intent when writing, by simply mentioning the 6th dimension is not any way geometric. It not only benefits this wiki purpose of being accurate, but also appreciate their works by actually understanding their vague contexts

The median author isn't going to care about how a fan site rates their story and characters in a power scaling sense.

And yeah, I'm with Agnaa and Bambu on this. This is a needless addition that adds onto nonsense most authors already experience and add to our workload for no tangible benefit.

We can already use WoG, so long as it fits within the work's own provided information. No, we are not going to sanction users to go out of their way to bother the authors.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

The median author isn't going to care about how a fan site rates their story and characters in a power scaling sense.

Based on what statistic? Also an example of a question would be like asking if character A is actually overall stronger than B since A has beaten him

 

[Planck69]

Based on what statistic? Also an example of a question would be like asking if character A is actually overall stronger than B since A has beaten him

The fact that most authors show no interest in such a thing? The clear example with DMC given above? Most writers won't get into the nitty gritty of scaling like we do nor will they care about our site or standards.

That question is a pointless one, since we can just determine it from in-universe context and information. That would go for most questions this rule would allow to be asked, since WoG is fundamentally clarification or support for in-story events.

 

[Antvasima]

I also agree with the other staff members here.

Should we close this thread now?

 

[Sdjlakjh]

The fact that most authors show no interest in such a thing? The clear example with DMC given above? Most writers won't get into the nitty gritty of scaling like we do nor will they care about our site or standards.

That question is a pointless one, since we can just determine it from in-universe context and information. That would go for most questions this rule would allow to be asked, since WoG is fundamentally clarification or support for in-story events.

That is one example. You disregard mines regarding the DC authors

 

[Sdjlakjh]

I also agree with the other staff members here.

Should we close this thread now?

I think you can do it if no one bothers to continue the dialects. So yeah sure

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.