Rewording WOG Rules

[FinePoint]

For context, this was brought to my attention during this rule violation report, and since I'm evidently the wording guy I figured I'd make a thread about it.

It appears to me that we do not allow users to go out of their way to ask authors leading questions in any capacity, yet the rules about this do not technically reflect this position.

The rule is as follows:

Do not pester or harass the authors of various works on social media about versus debating or character statistics. They are often bombarded by numerous questions from fans, and thus are rarely interested in giving a serious response. In addition, the statements they give to appease users are often contradictory to the feats in the stories of the works they have written. Thus, it is frowned upon to bother them over these topics.

Of note, it specifically says not to "pester" or "harass" them. It then later changes the language to "bother."

All three of these things are subjective, and naturally leads to a user thinking it's perfectly okay to ask as many questions as they want as long as the author doesn't complain about it.

Therefore, I propose we simply change the wording at the start to be as strict as we seemingly enforce it as:

Do not contact or ask leading questions to the authors of various works on social media about versus debating or character statistics. They are often bombarded by numerous questions from fans, and thus are rarely interested in giving a serious response. In addition, the statements they give to appease users are often contradictory to the feats in the stories of the works they have written. Thus, it is frowned upon to bother them over these topics.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I would disagree with the interpretation that this is an easy mistake to make (or, as you put it, that it "naturally leads a user to thinking"); it provides reasoning as to why this policy is in place that makes assumptions that "oh well my questions are noble and benevolent, the author surely would love to hear them and would provide objective information" unreasonable themselves.

That said, to avoid such a defense in the future, I will agree with rewording. The current wording isn't perfect, and it is a slight change that does not alter the spirit of the rules. I approve.

 

[FinePoint]

I would disagree with the interpretation that this is an easy mistake to make (or, as you put it, that it "naturally leads a user to thinking"); it provides reasoning as to why this policy is in place that makes assumptions that "oh well my questions are noble and benevolent, the author surely would love to hear them and would provide objective information" unreasonable themselves.

I acknowledge that I am a very forgiving person, perhaps too much so.
I can't help but empathize with the idea of following the literal letter of a rule only be banned for not following the more abstract "spirit" of it.

Especially since I'm friends with a large number of autistic people, and they regularly complain about these sorts of issues and how it leads them to get in trouble in ways they don't fully understand.

That said, I also ran a popular Minecraft server for a long time and know that people will find any excuse to cause trouble, even if it involves lying blatantly to your face, and any perceived loophole is a goldmine for people like this to cause problems. I was once young and evil and did similar things.

So I have a foot in the door of both perspectives, I feel. That's why I completely understand not accepting a technicality like this as a get-out-of-jail-free card, but also want to make it as clear as possible to avoid the chance that there is indeed a genuine misunderstanding and someone feels unfairly punished for it.
I know from experience how that feels, and it really sucks.

 

[FinePoint]

Oh, and I'm guessing that @Antvasima will want to look at this.

 

[Antvasima]

I am personally fine with the suggested wording change here.

 

[Theglassman12]

I'm fine with this change given recent events.

 

[Reiner04]

I ma fine with it.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

The change looks fine

 

[Agnaa]

Agree with Bambu.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Reword change looks good; though I think it's still agreed that "Harassing them" is the "Especially against the rules" tier. But change is good either way.

 

[Psychomaster35]

Yeah, the change looks fine to me, but keep the pestering/harassing part as that's still important to know.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah, the change looks fine to me, but keep the pestering/harassing part as that's still important to know.

How can the change be fine if you think the only part that it's changing should be reverted?

 

[Nierre]

agree with the change

 

[Psychomaster35]

How can the change be fine if you think the only part that it's changing should be reverted?

What I mean is that adding the part where you shouldn't be asking leading questions should be fine, but the original text mentioning harassing can stay.

 

[Antvasima]

What I mean is that adding the part where you shouldn't be asking leading questions should be fine, but the original text mentioning harassing can stay.

So would you prefer something like this then?

"Do not contact or ask leading questions to the authors of various works on social media about versus debating or character statistics, especially not in a manner that pesters or harasses them. They are often bombarded by numerous questions from fans, and thus are rarely interested in giving a serious response. In addition, the statements they give to appease users are often contradictory to the feats in the stories of the works they have written. Thus, it is frowned upon to bother them over these topics."

 

[Psychomaster35]

So would you prefer something like this then?

"Do not contact or ask leading questions to the authors of various works on social media about versus debating or character statistics, especially not in a manner that pesters or harrasses them. They are often bombarded by numerous questions from fans, and thus are rarely interested in giving a serious response. In addition, the statements they give to appease users are often contradictory to the feats in the stories of the works they have written. Thus, it is frowned upon to bother them over these topics."

Yep, this works.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. What do the rest of you think? Should we use that slightly modified version instead then?

 

[Agnaa]

I don't mind that version either.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

So would you prefer something like this then?

"Do not contact or ask leading questions to the authors of various works on social media about versus debating or character statistics, especially not in a manner that pesters or harrasses them. They are often bombarded by numerous questions from fans, and thus are rarely interested in giving a serious response. In addition, the statements they give to appease users are often contradictory to the feats in the stories of the works they have written. Thus, it is frowned upon to bother them over these topics."

Looks perfect to me.

 

[FinePoint]

So would you prefer something like this then?

"Do not contact or ask leading questions to the authors of various works on social media about versus debating or character statistics, especially not in a manner that pesters or harrasses them. They are often bombarded by numerous questions from fans, and thus are rarely interested in giving a serious response. In addition, the statements they give to appease users are often contradictory to the feats in the stories of the works they have written. Thus, it is frowned upon to bother them over these topics."

That's perfect, though harasses only has one r.

 

[Wankbreaker]

Just a short question and i'll be on my way, but what about WOG derived from official Q&A corners/sessions?

 

[CloverDragon03]

Just a short question and i'll be on my way, but what about WOG derived from official Q&A corners/sessions?

If it's not a leading question clearly meant to be powerscaling related it should be fine

 

[Agnaa]

Just a short question and i'll be on my way, but what about WOG derived from official Q&A corners/sessions?

When it's a WoG not asked by a member of our community, it's preferred if it's from an official Q&A, not leading, and has a rather elaborate/serious response. It doesn't need all of these, and this sort of thing should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Like, I think if someone not from our community asks "Can this character use this ability to heal?" and the author provides a 5 paragraph answer explaining that they can, but also detailing all the limitations that come with that, we should treat that seriously. Even though one could argue that it's leading/powerscaling-related.

 

[FinePoint]

"Do not contact or ask leading questions to the authors of various works on social media about versus debating or character statistics, especially not in a manner that pesters or harasses them. They are often bombarded by numerous questions from fans, and thus are rarely interested in giving a serious response. In addition, the statements they give to appease users are often contradictory to the feats in the stories of the works they have written. Thus, it is frowned upon to bother them over these topics."

Do you think this has enough support to apply?
The topic came up yet again in the RVRT.

 

[Antvasima]

That's perfect, though harasses only has one r.

I have fixed it.

Do you think this has enough support to apply?
The topic came up yet again in the RVRT.

I think that this can be applied now, yes.

 

[Antvasima]

I have handled it.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Site_Rules?diff=9036008&oldid=8581563

 

[Agnaa]

Actually, now that I read it, I imagine that we could continue to run into issues.

Someone could say "I asked a question, but it wasn't a leading question!"

Should we remove that word, as the rest of the sentence goes on to clarify that it's talking about questions relating to battleboarding?

 

[RitsuØ1]

Actually, now that I read it, I imagine that we could continue to run into issues.

Someone could say "I asked a question, but it wasn't a leading question!"

Should we remove that word, as the rest of the sentence goes on to clarify that it's talking about questions relating to battleboarding?

I share the same thought, and I think we can shorten it and make it more clear from

Do not contact or ask leading questions to the authors of various works on social media about versus debating or character statistics, especially not in a manner that pesters or harasses them.

to

Do not contact or ask battleboarding questions to the authors of various works on social media, especially not in a manner that pesters or harasses them.

This way, it’s more clear that asking regular questions to the authors are fine but asking battleboarding questions aren’t fine.

 

[Antvasima]

That change seems perfectly good to me.

 

[Agnaa]

Yep, works for me!

 

[Antvasima]

Is somebody willing to apply the change, or should we wait for further input first?

 

[FinePoint]

I also like Agnaa's/Ritsu's suggestions.

 

[Agnaa]

I've updated it in accordance with that.

 

[FinePoint]

I've updated it in accordance with that.

Then I suppose this is resolved, so I will close it.

Thank you so much to everyone who helped out.

Don't get too comfortable though, there's more important pages I want to revise soon...

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. Thanks a lot to everybody who helped out here.