Rules About Off-Site Threads and Sources

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

This has been a recent problem in my eyes as of late, and Antvasima asked for a staff thread to be created regarding the issue, so here we are.

Some users will occasionally post threads that are not their own, but are in fact just ripped straight from various off-site sources such as blogs, other VS forums, or Reddit posts. This is a problem for a few reasons; Namely, it does not put any actual effort into the CRT itself, as it is essentially just copy/pasting from another source and calling it a day. As an extension of that, this means the OP of the original argument may not even be aware that their arguments are being used here, and thus cannot properly argue in favor of them. And even then, if the OP in question truly is targeting VSBW's opinions specifically, there is nothing preventing them from joining the forum and making their points here, rather than wait to have some third party step in.

Another problem is with differing standards; VS debating is a highly subjective hobby, and many sites dedicated to it possess their own unique qualifications for tiers, hax, or so on. As such, we cannot just assume that offsite arguments, whether they be upgrades or downgrades, would even fit within the rules that we have set in place, especially since many people whose posts are being used in this way might not even be considering VSBW's stance on certain issues when making such posts.

Due to all of this, I think it is necessary to add a written rule banning or limiting CRTs that solely consist of links to off-site arguments (according to @Confluctor, this is already an unwritten rule), and encourage people to either make their own arguments or get the person making off-site arguments to come here and make an actual thread on the issue.

 

[KLOL506]

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Time and time again people have come up to our forums using bogus threads from other sites to undermine how we rate fictional characters. They have to understand that much like them, we have our own standards, if they want to downgrade a verse because they think the ratings are false, they should put in effort and elaborate as to why they think it is wrong instead of copy-pasting some thread from Character Rant or SpaceBattles.

Frankly put, this is getting increasingly annoying to boot. The DMC thread was just one such example (Not blaming Aetheric Pariah, but people were gonna bring up that thread sooner or later, we were already getting hounded off site about the ratings, so it's not like we could just sit by and watch without having our own preparation).

 

[Antvasima]

I also agree with this suggestion.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou

What do you think about this?

 

[KingTempest]

Looks perfect to me

 

[Damage3245]

Yes, this is straightforward and fine. Offsite arguments should not be the main focus of a revision on-site.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Agreed for sure, Kinda feels a bit rude copy/pasting someone else's arguments too

 

[KLOL506]

Agreed for sure, Kinda feels a bit rude copy/pasting someone else's arguments too

Yeah, if that person who made the OG blog has issues with how we rate characters, they should bring it here themselves, or not at all.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Highly agree — especially since in my view, the biggest problem of all is that in some cases: OP doesn’t even necessarily agree with said debunk, it’s just the throwing of some random guy at us.

 

[KLOL506]

Highly agree — especially since in my view, the biggest problem of all is that in some cases: OP doesn’t even necessarily agree with said debunk, it’s just the throwing some random guy at us.

Ah, I remember the days when people used those random-ass rants about why dimensional tiering is wrong or why Low 2-C is wrong and somesuch.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you to everybody who are helping out here.

 

[Qawsedf234]

In my view using an offsite source as part of a CRT is fine. Its when its the only source and the person making the CRT seemingly doesn't grasp everything contextually involving the subject that it becomes bad.

In other words, if CRT uses a Death Battle blog or some ComicVine post in conjunction with other stuff I feel like its probably fine. But if the CRT is only a Reddit text post then it probably shouldn't be allowed (unless of course, the person making CRT was also the person who made the offsite post).

 

[Confluctor]

according to @Confluctor, this is already an unwritten rule

I could be wrong

But as you know, I already agree

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Well what if someone just happens to have the same argument as someone from another site?

 

[KingTempest]

Same argument ≠ Plagiarism

 

[Antvasima]

Well what if someone just happens to have the same argument as someone from another site?

That shouldn't be a problem, as long as they can properly explain themself.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Well what if someone just happens to have the same argument as someone from another site?

That's why I mentioned this part

CRT seemingly doesn't grasp everything contextually involving the subject that it becomes bad.

If the person using the offsite source believes in it, understands it but feels said offsite source explains it better than I don't see why they couldn't use it.

If I'm going to talk about, idk, the decline of the Rome Republic I'll probably link some Historical blog that explains it better than I can despite me holding the same opinion as it.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Well what if someone just happens to have the same argument as someone from another site?

That's fine, but even then they gotta make their own post on the matter and not just directly copy a guy who happens to share the same opinion. I'm sure I have opinions that align with some off-site opinions, but that doesn't mean I can just copy/paste shit from another site and call it a day.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Same argument ≠ Plagiarism

Ok yeah, that makes sense

People need to stop being lazy and write their own words like the true GOATS do

 

[KLOL506]

That's fine, but even then they gotta make their own post on the matter and not just directly copy a guy who happens to share the same opinion. I'm sure I have opinions that align with some off-site opinions, but that doesn't mean I can just copy/paste shit from another site and call it a day.

Agreed.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'm torn.

On the one hand, there is no virtue, in my eyes, in repeating work. Referencing off-site materials isn't a sin in any measure, nor would I consider it lazy to make a post asking for thoughts on, say, a blog or Reddit thread pertaining to a verse. The problem stems from this action being done by a non-knowledgeable person just spewing exactly what is in said blog or Reddit thread. When the OP has the inability to think for themselves, that becomes a problem. But if Qawsed or KLOL did this, I wouldn't bat an eye.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

I'm torn.

On the one hand, there is no virtue, in my eyes, in repeating work. Referencing off-site materials isn't a sin in any measure, nor would I consider it lazy to make a post asking for thoughts on, say, a blog or Reddit thread pertaining to a verse. The problem stems from this action being done by a non-knowledgeable person just spewing exactly what is in said blog or Reddit thread. When the OP has the inability to think for themselves, that becomes a problem. But if Qawsed or KLOL did this, I wouldn't bat an eye.

This isn't about merely referencing or drawing inspiration from off-site materials; Hell, I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread has done that at least once. The issue is when you just send a link to a post from someone else that happens to corroborate your points. If a person is genuinely knowledgeable on the topic they're quoting, they should at least be expected to formulate an argument beyond "hey look at what this other guy said".

 

[Mr. Bambu]

This isn't about merely referencing or drawing inspiration from off-site materials; Hell, I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread has done that at least once. The issue is when you just send a link to a post from someone else that happens to corroborate your points. If a person is genuinely knowledgeable on the topic they're quoting, they should at least be expected to formulate an argument beyond "hey look at what this other guy said".

I... accounted for that, in my post. I'm aware.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Which part? You argued it was fine if someone uses off-site sources if that person is knowledgeable, and my response was that it doesn't matter since a knowledgeable member should be expected to come up with their own original thoughts anyways. I didn't see a response to that part in your post.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Which part? You argued it was fine if someone uses off-site sources if that person is knowledgeable, and my response was that it doesn't matter since a knowledgeable member should be expected to come up with their own original thoughts anyways. I didn't see a response to that part in your post.

"nor would I consider it lazy to make a post asking for thoughts on, say, a blog or Reddit thread pertaining to a verse."

Making a discussion thread on an off-site blog should be fine. As I said, I only see an issue depending on who is the one doing it, which is a problem that extends beyond the issue this thread aims to tackle (i.e., plagiarizing off-site sources).

 

[Bernkastelll]

Hmm, but what if the user who made the thread in the other site is the same making the thread here? And of course, he uses the same scans/arguments?


edit: I didnt saw this was a Staff thread, my bad

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Hmm, but what if the user who made the thread in the other site is the same making the thread here? And of course, he uses the same scans/arguments?

That's definitely fine then, though they should just copy/paste the arguments themselves into the thread rather than link to a thread on a different site.

"nor would I consider it lazy to make a post asking for thoughts on, say, a blog or Reddit thread pertaining to a verse."

Making a discussion thread on an off-site blog should be fine. As I said, I only see an issue depending on who is the one doing it, which is a problem that extends beyond the issue this thread aims to tackle (i.e., plagiarizing off-site sources).

If it's just for discussion, then yeah I'd say that's fine. So long as it's kept to general discussion or Q&A, I don't see what harm it'd do.

 

[Newendigo]

Those users can easily keep plagiarizing off-site arguments and sources by simply not mentioning/crediting the original users and site in which it was created and posted, making it seem those pages worth of paragraph are entirely theirs. And it can be further convincing by changing a bit of the wording here and there.

So I feel this new rule is really redundant, or will become quickly redundant as it won't stop any of what is trying to achieve once people becomes smarter than 10 braincells. A dude for instance can do a CRT implementing arguments that are from another site without mentioning it or making it obvious, and you would run into the same issue that you brought up here; People don't know what they are talking about, and/or don't follow our standards.

And I bet the vast majority wouldn't notice it.

 

[The_Axiom_of_Virgo]

Yeah just copying and pasting arguments from other sites with different standards from ours and calling it a "CRT" is poor practice and sets a very unhealthy precedence of constructing arguments (or lack of) plus it's pretty insulting to those who actually took the time to build a CRT from scratch with citations, calculations, translations, etc only see to a cheap copy-paste job get more attention from both users and staff alike (doubly so when it attracts drama and/or the OP on the other site has pretty "colourful" opinions towards VSBW).

Using other sites as reference or supplementary evidence is fine but it shouldn't be the be all end all of a CRT.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Those users can easily keep plagiarizing off-site arguments and sources by simply not mentioning/crediting the original users and site in which it was created and posted, making it seem those pages worth of paragraph are entirely theirs. And it can be further convincing by changing a bit of the wording here and there.

So I feel this new rule is really redundant, or will become quickly redundant as it won't stop any of what is trying to achieve once people becomes smarter than 10 braincells. A dude for instance can do a CRT implementing arguments that are from another site without mentioning it or making it obvious, and you would run into the same issue that you brought up here; People don't know what they are talking about, and/or don't follow our standards.

And I bet the vast majority wouldn't notice it.

I feel like you're overestimating the malicious intent of people who make these threads, they seem to just be clueless from my perspective, so making a rule will likely cut down on that. It's not like they're filthy plagiarists who hate VS debating, more likely they just see something they agree with and go 'hey, what do y'all think of this?'.

Also, I don't like the idea that we shouldn't make rules just because people are gonna find ways to break them. At that point you may as well throw out every single rule since there's always gonna be an asshole trying to find ways to cheat the system.

 

[The_Impress]

I'll just repeat my RVR points that it's just redundant and gatekeeping for us to do so, CRTs need to be objective, not "HIGH EFFORT", which is appreciated but not relevant in the grand scheme.

If the OP can't defend the points, great, they lost the debate and the thread can be closed. If the linked argument doesn't follow site standard, great, the argument is faulty for the wiki and the thread can be closed. If the OP is toxic, they get banned. Wowie, it took 10 minutes of reading and then typing a single response.

And at the end of the day too, this rule's really inconsiderate of massive and hard-to-source verses like comics, where tertiary sources of information are exceptionally relevant, since the sheer abundance of factors to consider when talking of a statistic or mechanic, and many times prior contextualizations become needed.

This rule only benefits supporters who want to quickly dismiss CRTs imo, for either laziness or even to gatekeep, a debate site should never invalidate ARGUMENTS inherent, based on what source they come from.

Worst case scenario just ask the OP to paraphrase the relevant text from the link onto the forum. There doesn't need to be a rule about every single little case in existence, people are supposed to read 'em, y'know?

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

We aren't invalidating the arguments. I am 100% in support of people finding external sources and utilizing them in their own threads. The problem is when there is a disjoint between the OP of a thread here and the actual OP; In the case of blatant reposts, you are essentially speaking on behalf of someone else without their knowledge, which should be avoided. And as Bambu pointed out, it's especially egregious in the case of people who don't actually know anything about the verse in particular and are merely parroting someone who does possess some knowledge on the verse.

If you're asking people to paraphrase, then that is basically only one step removed from what I'm suggesting, which is just for whoever posts here to make their own damn thread regardless of if their points are 100% original or taken from somewhere else.

And I'm 99% sure we do have some degree of quality control for CRTs, wherein threads that lack scans, justifications, or any reasonable or valid arguments can be closed on a whim. This is just an extension of what that quality control applies to.

 

[Newendigo]

I feel like you're overestimating the malicious intent of people who make these threads, they seem to just be clueless from my perspective, so making a rule will likely cut down on that. It's not like they're filthy plagiarists who hate VS debating, more likely they just see something they agree with and go 'hey, what do y'all think of this?'.

Also, I don't like the idea that we shouldn't make rules just because people are gonna find ways to break them. At that point you may as well throw out every single rule since there's always gonna be an asshole trying to find ways to cheat the system.

I don't think is malicious intent, it just simple laziness and a way to use arguments that are not instantly rejected, because the vast majority of people here (And other sites) will easily dismiss reasons due to the off-site sources, almost exclusively.

So, you don't mention it's from an off-site source, that is from you, simple put.

And no, because there are very simple, straightfoward rules such as "Don't post or link two images per comment on-site", "Don't say the n-word regardless of context on-site" or "Don't ever poop in this specific place" that have one variable, that being the severity of the punishment.

When implementing a rule, you gotta expect it to work in what it tries to archieve for the most part, so you create it in a way (Along with other rules) that can't be loopholed that easily. Things like people straightfoward breaking rules for trolling purposes is another thing that can't just be avoided.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

I don't think is malicious intent, it just simple laziness and a way to use argument that are not instantly rejectect, because the vast majority of people here (And other sites) willeasily dismiss reasons due to the off-site sources, almost exclusively.

So, you don't mention it's from an off-site source, that is from you, simple put.

Again, I don't think people are really reading that deep into things when making these posts. Like, do you really think people are gonna read that rule and immediately go straight for "hm I should find a way to cheat this"? Even in the worst case, it's pretty easy to find specific phrases borrowed from elsewhere using Google (just place quotations around the phrase you're looking for).

And no, because there are very simple, straightfoward rules such as "Don't post or link two images per comment on-site", "Don't say the n-word regardless of context on-site" or "Don't ever poop in this specific place" that have one variable, that being the severity of the punishment.

When implementing a rule, you gotta expect it to work in what it tries to archieve for the most part, so you create it in a way (Along with other rules) that can't be loopholed that easily. Things like people straightfoward breaking rules for trolling purposes is another thing that can't just be avoided.

This still doesn't mean anything. 'This rule has a potential loophole' doesn't mean anything. Yes, it's unfortunate, but a rule with a single exploit is better than no rule at all.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Highly agree — especially since in my view, the biggest problem of all is that in some cases: OP doesn’t even necessarily agree with said debunk, it’s just the throwing of some random guy at us.

As if this wasn’t bad enough, OP doesn’t even know said series. He is LITERALLY just throwing some guy at us.

 

[The_Impress]

We aren't invalidating the arguments.

Then address them and the thread is over, gg.

I am 100% in support of people finding external sources and utilizing them in their own threads. The problem is when there is a disjoint between the OP of a thread here and the actual OP; In the case of blatant reposts, you are essentially speaking on behalf of someone else without their knowledge, which should be avoided.

You can still bring up their points if you feel they're unaddressed on the wiki or files, doesn't matter where you get them from.

And as Bambu pointed out, it's especially egregious in the case of people who don't actually know anything about the verse in particular and are merely parroting someone who does possess some knowledge on the verse.

This is known as gatekeeping, you're gatekeeping the verse by going "You don't know 'X' so you can't argue for it".

I'll actually begin doing this on Marvel threads now, I'll straight up close threads that I can blatantly tell are from RTs, from users who I know don't read comics. The uproar for that will be entertaining surely.

If you're asking people to paraphrase, then that is basically only one step removed from what I'm suggesting, which is just for whoever posts here to make their own damn thread regardless of if their points are 100% original or taken from somewhere else.

Fuji, asking isn't tough, just do it. No rule needed, it's redundant.

And I'm 99% sure we do have some degree of quality control for CRTs, wherein threads that lack scans, justifications, or any reasonable or valid arguments can be closed on a whim. This is just an extension of what that quality control applies to.

If the linked source has no scans, justification or valid argument, it's invalid anyways, rule's redundant. If it does have all that, you're excluding it for no reason whatsoever, rule's arbitrary.

Like genuinely, this rule is either arbitrary or redundant, no way in-between.

 

[The_Impress]

As if this wasn’t bad enough, OP doesn’t even know said series. He is LITERALLY just throwing some guy at us.

Do you know Milly, when you said this thing:

Actually, wait, hold on.

Looking at said arguments, he gives no proof for any of his arguments.

Where’s the evidence Quantum Devil Saga is dubiously canon, and entirely different? How and why is the translator (multiple, as I got it translated twice, and overlooked by two other translators, one who gifted the book and the other a pivotal translator in the fanbase) untrustworthy?

The other part misrepresents the argument anyways, as it’s not about the Records, it’s information.

Not even going to address the last part.

This is the end of the thread, OP can't address further, move to thread closure.

You're now going on about an extended thread for no real reason.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

I’m going on about it because you didn’t close it until after my comment, lol.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Then address them and the thread is over, gg.

Pretty sure every example thread I provided above was something that had been addressed prior, so merely addressing the argument ain't enough.

You can still bring up their points if you feel they're unaddressed on the wiki or files, doesn't matter where you get them from.

Yes. And you should do so by, yknow, actually trying to make a new thread on the topic instead of stealing it from someone else.

This is known as gatekeeping, you're gatekeeping the verse by going "You don't know 'X' so you can't argue for it".

I'll actually begin doing this on Marvel threads now, I'll straight up close threads that I can blatantly tell are from RTs, from users who I know don't read comics. The uproar for that will be entertaining surely.

Honestly wouldn't mind if we were stricter with this, it seems to be a recurring problem where users who know jack shit about a verse enter a thread on that verse and confidently assert things they know very little about (god knows I've had problems with that). Maybe not to the extent of instantly closing them, but it doesn't exactly paint a picture of the OP knowing what they're talking about.

Fuji, asking isn't tough, just do it. No rule needed, it's redundant.

What's redundant here is having to ask the same shit of people over and over again because there's no rule for it.

If the linked source has no scans, justification or valid argument, it's invalid anyways, rule's redundant. If it does have all that, you're excluding it for no reason whatsoever, rule's arbitrary.

Like genuinely, this rule is either arbitrary or redundant, no way in-between.

Well if the source is well made, then what the **** is stopping the OP from just posting it here? And having to go out of our way to close every thread with shit justifications is way more repetitive than, yknow, just preventing those threads from being made in the first place.

 

[The_Impress]

Pretty sure every example thread I provided above was something that had been addressed prior, so merely addressing the argument ain't enough.

Your example threads then have an entirely separate issue of being about pre-addressed arguments, something our rules allow to close regardless.

Yes. And you should do so by, yknow, actually trying to make a new thread on the topic instead of stealing it from someone else.

Irrelevant.

Honestly wouldn't mind if we were stricter with this, it seems to be a recurring problem where users who know jack shit about a verse enter a thread on that verse and confidently assert things they know very little about (god knows I've had problems with that). Maybe not to the extent of instantly closing them, but it doesn't exactly paint a picture of the OP knowing what they're talking about.

Again. This is gatekeeping. Even our lovely bureaucrats and admins don't go by this given the recent Superman thread. It's against site standards and leads to wank.

What's redundant here is having to ask the same shit of people over and over again because there's no rule for it.

And said asking isn't tough.

Well if the source is well made, then what the **** is stopping the OP from just posting it here?

...because OP isn't on site? Or maybe export code fuckups so didn't bother.

And having to go out of our way to close every thread with shit justifications is way more repetitive than, yknow, just preventing those threads from being made in the first place.

Reiterate? Don't get this point.

I’m going on about it because you didn’t close it until after my comment, lol.

Just leave it lol, Mav should've closed it given he was on the thread