Rules About Off-Site Threads and Sources

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

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

Feels like it's moreso part of a pattern where, due to off-site users not really paying as much attention to VSBW, they're less likely to actually recognize and take into account previous threads.

Irrelevant.

How so?

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.

Every thread I've been in where this was the case has invariably turned into a toxic shitshow, so I wanna know what kind of wonderland you're living in where that isn't the case.

Also, this is why Bambu and I are expressly allowing Q&A threads and general discussion threads to still use off-site threads, since those aren't coming from the perspective of "I know nothing about this verse but here's why you're all wrong". Q&A threads are much better options for uninformed users to express their grievances, which includes things brought about by off-site materials.

And said asking isn't tough.

Then why do we have verse-specific discussion rules? They work on the same basis of 'this shit has been discussed so many times and is so exhausting that we're banning discussion of it', so having to 'just ask' every time a thread with the same blatant problems crops up isn't really a viable option since we already have an established solution.

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

And we aren't exactly preventing them from coming to the site. If people wanna bitch and moan about how bad VSBW stats are, but then not actually try to change anything and choose to complain about it in their own little corner of the internet, well, that's on them.

Reiterate? Don't get this point.

A rule is redundant according to you, but having to repeatedly close threads is also redundant, so your proposed solution doesn't actually fix anything.

 

[Newendigo]

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).


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.

I think the people that normally do or want to do this would quickly come up the response, there is not need to read deep into it because the rule don't go deep into its implementation.

Why it doesn't mean anything? Why we shouldn't care about how we make and add rules?

And I'm not saying there shouldn't be rule, you can put it if everyone agrees with you at the end. What I'm trying to say is that is almost an useless rule in stopping the fundamental issue you have, that being people somehow unable to make their own arguments and instead relying on plagiarization of arguments, that might aswell be sketchy and non-compatible.

 

[The_Impress]

Feels like it's moreso part of a pattern where, due to off-site users not really paying as much attention to VSBW, they're less likely to actually recognize and take into account previous threads.

Irrelevant pattern

How so?

How not so?

Every thread I've been in where this was the case has invariably turned into a toxic shitshow, so I wanna know what kind of wonderland you're living in where that isn't the case.

Never said it was otherwise. It's a toxic shitshow, but a 100% needed one (in most cases)

Then why do we have verse-specific discussion rules? They work on the same basis of 'this shit has been discussed so many times and is so exhausting that we're banning discussion of it', so having to 'just ask' every time a thread with the same blatant problems crops up isn't really a viable option since we already have an established solution.

I am 99% sure most Verse-Specific Discussion Rules are archaic and never fixed, either way you act like I support having them up.

And we aren't exactly preventing them from coming to the site. If people wanna bitch and moan about how bad VSBW stats are, but then not actually try to change anything and choose to complain about it in their own little corner of the internet, well, that's on them.

But people who wanna change them are trying to use the points, and made a thread for it, no issue.

A rule is redundant according to you, but having to repeatedly close threads is also redundant, so your proposed solution doesn't actually fix anything.

...I still don't get what you mean.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Irrelevant pattern

How not so?

Seems to me like you're just saying things are irrelevant with 0 context or reasoning, which isn't a good look.

Never said it was otherwise. It's a toxic shitshow, but a 100% needed one (in most cases)

...No, not really. I don't think it's controversial to say that we should try to avoid making threads toxic. Cannot think of a single instance where that was somehow beneficial to the thread itself.

I am 99% sure most Verse-Specific Discussion Rules are archaic and never fixed, either way you act like I support having them up.

Well, can't convince you on that front I guess.

But people who wanna change them are trying to use the points, and made a thread for it, no issue.

There are issues, but you seem intent on ignoring them.

...I still don't get what you mean.

Redundant is defined as something necessarily repetitive, yes? So having to endlessly close threads would be more repetitive than just making a rule to prevent bad threads from being created, right?

Anyways I guess I'll just wait for further input, this doesn't seem like it's going anywhere.

 

[FinePoint]

I strongly agree with Qawsedf234.
External sources are fine so long as the OP is able to support, advocate, and argue for its points.
Direct uncredited plagiarism and posting only to waste our time is not okay.

Though I do understand The_Impress's concerns. This shouldn't be abused to gatekeep threads because the OP isn't subjectively viewed as knowledgeable enough. It should only be enforced in cases where it's very blatant and obvious trolling or when the entire post is literally just a link with no explanation.

 

[XSOULOFCINDERX]

I strongly agree with Qawsedf234.
External sources are fine so long as the OP is able to support, advocate, and argue for its points.
Direct uncredited plagiarism and posting only to waste our time is not okay.

Though I do understand The_Impress's concerns. This shouldn't be abused to gatekeep threads because the OP isn't subjectively viewed as knowledgeable enough. It should only be enforced in cases where it's very blatant and obvious trolling or when the entire post is literally just a link with no explanation.

I agree with this take.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Reading the OP and haven't read the entire thread. While offsite users or even banned users are allowed to be talked to if they have input to give to a random thread. I will need to emphasize that finding some random YouTube video or Reddit post and making that their content revision or copy/pasting articles not affiliated possibly had no intention of contributing to the wiki, is bad practice. And the rule should go double of it's a troll video/post that's full intention was to literally shit all over the wiki and/or many other vs debating communities. I don't want to say their names, but I do agree that a certain popular youtuber who basically attacked every person he disagreed with during a thread or a reddit post from character rant. We have had far too many examples of those threads and they should absolutely be off limits.

 

[KLOL506]

Reading the OP and haven't read the entire thread. While offsite users or even banned users are allowed to be talked to if they have input to give to a random thread. I will need to emphasize that finding some random YouTube video or Reddit post and making that their content revision or copy/pasting articles not affiliated possibly had no intention of contributing to the wiki, is bad practice. And the rule should go double of it's a troll video/post that's full intention was to literally shit all over the wiki and/or many other vs debating communities. I don't want to say their names, but I do agree that a certain popular youtuber who basically attacked every person he disagreed with during a thread or a reddit post from character rant. We have had far too many examples of those threads and they should absolutely be off limits.

I remember the CharacterRant threads all too well. I believe those threads are especially off limits, given just how bad a certain user had rendered things for this wiki so many years prior.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

This is just gatekeeping and elitism. Sometimes people will link posts from other sites because they are good and have solid points and explain an issue far better than they could.

By just going "This isn't your argument, it comes from spacebattles, it doesn't count" you literally have no arguments and are just performing what is known as a Genetic Fallacy, instantly dismissing something solely through their point of origin.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

The real issue that bothers people are Bait Threads. When some guy links some Forum Post or Youtube Video and goes "Haha, this guy proved that Goku is sub-planetary and slow. Bet you can't debunk me. Debate me in VC".

Or in a less extreme example, when a guy who's never been on VSBW shows up on the forum out of nowhere linking to a "Character / Verse Wank DEBUNKED" thread from another site and is evidently not debating in Good Faith, and is clearly just buddies with the person who made the threat on the other site and is solely interested in riling people up.

These types of threads are what people are annoyed. Someone linking a Reddit Respect Thread or a Spacebattles Analysis Thread or even a Youtube Video can all be very valuable and valid information.

 

[MarvelFanatic119]

I honestly don't mind using off site sources for arguments and scans (cause that's how I got to make Jean's CRT made via Comic Vine Respect Threads).

What I don't want is for people to post some guy's argument and then when asked what stance they have they just go "I don't have one, I'm just copying this post I found".

Or they say " I'm not knowledgeable on this verse so I want clarification" when they can just contact the verse supporters or read the blogs or past threads of that verse.

If they do use someone's else arguments, I at least expect them to read and understand it, then tell us in their words what about it they agree with, instead of linking it and saying "here you go, debunk this". It just feels lazy.

TLDR; Don't mind people using off site arguments as long as they explain in their words why they agree with it.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It's not that using someone else's YouTube videos or linking posts from other communities is off limits at all, but there has to be at least some degree of originality and collecting of feats. Plus if calculations are important, it is still against the rules to use someone else's calculations that weren't accepted by our calc group members. Obviously troll videos and posts made by people who are obvious trolls and what not have no place here. But even so, just linking a random video or post and not sharing a single word is the definition of laziness. And especially if other users have already posted the same URL before which was also rejected previously.

 

[Propellus]

To be fair, using someone elses's arguments and their own sources just to cover your own arguments without even crediting the original person who made whatever or even without their permission first of all is a red flag

 

[KLOL506]

I agree with Propellus, in fact, it's downright insulting to give the original thread creator a chance to explain why he believes in the debunk.

 

[Propellus]

Like either paraphrase things into your own wordings for why you're debunking something, otherwise it's getting instantly rejected for plagiarism

 

[Antvasima]

I think that the key issue here is that our members should not be allowed to simply link to outside sources and demand revisions without being knowledgeable enough regarding the subject matter to be able to present any arguments, or to present links with provocative, hostile, or trolling content, alternately present them in such a way themselves.

Also, it is bad form for a member to not simply try to explain the arguments of a YouTube video on their own in a more easily and quickly overviewed organised text format, while mentioning having used it as a reference, especially if the video in question was based on a jumbled bunch of out of context scans without source references.

 

[KLOL506]

I think that the key issue here is that our members should not be allowed to simply link to outside sources and demand revisions without being knowledgeable enough regarding the subject matter to be able to present any arguments, or to present links with provocative, hostile, or trolling content, alternately present them in such a way themselves.

Also, it is bad form for a member to not simply try to explain the arguments of a YouTube video on their own in a more easily and quickly overviewed organised text format, while mentioning having used it as a reference, especially if the video in question was based on a jumbled bunch of out of context scans without source references.

I definitely agree.

While I definitely do not see the issue in linking simple Respect Threads (that can be thoroughly vetted to see which one sticks and which one doesn't) or other outside videos linking calcs that can then be sent to the calc group for approval, demanding massive verse-wide CRTs based on one single reddit thread that you just found have no idea of whether it is correct or not because you don't know jackshit about the verse is just frankly not painting you in a very good picture.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

I definitely agree with what's being discussed as I think it should be required to make the OP organised and constructive. I've seen threads where the user has just copy/pasted a lot of random images, videos etc. and has text all over the place. Usually these threads are based on upgrades that are preposterous, nonsensical or about topics which we hold rules for. Basically, at least put some time and effort into it y'know...

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

A rule forbidding people from simply linking off-site arguments and calling it a day is fine to me. I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[KLOL506]

I definitely agree with what's being discussed as I think it should be required to make the OP organised and constructive. I've seen threads where the user has just copy/pasted a lot of random images, videos etc. and has text all over the place. Usually these threads are based on upgrades that are preposterous, nonsensical or about topics which we hold rules for. Basically, at least put some time and effort into it y'know...

I'd say it should also be a mandatory rule to consult the verse experts first-hand before making any CRT that explicitly focuses on radically changing the stats of an entire verse. To just post such threads willy-nilly without having actually consulted the experts first or knowing anything about the verse at hand is just terrible for maintaining quality.

 

[Maskofthedragon]

Ant gave me permission to post here
I don't think I have ever seen a thread inspired by a Reddit or Discord post that didn't go down in flames, I've even seen threads made by OP's that didn't even believe the posts they are using in said threads

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think that the key issue here is that our members should not be allowed to simply link to outside sources and demand revisions without being knowledgeable enough regarding the subject matter to be able to present any arguments, or to present links with provocative, hostile, or trolling content, alternately present them in such a way themselves.

Also, it is bad form for a member to not simply try to explain the arguments of a YouTube video on their own in a more easily and quickly overviewed organised text format, while mentioning having used it as a reference, especially if the video in question was based on a jumbled bunch of out of context scans without source references.

Phrased as such, yes, I agree.

 

[Elizhaa]

I think that the key issue here is that our members should not be allowed to simply link to outside sources and demand revisions without being knowledgeable enough regarding the subject matter to be able to present any arguments, or to present links with provocative, hostile, or trolling content, alternately present them in such a way themselves.

Also, it is bad form for a member to not simply try to explain the arguments of a YouTube video on their own in a more easily and quickly overviewed organised text format, while mentioning having used it as a reference, especially if the video in question was based on a jumbled bunch of out of context scans without source references.

Honestly, I also shared the views; I think if a rule could be based around them, the rules would be ideal.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the replies.

Would somebody be willing to write a draft rule text based on our consensus conclusions here then? If necessary, I can improve on the text structure afterwards to make it look a bit more professional.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Would somebody be willing to write a draft rule text based on our consensus conclusions here then? If necessary, I can improve on the text structure afterwards to make it look a bit more professional.

I'm no good at writing stuff like this, but here's a rough attempt:

"Please refrain from creating content revision threads that consist solely of links to off-site sources such as Youtube, Reddit, other VS forums, and so on. Many of these sources are not made with our specific standards in mind, lack proper sources, and the original creator may be unaware that their content is being used in such a manner and may not be able to defend their points. As such, it is highly encouraged that when creating a content revision thread, one uses their own sources in a thread of their own making. However, using sources like the ones listed above as secondary evidence (such as through respect threads and the like) is acceptable if the evidence used is properly formatted in the thread itself. It is also acceptable to post such threads in the general discussion or Q&A sections of the forum rather than content revision."

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for the help. I think that your suggested text is mostly fine as it is. However, I made some modifications and additions.

How about this?

"Please refrain from creating content revision threads that consist solely of links to off-site sources such as Youtube, Reddit, other VS forums, and so on. Many of these sources are not made with our specific standards in mind, lack proper source references, and the original creator may be unaware that their content is being used in such a manner and may not be able to defend their points. As such, it is highly encouraged that when creating a content revision thread, our members should use well-organised written arguments and sources in threads of their own making. However, using sources like the ones listed above as secondary evidence (such as through respect threads and the like) is acceptable if the relevant evidence used is properly formatted in the thread itself. It is also acceptable to post such threads in the general discussion or Q&A sections of the forum rather than content revision, as long as they do not link to provocative, hostile, or trolling off-site content, alternately present them in such a manner themselves."

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Looks like an improvement to me, thanks for the help.

Since the majority of staff seem to agree with such a rule, is it safe to apply this?

 

[Antvasima]

Let's wait to see if they agree with my version of the rule text first.

 

[Elizhaa]

The rule seems fine.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the reply.

What about the rest of you?

 

[Propellus]

It seems fine by me

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

The rule seems fine to me.

 

[KLOL506]

Absolutely perfect to my eyes. Apply away.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. I have applied the change now:

Discussion Rules

VS Battles Wiki is a site where the members attempt to index the statistics of characters across different fictional franchises. These efforts lead to much discussion about certain feats, statements and calculations regarding their validity, reliability, etc. However, certain topics keep popping...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Excellent. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.

 

[Propellus]

I can't seem to access the site for some reason

 

[Antvasima]

Excellent. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.

Yes. Thank you for helping out.

I can't seem to access the site for some reason

The wiki seems to load well to me.

 

[ElixirBlue]

I presume that my comment is unneeded at this point but I agree with the OP as well

 

[AKM sama]

Bit late but I'll give my opinion anyway.

I don't see a problem if someone creates a thread with another source and is able to defend those points. I concur with Impress and Matt in that regard.

But like Bambu and Qawsedf said, the problem is with people who post the source as bait even though they themselves are not knowledgeable on the matter.

I don't think a rule was required, this could be handled in a case-by-case manner like Impress said.

But if a rule has to be made, I would have suggested something like this (just throwing it out there):

"Please refrain from creating content revision threads that consist solely of links to off-site sources (such as Youtube, Reddit, other VS forums, etc.) and has no discernable argument of its own. Many of these sources are not made with our specific standards in mind, lack proper source references, and may contain a lot of arguments already been discussed or useless for the purpose of the particular thread, which makes them hard to evaluate. As such, it is highly encouraged that when creating a content revision thread based on off-site sources, our members should specify their core arguments in detail with relevant evidence. It is also acceptable to post such threads in the general discussion or Q&A sections of the forum for discussion, rather than content revision."

 

[Antvasima]

"Please refrain from creating content revision threads that consist solely of links to off-site sources such as Youtube, Reddit, other VS forums, and so on. Many of these sources are not made with our specific standards in mind, lack proper source references, and the original creator may be unaware that their content is being used in such a manner and may not be able to defend their points. As such, it is highly encouraged that when creating a content revision thread, our members should use well-organised written arguments and sources in threads of their own making. However, using sources like the ones listed above as secondary evidence (such as through respect threads and the like) is acceptable if the relevant evidence used is properly formatted in the thread itself. It is also acceptable to post such threads in the general discussion or Q&A sections of the forum rather than content revision, as long as they do not link to provocative, hostile, or trolling off-site content, alternately present them in such a manner themselves."

"Please refrain from creating content revision threads that consist solely of links to off-site sources (such as Youtube, Reddit, other VS forums, etc.) and has no discernable argument of its own. Many of these sources are not made with our specific standards in mind, lack proper source references, and may contain a lot of arguments that have already been discussed or are useless for the purpose of the particular thread, which makes them hard to evaluate. As such, it is highly encouraged that when creating a content revision thread based on off-site sources, our members should specify their core arguments in detail with relevant evidence. It is also acceptable to post such threads in the general discussion or Q&A sections of the forum for discussion, rather than content revision."

What do the rest of you think? Which version of the rule text quoted above seems best to use?