- 11,801
- 7,363
Prefer AKM's version tbh
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Rules About Off-Site Threads and Sources
- Thread starter Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
- Start date
-
- Tags
- discussion rules
- Status
- 29,927
- 30,997
Yeah, KLOL is correct, though I do like AKM's language flow.
And I'm still a bit uneasy if the respect threads come from places like Reddit, Deviantart, or Spacebattles. I have seen far too many of those also list feats out of context; such as listing an alleged Hypersonic reaction feat and tried to claim it wasn't aim dodging via personal reasons and/or other vague practices not covered in our reaction speed rules such as "The shooter was a trained sniper" or "The shot was fired during an interrupted sentence" when the former doesn't mean they're a flawless sniper and the latter could have been interrupted for other reasons before the shot fired. And it still fails to tackle the real aim dodging rules such as "Lacking a panel of a mid flight projectile with the target still within the line of fire that is directly followed by the target being outside the line of fire" and all we have is a shot not yet fired followed by the shot missing. And the target had only moved their head a few inches at most compared to the projectile crossing an entire hallway; and arguments could be made that the target probably didn't even move for all we know. And other common examples include people thinking someone tanked a nuclear explosion at point blank range and failing to find a detail that either a forcefield appeared at the last second and/or they were teleported to safety a second before the explosion happened.
I know there's for example should be no rules against simply linking a respect blog or YouTube video. Like posting a Death Battle analysis just to showcase a list of notable feats is fine, but we should calculate those individual feats ourselves instead of assuming their calculations are accurate.
And I'm still a bit uneasy if the respect threads come from places like Reddit, Deviantart, or Spacebattles. I have seen far too many of those also list feats out of context; such as listing an alleged Hypersonic reaction feat and tried to claim it wasn't aim dodging via personal reasons and/or other vague practices not covered in our reaction speed rules such as "The shooter was a trained sniper" or "The shot was fired during an interrupted sentence" when the former doesn't mean they're a flawless sniper and the latter could have been interrupted for other reasons before the shot fired. And it still fails to tackle the real aim dodging rules such as "Lacking a panel of a mid flight projectile with the target still within the line of fire that is directly followed by the target being outside the line of fire" and all we have is a shot not yet fired followed by the shot missing. And the target had only moved their head a few inches at most compared to the projectile crossing an entire hallway; and arguments could be made that the target probably didn't even move for all we know. And other common examples include people thinking someone tanked a nuclear explosion at point blank range and failing to find a detail that either a forcefield appeared at the last second and/or they were teleported to safety a second before the explosion happened.
I know there's for example should be no rules against simply linking a respect blog or YouTube video. Like posting a Death Battle analysis just to showcase a list of notable feats is fine, but we should calculate those individual feats ourselves instead of assuming their calculations are accurate.
Last edited:
- 165,040
- 71,869
- 29,704
- 24,637
AKM's version seems fine to me.
Colonel_Krukov
🖖 Live long and prosper
He/HimVS Battles
FC/OC VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Image Helper
- 8,603
- 10,790
Agreeing with what KLOL/DDM have said.
- 12,662
- 9,597
I am fine with either
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,218
- 10,550
- Thread starter
- #89
I also think KLOL and DDM make sense here.
- 165,040
- 71,869
So what does that mean in practice? Is somebody willing to write a new draft based on the preceding ones and what Medeus and KLOL said?
- 19,571
- 15,903
I'm fine with AKM's draft
- 15,711
- 7,686
Same.
- 165,040
- 71,869
- 29,927
- 30,997
I'm not sure where the sentence should be added, but it should basically mention something like this near the end of AKM's draft.
- 165,040
- 71,869
Thank you for helping out.
I have provided a combined and cleaned up draft text below, but would appreciate help with improving on the flow and avoiding redundancy through repetition.
"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 have no discernible arguments of their 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 relevant threads, 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 questions and answers sections of our forum for discussion, rather than in the content revision section. Furthermore, adding a link to a respect thread or character analysis video with the intention of providing quick access to a large collection of feats is acceptable, but each of those feats should be analysed step by step to ensure that they are not presented out of context, and any calculation-dependent feats should be placed in wiki blog posts and evaluated by our calc group members to ensure sufficient accuracy."
I have provided a combined and cleaned up draft text below, but would appreciate help with improving on the flow and avoiding redundancy through repetition.
"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 have no discernible arguments of their 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 relevant threads, 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 questions and answers sections of our forum for discussion, rather than in the content revision section. Furthermore, adding a link to a respect thread or character analysis video with the intention of providing quick access to a large collection of feats is acceptable, but each of those feats should be analysed step by step to ensure that they are not presented out of context, and any calculation-dependent feats should be placed in wiki blog posts and evaluated by our calc group members to ensure sufficient accuracy."
- 29,927
- 30,997
That looks great to me.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,218
- 10,550
- Thread starter
- #99
I also think it looks good.
- 165,040
- 71,869
@AKM sama @Elizhaa @Confluctor @Qawsedf234 @Damage3245 @The_Impress @ElixirBlue @Maverick_Zero_X @Mr._Bambu @DemonGodMitchAubin @KingTempest
What do you think about this draft? Should it be modified further?
- 29,704
- 24,637
It looks good to me.
- 14,659
- 20,326
The combined draft looks good to me
- 12,662
- 9,597
Sure
- 32,758
- 37,913
- 32,758
- 37,913
They did have experience dealing with such threads tho, specifically the DMC thread (Glass, Abstractions and Grath specifically)
- 32,758
- 37,913
Case-by-case basis. As long as the translation is accurate and represents a clear picture with no purposeful mistranslations on sight and is not simplified for the sake of better adaptation to the Western market (Even official translations can do some Japanese words injustice), I think it should be fine.
- 15,328
- 14,963
Perfect
Abstractions
Femur Breaker
VS Battles
FC/OC VS Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Human Resources
- 2,620
- 2,666
It looks fine.
- 165,040
- 71,869
I have done so:
vsbattles.fandom.com
Should we close this thread 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
Should we close this thread now?
- Status
