Should Tokyo Revengers remain on the wiki, and in what form?

[Deagonx]

Indeed. I do not want them to see any shortcuts available. The ideal scenario is that they make an alt, fuddle around for like 2 or 3 months trying to build up the post count requirement, realize how lame it is to be here without being able to participate in TR threads, get bored and leave because they dont want to wait the full year.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I'd say later exceptions shouldn't count since that would give a chance for socks to build up their character.

Indeed. I do not want them to see any shortcuts available. The ideal scenario is that they make an alt, fuddle around for like 2 or 3 months trying to build up the post count requirement, realize how lame it is to be here without being able to participate in TR threads, get bored and leave because they dont want to wait the full year.

@Antvasima

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I'd say later exceptions shouldn't count since that would give a chance for socks to build up their character.

Indeed. I do not want them to see any shortcuts available. The ideal scenario is that they make an alt, fuddle around for like 2 or 3 months trying to build up the post count requirement, realize how lame it is to be here without being able to participate in TR threads, get bored and leave because they dont want to wait the full year.

@Antvasima Could we finish this?

 

[Catzlaflame]

@Antvasima Could we finish this?

Ant and Deagon have already stated their opinons. Everyone doesn’t need to agree about every single nuanced detail regarding the proposal. The general premise has been accepted by an unprecedented margin. Prolonging the application of such a unanimously agreed upon thread over some minor semantic disagreements seems unreasonable.

@DarkGrath @DarkDragonMedeus @LordGriffin1000 @Dereck03

My sincerest apologies. I understand you all have been tagged numerous times here but I hope this will be the last time; we would like some help with finally finishing this thread. The only thing left is determining which of the following is a better write-up of the proposed discussion rule:

Proposal 1: Antvasima, DarkGrath, IdiosyncraticLawyer, LordGriffin, DeagonX (Fine with it if everyone else perfers), DarkDragonMedus

To curb increasingly frequent behavioral rule violations and sockpuppetry issues with users primarily interested in this verse, members must have accounts registered for at least one year and at least 1000 forum messages before participating in revisions for it, and the verse's characters may not be used in versus threads. At their discretion, staff members intimately familiar with this verse may grant permission for productive users with less account history and/or posts to participate in revisions or disqualify suspicious and misbehaving members from participating independent of their account history and/or posts.

And

Proposal 2: DeagonX,

Due to persistent controversy surrounding this verse, members must have accounts registered for at least one year and at least 1,000 forum messages before participating in revisions for it, and the verse's characters may not be used in versus threads.

 

[DarkGrath]

My sincerest apologies. I understand you all have been tagged numerous times here but I hope this will be the last time; we would like some help with finally finishing this thread. The only thing left is determining which of the following is a better write-up of the proposed discussion rule:

I prefer Ant's suggestion. I don't believe there is any need to be vague about the purpose of the rule; it is public knowledge why TR discussions are being restricted, so it is not as though we are 'airing out dirty laundry' by clarifying the reason for the rule's existence. By being vague, all we'd be doing is making the rule more obtuse for users who aren't presently familiar with the situation. If there isn't a good reason to be opaque about important matters with our users, we shouldn't be.

I also think the increased discretion it affords is important. I sympathise with Deagon's concerns - over whether a future sock would attempt to ingratiate themselves with the staff to get special privileges - but the risk here is exaggerated. We are all primed to the fact that someone could try this, so it stands that any attempts to do so will be highly salient. We know to look out for users who are making these kinds of appeals. I believe our discussions on this topic (both here and in DMs), particularly around who may or may not be allowed as an exception, have already established the fact that we won't be giving special privileges to anyone just for being nice to us - we'll do it only if there's strong reason to believe they are not a sockpuppet or an otherwise malicious user. Furthermore, Ant's draft allows us to also use that discretion to continue to restrict members who we deem suspicious even once they meet these thresholds, a key aspect I believe we had ought to put into writing. By giving room for reasonable discretion in our phrasing of the rule, and thereby allowing adjustments in the event they are warranted, we can avoid the arbitrariness that a stricter rule would inevitably fall into.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I'm more in favor of Ant's perposal. Also I apologize if I got tagged and didn't respond sooner.

 

[Deagonx]

I'm fine with capitulating to Ants/Lawyers suggestion. I think the specifics are likely not going to make a huge difference and at the moment I have limited bandwidth with which to participate here. I'm glad that something is being done at the very least.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Now that we've established the fundamental rules, can we delve into the technical aspects?

I'm open to including a template in each profile; the process should only take a few seconds. Here are my suggestions/options:

1. Introduce a discussion rule for the verse on discussion pages.
   1. Include a brief note on the verse page.
2. Add a template to every profile within the verse, and link the rationale to this thread.

Any other suggestions are welcome!

 

[Catzlaflame]

Already crossed that bridge:

A template that highlights the information on each verse profile and on the verse page should be a good option IMO.

I think every profile is perhaps a bit overkill. I think verse page and discussion rule suffice.

Yes. Agreed.

I share this sentiment

It was disagreed upon by the OP (Thread mod), Ant (Burecrat), and even one of the calc group members who was being harrased by the fandom leading to the creation of this thread.

I think the consesus is that a discussion rule + verse page note should suffice.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Ant's suggestion looks good to me.

 

[GarrixianXD]

I agree with Ant’s proposal.

 

[Catzlaflame]

Okay, since the votes speak for themselves, I have applied the revision based on Ant/Lawyer's suggestions. Additionally, I have locked Mikey's profile since he's usually the fanbase's primary target.

I believe there is nothing left to do here; as long as there are no further concerns, I believe this thread can be closed, thank you to everyone who helped out here.

 

[Dereck03]

Sure, Ant's proposal seems enough.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Sure, Ant's proposal seems enough.

Close this thread, then.

 

[Dereck03]

Done.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you to everybody who helped out here.