• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, and on the ShadowSythez account he specifically took the approach of attempting to change his way of writing, tried to be helpful to ingratiate himself to Ant, and feigned ignorance of the TR verse to avoid detection. For those reasons my vote is for the 1yr/1,000 posts, but I defer to the collective vote of staff members.
 
NGL fellas you're just shooting yourself in the foot by being overly merciful in a verse that deserves proper damage control and not mercy. Not freezing the verse already puts a bullet through any good attempt to mitigate this situation but making 6 months and 500 messages or 6 and 1000 will easily be overcome in a short amount of time especially using a dormant sock. Technically you can reach 1000 messages in less than 3 months by leaving around 12 replies a day.
 
Arceus0x said:
NGL fellas you're just shooting yourself in the foot by being overly merciful in a verse that deserves proper damage control and not mercy. Not freezing the verse already puts a bullet through any good attempt to mitigate this situation but making 6 months and 500 messages or 6 and 1000 will easily be overcome in a short amount of time especially using a dormant sock. Technically you can reach 1000 messages in less than 3 months by leaving around 12 replies a day.
Click to expand...
Make no mistake at least in my case I'm still very open to the freeze, more people seem inclined with the reply and account limit however.
 
I also dont think loosening up the bare minimum safeguard to rectify the issues with TR is a wise decision. The year requirement is necessary to weed out dormant socks, while the 1k posts forces every sock to need a big amount of work invested into it before it can become destructive for the verse again.

Some frameworks can be renegotiated If this works for half a year at the barest minimum, but until then im firmly for a such a strict requirement.
 
Well, how about a 1 year and 1000 comments restriction combined with that genuinely productive members with less time and posts here than that, such as Zefra, can be accepted to participate by our staff members who are well-acquainted with handling the verse, and those staff members also get the right to disqualify blatantly suspicious and misbehaving members from participating?

For the time being that is, until Zefra and his collaborators have the verse in reasonably reliable order. After that we can probably lock all of the TR character pages in our wiki, and put a very long pause on content revision threads for the verse.

Also, a no versus matches for TR characters rule should probably be put into effect as well.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
Well, how about a 1 year and 1000 comments restriction combined with that genuinely productive members with less time and posts here than that, such as Zefra, can be accepted to participate by our staff members who are well-acquainted with bandling the verse, and those staff members also get the right to disqualify blatantly suspicious and misbehaving members from participating?

For the time being that is, until Zefra and his collaborators have the verse reasonably in reliable order. After that we can probably lock all of the TR character pages in our wiki, and put a very long pause on content revision threads for the verse.

Also, a no versus matches for TR characters rule should probably be put into effect as well.
Click to expand...
This is all fine with me. Can we implement this?
 
Antvasima said:
Well, how about a 1 year and 1000 comments restriction combined with that genuinely productive members with less time and posts here than that, such as Zefra, can be accepted to participate by our staff members who are well-acquainted with bandling the verse, and those staff members also get the right to disqualify blatantly suspicious and misbehaving members from participating?

For the time being that is, until Zefra and his collaborators have the verse reasonably in reliable order. After that we can probably lock all of the TR character pages in our wiki, and put a very long pause on content revision threads for the verse.

Also, a no versus matches for TR characters rule should probably be put into effect as well.
Click to expand...
@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa
 
DarkGrath said:
I disagree with removing TR from the wiki, and I also disagree with freezing with the verse. The option suggested by First Witch sounds better, though I would personally contend that 1 year and 1k posts is a bit too harsh - I would think knowing whether a user is a sockpuppet (or otherwise a troublesome user) would occur well before that point. For now, though, I would like to focus on the issues with deleting/freezing the verse.

The proposal here, if my understanding is correct, is that the problems that users have caused in TR threads will be mitigated by removing TR or preventing further TR threads. In essence, removing the platform that members are using to cause trouble will prevent further trouble by those members. This is an intuitive proposal, but the crux of all this is that I believe it's not actually true in the first place.

There's an analogue to be made here with a concept in criminology - namely, 'displacement' policies. In criminology, displacement policies are policies implemented into law to reduce crime rates by uniquely taking away access to areas in which crime rates are high. For example, if policy makers find that a particular string of nightclubs experience very high crime rates past 2am, they could aim to prevent further crime by issuing a mandatory close at 1am. Displacement policies are common, but as you may have picked up from the name that criminology researchers have applied to them, it's been found consistently that they don't actually reduce crime - they just 'displace' it. To elaborate: while taking away a particular area where crime occurs may reduce crime in that area, it proportionally increases crime in all surrounding areas, to the point that the overall crime rate does not decrease.

There are several noteworthy case studies on this concept. The 'Sydney Lockout Laws' in Australia were a famous example. In 2014, after an incident of night-time alcohol-fueled violence resulting in death in the Sydney CBD, a strict curfew was placed on all venues which sold alcohol in the CBD to prevent further incidents of alcohol-fueled violence. Longitudinal research into the lockout laws in the coming years found that violent crime attributed to alcohol use did notably decrease in the CBD - however, it proceeded to notably increase in all regions surrounding the CBD, resulting in the overall level of alcohol-fueled violence in Sydney not substantially decreasing (in the interest of fairness, I should note some studies suggested at least a small reduction in overall crime in this instance - but all noticed the same effect of crime displacement, and that the impact was far lower than what policy makers would have expected). There were also many similar research studies done regarding the COVID lockdowns in many different regions of the world. Reduced access to outside spaces consistently decreased incidents of violent crimes outside of the home in many regions of the world - but violent crimes inside the home increased proportionally, resulting in no substantial reductions in violent crime.

Having an analogue doesn't prove anything on its own, of course - analogies can be made to argue for just about anything without substance. But the reason I bring up this analogy is because I believe it's relevant here. The consensus among researchers regarding displacement policies is that they don't work because it isn't the platform someone is given that causes them to engage in deviant behaviour - it's factors related to the person themselves. The reason why crime rates overall don't tend to decrease when such policies are implemented is because people who would have engaged in deviant behaviour in one area (who have their access to that area taken away) will just proceed to engage in deviant behaviour in a different area. When you sit down and think about it, this is actually quite obvious; it's almost always the person, and factors such as their intentions, their personality, their cognitions, and whatnot, that causes a crime, not the place they happen to be in.

I would assert that this is quite relevant to the problem we have here. There is ultimately nothing special about TR as a verse that should necessarily make it more controversial than any other verse - rather, the problems come down to the fact that a lot of problematic users happen to engage with it. And furthermore, almost none of these users (to my memory) exclusively interacted with or caused problems for TR; the users who have caused problems on TR threads have also caused problems on all the other threads they've engaged with, including those for other verses. When they didn't have TR threads to attend to, they caused problems in threads for other verses. The only reason TR is notable here is because it was a converging point for many of these users. So to this, I have to ask - will getting rid of TR actually prevent further problems from these users? Will these users just stop being recurring problems for the staff and other users once they no longer have access to TR? Or will it just cause them to create more problems spread out elsewhere, problems which we will have to deal with at roughly the same rate? I would argue there is a strong precedent for the latter. The only precedent for the former is a common intuition that has consistently been shown to be false.

In passing, I would like to note there is a case to be made that certain specific problems are exclusive to the TR verse. For example, the excessive number of calcs. Calcs are (often) verse specific, and there have been a lot of feats calced for TR that have caused troubles. Given the verse-specificity of calculations, you could argue that this problem will go away when TR is removed. I have two contentions with this. For one, the reason why we are considering such heavy-handed action against TR in the first place is because of the problems with the users; I would not endorse something as extreme as blocking off access to a verse entirely on the basis of having a lot of calcs. Secondly, freezing the verse won't address verse-specific problems; it will only delay them. If there are a lot of feats to be calced, then those feats will still exist when the freeze is over (and if anything, there might even be more to calculate by the end of it). That's one example, but when you follow through on the line of reasoning on any other problems, you'll find that any verse-specific problems will exist after the freeze is over as much as they exist now. This would be a very heavy-handed approach for comparatively minor problems, and wouldn't even fix the problems in the long-term.

This is why I would be willing to discuss First Witch's suggestion instead. First Witch's suggestion partially accounts for the problems of the other approaches, because it acknowledges the problem as user-centric, not verse-centric. It is not TR that is causing problems - it is the people who are engaging with it that are causing problems, and this suggestion helps to focus on and filter out the more problematic users early. It doesn't fully fix the problem, as it doesn't address how these users might cause problems with other threads, but it does make it easier to keep track of them and to weed them out. Furthermore, it prevents us from needlessly taking away freedoms from reasonable, upstanding users who would legitimately bring improvements to the verse in a time where these improvements would otherwise not be possible. I would think that, with further refinement, this would be a plausible avenue to explore.

In conclusion, I disagree with removing/freezing the TR verse. I believe the main case for it is held up on a common intuition that has been demonstrated to be false, and that the weight of the evidence suggests that no substantial decrease in problems and rule violations will come about as a result of those changes. I also believe that, in the long term, the problems that are unique to TR as a verse will at most be delayed by these changes, and that it would only be a temporary and heavy-handed solution. I would be willing to give more credence to First Witch's suggestion, as it focuses on the regulation of user's conduct on TR threads rather than on the verse itself, and enables the verse to continue being improved in the coming months. However, I have similar concerns over whether it will just result in a displacement effect.
Click to expand...
I agree with this post
 
Arceus0x said:
In the time you haven't replied here Deagon already got another TR user banned for being a sock of a banned user. Doing the bare minimum will not fix the issue.
Click to expand...
The problem is that deleting an entire verse I think most of us agree is very extreme. But halting all content revisions for a whole year also sounds rather extreme albeit not as much. Punish the problematic users and not the verse.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
But halting all content revisions for a whole year also sounds rather extreme albeit not as much. Punish the problematic users and not the verse.
Click to expand...
We've moved on from that potential solution. The plan now is to restrict participation only to users with a certain account age and post threshold.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, how about a 1 year and 1000 comments restriction combined with that genuinely productive members with less time and posts here than that, such as Zefra, can be accepted to participate by our staff members who are well-acquainted with handling the verse, and those staff members also get the right to disqualify blatantly suspicious and misbehaving members from participating?

For the time being that is, until Zefra and his collaborators have the verse in reasonably reliable order. After that we can probably lock all of the TR character pages in our wiki, and put a very long pause on content revision threads for the verse.

Also, a no versus matches for TR characters rule should probably be put into effect as well.
Click to expand...
So is this an acceptable solution?
 
So is somebody willing to write a TR discussion rule then?
 
Antvasima said:
So is somebody willing to write a TR discussion rule then?
Click to expand...
Is this acceptable?
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.
Click to expand...
 
I would prefer wording it in a way that is a bit more vague, so that it feels less like we are airing out dirty laundry. However, one substantive change is the part about exceptions. Earlier we discussed that any potential exceptions would be decided now and not added later, so that they do not attempt to ingratiate themselves to staff to circumvent the rule. We saw this happen with Shadowsythez, so with that in mind:

Perhaps:

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.
Click to expand...
 
Antvasima said:
I much prefer this version of the suggested rule texts above.
Click to expand...
When we initially discussed the notion of exceptions, we were on the same page that it would only be initial exceptions (not later additions). Has your view on this changed?
 
Deagonx said:
When we initially discussed the notion of exceptions, we were on the same page that it would only be initial exceptions (not later additions). Has your view on this changed?
Click to expand...
What do you mean? IdiosyncraticLawyer's suggestion seems to correspond with what I remember mentioning earlier.
 
Antvasima said:
What do you mean? IdiosyncraticLawyer's suggestion seems to correspond with what I remember mentioning earlier.
Click to expand...
The difference is whether all exceptions to the rule must be decided now, or if exceptions can be made later. For instance, if 6 months from now a relatively helpful user comes along, can we decide 6 months from now that he is an exception?

Earlier, I advocated for not allowing later exceptions, only initial exceptions, for fear that we would get another ShadowSythez situation where they intentionally try to ingratiate themselves to staff members to circumvent the rule, and at the time you agreed. The wording of Lawyer's rule allows for later exceptions, so I would prefer to remove that.

I'm fine with his wording of the first sentence (the one explaining why we have the rule), I just thought it might be better to be more subtle about the situation, but if not that's fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ImmortalDread
  • Locked
Tokyo Revengers: Discussion Rule
2 3
Replies
100
Views
7K
Antvasima
Antvasima
MorrisHatesYou
  • Locked
Justice for Tokyo Revengers.
11 12 13
Replies
510
Views
25K
Zefra3011
Zefra3011
Arnoldstone18
TOKYO REVENGERS CRT: THE IZANA KUROKAWA CONCLUSION.
3 4 5
Replies
184
Views
13K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Syncornize
  • Locked
Tokyo Revengers Speed Calcs Conclusion
8 9 10
Replies
387
Views
20K
Deagonx
Deagonx
Catzlaflame
  • Locked
Sandboxes and CRTs
Replies
11
Views
1K
Catzlaflame
Catzlaflame
Back
Top