• 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 We Not Allow Profiles for a Verse Simply Because We Don't Like it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm sorry Ryu, but you are confusing 100% X-Rated **** (mentioning Ron Jeremy) with absolutely no feats or anything whatsoever, to something like MGQ which, were it not for the plot revolved around sex, could be on this wiki. At least use a more legitimate example such as...a different series with a heavy plot focused on sex. Cuz that's not X-Rated. X-Rated has no plot whatsoever.
 
Arigarmy said:
Dragonmasterxyz said:
You just couldn't resist could you...
Click to expand...
What?
Click to expand...
Read the part I bolded. That is all. ovo

Anyway, question. Just skimmed through this thread, but what is the exact issue of MGQ, Berserk and American Gods? I don't know much of this series since I don't follow them.
 
I can totally extrapolate Ron Jeremy's work into having some sort of crappy storyline. These little shreads of plot don't mask what it actually is though. Same with MGQ.

Except in MGQ there's some more plot sprinkled into it. Yeah plot that revolves around "Don't let this cute little boy get raped by animals" but more plot nonetheless I suppose.

Either way, I am adamantly against "**** with a plot" being added here. Which honestly at the end of the day is what MGQ is. Regardless if it has more plot than other examples.
 
I only remember watching one episode of Getbackers and I don't remember seeing anything wrong with it, go ahead and make it, who cares if people think the verse is stupid. As long as it isn't filled with over the top insane and bad things like racism or **** in every episode it should be ok.

Suggs from what I hear doesn't give a crap about scaling or logic. That's why I thought we don't do that one.

And I've never heard of MGQ so I can't comment on that.


I don't know where this "I don't like it" argument came from but if you want a verse hear just make sure it isn't based on **** or constantly focuses on that concept.

Though I do think we need to make a rule clarifing what is expected and what's not.
 
Enough with the **** debating.

What are we gonna do about Getbackers and similar company? That's far more important on my mind.
 
Dies irae have all ages version that replace and cut all the **** stuff and it's about chunni stuff like 90% of it is just guys punching each other you can't put it with some other visual novels
 
I agree with Promestein and Ryu.

Personal tastes is one thing, but then there are verses that may be outright sensitive to a certain type of audience or another or have its main theme being something outright controversial.

When we have types of threads that can't be made because it might be controversial, it only makes sense that we wouldn't have entire verse pages that may at some point cause wars within the wiki or even problems with the Community Central either.
 
Lionel was known to greatly wank Getbackers, which led to the creation of Suggsverse. More or less.
 
That's like saying "BeyonderGod" greatly wanks Beyonder, so don't allow a profile for Beyonder (Pre Retcon). It's a silly reason.
 
Yet for some reason Pokemon was threatened on more than one occasion to be removed due to "powerscaling inconsistencies". That at least is a more legitimate reason than "Suggsverse doesn't care about tiering". Neither does Marvel. Don't strawman me I am not saying we should allow Suggsverse, we just damn well better have a better reason that isn't contradicted or at least FINALLY just say we evaluate everything on a case-by-case basis because this stuff is getting annoying.

@LordGriffith

I'm using Getbackers as an example. That's all.
 
Also, this:

If someone came to the wiki and asked "Why isn't Suggsverse allowed?" What would you say? "It's not allowed because it's poorly written, pseudo-philosophical babble made by a guy with an apparent god complex?" Who cares?

/\

Yes, I would answer because it's poorly written to the point where anywhere that has contents in Suggslike fashion will eventually be seen as a joke by some users and others will outright spite or cause Flame wars. This kind of content attracts the worst side of many users out there.

Every place has to have its standards. Something in Suggslevel doesn't qualify for anyone's standard ever. Everyone would hate it. It's like putting a product that nobody wants for selling.
 
People not wanting a verse here because "they don't like it" or because people want it is not an argument. This can all be settled if we just make a rule about what we allow and what we don't.
 
If, The Verse Is Not Popular Enough, But Has Good Feats For A Profile, It Can Be Added.

If Said Verse Doesn't Have Enough Feats, But At Least Is Very Popular Enough, Then There's Not A Problem.

Any Reason Aside Of Those To Not Allow A Verse Like "I Don't Like it", It Is Unacceptable.

As For The Stuff With Sexual Content, I'm Going To Talk About Of it In Another Moment.
 
I don't even know what Getbacker is.

But, Suggsverse is not only badly written (which is not the reason for it's absence on the site.)

The entire verse was made to contradict the concept of OBD and our tiering system. It would be near impossible to tier them accurately.
 
@LordGriffin It actually is. Or do you want to have users debating or problems arising - which does happen eventually - both within and outside the wikia, because we have content that may be controversial for users here or for other places such as the Community Central?

I have been the admin of a much smaller community and god knows how many problems I had to solve with users having problems with certain types of contents. Now try to imagine that on the scale of a community as big as VSB. The bigger the place, the more activity, the worse things can get if they are not looked at and analyzed before getting a pass. Without standards, any community can easily fall into chaos, very very fast.
 
A lot of other series are poorly written Fate, that's not a good reason. I dare say DBS is only slightly better than Suggsverse in that regard. Threads get make about DBS and cause flame wars and heated debates all the time. People literally go off the edge because of them. Same for Pokemon. Not a good reason dude. The reason is simple as Sera and Ryu said. It cannot be quantified in our system, it just doesn't care about tiering and was made simply to be the strongest, is a over-contradictory mess, etc. Not "it's poorly written and can cause flame wars".
 
@Ven See above reply. DBS is ultra popular. Not having it would create 100 times more questions than having it.

Same goes for Pokemon.

Now Suggs? I can count in the fingers of one hand who likes it, while I can't even begin to grasp how many hate it.
 
FateAlbane said:
@LordGriffin It actually is. Or do you want to have users debating or problems arising - which does happen eventually - both within and outside the wikia, because we have content that may be controversial for users here or for other places such as the Community Central?

I have been the admin of a much smaller community and god knows how many problems I had to solve with users having problems with certain types of contents. Now try to imagine that on the scale of a community as big as VSB. The bigger the place, the more activity, the worse things can get if they are not looked at and analyzed before getting a pass. Without standards, any community can easily fall into chaos, very very fast.
Click to expand...
So you think we should get rid of dragon ball, Superman, Batman? Those guys are contriversol but we allow them. So I say again someone wanking a verse or someone not liking it is not an argument to be used to remove said verse.
 
Popularity means nothing.

Pokemon and Marvel have been threatened on more than one occasion to be removed due to power inconsistencies. But they are popular so I guess they can stay right? That's pretty ridiculous.
 
Whatever is said, it is a fact that popularity does play a role in a verse: Users in general are way more interested in popular franchises than other obscure ones.

Of course, It shouldn't be a reason to prevent other verses - obscure or not - from getting their pages, but what I'm getting at, and the point where I agree with Prom and Ryu, is that they should have some degree of quality and at least a plot that isn't overly controversial or has its main points being controversial things.

Suggs and MGQ are examples of these kinds of things, really.

Getbackers sounds fair. While I don't know much about the verse, there's probably no harm in adding it. I don't know of any verse that got excluded from here because someone said "I don't like them.", really.
 
Nothing in Pokemon, Marvel or DBS compares to the sheer incoherance that is Suggsverse. I mean it's a published fan fiction made purely to spite communities like us for jeez sake.

If people don't want it here for those grounds. Or for the general controversy it'd cause. I'm just fine with that. Not for "I don't like it" or "It's poorly written" though.

Getbackers has no reason to not be here.
 
We can still make sense of those verses, can someone give me some verses that have be deleted from having problems like Pokemon and Marvel but weren't as popular?.
 
LordGriffin1000 said:
So you think we should get rid of dragon ball, Superman, Batman? Those guys are contriversol but we allow them. So I say again someone wanking a verse or someone not liking it is not an argument to be used to remove said verse.
Click to expand...
No, they aren't. Talk about Superman or Batman with anyone. They won't say a thing.

Talk about Suggs with anyone who knows it. They'll either cringe or laugh at the verse. Talk about the plot of a series with loads of rape and ********** with someone who is not into that kind of plot. See what will happen.
 
I remember there was/or is a rule for Getbackers verse for having some funky explanations of their abilities with dimensional powers + being inconsistent. Thus not allowing profiles.

I think it was about that.
 
Sera Loveheart said:
Popularity means nothing.
Pokemon and Marvel have been threatened on more than one occasion to be removed due to power inconsistencies. But they are popular so I guess they can stay right? That's pretty ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Completely disagree. Threatened, yes, but no one ever went through with it. They can stay because they are popular, have a plot, have tons of lore and don't have a plot that brings controversial things into play. There's a huge difference between people setting on a journey to fight cosmic battles or catching Pokemon to someone setting on a journey and fighting every battle while someone tries to rape them - case in point for MGQ, ********** raping a boy.

And again, I don't remember any verse being removed simply because someone "disliked them". At this point people are forcing arguments that I never said into my mouth, really.
 
I don't know of any verse that got excluded from here because someone said "I don't like them.", really.

No verse was excluded, but some were threatened to be removed for that reason. Example: Cthulhu Mythos and Warhammer 40K
 
@FateAlbane You really gonna say Superman and Batman aren't contraversal topics? Well Superhuman more the Batman... I'll just say Superhuman and Goku.

LOL those dudes are contriversol but we didn't delete their pages, DC and DBZ are contriversol but we didn't delete their pages. Sorry but someone not liking a verse or that verse is wanked doesn't in no way call for a verse not to be added.
 
@LordGriffin I don't feel like quoting for the third time in such a short time that I don't remember any verse that was excluded just because someone disliked it.

And if you want to prove a point, back it up seriously.

Don't try to use cinicism or start loling - rather than solve the discussion, acting like that only derails the conversation. Now for the points you made: Batman and Superman aren't controversial by themselves. Anyone knows them, no one would have a problem with the characters just for them being here and their plots are much more justified than any of the excluded verses mentioned so far. Superman vs Goku, which is controversial, actually has a note asking not to do it. DC vs DB threads are banned for this very reason. I'll ask again: Don't put arguments that I never used in my mouth.

I never said anything about removing verses just because someone dislikes them or because they're wanked - and I believe that the Tiering System is good enough to avoid wank. Your reply is the first one in this whole thread saying wank without elaborating, actually.
 
First of all I already gave a solution, second of all I said just because people say "I don't like it" or because people wank it is not an argument for a verse not to be added.

Then you replied and said actually it is. You are the one that thinks that that is an argument, Then the conversation spiralled.
 
VenomElite said:
I don't know of any verse that got excluded from here because someone said "I don't like them.", really.

No verse was excluded, but some were threatened to be removed for that reason. Example: Cthulhu Mythos and Warhammer 40K
Click to expand...
Why would someone want to get rid of Warhammer? It's one of the most used verses on the site.
 
@Griffin Where? If you're referring to the Suggsverse point, I specifically mentioned that it is controversial content. And people disliking it is not the only reason for it not being here. Read the reply Ryu made above - it's a complete mess.

I never spoke of verses in general, which, if you pay attention to my replies above, you will actually notice that. What I was doing is point out that the examples given and verses like them, aside from Getbackers, have many more reasons other than just "People dislike them" for them not being here or having been excluded. I even said that I don't remember a single verse that was excluded because of personal preferences. Fourth time: Don't put arguments I never used in my mouth.
 
FateAlbane said:
@LordGriffin It actually is. Or do you want to have users debating or problems arising - which does happen eventually - both within and outside the wikia, because we have content that may be controversial for users here or for other places such as the Community Central?

I have been the admin of a much smaller community and god knows how many problems I had to solve with users having problems with certain types of contents. Now try to imagine that on the scale of a community as big as VSB. The bigger the place, the more activity, the worse things can get if they are not looked at and analyzed before getting a pass. Without standards, any community can easily fall into chaos, very very fast.
Click to expand...
You posted this right after I said "not liking it" argument and wanking it are not cause for a verse not to be added.

You replied actually it is.

This means you think verse that are wanked or not liked is an argument to why they shouldn't be added.
 
@Griffin My very first reply was agreeing with Promestein and Ryu (read Ryu's and Prom's first reply). I really don't understand why you insist on saying that I was making a point that I already explained 4 times that I was not making. At this point, I'm saying "Look, that was not what I meant at all." while you are "Yes, it was!" for no reason.

See the "content that may be controversial". See "certain types of contents".

Drop that already. It's an unnecessary strawman, and moot for the discussion.
 
Well sorry jeez, the reply came after mine so obviously I would assume you where referring to my comment because you put @LordGriifin but whatever, I have yet to see you come up with a solution tho.
 
Finally. Anyways, I actually don't see the problem. Like I said from the moment I came here, I don't remember any verse being excluded because someone disliked it. And I already agreed with Ven waaaaay back that excluding verses just because someone dislikes them is silly.

Getbackers can be added just fine. I don't need to come up with any solution because I don't see any problem to begin with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sans2345
Should we really allow Backrooms ARGs? (Like Kane Pixels for example)
Replies
7
Views
986
Iiliminal
Iiliminal
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Malisgaoted
Where do we place catnap?
Replies
7
Views
2K
Malisgaoted
Malisgaoted
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
8 9 10
Replies
367
Views
23K
Polandballczechball
Polandballczechball
Agnaa
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Links Revision
Replies
11
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top