Some Vs Match Rules (Nothing too major)

[The_real_cal_howard]

There's more points than that one...

The attempt wouldn't be to change the voter's opinion, but to make them elaborate, as you said yourself. Whether I agree with them or not is pointless. What matters is if it's a poor argument, it'll likely just get the thread removed later, or make an illegitimate win for a character. Take one of the examples I used above. "Goku via experience" is a terrible answer, and should be elaborated on. "Goku would win off of combat experience alone and someone said "via reasons above", those votes will be taken with a grain of salt. But if someone said that Goku would win because since he fought all his life against enemies with a similar powerset of the opponent, while the opponent is just learning to use his powerset" is a great answer. It's the same argument, but made much clearer for others reading the thread, even if they're not gonna vote, and makes the win cathartic rather than unjustified.

 

[Grudgeman1706]

I agree with some of Cals point but I also agree with TheBluedashes points in that not all people can elaborate as much as you'd like them too.

Take it from a guy who debates in literal paragraphs about anything and I enjoy long and interesting discussion about versus thread or content reading. But I've learned that not every one can reply with with as much detail and specifications as I like but that's just me and Ive also learned that when a point is already made across in a thread repeating the same words as that person is really unnecessary and the "reasons above" comment is one that helps pace a debate thread without all the unnecessary commenting of what literally the first person said.

Obviously initial specification of why a character would win is needed and I hardly ever see people not debate a reasoning used wrongly. An example would be like if someone did a IDK a Rwby vs Kenshiro thread and than someone replies "rwby wins via hax" people will question that person about which hax would win and than go on from their debating.

Discounting votes because someone feels the reasoning does not make sense sounds like something that can be very abused and i don't think just because a individual disagrees with the verdict being decided doesn't mean the majority votes should be discounted. A real debate usually never ends with a concrete unanimous answer of both debaters have solid reasonings as to why characters or their side in general wins. That decision lies with the audience or voter and we can't decide for them why they chose either side no matter if we strongly disagree with their decision.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Obviously, not a random person would decide if a vote is legit or not. That would be reserved for the higher-ups. And actual reasons would never actually be discounted unless they have actively been debunked. For example, the Goku reason. Say the opponent was Wonder Woman, and it was worded well like I said above. As well-written as the reasoning was, it wouldn't be counted as it's false, given that Wonder Woman is much older (by millennia), and did nothing but train up until she joined the JLA, where she still gained experience.

 

[Grudgeman1706]

@Cal The mindset of a staff and normal user is not different. Any one of us could easily take a thread we don't like cause maybe our favorite character is losing and saying the votes make no sense so as staff I will not count them. Whether we want to or not bias in our thoughts and actions is something natural all humans do. Like I previously stated I do not think discounting votes should be accepted just because we find the outcome unfair or wrong even if it's staff that's in charade as that could lead to biased decisions for certain characters. Neither staff or normal user should have the power to decide how the outcome of a match should go as it's the decision of the audience not the debater or observer.

 

[Antvasima]

I'm not the right person to ask about versus threads, but I think that it seems like a bad idea to mess with Kavpeny's rule about 7 votes being a minimum. Any lower and the result turns unreliable.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

@Grudge. We're staff because we don't let bias cloud our views. And yeah, I agree that we're not different at all, mostly because when I was normal, I believed that the staff were all-knowing entities. I remember revering the heck out of Cross, Aizen, Perp, LK, Ant, and Azzy.

@Ant. I understand. Would it be best to ask Kav, or no?

 

[Grudgeman1706]

We're staff because we don't let bias cloud our views. And yeah, I agree that we're not different at all, mostly because when I was normal, I believed that the staff were all-knowing entities. I remember revering the heck out of Cross, Aizen, Perp, LK, Ant, and Azzy.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble cal but we staff aren't unfavored gods who view every thread with impartial absolute judgement. I know we all try are best to do so but the bias and favored decisions among staff is real and it's not something we should risk by letting staff decide something that normal users should have control over. We only monitor not control all actions that go through the wiki.

Edit: I agree with ant, the 7 vote rule is find as it is at least to me but if kav is required I do not mind having him explain what he believes as he was the one who came up with the rule.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Well thanks for killing my innocence, Grudge lol. But yeah, as I said, we're not different from when we started this, given that some of us show bias (for example, me with Mewtwo, Kirby, Link, Mario, etc.)

I may have worded that wrongly. If something wouldn't be counted, it would be incredibly obvious. "Goku via experience" is obvious enough that you can tell someone that their vote wouldn't be counted without more elaboration, just as much as "Goku wins" would be. Just as much as "for reasons above" when the only reasoning is "Goku is stronger, therefore he wins" or something of that caliber. Furthermore, I was wrong about staff deciding if a vote would be counted or not. It would be kinda implied by the rules and the structure of the debate. Hence "case-by-case basis".

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I still agree with everything Howard says.

 

[Ryukama]

I agree with Cal for the most part.

 

[Professor_Voodoo]

I do agree that we need to have stricter standards on this whole "for reasons above" thing. It's been a moderate pet peeve of mine for quite a while.

 

[Thebluedash]

A versus thread should not be decided only by staff, normal members are just as good as us if not better. You see we staff are not perfect. Some staff can be biased to their fav verse, scale by respect, etc. All of us are flawed in some way.

 

[Grudgeman1706]

@cal that's why I said sorry m8 ƒÿï

Anyways we already do debunk or not count votes that don't make any sense and if your argument is strong people will agree. I've yet to see someone voting in a thread with obvious incorrect facts and than others following it.

If that happens it's likely no one debated for let's go with that Wonder Woman example. If no ones their to debate for Wonder Woman of course she's going to lose to users who have zero knowledge on her and only Goku. If you as staff see this kind of thread than stop it by debating for her or at least debunk claims made by her before people start deciding.

I'll just restate that letting staff decide which votes are reliable or not sounds very subjective and could lead to problems.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I gave an example in Link vs Luke. There were probably others, but that was the most recent one to me.

That's...kinda the point of some of the rules.

I changed that up. It would be very heavily implied, and very obvious that a vote wouldn't be counted. "________ via hax" is incredibly obvious, and for example, Crop could point out that said vote wouldn't be counted without elaboration.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

We are put as staff for a reason, tho. And generally we are viewed as more reliable and are expected to be professional about things. Literally no one is saiying that staffs are perfect, so I don't think that's a fair comparison.

Higher-Ups are put under their position out of trust and respect bestowed by the Bureucrats, and similarly are given both higher privileges and extra responsability. So yes, Staff Members should be generally be considered more reliable and skilled to handle such an analysis.

Obviously it wouldn't be staff only, as even certain regular users are allowed on certain Staff Only Discussions. But Staff Users are generally considered (and always expected) to be more reliable, intelligent, resourceful and obviously more profefessional than normal members.

 

[Thebluedash]

I know some staff that are not reliable.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I mean, yeah, you'll get a Tiv every once in a while, but for the most part we're good, right?

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

@Matt: That's sort of a rather bold statement you're saying right there, dude. Just saying.

 

[Thebluedash]

I gave an example in Link vs Luke. There were probably others, but that was the most recent one to me.
That's...kinda the point of some of the rules.

I changed that up. It would be very heavily implied, and very obvious that a vote wouldn't be counted. "________ via hax" is incredibly obvious, and for example, Crop could point out that said vote wouldn't be counted without elaboration.

You keep using the Link vs Luke as if it's the prime example people not giving correct reason, when to be honest, I think they are somewhat right. Link wouldn't rush to use the time hax right away, he doesn't do that normally. If you say he tries to defeat them as fast as possible he doesn't. You want to know why? He has no personality on his own. Isn't that like some speedrun level stuff right there? Not everyone do speed runs ovo.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

It's the same reason Repp uses the same argument for Mega Man. The point of Link is that he's the strategy/exploitation extraordinaire, which is what can be assumed from his very little character. And disregarding that, it's still all, and I do mean all, "Luke via mind/better hax". There are other examples, but that's currently the only one that come to mind. The fact that all the reasonings were terrible before I responded, then someone gave a good argument for Luke and still changed to my side should speak volumes about how bad arguments can still win.

 

[Ryukama]

@Blue and Cal Let's not derail this topic with an actual VS thread please. ovo

I think Cal's point could be understood even if he used a different example. Regardless if you disagree with it, which of course I respect. And you do seem to bring up good arguments.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

What Ryu said.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I have at least tried hard to find the most reliable wiki members and put them in staff positions, and always run by the suggestions with the rest of the staff. People that I get serious warnings about, or/and an insufficient amount of staff members support, do not get promoted.

 

[Antvasima]

As for Kavpeny, he usually takes at least a week between each time that I hear from him. He is currently focused on more important problems and projects for the wiki.

 

[Kaltias]

Thanks again for giving me the permission to comment here @cal

I agree with the first 2 points (the match needs to be completely unanimous though) and i'm neutral about the third for now.

"For reasons above" should always mention who gave the reasons above, so that OP can keep track of the votes. For example, if I vote Goku for my own reasoning, someone else votes Goku for my reasoning, and I change my vote due to arguments that were brought up during the discussion, the other vote logically doesn't count anymore. OP needs to be able to keep track of the votes correctly.

The vote with only a few reasons is fine if that reason completely turns the tide of the match. For example, if a character has a level of regen that the other can't bypass at all.

I agree that an admin has the right about changing speed equal/unequal or the version of the characters, but it obviously can't change the characters themselves.

Debunked votes should be discounted only if they are objectively wrong (for example, "X takes this thanks to soul hax" while the other character has high-godly regen), or if it's a case like the one described while talking about the "for reasons above".

While the suggestion of CK is wonderful, it's not really applicable imo. It requires someone to have an intimate knowledge of both characters, and that's actually something way rarer than it seems.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Again, I gave Kaltias and Monarch permission to respond to my thread. So don't delete 'em.

 

[TISSG7Redgrave]

seems legit Cal think this should be added to make ppl understand on what it should be like and the necro threads i guess we can lower it to 5 votes plus a grace period that can't change the outcome seems to work

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

What is the problem with necroing threads exactly though? If it is a thread that has become outdated due to content revision I can understand, but if it is still a legitamate match, what is the problem with necroing the thread to get some input or add your own? And what would qualify as a necro? A month or two?

 

[TISSG7Redgrave]

from what ik its a month

 

[Antvasima]

Monarch Laciel does have a point.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

While the suggestion of CK is wonderful, it's not really applicable imo. It requires someone to have an intimate knowledge of both characters, and that's actually something way rarer than it seems.

I was more referring to looking at both profiles and comparing statistics. This can be done by looking at the profiles in depth and coming to a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

I agree with pretty much everything Cal is saying. The Leonardo vs Jack thread I made was horribly disappointing. I set up the match to be ripe for discussion on strategy and stealth. Almost everyone just said "Jack for reasons above" and gave no real insight on how the fight would've played out.

Saying "X wins via Y power" is downright stupid. It doesn't take into account characters personalities, weaknesses, strategies, methods or likelihood in using said powers. Star Butterfly has Time Manipulation on a Multiversal scale. Sounds powerful, right? But it's not in her character to use it because of the consequences that happened because of it. Their are of course other examples, Dr. Doof and Rick Sanchez being other characters horribly misused in Vs. threads.

I like the idea of Vs. Threads being debates with evidence on both sides being discussed by both sides rather than a numbers game, but I understand why we have to use the scoring system and woulnd't want it taken away. But I agree that low quality or misinformed votes should not be counted.

I also agree with Monarch. Necro's are okay as long as the thread is still valid. Necroing a thread to say that it is no longer valid should be avoided though.

 

[Sera_EX]

I actually don't care for vs matches but since the thread's been highlighted I thought I'd drop in.

"For reasons above" is not a valid reason. Now, I understand what Thebluedash means by repeating the same thing over and over, but the problem is that someone can easily use mob-mentality to get what they want. Some people vote for/against something simply because their friends told them to. How can their friends do this so easily with the current system? By simply saying "I agree with <insert username of friend> for reasons above.".

My solution to this is merely discourage that argument when used in excess. It depends on the person of whom they agree with's answer. "Goku loses because he has no hax" shouldn't have five people saying "I agree with so and so for reasons above" when that reason is poor. However, if someone writes a paragraph's worth of detail on why a character wins or loses, "I agree for reasons above" works because a lot of "reasons" were given.

Fair enough?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I agree.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Some people vote for/against something simply because their friends told them to. How can their friends do this so easily with the current system? By simply saying "I agree with <insert username of friend> for reasons above.".

However, if someone writes a paragraph's worth of detail on why a character wins or loses, "I agree for reasons above" works because a lot of "reasons" were given.

This is more or less exactly what I'm saying and I completely agree with what Sera has said.

 

[Antvasima]

So what should be changed in practice for the Versus Thread Rules page?

 

[Kaltias]

Not sure if I understood...

Basically "X wins because of its mid-godly regen and death manipulation" isn't accepted, while "X's mid-godly regen will allow it to resist Y's soul hax, this way it will be able to use its death manipulation, which worked on beings of similar power to Y, therefore securing X's victory" is accepted?

 

[Sera_EX]

Not sure if I understood...

Basically "X wins because of its mid-godly regen and death manipulation" isn't accepted, while "X's mid-godly regen will allow it to resist Y's soul hax, this way it will be able to use its death manipulation, which worked on beings of similar power to Y, therefore securing X's victory" is accepted?

Essentially, yes.

 

[Kaltias]

Ok. I agree with this.

 

[Arigarmy]

@Kalt/Sera

I thought this was simply for people who just post "I agree with X above", not for all comments in general. It isn't stated as such in the OP and is only specific, so maybe I'm simply reading in too hard.