• 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.

Some Vs Match Rules (Nothing too major)

@Ari

That one was the example of comment with a paragraph worth of details which can become the "reasons above" of someone else, instead of "X wins via Y"
 
I agree with the "For reasons above" thing. It's exactly mob mentality and can be easily manipulated. It also heavily encourages spite votes, just to see the loss for the character on his profile.

Let's assume the following scenario and tell me if the results is anything worth your while:

The match is Naruto vs Luffy. Some dude comes to the thread and says "Naruto wins because of Shadow clones and rasengan spam". Now que 6 other people saying "Naruto for reasons above". With the current rules the match would get added. Now imagine someone looking at this matchup on their profiles. Is it really worth their time to read the thread when it's basically one reply?

So basically I agree with Sera as well.
 
I also have another problem of some sorts, the adding of the matchup.

Howard is saying that we should add an unanimous match right away but I disagree with this. Isn't this place's purpose to debate (at least the vs threads)? Because if we're adding matchups that fast (I've seen matchups "conclude" in a day), what's the point of debating? Might as well post a poll on the thread and add those results. If anything, the "grace period" should be extended in my opinion, to encourage debate. If there is no more debate, then feel free to add it.
 
I don't really have an opinion about the grace period thing, but to my limited experience, the grace period is more of a formality than anything. I never saw a match suddenly changing direction from a victory for a character instead of another. I'm not saying that it should be removed, but I don't know how useful it would be to extend it.
 
I agree with this...other than the Grace period stuff. Too many times we get "For Reasons Above" for reasons that have been either debunked or just outright bad arguments for nothing more than spite.
 
So what are the conclusions here? Meaning, which new regulations are being suggested?
 
...unless the reasons justified under specific conditions, right? Don't leave that part out mate, nobody went en masse on saying to cut that part out.
 
Well, it would cause an awful lot of repetition within the threads if we do not allow agreement with previous arguments.
 
So, someone says "Goku wins because of his hax against Y.", and the rule is in place. Wouldn't the other person just say "Goku wins because of his hax against Y." too?
 
Its pretty pointless repeating the same thing over and over. As long as it's clear which post they are agreeing with and that post is something reasonable then it's fine.
 
@Matthew Well, they do have a point that it can lead to biased gangups, but that would be hard to avoid even if we force people to explain themselves in a repetitive manner. There do not seem to be any good solutions here.
 
@Ant

Well, to be fair, I have expressed my slight dislike towards the whole practice of adding matchup results. Most people want results, they want to see names on that "Others" section and care little about debating. The created environment allows them to do just so. As long as they say "for reasons above", they can go on with their day no matter who argues against that argument, because in the end, it's still valid.

Sites like ComicVine do not have the "results" thing, only debating. Saying "for reasons above" there won't get you anywhere since there are no results.

Now both approaches have their goods and bad things.

Our Approach:

(-) Leads to spite voting, quite a lot of it, and in general favors results over debate.

(+) Debates are finalized with results and gives people "closure" or an "end goal".

Their Approach:

(-) No results. Debates can go on and on and nothing comes out of it, expect the "satisfaction of the debate".

(+) Encourages debate over results.

Now I'm not saying we do any drastic change to our methods, but what I suggest is that "for reasons above" votes shall not be counted unless the reasons above are elaborated at least a little bit. For example:

(X) X wins because of longer range and versatility.

(Ô£ô) X wins because Y will find it hard to close the distance between them seeing that he's primarily a close ranged fighter and has shown to have problems against longer ranged opponents. Also the fact that X has more versatility with different weapons, should give him an edge over Y.

This is not ideal by any means, but it's the most I can think of to try and encourage debate even a little bit more.
 
Well, I suppose that you have a point.
 
I like seeing matches added... Frankly, one of my promises upon becoming an admin was to make sure more of them were added...
 
I personally do not care about versus threads, but since it gives the community something to have fun with, I do not mind keeping them around.
 
I've actually been helping with adding matchups on the wikia lately. Only so that the "other" section has an actual meaning.

Anyways, Scarlet's idea/suggestion sounds like pretty solid to me of how things can be a little more better when it comes to debating. Also helps one if they were to go into any other kind of topic that ends up in some sort of debating nature.
 
@CrossverseCrisis Thank you for helping out.
 
@Ant: NP.

Also, has there been any suggestions on what to do with this kind of thread and we can get out of it on our...wherever we're putting this at? Seems like we're just talking it out of the matter at this point still.
 
Well, it seems like we are leaning towards including a rule that people at least have to give some sort of justifications for their votes other than simply agreeing with others.
 
Adding a match should take place when enough debate or legitimate reasons have been given in a thread. If everything said in a thread is obscenely obvious or just boils down to "I agree", the person clicking the match to see the debate doesn't get anything out of it. People click on an added match to see why the result is what it is, not because they want to reaffirm what the profile just told them.
 
I also like having matches added. It does have the feeing of closure and accomplisment of an end goal that Scarlet mentioned. I don't believe that banning "for reasons above" would fix anything though. All it would do is make the threads repetitive and ultimately do nothing if people simply repeat the reasons outright instead of saying "for reasons above". More in-depth reasons definitely do need to be stated though.

The problem as I see it is that while we can say there are certain abilities that the opponent outright counters (e.g. immunity to time paradoxes nullifies the opponent killing them in the past) when we debate it is never a garauntee that one character would win in a fight unless there is some obvious hax, speed or AP advantage they have, and those would be closed for stomps. We can only determine who in our opinion holds the advantage, and we can't change someone else's opinion if they are only voting for the sake of getting the match added to "notable victories"

Perhaps, rather than having a "notable victories and losses" section, we could have a "notable vs matchups" section, and we can add vs threads that are notable due to either high levels of community input, or strong debate with good points and counter points? A thread that is nothing but "Wins via versatility and AP advantage" followed by 7 "reasons above" comments would not be a good strong debate, so it wouldn't be added. This would both have the "end goal" of having the match added to profiles, but also encourage more well thought out debates and reduce spite votes.

Thoughts?
 
Monarch Laciel said:
Perhaps, rather than having a "notable victories and losses" section, we could have a "notable vs matchups" section, and we can add vs threads that are notable due to either high levels of community input, or strong debate with good points and counter points? A thread that is nothing but "Wins via versatility and AP advantage" followed by 7 "reasons above" comments would not be a good strong debate, so it wouldn't be added. This would both have the "end goal" of having the match added to profiles, but also encourage more well thought out debates and reduce spite votes.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I like this idea, but the amount of effort required for such a comparably minor change would be obscene, and we're just wrapping up the Striking Strength revision.

Instead, it would probably be better to only add matches once sufficient votes and reasoning have been given, allowing debate to be had and not adding completely pointless matches to profiles.
 
I have thought about Monarch's idea before and it looks like a good solution to me as well. It provides the "best of two worlds" and in theory it gets rid of spite voting.

However, the changes required to implement such a thing, are not small to say the least so I don't know. We could put this on the backburner, and once the Striking Strength Project is over, we can discuss the possiblity of this being added sometime.
 
Would defining what qualifies as "notable" in the Vs match addition rules be a simple enough change then? We could use the same qualifications of it needing high community input or strong debates to be considered 'notable'. It would stop future non-notable matchups being added until a point when it would be feasible to go through existing match-ups and decide whether or not they are "notable". We could simply add an addendum to the VS Match Removal Requests thread for matches that are not notable and allow the changes to occur gradually as the rest of the community sees match-ups that are just "reasons above"
 
As Azathoth mentioned, the required effort would be enormous and require another wiki revision project, and not remotely give sufficient payoff to warrant it.
 
Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot said:
Adding a match should take place when enough debate or legitimate reasons have been given in a thread. If everything said in a thread is obscenely obvious or just boils down to "I agree", the person clicking the match to see the debate doesn't get anything out of it. People click on an added match to see why the result is what it is, not because they want to reaffirm what the profile just told them.
Click to expand...
Anyway, I agree with this.
 
Half of me agree that to be notable a vs debate would need actual debate. The other half of me think that this would encourage even more the usage of the overused characters, because those are popular -> more people are debating -> there is an actual debate
 
I do not remember so well. Can somebody summarise the conclusions within this thread?
 
"If a match is past the grace period, then response can't be given regardless if its still open or hasn't been added." The consensus about this one seemed pretty much unanimous.

I don't think that we reached an agreement about necroing threads or adding an unanimous match right away.

"For reasons above" is accepted only if a lot of "reasons" were given.
 
Kaltias said:
"If a match is past the grace period, then response can't be given regardless if its still open or hasn't been added." The consensus about this one seemed pretty much unanimous.
Click to expand...
If this was accepted unanimously, should I or someone add this?

Here's my wording on the second rule if it's accepted: "A vote of 7-0 will be accepted as unanimous, a vote of 7-1 will be accepted as unanimous, a vote of 7-2 will not be accepted as unanimous"

"Any thread that has at least 5 votes for a character and at least 3 votes in favour will be accepted as a victory. The thread in question has to have no activity for at least a whole month prior to the last comment."

  • A result of 5-0 will be accepted
  • A result of 5-2 will be accepted
  • A result of 4-0 will not be accepted
  • A result of 5-3 will not be accepted
Wording for the third rule if it's accepted:

"For users to vote via reasons above, they must describe who's reasons, otherwise their vote will be disregarded, and the original reasoning must be at least more than a sentence long."
 
Colonel Krukov said:
The thread in question has to have no activity for at least a whole month prior to the last comment.
Click to expand...
I'm kinda lost, does this mean we have to wait a month before adding a matchup?

Also why are we accepting victories with less than 7 votes again?

Or this is only for inactive threads?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
YmTheSuper
Location dependent abilities
Replies
2
Views
199
Homie890
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
479
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
19
Views
2K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
Antvasima
  • Locked
Slightly adjusting our rules for bolded "powers and abilities" links
Replies
32
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top