Some Vs Match Rules (Nothing too major)

[The_real_cal_howard]

Only for inactive threads that go on past the necro period, so we don't have to go through the hassle of remaking them.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Only for dead/inactive threads

This is only for inactive threads.

 

[ScarletFirefly]

Oh ok, that makes sense now.

Edit: I should mention that I'm against the unanimous voting thing.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

We need to keep track of who dis/agrees with what.

The first rule was unanimous, so we can safely add that.

Rule 2

• For: Kaltias, Colonel Krukov
• Against: ScarletFirefly
• Neutral:

Rule 3

• For: ScarletFirefly, Colonel Krukov, Antvasima
• Against:
• Neutral: Kaltias

 

[Kaltias]

I agree with 2, and i'm neutral about 3

 

[ScarletFirefly]

I'm for the third rule but I'd say that the reasoning should consider both character's strengths and weaknesses in the argument. For example:

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

(X) X wins because he has longer range. He also holds the versatility advantage (Different wording to fit the more than one sentence rule that leads to loopholes)

(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.

 

[Antvasima]

I am fine with the first and third rules, but do not think that we should mess with the required votes for a matchup result that Kavpeny defined. The previous 7-3 rule seems to be a balanced approach, and we might have to get rid of a lot of previous matchup results if we modify it.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Same with Antvasima for me.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

@Ant the second rule only defines the amount of votes needed for a thread to be added if it's inactive. This has nothing to do with the votes to be added normally, otherwise there would be no reason to add it for being dead.

 

[Antvasima]

Please explain further.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

So the system that could be implemented (If people agree) is a way of adding matches if the the thread fails to get anymore attention and the match is halfway finished. If the thread is over for a month since the last comment, then it would take effect. I decided to have the minimum amount of voters be 5, but still have a difference of 3 between each character for it to count as a victory.

I have decided that a character needs a minimum of 2 (this could be changed to 1 however) voters to allow a grace period.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. It may end up being a bit confusing/complicated to explain to visitors though.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I think that our system is far more streamlined and natural, and should be kept, at least in that regard. The 7 votes system is better.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree about this.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

Personally, I am fine with the 7 votes. It's a good number and its what we normally use so there would be no confusion.

What I do not understand is why we even need to create a different system for adding inactive threads. If the thread is now a stomp one way or the other, then it can be closed. If the thread and votes are illegitamate due to upgrades and revisions, then the thread can be closed and if the original poster wants they can create a new one. If the thread and votes are still legitamate, then what is the harm in necroing it?

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

I know I'm bumping an ancient thread (It's better than making a new one on this topic), but what were the rules that were to be implemented?

 

[Antvasima]

"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.

This seems to have been the previous explanation that I received regarding the subject.

I will check with Kavpeny if he is interested in evaluating this thread.

 

[Kavpeny]

About simplistic agreements: This is somewhat debatable, because at times some people's arguments really do sum up everything, and there's nothing left to add.

Nevertheless, simply "I agree" is not good enough. Even simplistic agreements must contain some explanation for the agreement, like: "I agree with points X, Y and Z made by A and the reasoning supporting them. Hence, I agree with the overall assessment made by A."

About necro-posting VS threads: Agree with Monarch, threads which have a definitive conclusion do not require any work, although users who necro-post can be politely discouraged from necro-ing needlessly. For threads which have an insufficient vote count, a necro post would be useful instead, and lastly, for threads which are invalidated due to change of statistics, the necro-posts will also be invalid.

All in all, I'm not seeing any reason to have a special provision for necro-posts.

About the 7-vote figure: The reason I had 7 as the minimum number of votes is because supporters of a franchise are often more active in their Verse's respective threads. It was quite misleading to have 4-5 votes (back before the rule was implemented), because any popular character managed to garner 3-4 votes very quickly, before any opposing arguments were made.

7 minimum votes on the other hand, is a sufficiently high number which prompts a somewhat balanced argument in equal favour of both Verse's fan-base. Of course, it's not a perfect number, but it was the reasonable figure I observed after going through a few hundred VS threads back when the rule was implemented.

Also, while I realize that not being able to proceed due to a lack of minimum votes is frustrating, it is easy enough to request others to partake in the thread and meet the minimum criteria. On the other hand, too less votes lead to biased results, as I explained above.

I don't see any reason to modify the current minimum requirement.


Conclusion: The only change necessary IMO is requiring members to not simply hand out simplistic agreements, but actually expand upon them sufficiently in order to provide insight as to which aspects of a previous argument they agree with, and also preferably explain why they agree with it.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Basically my opinion as well. The current system is fine, the only thing I dislike is simplistic votes with no reasons.

 

[Schnee_One]

This is a staff discussion board, I'm aware, but if you don't mind, I'd like to give some thoughts.

"For Reasons Above" is an Extremely lazy way to vote and the result of this is Band-Wagons on people who want to conclude the fight over actually giving reasons which results in some of the dumbest votes based on easily debunked reasoning, Reinhard is an especially famous example of this, and "via hax" should never be counted.

 

[Antvasima]

I am fine with Kavpeny's conclusions.