Suggestions for improvements (New forum)

[FinePoint]

I think the inherent issue making this difficult is that you don't want to use a possibly offensive word referring to people with dwarfism, yet still want to use people with dwarfism as your ruler anyways.

If your goal is to be less offensive, then rather than try to find a verbal loophole, why not just give up and use an animal in that range like Nehz suggested?
Or, if you're unapologetically going to use people with dwarfism as your ruler, then you're ultimately going to have to classify them as such.

 

[FinePoint]

Actually, if it must be kept human, why not just use a child of a certain age?

 

[Bobsican]

I'd be really fine with using "Human Child" as a name for this category, given that the size of children doesn't vary as much as humans in general, yet still acts as an example of the type without needing to compromise over a possible offensive connotation.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

All the suggestions seem to be roundabout ways to avoid using people with dwarfism while still achieving the exact height as people with dwarfism. If you want to use a child, fine, I guess, but I don't personally see an issue. Dwarfism is, as far as I can tell, a recognized medical term for the condition. Using dwarf should be fine.

 

[FinePoint]

All the suggestions seem to be roundabout ways to avoid using people with dwarfism while still achieving the exact height as people with dwarfism. If you want to use a child, fine, I guess, but I don't personally see an issue. Dwarfism is, as far as I can tell, a recognized medical term for the condition. Using dwarf should be fine.

It just seems tactless in general to me, for us to say "A character fits this category if they're as short as someone with dwarfism."
There's really no reason to bring them or their medical history into this, especially since human children can be used.
We don't need to use the exact height of the shortest person ever, frankly I'm not sure why that's the goal.
We can just pick an age range for the desired height, and use like, the global average or something.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Dwarf isn't a slur; especially since the actual mythical creatures isn't offensive in any way. Also, from my experience, they're more offended by terms such as being called an "Elf". And a lot of people also hate being called short or midget in general, but as Bambu said that "Dwarfism" is more of a medical terminology. It's also not like "Giant" is considered a slur word in which people from prefer "Tall person", but that's also another name based on mythological creatures. Gigantism is also another medical condition or physical abnormality for the same reason dwarfism is.

 

[MrKerf]

This is a wiki primarily about fictional characters, and dwarfs are fictional. It seem to me as a problem made from nothing. If that would be considered a slur on a extremly large scale, I would still advice to ignore that because we have LOTR, norse myths and works based on it, like god of war, etc.

No, the d-word is apparently a mild slur...

D-word? C'mon.

 

[Crabwhale]

It just seems tactless in general to me, for us to say "A character fits this category if they're as short as someone with dwarfism."
There's really no reason to bring them or their medical history into this, especially since human children can be used.
We don't need to use the exact height of the shortest person ever, frankly I'm not sure why that's the goal.
We can just pick an age range for the desired height, and use like, the global average or something.

Mate it's a ficitional character, it don't give a shit how you refer to it. Dwarf is fine.

 

[AKM sama]

I'm also in agreement to keep the page as it is. No change is required.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. "Dwarf" or "Young Child" is hopefully fine to use then.

So what about these suggestions?

https://vsbattles.com/threads/suggestions-for-improvements-new-forum.107530/post-4425304

 

[FinePoint]

Mate it's a ficitional character, it don't give a shit how you refer to it. Dwarf is fine.

Obviously I'm not concerned with offending fictional characters. I just said it's tactless.
Imagine approaching someone with dwarfism and saying "Hey, you're just like Dobby from Harry Potter!"
Maybe not technically offensive in a non-serious context, but still.

We'd sort of be doing that indirectly by using a real person with dwarfism as our ruler and then listing Dobby as an example.
But, idk that's just how I feel. I'm not some sort of activist either, I'm not going to riot over it.

 

[Tllmbrg]

Obviously I'm not concerned with offending fictional characters. I just said it's tactless.
Imagine approaching someone with dwarfism and saying "Hey, you're just like Dobby from Harry Potter!"
Maybe not technically offensive in a non-serious context, but still.

Who’d ever take that insult seriously?
Also by your logic shouldn’t you also complain about us using the tallest person IRL as the start of large size type 0?
Or is it only a problem for one side of the spectrum?

 

[FinePoint]

Who’d ever take that insult seriously?
Also by your logic shouldn’t you also complain about us using the tallest person IRL as the start of large size type 0?
Or is it only a problem for one side of the spectrum?

I don't care if we replace that either, but dwarfism tends to hold more stigma than being tall.
Using the shortest and tallest person strikes me as weird, regardless.
It's sort of an arbitrary benchmark, since they tend to be extreme outliers.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. "Dwarf" or "Young Child" is hopefully fine to use then.

So what about these suggestions?

https://vsbattles.com/threads/suggestions-for-improvements-new-forum.107530/post-4425304

I would appreciate some input about this.

 

[Bobsican]

Could the visibility of the roles staff members get in the wiki forum have that section be better organized? Namely for staff members that are such in not only VSBW, but also in either FC/OC VSBW or JBW, as this makes it hard to tell from a quick glance if an user is, for example, a discussion mod or a sysop for the purposes they're participating at that moment.

 

[AKM sama]

Yes, that is a problem I am aware of. But I am not sure what could be the solution for it, other than checking the staff's userpage on the wiki itself.

 

[MrKerf]

Can't we use instead something like "VSB and FC/OC Bureaucrat" thing for example? And apply it only to those people?

 

[Antvasima]

Can't we use instead something like "VSB and FC/OC Bureaucrat" thing for example? And apply it only to those people?

Well, it would require use to reorganise our entire forum staff rights system, which required a lot of work to set up previously, so I am not sure if it is realistic.

 

[MrKerf]

Really? Weren't you able to add Super Moderator right or something? Can't you do the same?

 

[Antvasima]

The problem is that, as far as I recall, most current staff rights are tied to the staff position badges, and that those badges in turn are tied to the VS Battles, Joke Battles, and FC/OC badges. I am not sure if it would be feasible to reordagnise our entire system, or if we could technically just rename what the staff badges are called, so they spell out "VSB Administrator", "JB Administrator" "FCOC Administrator", etcetera.

However, @AKM sama may remember the mechanics of our system better.

 

[MrKerf]

I see. I haven't seen much of a problem, since Ryu specifically has "Retired VSB Bureaucrat" badge, so clearly such specification has it's place.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, but we created that badge for him separately afterwards, and it has no extra rights tied to it.

 

[AKM sama]

Weren't you able to add Super Moderator right or something?

It was already a right in XenForo and it was there since our staff rights were set up initially, we only used the position later.

However, @AKM sama may remember the mechanics of our system better.

It would require a lot of rework.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, but what I described above might be practical in the long run to better display which members that have which positions in which wikis. I do not think that it seems like an urgent issue though.

 

[ThanatosX]

I have noticed that sometimes it's hard to get staff members to evaluate a revision, so I have been thinking of a way that might help both the users and the staff.
What if we make a thread in the Wiki Management section called "Revision Evaluations" that works similiarly to the "Calculations Evaluations" thread, but instead gives the users the opportunity to post revisions that needs evaluation?
It would work in a similiar way to the other thread: a Priority level between 1 and 4, the name of the verse it applied to, the description of what the revision would change if accepted and a "Note" section for some addictional information, like if the revision is about Tier 1/0 which needs an high number of agreements.
The staff members would check the thread and help out with the revisions that have a high priority or that are about verses they are knowlogeable about.

To give an example, let's take a possible request for the recent SCP revision:

Priority: 1 (all of the God Tier gets affected)
Verse: SCP
Description: The Aleph cited in SCP 5800 would be actual Aleph, making the God Tiers High 1-A and Tier 0.
Note: This revision affect Tier 1s and Tier 0s.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that might be an idea, but am not sure if it would just lead to repeatedly spamming that thread without really having more of an effect than the alternative of just skimming through the content revisions forum.

 

[Coolboy6]

There should be more staff checking out the Wiki management request threads because there are some vs matchups that haven’t been added or removed and are waiting to be added or removed

 

[ThanatosX]

I suppose that might be an idea, but am not sure if it would just lead to repeatedly spamming that thread without really having more of an effect than the alternative of just skimming through the content revisions forum.

That would be the biggest possible problem with the idea, but I think it might be helpful mainly to get more exposure to CRT that otherwise might get ignored, especially for smaller verses or verses that aren't really that popular here.
It sometimes happens that while skimming thought the content revision section I miss multiple times CRT that might interest me, but with this method the name of the verse would be high-lighted and as such it would be easier to see.
It would also make the staff members immediately aware of the argument of the revision, so that if its something that they know (like a revision for specific hax or Tiers) they would know immediately if they can help or not.
However, it would obviously need some regulamentation to make sure that the same revision doesn't get spammed multiple times, and maybe we could also restrict how many revision a user can post in a certain amount of time to prevent the thread to be too loaded with comments.
It's definitely not a perfect method, but I think that if properly used it might help in some cases, especially with some lesser known verses.

 

[Antvasima]

There should be more staff checking out the Wiki management request threads because there are some vs matchups that haven’t been added or removed and are waiting to be added or removed

Yes, agreed. I will send the content moderators notifications.

 

[Antvasima]

That would be the biggest possible problem with the idea, but I think it might be helpful mainly to get more exposure to CRT that otherwise might get ignored, especially for smaller verses or verses that aren't really that popular here.
It sometimes happens that while skimming thought the content revision section I miss multiple times CRT that might interest me, but with this method the name of the verse would be high-lighted and as such it would be easier to see.
It would also make the staff members immediately aware of the argument of the revision, so that if its something that they know (like a revision for specific hax or Tiers) they would know immediately if they can help or not.
However, it would obviously need some regulamentation to make sure that the same revision doesn't get spammed multiple times, and maybe we could also restrict how many revision a user can post in a certain amount of time to prevent the thread to be too loaded with comments.
It's definitely not a perfect method, but I think that if properly used it might help in some cases, especially with some lesser known verses.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Promestein @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Damage3245

What do you think?

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, agreed. I will send the content moderators notifications.

I have done so in the two relevant threads.

 

[DontTalkDT]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Promestein @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Damage3245

What do you think?

I mean, we can try it. Personally, I don't think it will help, though.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I feel like that Idea is just redundant. A lot of staff members could simply follow various boards and they get a new note every time a new thread is made on those boards; including content revision boards, staff discussion boards, questions and answers boards ect. I actually have those boards followed and am notified if a content revision board is made.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, it may be excessive to actually follow the content revision and questions and answers boards, given how many threads there are (I only follow the staff board and news and announcements), but our staff browsing through them to check for thread titles that seem significant is another issue.

Anyway, the main issue here seems to be that the thread starters could rate their threads in a system of significance in the new wiki management thread, and as such give our staff more information than otherwise.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Promestein @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Damage3245

What do you think?

I think interested staff members are more efficiently called to a thread by just messaging them, but a board asking for assistance is harmless if you want to set it up. At worst we have slightly more space to moderate.

 

[AKM sama]

I think we can try it.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Would one of you be willing to write a draft with proper instructions for the first post of the new thread?

 

[Starter_Pack]

I agree. It won't be the most necessary thing in the world, but we already have promotion threads for Versus Matches and Tournaments. So I feel it's worth a shot.

 

[Elizhaa]

The idea seems fine in principle.

 

[Antvasima]

The clock on the wiki working on 24hrs should be made a setting instead of just default 24-hour clock. Because when I see that someone replied at 18:04 I get instantly confused.

Our system manager eventually told me that this does not seem to be possible in our forum settings. My apologies.