• 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.

Suggestions for improvements (New forum)

Thank you for helping out. I will have to take a look at this tomorrow though. I have to do my daily wiki edit patrolling and then go to bed.
 
I do agree there should preferably be an added distinction that 3-dimensional characters who have Infinite on an 11-dimensional scale power aren't to be mixed with characters who are 11-D in general. Same with characters who are 4-D and above but are only finite in scale or even to the point where they aren't even planet level still fighting a 3-D planet level character. And it also adds context to how potent some character's level of spatial intangibility is.

However, I'm unsure about adding a "Dimensionality" stat to every single profile.
 
Well, I am not for adding a specific statistics section for it, just that a character's degree of infinity should be mentioned somewhere easily overviewed, either in their own attack potency sections, in footnotes, or in other profile pages that they are scaled from and linked to.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, I am not for adding a specific statistics section for it, just that a character's degree of infinity should be mentioned somewhere easily overviewed, either in their own attack potency sections, in footnotes, or in other profile pages that they are scaled from and linked to.
Click to expand...
These are my thoughts as well. Do we need to add an editing rule for this? It should be there already and it should be a common practice.
 
I don't know if the suggested rule would really alleviate the common problem, though. It seems to me the common problem stems from the fact that very few people read our rules in as detailed a way as they could, which... changing our format wouldn't really do much for.

I also dislike the term "dimensionality" because it refers to our old terrible system for high tiers rather than our new terrible system for high tiers. Not that a name change would make me approve of the suggested add-on, but it's another nitpick to be mentioned.
 
Well, having a rule would at least help to highlight and alleviate the problem, and I think that I mentioned above that we should focus on level of infinity, not dimensionality.
 
Eh. I think it won't really help, and might even lead to arguments over revising the exact level of infinity of a character, with some wanting higher numbers for obvious reasons.
 
Okay. It doesn't seem likely to me, but you usually have a good sense of judgement.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Eh. I think it won't really help, and might even lead to arguments over revising the exact level of infinity of a character, with some wanting higher numbers for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...
This argument seems entirely pointless to me.
The entire purpose of CRTs in this case is to argue over the exact level of infinity.
This entire forum is about arguing over statistics. Why would we care if people use the CRT section for exactly what it's made for?

Hiding specifics so that people don't know the level of infinity, and therefore won't argue against it seems to go entirely against the goal of indexing characters accurately.
Unreasonable additions will simply be analyzed and rejected.
 
FinePoint said:
This argument seems entirely pointless to me.
The entire purpose of CRTs in this case is to argue over the exact level of infinity.
This entire forum is about arguing over statistics. Why would we care if people use the CRT section for exactly what it's made for?

Hiding specifics so that people don't know the level of infinity, and therefore won't argue against it seems to go entirely against the goal of indexing characters accurately.
Unreasonable additions will simply be analyzed and rejected.
Click to expand...
Semantics, maybe, but I'd like to point out that this is not the purpose of CRTs in general, just some.

That said, you are right. Our purpose is not to hide statistics. I still believe nailing down such things for your standard user will lead to more harm than good, but aye.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
That said, you are right. Our purpose is not to hide statistics. I still believe nailing down such things for your standard user will lead to more harm than good, but aye.
Click to expand...
And I do see where you're coming from. The battleboarding community can be very ravenous.
I just think it will do more good than harm, comparatively.

Though, as per my specific suggestion above, I don't think it should be a special place on the profile, just written in parenthesis as part of the justification.
My suggestion also extended to calculations and scaling chains, too.
 
Would it be possible to add to the standard duties of moving a page to another name to also do the same to its respective tag on the forum? For quite self-explanatory reasons in relation of finding a thread with the current page name and all.
 
Bobsican said:
Would it be possible to add to the standard duties of moving a page to another name to also do the same to its respective tag on the forum? For quite self-explanatory reasons in relation of finding a thread with the current page name and all.
Click to expand...
This is a genuine serious problem, yes. The issue is that currently only our bureaucrats can access the page for renaming, merging, or deleting tags in their entireties, in every thread that they are featured, and I am too overworked with other community tasks to handle it on my own, and am also nervous about accidentally permanently messing things up severely (by accidentally clicking the delete button), whereas AKM and DontTalk are helping out as much as they are able here, and Promestein is not very active currently due to being very occupied IRL.

I suppose that the best solution might be if our system manager can set up a specific "Tag Renamer" title box for Administrators that volunteer to help out with this task (and promise to be EXTREMELY careful to not mess anything up), which gives them the ability to access the tag renaming page in question, and nothing else. After that we could set up a pinned official wiki management forum thread in which our community can give tag renaming requests to them.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
I think that our character profile pages are already required specify the degree of infinity for them in either the attack potency sections, bottom explanation sections, or linked blogs, but maybe we should add an editing rule for it as well?
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
I am open for suggestions/draft texts for what the rule should look like.
Click to expand...
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I do agree there should preferably be an added distinction that 3-dimensional characters who have Infinite on an 11-dimensional scale power aren't to be mixed with characters who are 11-D in general. Same with characters who are 4-D and above but are only finite in scale or even to the point where they aren't even planet level still fighting a 3-D planet level character. And it also adds context to how potent some character's level of spatial intangibility is.

However, I'm unsure about adding a "Dimensionality" stat to every single profile.
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
Well, I am not for adding a specific statistics section for it, just that a character's degree of infinity should be mentioned somewhere easily overviewed, either in their own attack potency sections, in footnotes, or in other profile pages that they are scaled from and linked to.
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
It seems like this is a common problem, despite that it is a seemingly self-evident issue, so we likely need an editing rule.
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
Having a rule would at least help to highlight and alleviate the problem, and I think that I mentioned above that we should focus on level of infinity, not dimensionality.
Click to expand...
Anyway, we need to write a good rules text for our Editing Rules page as well.
 
How do you feel about profiles being placed in blog posts for evaluation by staff before they become official on here? Kinda like calcs being in blogs before they are on the profiles in a way. I think this is good since it would avoid a lot of rushed/messy profiles having to be revised. What do you think?
 
Ok, I know this is said a lot, even to important projects, but this seems like an ungodly amount of work honestly.

You'd probably need a whole new section of staff dedicated to just doing this as you're literally saying that every single of the dozens/possibly hundreds of profiles made every day needs it's own individual review.

Just don't really think this is something we can realistically do.
 
Bobsican said:
I think it'd be better in sandboxes, as that way anyone can easily check the source code and edit themselves if required.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but people can comment on blog posts instead of sandboxes. Plus when you’re on mobile, sandboxes show the desktop fandom instead of the mobile fandom for some reason.
 
Bobsican said:
I think it'd be better in sandboxes, as that way anyone can easily check the source code and edit themselves if required.
Click to expand...
Profile page drafts should preferably be written in sandboxes before they are posted, yes.
Axxtentacle said:
Ok, I know this is said a lot, even to important projects, but this seems like an ungodly amount of work honestly.

You'd probably need a whole new section of staff dedicated to just doing this as you're literally saying that every single of the dozens/possibly hundreds of profiles made every day needs it's own individual review.

Just don't really think this is something we can realistically do.
Click to expand...
Agreed. If the pages do not live up to our standards, they will simply get deleted.

That can be avoided by spending sufficient time preparing the drafts though.
 
Well, I suppose a thread can be started for more participation on that.
 
Okay.

Would you be willing to initiate a thread in our staff forum regarding this topic, based on my responses above, @FinePoint ? I have had a lot to do IRL recently, so I am behind with my wiki and forum workloads.
 
I think it would be a good idea to make a thread where members can just ask about which ability or abilities are used in a certain scene or feat. Since there are several cases where the abilities used by the characters are confusing or strange and you don't know what ability or abilities they are using.
I know that you can use the Questions and Answers, but many times it happens that the thread you created is not seen and ends up being lost and forgotten, or it doesn't have much interest and it isn't useful to bump it.
 
I suppose that seems fine to me, but what title should we give that thread?
 
If there is something that I am really very bad at, it is naming things, so some help and ideas would be useful
 
Something like this?

Ability Analysis Thread

"The purpose of this thread is to analyze feats and determine which abilities are being demonstrated."

I feel as if "Feat Analysis Thread" is an option too, but would lead to more people thinking they can use it for calculations or revisions.
 
That seems fine to me as well. I will create the thread now.

Thank you for helping out.
 
Well, are people able to add abilities based on that thread, or do they still need a CRT? If they do, then you could use more specific language like "identification" or "classification" if that's all it's for.

Anyways, after doing a lot of render requests I've noticed a problem that isn't very often, but does happen sometimes and is very annoying when it does: when two people start silently working on the same request at the same time. One of them finishes first, and if the other person is halfway through it their effort is wasted. This also means that we're not spreading out the workload efficiently.

I'd propose simply putting in the thread details that people should explicitly state when they've accepted a request and are working on it by replying to a request with something like "I'll start working on this one." Using the like system is a possibility, but could easily cause a disruption.
 
I think that the same rules as usual should apply in that thread. Meaning, that our administrators and thread moderators can officially accept changes to be applied if they explicitly state this in conjunction, but I would appreciate further staff input in this regard.

I do not mind if we place a new brief instruction text in the beginning of our image rendering requests thread, but I am very distracted right now, so I would appreciate if somebody else writes a draft for it.
 
Antvasima said:
I think that the same rules as usual should apply in that thread. Meaning, that our administrators and thread moderators can officially accept changes to be applied if they explicitly state this in conjunction, but I would appreciate further staff input in this regard.

I do not mind if we place a new brief instruction text in the beginning of our image rendering requests thread, but I am very distracted right now, so I would appreciate if somebody else writes a draft for it.
Click to expand...
That might be fine for minor additions, but in general I believe a CRT should be made.
Reason being that otherwise changes will be discussed and applied there without other people interested in them noticing. The thread will generally not appear in the tags for verses after all and it's hard to expect everyone to constantly supervise that thread in addition to the regular CRT forum.

Personally, I would see the purpose of the thread more so in debating which ability something should be before making a CRT or debating abilities for characters before a profile for them is created.
 
DontTalk seems to make sense above. Never mind what I mentioned regarding the subject earlier then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AKM sama
New Staff Promotions
2
Replies
67
Views
5K
Lloydblitzed
Lloydblitzed
H3110l12345I20
Composite Tree VS Tournament, redo of the dead meme CT!
Replies
14
Views
630
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
Sans2345
Looking for matches for Jugannave (Tier 9-C)
Replies
1
Views
722
ThePrimalHunter
ThePrimalHunter
Antvasima
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Warning Tracker
Replies
0
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Mr. Bambu
Feed Me Your Wretched Anime Suggestions
6 7 8
Replies
284
Views
12K
Armorchompy
Armorchompy
Back
Top