The Current Ruling on YouTube profiles and other issues

[Sera_EX]

I know, I meant closely related as the actual ET review being considered an AVGN episode. So basically the film was just an extended episode. It may be the only example I can think of where even though it's a film production, it may not qualify.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

I don't see why being reviews would suddenly disqualify it from having a profile.

 

[Sera_EX]

I misread what you said. You said the storyline is tied to the reviews, I misread that as something else, sorry.

Honestly, yeah a profile for The Nerd using feats from the movie would be fine.

 

[LightinAnt]

Didn't he beat a 6 dimensional being in that movie though?

 

[Sera_EX]

Dimensions mean nothing without context.

 

[LightinAnt]

Found it pretty funny though

 

[Yobo_Blue]

He has some solid scaling to the Nostalgia Critic who even outside of Christmas has a Low 6-B feat, but I digress. He has solid feats in his reviews has well.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Dimensions mean nothing without context.

Pretty much this. I'm currently working on CRTs for SCP for the exact same issue; dimensions are often portrayed as universes or something even less significant.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't see why being reviews would suddenly disqualify it from having a profile.

I misread what you said. You said the storyline is tied to the reviews, I misread that as something else, sorry.

Honestly, yeah a profile for The Nerd using feats from the movie would be fine.

Here it seems like Yobo's fine with internet video game reviews AVGN getting a profile, but Sera isn't (only thinking the movie version's acceptable). Which position are we going with and why?

 

[Paul_Frank]

this can all be avoided if we say youtube based verses aren't allowed because it's too divisive and a subject people can't really 100% agree o

 

[Yobo_Blue]

I just don't see why we would suddenly split a canon between its two mediums simply because one of them is a in-universe review of a game.

 

[Sera_EX]

I already said why...

 

[Yobo_Blue]

I don't think the reasoning was very clear, than. Sorry.

 

[Sera_EX]

If the canon is the same between the two, I would still think it's fine to use because AVGN has a film. I already explained the difference between a notable work of fiction and a non notable one (and notability/legitimacy is all that matters). However, because there would be power-scaling issues (AVGN beats up Bugs Bunny but gets one shotted by a Famicom Optimus Prime) I'm certain it shouldn't be. That clear?

 

[Yobo_Blue]

AVGN already appears in multiple films across the awesomeverse canon anyway, so there's that.

Obviously we aren't scaling to unlicensed appearances of fictional characters. We don't even scale between official crossovers.

 

[Agnaa]

We don't treat representations of fictional characters as being as strong as their original canon counterparts.

AVGN beating up Bugs Bunny isn't a High 4-C feat, just like a character beating up Cthulu isn't a 1-A feat. There aren't power-scaling issues.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Otherwise we get 1-A Nostalgia Critic via being above Outer Gods

 

[Sera_EX]

That's not what I meant but, whatever. I'm not in the mood for this.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I was under the assumption that notoriety was something that was always taken into consideration in the first place. The problem we're trying to fix is that every time a profile is made about something originating from YouTube, there is a point of contention because the rules of what profiles are allowed on the site are pretty vague.

Previously, the rules just stated that YouTube personas are not allowed. But the definition of persona was never made clear, so perfectly alright profiles were getting deleted. What's more, notability is hard to define. Most YouTubers have more notability than YouTube Red serials, but that does not mean all YouTubers can be indexed for the wiki.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Just want to say that the Awesomeverse indeed has a plot, specially with their anniversary movies, which are canon within the stories in the review, and viceversa.

The review aspect is commonly used by Doug Walker (the actor and writer for the nostalgia critic) as an inside joke itself, with other characters asking why is 'The Critic' talking to himself and looking at the wall.

A 4th Wall break, naturally. The same way how the anniversary movie "To Boldly Flee" featured an enormous 4th wall break with 'The Critic' meeting 'The Writer'.

All "the reviewers" do this on their respective show.

The most notable example of a plot within the Awesomeverse is Linkara, who heavily maintains continuity with the plot inside the reviews with the others in his other reviews

So they I believe are a-ok to have a profile.

They don't even have a problem with notoriety, as Steam Powered Giraffe has less fans than Channel Awesome on youtube, but the former is allowed.

But this are just my 2 cents.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Linkara in particular also does a good job of establishing the whole "reviews are in-universe thing".

 

[Jasonsith]

We don't treat representations of fictional characters as being as strong as their original canon counterparts.

AVGN beating up Bugs Bunny isn't a High 4-C feat, just like a character beating up Cthulu isn't a 1-A feat. There aren't power-scaling issues.

There are more like different avatars than power scaling. (Talking Akuma in Street Fighter, Tekken and Asura's Wrath)

 

[Antvasima]

I deleted all of the derailment posts. Let's return to discussing this instead:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User:Sir_Ovens/sandbox/Profile_Addition_Standards

 

[Antvasima]

Fiction be damned. This is about notability and it's always been about notability.

It doesn't have to be YouTube Red specifically, Matt was just citing an example. Also, this is way too controversial for no reason. A YouTube DBZ fan movie belongs on FC/OC because it's a fanmade variation of an already existing work. A youtube film that's like two bucks and has a cast of actual characters is okay. It's a film production, just on a lesser scale than a Hollywood blockbuster.

I think AVGN could have a profile but only the film appearance, not his game reviews (though they might be too closely related).

Ronald McDonald from a commercial needs no profile, but a Ronald McDonald from a McDonald's serialized cartoon on YouTube would be allowed.

How many times must we have the exact same conversation?

I mostly agree with this.

 

[Andytrenom]

If I may, I think Michael Jordan from Space Jam should be replaced with Mike Tyson from Punch Out in Oven's draft. I feel he gets the point across much better about a real life person having a fictional counterpart that can be indexed here.

 

[Antvasima]

That seems like a good idea.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

It has been changed.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Fiction be damned could lead down interesting pathways of thought.

Frankly (and this is speaking as someone who has never watched AVGN), if the reviews are canon to the movies (which they seem to be treated as) then I say just call it canon and call it a day.

I agree with it mostly on the premise that it's a rephrasing of what I agreed with before. So. yeet.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that most of the draft seems fine, although I will probably have to restructure the language flow somewhat to be more in line wih our usual instruction pages.

The only apparent problem is YouTube example #4, as Filthy Frank is only allowed in this wiki due to being a published book character with an actual coherent storyline. He would not have been allowed based on his Youtube videos alone.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

The book ties in to the lore videos on YouTube. We can actually say the book is secondary canon in this instance. While I agree that his humor is absurdist and crude, he isn't actually breaking our standards if we look strictly at his lore videos.

 

[Antvasima]

Please elaborate.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Filthy Frank's videos, from what little I've seen, are essentially satirical extensions on his book universe (the book is even referenced in one and is stated to "explain everything" that's happening in the videos). Shared universe.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

His content has a contained canon outside of videos where he eats vomit cake with his friends. There is a distinct seperation between the satirical vlogs (Filthy Frank persona) and the lore videos (Filthy Frank character) and we can take feats from the lore videos. Videos where he reads comments by fans can also be canon material as his audience interaction is strictly for comedy and not informative nor grounded in reality. Chin Chin sacrifice videos where his fans send him videos praising Chin Chin also have a canonical reason for existing as the character Chin Chin demanded Frank to give him sacrfices to satiate his need for chromosomes.

The book was made to explain further expand upon the lore videos and can be considered secondary canon.

 

[Agnaa]

Essentially, Filthy Frank's YouTube videos are about as suitable for the site as Brandon Rogers (the content is nearly identical imo, except Brandon Rogers is more offensive and has less lore and audience interaction). Since this thread has moved the bar for Brandon Rogers being allowed, Filthy Frank (just the lore videos) should be as well.

 

[Antvasima]

If he interacts with the audience, he seems more like a stage persona than a character. The book character is fine to keep in the wiki though.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

They're the same character.

 

[Antvasima]

The book is purely fictional, whereas the YouTube persona is not, correct?

 

[Agnaa]

The YouTube persona is purely fictional. Some time ago he uploaded a serious video where he was giving his serious thoughts on a situation. The backlash this got due to how different it was from the rest of his content, and the desire to have the channel just be for his character, lead to him deleting the video.

There's a clear distinction between the Filthy Frank persona and his personal/sincere endeavors.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Noted.