The Current Ruling on YouTube profiles and other issues

[Andytrenom]

Honestly, I think working on a page may be better than rewording the rules.

I don't think the policy can be explained well enough otherwise.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Honestly, I think working on a page may be better than rewording the rules.
I don't think the policy can be explained well enough otherwise.

I agree with this.

I can type out a more detailed explaination if need be.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

I think that music videos need to have a story outside of the videos themselves to be regarded as a canon, such as Gorillaz, or Steam Powered Giraffe.

Iirc weekly told me Greydon square is okay

 

[Yobo_Blue]

On the Awsomeverse points, the Awsomeverse as a whole has a overarching plot and lore that shows it is fictional. Villains from Linkara can appear in The Nostalgia Critic's videos, and The Nostalgia Critic is the main protagonist of multiple movies centered around others like AVGN and the Angry Joe show. There's obvious backstory and important characters like Lord Vyce and the existence of Hypertime that make it very different in nature from the real world

 

[Antvasima]

@Sir Ovens

Hmm. My apologies, but that isn't quite what I was looking for. I would like an expanded explanations for the two first rules in the first post, so people understand better where we are coming from and what is intended.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

1) VS Battles Wiki is first and foremost, a fictional character indexing site. Please refrain from creating profiles for characters that exist outside the scope of a notable or popular fictional setting, or characters that have no notable means of combat in a fictional VS debate setting.

2) Do not create profiles that do not fall under the purview of fictional. Reality television, talkshows, and stage personas are not fictional in nature, and personalites from such media should not be added to the site. The only exception to this rule is Real Life, which serves as more of a reference for feats rather than an actual verse. Characters that originate from fictional canons or franchises that share the same name as their real world counterpart are allowed, on the condition that they are indeed fictional and do not reflect upon the character of the real person.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, your new suggested regulations still do not contain all of the previous information, although I suppose that I could make an attempt to merge them together with the old rules if you wish.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

You are free to modify my rules, I have no objections to their modification if it serves to better the wiki.

However, as we speak, I'm working on a proposed policy page regarding the addition of profiles and the standards that we have to abide by.

It includes extensive and detailed explanations of what can and cannot be allowed on the site.

I don't know if it will be a welcome addtion but I feel like it is worth making to better illustrate to users our standards, so as to not have any unwanted contention regarding what is allowed and what isn't.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the help. I will give it a shot.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

The proposed policy is detailed on my sandbox here.

 

[Antvasima]

I have written a draft for the new regulation text. Input regarding improvements would be appreciated:

The VS Battles Wiki is, first and foremost, a fictional character indexing site. All featured characters in our profiles should originate within actual stories, from notable or popular works. A story includes a plot, a fictional setting, and having a defined canon.

Do not create any joke profiles, as they do not fit into our tiering system. Also avoid creating profiles for fan characters, advertisement characters, memes, YouTube personalities, reality television, talk shows, music videos, stage personas, and the like. If you wish to create such profiles, feel free to do so in the Joke Battles wiki instead.

Take note that we are not experienced lawyers, so it is hard to precisely cover every angle, but to explain further, we are trying to keep the wiki reasonably streamlined and focused, to not allow in real people. Stage personas, such as YouTube and TV show hosts, tend to lack a 4th wall between them and the audience, and are not explicitly fictional in nature, as part of an actual story with a plot, regardless of special effects. They are real people who are recurrently acting out of character for their true personalities.

Corporate mascots and advertisement characters are not part of fictional storylines, regardless of feats in commercials and similar. It is preferable to not allow any incoherent figments without substance to be featured here.

The only exception to these rules is Real Life, which serves as more of a reference for feats and common weapons and animals, rather than an actual verse.

Characters that originate from fictional canons or franchises, and share the same names as their real world counterparts are allowed, on the condition that they fulfill the requirements mentioned above.

 

[The_Smashor]

I agree with the propoesed policy.

 

[Antvasima]

@Sir Ovens

I would appreciate if you incorporate my modified new rules section explanations into your page.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Can do.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I'm sorry but I really see no point in these rules...

 

[Read_this_post]

So no more filthy frank...

 

[Antvasima]

@Sir Ovens

Thank you for the help.

 

[Antvasima]

@Weekly

We need them as both explanations of our policies and floodgates to not allow everything in here.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

No problem, the changes have been made.

Now I'm just going to add a music video portion and I think it should be done.

 

[The_Smashor]

@Read

See rule 4 on the sandbox.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I just think that it's really elitist of use to pick and choose what is "fictional enough" to be here

 

[Sir_Ovens]

It's not elitist to have standards. We're not alienating people here, we're just trying to prevent threads like can this be added or should that be on the wiki from being made.

 

[Antvasima]

@Sir Ovens

I didn't mean copy and paste the text, I meant that it would be something to thematically build upon to become coherent with your page instructions.

Anyway, are you sure that we are not overdoing it with such an extremely specific instruction page? Isn't my expanded explanation enough for our purposes, so we get a bit of leeway with our interpretations if necessary?

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Well, I was thinking that a proper explanation should be given in case people have doubts about the validity of our profiles. But if you wish to have a more open interpretation, that works too. I was just thinking about threads about Filthy Frank popping up and us having no proper rule to justify, nor deny the existence of such a profile.

The "we are a fictional indexing site" opens up the doors to many loopholes that many can exploit to add excess pages to the wiki.

 

[Paul_Frank]

now can we make rules to stop more profiles like Thomas being added

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that is a good point. However, a problem is that I am extremely overworked today, and won't be able to properly check through, and if necessary modify, your suggested page, so perhaps we could handle that part slowly, and focus on improving my suggested expanded rules to start with?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Just want to point out that "stage persona" is a very, VERY broad term that can apply to nearly any character played by an actor

You may want to adjust that

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Can do.

The main point of contention I have with your suggested expanded rules is that Agnna makes some good points about Corporate Mascots. The main problem I can see with them is a potential lawsuit, but what we do here on the wiki is both transformative, and harmless, so I can't see a reason why they would do that.

At most I feel like they are inappropriate to have due to the very nature of an advertisement. Where every other form of media has a story to tell or a message to be said, advertisements exist just to sell you something. Sure, some may be entertaining, but the end goal is still to shill products.

Don't know if that is reason enough to remove mascots from the site.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Just want to point out that "stage persona" is a very, VERY broad term that can apply to nearly any character played by an actor
You may want to adjust that

Hmm... Perhaps an explanation as to what we define to be as persona? Like behaving a certain way to seem more entertaining to the audience is wildly different when compared to commiting to the role of a character and portraying it.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

I just think that it's really elitist of use to pick and choose what is "fictional enough" to be here

Honestly I agree with this.


Even though I won't push for High 1-C Nova being allowed, we have things like the Guide Mark II being aware that it's played by Stephen Hawking.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Then we open the floodgates to questionably accepted content. If we can't point to it and give clear reasons as to why it should or should not be on the site, we run the risk of having long and drawn out debates on what is and isn't allowed.

The point I have been trying to get across since the previous thread is that this site is meant to index fictional characters. YouTube is a huge cesspool of content that threads the fine line between fiction and reality. The only reason why we ever have Filthy Frank arguments is because of the nature of YouTube. The whole conversation snowballed when the question of what is considered fiction was applied elsewhere.

To be consistent, we either have rules for all forms of media, or none of them. It's not fair to regulate YouTube, but then have television get away with profiles from commercials.

 

[Antvasima]

@Sir Ovens

So which parts of my suggested new wording do you wish to modify, specifically, and do you have new suggestions?

 

[Sir_Ovens]

The beginning part about how we only allow fictions with stories should be changed. As it stands, we allow multiple fictional profiles that focus on reality-fiction interaction such as The Butto. There isn't really a plot, more like a series of events where the player character has control of the situation at hand. So I feel like it should say something along the lines of "All profiles should preferably originate from a body of work that has a story, or should be something entirely fictional in nature, with no true bearing over the real world."

I have yet to find a suitable reason as to why we shouldn't have mascots on the site. If someone could come up with a valid reason I would be more than happy to add it in. But as it stands, all I have is what I said earlier.

Also stage persona needs to be elaborated. We could mention how a persona is bascally a behavioral change in the host's character, but the setting is otherwise unchanged from reality and not fictional in nature. A character is played by someone who is invested in the role and not just being a variation of themself.

That's all I can do at the moment. I'm going to sleep now. I'll have to continue this when I wake up.

 

[Antvasima]

1) Okay. Thank you for the input.

2) Mascots without a storyline are not really proper characters, just figments, but if Tony The Tiger has officially published comicbooks, games, etcetera to scale from, we can probably include him.

3) Good point. That should probably be clarified.

I am too busy today to properly handle this right now though, as I have to go to sleep soon, so it will have to be a gradual process over the coming days.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

We should probably talk about which character profiles that currently exist can stay and leave. I think the filthy Frank profile can stay due to being based on a book and not the YouTube channel

 

[Wokistan]

Yeah, about the stories thing, there are some games that just don't have stories like Devil Daggers that can still get statted, so I think stuff like that is fine.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Oh also, we should clarify that just because a profile is funny, it does not mean the profile itself needs to be removed as a joke

 

[Antvasima]

We should probably talk about which character profiles that currently exist can stay and leave. I think the filthy Frank profile can stay due to being based on a book and not the YouTube channel

Yes. It should be fine.

 

[Agnaa]

How much "narrative stuff" would qualify something as having a "story"? Would pure advertisement characters like Old Spice's Isaiah Mustafa and Terry Crews who have an ongoing rivalry and callbacks to previous advertisements count as having a story?

Also Ovens, putting that reference to A Date With Markiplier in feels misleading, because Markiplier does have videos that were agreed to be useable for a profile, in Wilford Warfstache coming from Who Killed Markiplier and Wilford "Motherloving" Warfstache. Could you put in a different example, or use Wilford Warfstache as an example of when a few one-off videos can get a valid character profile with noteworthy statistics?

 

[Sir_Ovens]

As Ant pointed out: "Mascots without a storyline are not really proper characters, just figments, but if Tony The Tiger has officially published comicbooks, games, etcetera to scale from, we can probably include him." But those mascosts appearing in forms of media such as games or comics should fair game.

I was actually thinking of removing one-offs entirely as after giving it some thought, I realize that there are very few cons to having them around besides maybe having very few feats to use. But that has never stopped us from making profiles like Ginosaji, or to a greater extent, Monarch of Pointland. But maybe they should be judged on a case by case basis, lest we get ahead of ourselves.