The Future of FC/OC (Major Changes to Policy and Content Standards)

[JohnConquest1]

Telling people to put all their hard work in a place called Joke Battles comes a bit off, don't you think ? : P

Not when what I said in the post above is plausiblly attributable to a YouTube series for example such as SMG4 where comedy is certainly more of a focus in the series writing.

Especially because there's already Death Battle profiles there and they don't think that high of it in comparison to the users here lol

Please don't tell me the 8 - 9 year old comments here are what you're referring to.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Like, seriously? There are profiles on Joke Battles that have hard work put into them as well. Such as Composite Human. A profile that is honestly insane well done and probably one of my favorite pages across ALL of our wikis.

Dang, I should really get back to updating CH once I'm done with IRL verse foundations.

In regard to staff opinion... not much I can say. The whole point of this "ha ha basement dweller battleboarding" sthick is just for fun anyways. Nothing wrong so far.

 

[El_rapero_de_tf2]

If you're going to ignore all of that just because the site calls itself "Joke Battles," I think you need to get your priorities straight.

I feel like them being a bit annoyed by the name is understandable to a certain extent

keep in mind that most of these profiles that are being moved to joke battles were not made as a joke or do not relate to a totally unserious media, leading the page viewers that come by to assume that the profile in question will only contain stuff like wanked stats (since, as much as there are actually insanely well made profiles, there's also a huge, much wider majority of these types of profiles in the wiki)

Overall I'm not saying it's a justification to be compeltely mad over it (understandable and justifiable aren't the same), but i feel like making them move profiles that don't come from an unserious media or just straight up characters that aren't unserious to a wiki called "Joke Battle Wiki" can not only be a bit annoying for the creators of the profile but also misleading for people who come to read the pages.

 

[Vyfourthaccount]

I feel like them being a bit annoyed by the name is understandable to a certain extent

keep in mind that most of these profiles that are being moved to joke battles were not made as a joke or do not relate to a totally unserious media, leading the page viewers that come by to assume that the profile in question will only contain stuff like wanked stats (since, as much as there are actually insanely well made profiles, there's also a huge majority of these types of profiles in the wiki)

Overall I'm not saying it's a justification to be compeltely mad over it (understandable and justifiable aren't the same), but i feel like making them move profiles that don't come from an unserious media or just straight up characters that aren't unserious to a wiki called "Joke Battle Wiki" can not only be a bit annoying for the creators of the profile and misleading for people who come to read the pages.

Alt battles is the way ngl if they allow it and I think it would be best to just use alt battles for it's intended purpose

 

[Ebihara]

Alt battles is the way ngl if they allow it and I think it would be best to just use alt battles for it's intended purpose

I agree, but we have been told that alot of the stuff isnt welcome. I also think that all of this from looking at alt battles and the current content on it that the stuff we would move over would fit perfectly. I would like to hear the reasons staff on alt battles feels death battle profiles are different cause I really dont see how it wouldnt fit with the current content. If it truly doesnt work out I think joke wiki is a more distant second place in terms of fit but a wiki is better then no wiki at this point for the content that's being purged.

 

[Ayewale]

some stuff annoyed me enough to break out of cryo stasis

We will be banning stuff that is comedic or unserious to the point that the "story" is nonsensical.

This is vague to the point of absurdity, especially on the 'nonsensical' part. Beyond the fact that acclaimed literature like Alice in Wonderland wouldn't fit into the FCOC by these arbitrary standards, what exactly constitutes something being nonsensical, especially something being 'unserious'? I can assure you, My Little Pony but in the outback of a nuclear apocalypse' is an extraordinarily unserious and nonsensical premise to a lot of people, but for some reason or the other, this objectively insane mishmash of settings is considered fine.

I'm assuming the barrier to entry here is how seriously a story takes itself, but that isn't a good metric for gatekeeping things. The goal here, I assume, is to make the FCOC wiki less childish--but seriousness and childishness are completely unrelated concepts. As a decent example, Coldsteel the Hedgehog takes itself one hundred and ten percent seriously, but most can agree that it's a lot more childish (and substantively lesser literature) than A Christmas Carol, or Chronicles of Narnia, or hell, even The Hobbit; all stories with their fair share of humor. Maybe you could say if they're completely absurd they don't fit, but what do you make of Alice in Wonderland? Do you just ban everything intentionally trying to be opaque and anti-logic? That sounds much more childish to me than just accepting the occasional cringy page.

Even I once tried to make a serious profile for an unserious work here. That being Caleb City.

Having watched CalebCity videos, there's nothing in there that's particularly distinct from a gag manga or long-running newspaper comic. 'Unserious work' here is just a substitute for 'focuses on comedy', which is an unnecessary and insanely arbitrary standard to base the entire wiki around. While I understand wanting the wiki to be less childish, the starting premise for this rule is "being comedic is being childish"--an analysis that couldn't be shallower. If you can look me dead in the eye and say that Coldsteel the Hedgehog is a more serious and more adult piece of fiction than The Hobbit because the former is more self-serious than the latter, then I'll know you're a liar.

I suppose the last vector you could use for determining what is and isn't childish is quality, but this is (rather obviously, I hope) about as subjective as things get. The FCOC wiki advertises itself as being for amateur writers--a lot of the stuff on there isn't that good, and that's okay.

My suggestion? You try to enforce pages to have at least something in their backstory/personality entries, even if its a one-liner. This wouldn't be a popular change, but it would actually make some effort towards improving the quality of the average character page and it would help make the wiki be more than just smashing 7-B toys together.

The better suggestion would be to bite the bullet and accept that a lot of pages will be cringy but the mod team seems to have made it clear they're not going with that route.

 

[Phoenks]

This is vague to the point of absurdity, especially on the 'nonsensical' part. Beyond the fact that acclaimed literature like Alice in Wonderland wouldn't fit into the FCOC by these arbitrary standards, what exactly constitutes something being nonsensical, especially something being 'unserious'? I can assure you, My Little Pony but in the outback of a nuclear apocalypse' is an extraordinarily unserious and nonsensical premise to a lot of people, but for some reason or the other, this objectively insane mishmash of settings is considered fine.

I'm assuming the barrier to entry here is how seriously a story takes itself, but that isn't a good metric for gatekeeping things. The goal here, I assume, is to make the FCOC wiki less childish--but seriousness and childishness are completely unrelated concepts. As a decent example, Coldsteel the Hedgehog takes itself one hundred and ten percent seriously, but most can agree that it's a lot more childish (and substantively lesser literature) than A Christmas Carol, or Chronicles of Narnia, or hell, even The Hobbit; all stories with their fair share of humor. Maybe you could say if they're completely absurd they don't fit, but what do you make of Alice in Wonderland? Do you just ban everything intentionally trying to be opaque and anti-logic? That sounds much more childish to me than just accepting the occasional cringy page.

Yeah, the whole point was not to be hyper specific, since it's really just a case by case thing. And yeah, it's subjective. As John said, it is a bit better to have it that way for the time being.

Also, "unserious to the point of being nonsensical" refers to things like Youtube Poops, where it's kinda just "Random shit, go!" mostly for the purposes of being funny. Not going to index that kind of stuff anymore when JBW is right around the corner. It was already on the front page of the wiki for years that those kinds of things were supposed to be on JBW on the first place.

Trying to compare that to Fallout Equestria is ridiculous, lol.

Btw, we aren't banning stuff that is made for kids or comedies or childish stuff in general. Really don't know where that idea comes from. Seems like another big misunderstanding?

Anyway, I still stand by most of the policies here being pretty fine aside from some of the wording, which will be fixed eventually.

 

[Ayewale]

Btw, we aren't banning stuff that is made for kids or comedies or childish stuff in general. Really don't know where that idea comes from. Seems like another big misunderstanding?

You highlighted here that one of the bigger problems with Sonic.EXE adjacent character was that they 'appealed to a younger audience'. It isn't hard to deduce that you want the FCOC wiki to be less childish, you more or less said so already lol

Many Sonic Fan Characters (FCs): Most Sonic FCs are uncreative spinoffs that often fail to meet the originality and depth required by our policy standards. EXE characters, in particular, tend to appeal to a younger audience that does not critically engage with aspects like character personality, plot, or originality.

Anyhow,

Also, "unserious to the point of being nonsensical" refers to things like Youtube Poops, where it's kinda just "Random shit, go!" mostly for the purposes of being funny.

You mean like Pop Team Epic? Or the Annoying Orange? Or, ****, Alice in Wonderland? 'Random stuff happens for funny' isn't any less of a narrative than 'magical ponies in a post-apocalyptic wasteland'. If the pages are well-made and well-researched, what exactly is the problem with allowing pages from these verses in? Honestly, I would argue that a series that's just dumb shit but self-aware about it is a lot less unserious than a series like Fallot Equestria taking itself seriously.

 

[JohnConquest1]

Something like the Annoying Orange would've been against the rules ever prior to these changes. Again we have Joke Battles Wiki, which would certainly be more approriate in that case.

 

[Phoenks]

You highlighted here that one of the bigger problems with Sonic.EXE adjacent character was that they 'appealed to a younger audience'. It isn't hard to deduce that you want the FCOC wiki to be less childish, you more or less said so already lol

Not the best wording, I admit.

Also, I've (me personally) changed my mind on some of the EXE stuff. It's not all in violation of the rules. There are some actually pretty decent spin-offs of it.

You mean like Pop Team Epic? Or the Annoying Orange?

Idk what Pop Team Epic is, so can't comment. Yeah, Annoying Orange probably wouldn't go on here.

Alice in Wonderland

I have no clue how that's comparable to Annoying Orange or what I said.

If the pages are well-made and well-researched, what exactly is the problem with allowing pages from these verses in?

It doesn't fit the content standard that's been on the site for nearly ten years now and JBW is right around the corner. Part of the reason for this policy change was to further limit and outline what exactly FCOC would be indexing, to make the site more focused, even if that comes at the cost of it being smaller.

But, I will say again, the intention is not to outright ban all comedic works, nor to ban all work directed towards children.

 

[Agnaa]

Alt battles would be more appropriate. if it had a forum also I think the rules on how FC characters are treated to the original are off

They should allow FC stuff in it ngl. It makes little sense to not let FCS in it when there is SCP and AVA in it (in ava case) is basically fanfic

We already talked about this on the last page. Go complain to Ovens if you want it changed.

 

[Vyfourthaccount]

We already talked about this on the last page. Go complain to Ovens if you want it changed.

Fine

 

[Rayfire]

keep in mind that most of these profiles that are being moved to joke battles were not made as a joke or do not relate to a totally unserious media, leading the page viewers that come by to assume that the profile in question will only contain stuff like wanked stats (since, as much as there are actually insanely well made profiles, there's also a huge, much wider majority of these types of profiles in the wiki)

I agree, but we have been told that alot of the stuff isnt welcome.

There's still the 5th wiki catering to FC/OC rejects specifically, Which everyone seems to have forgotten about so there shouldn't be any problems moving the pages there. (I've opened the wiki to a few friends of mine, and i'm polishing the rough edges mostly before i post it here. We've started throwing the death battle profiles on there too)

 

[Ebihara]

There's still the 5th wiki catering to FC/OC rejects specifically, Which everyone seems to have forgotten about so there shouldn't be any problems moving the pages there. (I've opened the wiki to a few friends of mine, and i'm polishing the rough edges mostly before i post it here. We've started throwing the death battle profiles on there too)

Glad to hear. please to link it to me when it opens to the public.

 

[El_rapero_de_tf2]

There's still the 5th wiki catering to FC/OC rejects specifically, Which everyone seems to have forgotten about so there shouldn't be any problems moving the pages there. (I've opened the wiki to a few friends of mine, and i'm polishing the rough edges mostly before i post it here. We've started throwing the death battle profiles on there too)

yipee : D

 

[H3110l12345I20]

But, I will say again, the intention is not to outright ban all comedic works, nor to ban all work directed towards children.

Then why not clarify this or at least state examples of precedents in the rules (and why X example isn't allowed). Precedents are why we shouldn't condone gacha life cringe not made by luni on the main site (VSBW), and yet you guys accept such works here. The examples would even give a more clearer idea on how comedic and childish works would be treated on site.

 

[Spinoirr]

So is a character who has a same personality as Cannon but has way more powers/new powers + have a different life due to different circumstance is fine right (What if Characters)

Given their powers and abilities, life circumstances are different

 

[VeneficaAuthor]

So is a character who has a same personality as Cannon but has way more powers/new powers + have a different life due to different circumstance is fine right (What if Characters)

Given their powers and abilities, life circumstances are different

For those unaware, I am a new member of the staff team and so I'm going to be fielding questions now as well.

These characters need to have clear distinctions from those canon counterparts outside of powers and abilities. On profiles like this, we need to see effort put into showcasing those unique aspects. If that much has been done on the profile (to a sufficient extent), I'd be fine with allowing it.

 

[Spinoirr]

For those unaware, I am a new member of the staff team and so I'm going to be fielding questions now as well.

These characters need to have clear distinctions from those canon counterparts outside of powers and abilities. On profiles like this, we need to see effort put into showcasing those unique aspects. If that much has been done on the profile (to a sufficient extent), I'd be fine with allowing it.

Like a longer summary to show the difference between them and cannon right?

 

[VeneficaAuthor]

Like a longer summary to show the difference between them and cannon right?

Preferably yes, I’d expect that to be a minimum for characters like this. The summary would have to go in depth on a few factors though: personality, their goals, their relationships, etc and how those differ from canon as well. We don’t want carbon copies of characters on the site.

 

[Spinoirr]

Preferably yes, I’d expect that to be a minimum for characters like this. The summary would have to go in depth on a few factors though: personality, their goals, their relationships, etc and how those differ from canon as well. We don’t want carbon copies of characters on the site.

Now completely new characters from what ifs are fair game right?

Example: Ruta being Goku and Raditz's younger sister in some salad saiyan what ifs

 

[VeneficaAuthor]

Now completely new characters from what ifs are fair game right?

Example: Ruta being Goku and Raditz's younger sister in some salad saiyan what ifs

I'd be perfectly fine with it provided they make a unique impact on the setting

 

[Ayewale]

Something like the Annoying Orange would've been against the rules ever prior to these changes. Again we have Joke Battles Wiki, which would certainly be more approriate in that case.

Why on earth would a show that aired on Cartoon Network be on Joke Battles Wiki beyond pure spite?

 

[Spinoirr]

Preferably yes, I’d expect that to be a minimum for characters like this. The summary would have to go in depth on a few factors though: personality, their goals, their relationships, etc and how those differ from canon as well. We don’t want carbon copies of characters on the site.

Now what about characters where later versions of themselves have more Differences?

Like a Dragon Ball version having a few Differences and then the DBZ and Super versions have way more Differences

 

[JohnConquest1]

Why on earth would a show that aired on Cartoon Network be on Joke Battles Wiki beyond pure spite?

Like.

The point was more in reference to the writing style of the show. Also, if being on television in and of itself, and strictly on its was a qualifying criteria for something being on VSB for example then Scott The Woz and various other YouTuber content whose content was purposed, originally or not, for that medium would by all means be fine for VSB That is certainly a web of arguments I don't think anyone wants to have.

I want to stress something here that I don't think is being made all too clear, none of us on the staff team are IP lawyers of any sort. I do not believe any of us, be it staff or regular users would want to be that for Vs Debating situations nor would there be any real benefit in becoming that for the sake of any of the wikis.

 

[VeneficaAuthor]

Now what about characters where later versions of themselves have more Differences?

Like a Dragon Ball version having a few Differences and then the DBZ and Super versions have way more Differences

Is there a specific character this refers to?

Either way the same thing as before applies, those differences should be well highlighted in the profile. As long as that much is apparent the profile should be allowed unless it breaks some other rule or something along those lines

 

[Spinoirr]

Is there a specific character this refers to?

Either way the same thing as before applies, those differences should be well highlighted in the profile. As long as that much is apparent the profile should be allowed unless it breaks some other rule or something along those lines

Alright, I've updated all three Ruby's profiles to have her summary's be longer with some stuff that never happened in Cannon but did in the AU in there alongside personality differences for Z and Super

 

[Ayewale]

Like.

The point was more in reference to the writing style of the show. Also, if being on television in and of itself, and strictly on its was a qualifying criteria for something being on VSB for example then Scott The Woz and various other YouTuber content whose content was purposed, originally or not, for that medium would by all means be fine for VSB That is certainly a web of arguments I don't think anyone wants to have.

That is true: the qualifying criteria for being on the vsbw, for the most part, is "it exists, isn't fanfiction and isn't a web project". Scott the Woz isn't a narrative, but the Annoying Orange is, hence the latter qualifies and the former doesn't.

 

[JohnConquest1]

That is true: the qualifying criteria for being on the vsbw, for the most part, is "it exists, isn't fanfiction and isn't a web project". Scott the Woz isn't a narrative, but the Annoying Orange is, hence the latter qualifies and the former doesn't.

The qualifying criteria is probably only that in the vaguest terms. Again it is not in our best interest to really dive into the legality of an IP on a case by case basis. Even if that weren't exactly a thing, completely emulating the standards of vsbw doesn't do us any favors with regards to the fundimental differences of our content and how said content is developed.