The necessity of Neutral/Opponents on a Verse page?

[Agnaa]

What Verses are excluded then exactly???

idk what you mean

You haven't addressed why the fact its 'fun' is the main thing here...Like...aren't we purging all SCP profiles??? Why do we care abt that

It's not the sole factor, it's one of many.

You lowkey aint making sense anymore?
I've actually said multiple times that i understand if the page is up for Verses without a page and finding useful people among them, but that doesnt justify it enough to stick around. If its viable enough for a CRT revolving around Verse upgrades (and not just 1 character profile.), then it'd have a Verse page

I still do not know what you're talking about

They don't come up often...
Like what are you even talking about anymore? This is confusing now

idk what I can do to clear it up, so ig we're at an impasse.

 

[Jinx666]

There isnt 'many', it literally is just 'its fun to keep around' or 'if its not broke dont fix it' (where ive never been saying its broken, and already explained how this is a non-progressive mindset for such an old, untouched feature that can be put to better use)

Where is the professional use in having a section for literally anybody to say they like or dislike a series on public profile?

 

[Agnaa]

There isnt 'many', it literally is just 'its fun to keep around' or 'if its not broke dont fix it' (where ive never been saying its broken, and already explained how this is a non-progressive mindset for such an old, untouched feature that can be put to better use)

• You: We don't care about fun, as evidenced by us deleting SCP.
• Me: Fun isn't the sole thing we care about, it's one of many things which were considered when deleting SCP.

Hope that clears things up.

Where is the professional use in having a section for literally anybody to say they like or dislike a series on public profile?

You're just repeating things at this point.

 

[Jinx666]

• You: We don't care about fun, as evidenced by us deleting SCP.
• Me: Fun isn't the sole thing we care about, it's one of many things which were considered when deleting SCP.

...okay? I wasn't arguing that, i know the SCP debate here. But it just goes to show you dont keep things just cause they're 'fun', so i dont see why thats the only polarising factor here

Hope that clears things up.

You're just repeating things at this point.

Yeah, cause its kinda hard to get a straight answer for some reason, as if the only reason we arent replacing the S/O/N format is so people can put their names on a public profile like its one of those deviantart factfile posts...

 

[Agnaa]

...okay? I wasn't arguing that, i know the SCP debate here. But it just goes to show you dont keep things just cause they're 'fun', so i dont see why thats the only polarising factor here

Yes, if something was fun, but it had other sufficiently bad detrimental effects, we would remove it.

I don't believe S/O/N has those.

Yeah, cause its kinda hard to get a straight answer for some reason, as if the only reason we arent replacing the S/O/N format is so people can put their names on a public profile like its one of those deviantart factfile posts...

Yes, fun activities are an important aspect of building a healthy community. We shouldn't nuke them because of the rare person who has a worsened outlook on the site by taking those as unprofessional. Our fun and games section, many of the comments on our news and announcement posts; we regularly sacrifice the pinnacle of professionalism to create an enjoyable place for our members to keep coming back to. As we should.

 

[Jinx666]

Yes, if something was fun, but it had other sufficiently bad detrimental effects, we would remove it.

I don't believe S/O/N has those.

"sufficiently bad"

We've gone over its more bad than good, and unhelpful when something easier and more efficient would take its place. I think people just dont like change, idk how 'sufficient' it has to be

Yes, fun activities are an important aspect of building a healthy community. We shouldn't nuke them because of the rare person who has a worsened outlook on the site by taking those as unprofessional. Our fun and games section, many of the comments on our news and announcement posts; we regularly sacrifice the pinnacle of professionalism to create an enjoyable place for our members to keep coming back to. As we should.

Except
A) this isnt 'fun', this is what people refer to when they need actual opinions in CRTs, Questions or Versus Threads. Lets not focus on bias and allignment
B) Needing to tell everyone you dont like a series just sounds like you're tryna rile things up
C) They're not getting 'nuked', they're being changed to better terminology. for a wiki like this as we try to make the site more professioanl.
D) 'rare person' is an extremely limited way of trying to look at it? And for what advantage? So you can keep your name on a public page just for disliking a series?
E) Fun and Games is on the forum (casual). This is on the public Vs Battles Wiki page (professional). Different strokes.
F) There is still literally nothing done with Supporters, Opponents or Neutral (even in Fun and Games) to act like this is some huge staple for community building. It isnt, and we should stop pretending like it is (unless you have examples? No matter how irrelevant you think it is, ive at least provided the few of many examples at the 'harm' it causes, can you show anything that its used for positively to back up this claim that its a fun and enjoyable experience to be an 'opponent' of a verse?)

 

[Jinx666]

Like we're segregating people into 3 factions here? For what? We dont USE these labels for anything, no matter how many times people are claiming its for 'fun'. Its been super misleading since the wikis been around

 

[Agnaa]

I disagree, and for the most part, I've already addressed the stuff you said; I don't think there's much point in continuing.

 

[Jinx666]

I disagree, and for the most part, I've already addressed the stuff you said; I don't think there's much point in continuing.

You haven't explained what these fun activities are no... If anything, its deflecting. Dont continue if you dont want to but i'd rather you actually backed up this one claim as opposed to just expecting me to accept it as the truth...

S/O/N isnt used for anything when its clearly suggesting that people who 'know the series' are being put into three different groups? Yet this isn't used at all.

The only thing the alligment system is used for is for people to hide behind labels for 'credibility, or accuse other people of bias in order to discredit arguments and perpetuate the cycle. Or just plainly hate on something. A.k.a an issue (doesnt matter how big it is)
Can you please give an example on how S/O/N has helped a 'fun activity'?

If you just want your name on a verse page to let everyone know you like/hate it, then just say that bro. Admitting it at least clears it up for me

 

[Agnaa]

I already have. Reread my posts.

There's no other way I'll engage with people who repeatedly badger me over things I've already explained.

 

[Crabwhale]

Anybody got a staff tally?

 

[Jinx666]

I already have. Reread my posts.

There's no other way I'll engage with people who repeatedly badger me over things I've already explained.

You haven't. Quote the exact post.

'Explaining' it is different to proving it as well. Im asking for an example, not an explanation. You saying its 'fun' isnt the same as providing an actual example of what you claim, in that S/O/N is a community-aspect when those allignments by name haven't been used for anything thus far, other than allowing people to guise under false pretences

 

[Agnaa]

It's a fun bit of community-building, a conversation-starter, something people can chuckle at, it gives flavour to the site.

Fools can find any reason to dismiss people's opinions, adding this one doesn't change anything meaningful.

I've never seen it do that.

I've never seen it do that.

Still nice to have a standard even if it isn't utilised 100% of the time. Many pages lack matches entirely, or in certain sub-sections of the match portion.

So, I don't think those sections should be removed.

 

[Jinx666]

This isn't an example

This is you making claims that people get a 'chuckle' at seeing a list of names on a Verse (which isnt true, this section was NOT for being funny), or it gives supposed 'flavour' (Having a list of names based on biased interest in a series as opposed to knowledge comes across more unprofessional)

Only thing right is its a 'conversation starter', but replace conversation starter with actual powerscaling questions on your message wall, which is what Knowledagble members will unbiasedly do better, than someone who just put their name down on any Verse they vaguely knew (like i did)

How many times do i gotta ask specficially for an Example?

 

[Agnaa]

It's astonishing that you'd say "Why haven't you given me an example?" immediately after admitting I gave you an example, which you simply dismissed.

 

[Jinx666]

It's astonishing that you'd say "Why haven't you given me an example?" immediately after admitting I gave you an example, which you simply dismissed.

You dont know what an example is bro... that thing you quoted is just you making a baseless statement

Lets try it this way

Is there any EVIDENCE that S/O/N works in the way you claim it does?

 

[Crabwhale]

Anybody got a staff tally?

♤

 

[Antvasima]

Look. It would be a too drastic change to just suddenly get rid of all our Supporters/Neutral/Opponents sections. Our staff currently greatly NEED them in order to find and summon a sufficiently high amount of active members who are interested in a verse for the benefit of content revision discussion threads.

Given that what you suggest would be disastrously destructive for the wellbeing of our community, I am never going to accept it, no matter how much you pester me about it. My apologies.

However, what we can much more realistically do is to move our currently too empty knowledgeable members sections from the following linked page to new "Knowledgeable Members" sections in the respective associated verse pages, and then gradually wait until they fill up with many more listed members over the span of several years, and then consider if we should remove at that point hopefully redundant Supporters/Neutral/Opponents sections at that much later point in time.

Knowledgeable Members List (Verses)

This page is intended to be a list of the members in this wiki who think that they are highly knowledgeable regarding relevant verses for this wiki that do not have any associated verse pages yet, including ones that have individual character pages here. Members who consider themselves as...

vsbattles.fandom.com

That is a much more realistic solution than what you suggest here.

@Agnaa @Crabwhale

What do you think about my suggestions above? Do they seem sensible to apply, or is it better if we close this thread given that Jinx666 is acting in such an unreasonable manner here?

 

[Antvasima]

Of course, we could also prevent Jinx666 from responding further here in this thread, so we can continue to discuss these issues in peace and quiet.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm kinda torn on that. It seems like a lotta work, and I'm not sure if invested members who know a good amount about our standards do actually neglect the Knowledgeable Members List.

But still, it's something that can be done gradually, and by any user, so I don't mind it too much either.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for your evaluation.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I am pretty positive I said my piece multiple times. Basically the "No need to fix what isn't broken."

This is still all I have to say.

 

[FinePoint]

What my assumption was, and what feels implied by the terminology is this:

• Supporter: "I'm familiar with, love, and want to participate in this verse. Please contact me if there's a discussion about it."
• Neutral: "I'm familiar with this verse, without strong opinions, and am willing to participate in discussions if nobody else will."
• Opponent: "I'm familiar with this verse, but hate it and do not want to participate in it. Do not contact me for discussions about it."

While technically anybody could list themselves, it feels unlikely that someone would bother unless they were at least somewhat familiar with the verse, or had regular experience with being asked about it.

From this perspective, I think it serves as a helpful optional tool to easily let an entire verse know what your stance is on participating in discussions, which helps people know which members to contact first when seeking input, or perhaps more useful, which members absolutely not to contact.

It is ultimately not very impactful, so I see no reason to make a fuss about removing it.
If nothing else, I think it makes people feel very connected with the community to have their name somewhere on their favorite/hated verse page.

 

[Antvasima]

I am pretty positive I said my piece multiple times. Basically the "No need to fix what isn't broken."

Strongly agreed.

I just wonder if we should move the knowledgeable members page sections to their respective verse pages.

 

[Jinx666]

Of course, we could also prevent Jinx666 from responding further here in this thread, so we can continue to discuss these issues in peace and quiet.

Blatant Silencing

Do what you want atp, i dont got power here, but this doesnt remove the issues i made this thread abt in the first place. And How we've suddenly decided to ignore the initial conclusion just by being silent for a while. I'd be more acceptingand less 'annoying' if this hadn't been blatantly ignored, which i feel is fair to simply not just let go without a callout.

What my assumption was, and what feels implied by the terminology is this:

• Supporter: "I'm familiar with, love, and want to participate in this verse. Please contact me if there's a discussion about it."
• Neutral: "I'm familiar with this verse, without strong opinions, and am willing to participate in discussions if nobody else will."
• Opponent: "I'm familiar with this verse, but hate it and do not want to participate in it. Do not contact me for discussions about it."

While technically anybody could list themselves, it feels unlikely that someone would bother unless they were at least somewhat familiar with the verse, or had regular experience with being asked about it.

From this perspective, I think it serves as a helpful optional tool to easily let an entire verse know what your stance is on participating in discussions, which helps people know which members to contact first when seeking input, or perhaps more useful, which members absolutely not to contact.

It is ultimately not very impactful, so I see no reason to make a fuss about removing it.
If nothing else, I think it makes people feel very connected with the community to have their name somewhere on their favorite/hated verse page.

With all this in mind, i dont see at all the necessity of having Neutral or Opponents. Neither of these should be included, as they wouldnt need to put their names on the verse page in the first place if they didnt want to be contacted.

Its only because people want to desperately put their names for the general public to see, despite the wiki "apparently" trying to move towards a more professional and unbiased format for their main pages.

We shouldnt sacrifice the professionalism and neutral-nature of the wiki (strong emphasis that this does not include the forum section) just so people can use these labels as scapegoats to push/hide agendas, or feel 'included' when any info about themselves personally should be kept on a personal profile.

 

[Jinx666]

Like why dont we just add S/O/N section to every individual character profile atp. Mass-adding sections to profiles isnt hard with the use of a bot...

Then ofc the issues with that, should be as apparent as the ones when its just being kept as verses.

I made this with no absolute necessity to remove as if its a huge danger. I just thought that this wiki wanted to get a bit more professional and "with the times" by fixing old formats, like how references are now being greatly encouraged. Sadly it only applies in circumstances.

Muting this finally, dw about it any longer.

 

[FinePoint]

Blatant Silencing...

Much of your post is very excessively dramatic. I don't know what you mean in the slightest by people using this to "push agendas."
Your thread is not being 'ignored', there's just a lot of threads we go through, and sometimes things take some time. This is what bumping is for.

As for having no need to be listed:
If someone is seeking staff input on a CRT, they first go through the supporters list.
If not enough people from that list respond, they will often go and message random staff members instead.
In this instance, being listed as an opponent prevents you from being asked even if the supporters do not respond.

 

[Jinx666]

Idk why i got notified, i unwatched the thread.

Much of your post is very excessively dramatic. I don't know what you mean in the slightest by people using this to "push agendas."
Your thread is not being 'ignored', there's just a lot of threads we go through, and sometimes things take some time. This is what bumping is for.

Been over the people who use these labels to try and hide blatant biases and abuse power positions, as well as the constant time its been called out.

Its not dramatic when this thread has gone on for ages, been completely ignored in its end result, then changed up all of a sudden for what is now an ultimately worse solution tbh

As for having no need to be listed:
If someone is seeking staff input on a CRT, they first go through the supporters list.
If not enough people from that list respond, they will often go and message random staff members instead.
In this instance, being listed as an opponent prevents you from being asked even if the supporters do not respond.

Theres no way anyones resulted in asking a random person, who just so happens to have labelled themselve an opponent, for help with a verse outside of asking for Staff Help. Theres 0 need for their name to be there, and 0 reason for them to be triggered by being asked to comment on a revision post they;ve actively put their name on the verse page for.

If you dont want to be asked for your input in a content revision of a thread, Dont put your name on that Verse. Putting your name on a verse page just to say 'Hey, i dont like this thing', is just ultimately pedantic and not useful (Same with Neutral to a lesser degree). I dont know why we keep defending this outdated system just cause its not among the wiki's worst problems.

This started out as just getting rid of Opponents/Neutral, then everyone jumped on how i didnt also include supproters in that. This changed the thread to replacing then entire section with 'Knowledgable Members' and was ultimately agreed upon. Then everything went radio silent when this had been 'approved' (which idm it needing to take a while), but then its just been revised back and the initial result has been completely disrespected. So forgive me if im a little 'dramatic' about it, but its rather ridiculous if this is how threads like this derail for the benefit of highers.

Unwatching fr now, but i hope one day people can understand why something like this justifiably gets annoying, and how being expected to just 'drop it' when it happens is taken as insulting and unfair.

 

[Antvasima]

I just wonder if we should move the knowledgeable members page sections to their respective verse pages.

So what do the rest of our staff members here think about this?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

Please do not spam bumps to old unfinished staff threads before the other ones have been mostly dealt with. I am overwhelmed by dealing with all of the ones that you have already bumped.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Please do not spam bumps to old unfinished staff threads before the other ones have been mostly dealt with. I am overwhelmed by dealing with all of the ones that you have already bumped.

Sorry, I got carried away for a moment.

 

[Antvasima]

No problem. Also, this particular bump was actually very useful, as I was looking for this thread, so thank you.

As I said in a private discussion thread, I still think that it would be extremely useful for the overall smooth running of our forum to move all "Knowledgeable Members" sections from the following page to their respective associated verse pages.

I think that this is a self-evident constructive change that will greatly simplify when our staff and other members look for knowledgeable members to summon to help out with content revision threads.

Knowledgeable Members List (Verses)

This page is intended to be a list of the members in this wiki who think that they are highly knowledgeable regarding relevant verses for this wiki that do not have any associated verse pages yet, including ones that have individual character pages here. Members who consider themselves as...

vsbattles.fandom.com

@Elizhaa @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @Just_a_Random_Butler @Dereck03 @Shadowbokunohero @QrowBarr @Crazylatin77 @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Therefir @IdiosyncraticLawyer @GarrixianXD @Catzlaflame @Vzearr

Your help would be very appreciated here.

 

[Antvasima]

Just to clarify, we should still keep our Supporters/Opponents/Neutral sections in addition to the new Knowledgeable Members sections.

 

[Vzearr]

No problem. Also, this particular bump was actually very useful, as I was looking for this thread, so thank you.

As I said in a private discussion thread, I still think that it would be extremely useful for the overall smooth running of our forum to move all "Knowledgeable Members" sections from the following page to their respective associated verse pages.

I think that this is a self-evident constructive change that will greatly simplify when our staff and other members look for knowledgeable members to summon to help out with content revision threads.

Knowledgeable Members List (Verses)

This page is intended to be a list of the members in this wiki who think that they are highly knowledgeable regarding relevant verses for this wiki that do not have any associated verse pages yet, including ones that have individual character pages here. Members who consider themselves as...

vsbattles.fandom.com

@Elizhaa @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @Just_a_Random_Butler @Dereck03 @Shadowbokunohero @QrowBarr @Crazylatin77 @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Therefir @IdiosyncraticLawyer @GarrixianXD @Catzlaflame @Vzearr

Your help would be very appreciated here.

I can help out yeah, how do you want it done though?

==Knowledgeable Members==
...
...
...

Would doing this be fine? Should I put it above or under the Supporters/Opponents/Neutral section?

 

[Antvasima]

Preferably above them, but I think that we need more staff confirmations first. I should not make these types of decisions unilaterally.

Thank you greatly for being willing to help out in any case.

 

[Vzearr]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

As I said in a private discussion thread, I still think that it would be extremely useful for the overall smooth running of our forum to move all "Knowledgeable Members" sections from the following page to their respective associated verse pages.

I think that this is a self-evident constructive change that will greatly simplify when our staff and other members look for knowledgeable members to summon to help out with content revision threads.

Knowledgeable Members List (Verses)

This page is intended to be a list of the members in this wiki who think that they are highly knowledgeable regarding relevant verses for this wiki that do not have any associated verse pages yet, including ones that have individual character pages here. Members who consider themselves as...

vsbattles.fandom.com

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

I would greatly appreciate your input here.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

As I said in a private discussion thread, I still think that it would be extremely useful for the overall smooth running of our forum to move all "Knowledgeable Members" sections from the following page to their respective associated verse pages.

Fine with me, I agree. I also believe that the Knowledgeable Members list could be managed better if each verse had its own dedicated list, rather than having one long collective list on a separate page.

There are several reasons for this:

• Some verses get deleted, but staff often forget to remove the links to those pages from the Knowledgeable Members list. I've dealt with this many times before; just check the page's edit history. I think placing the list directly on the verse's page could help solve this issue, so that the supporters themselves can manage it.
• Instead of keeping separate lists of names on the Supporters/Opponents/Neutral pages and the Knowledgeable Members list, it would be easier to manage everything in one place. This can also help with removing inactive or banned users from the list.

we should still keep our Supporters/Opponents/Neutral sections in addition to the new Knowledgeable Members sections.

I'm neutral on this. Whether the section stays as is, gets replaced, or is removed doesn't really matter to me, or at least, I don't feel strongly about this in particular.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

No problem. Also, this particular bump was actually very useful, as I was looking for this thread, so thank you.

As I said in a private discussion thread, I still think that it would be extremely useful for the overall smooth running of our forum to move all "Knowledgeable Members" sections from the following page to their respective associated verse pages.

I think that this is a self-evident constructive change that will greatly simplify when our staff and other members look for knowledgeable members to summon to help out with content revision threads.

Knowledgeable Members List (Verses)

This page is intended to be a list of the members in this wiki who think that they are highly knowledgeable regarding relevant verses for this wiki that do not have any associated verse pages yet, including ones that have individual character pages here. Members who consider themselves as...

vsbattles.fandom.com

@Elizhaa @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @Just_a_Random_Butler @Dereck03 @Shadowbokunohero @QrowBarr @Crazylatin77 @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Therefir @IdiosyncraticLawyer @GarrixianXD @Catzlaflame @Vzearr

Your help would be very appreciated here.

Yeah this is a good move.