-
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.
The necessity of Neutral/Opponents on a Verse page?
- Thread starter Jinx666
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vs battles wiki
- 18,393
- 14,311
His whole argument of removal is based on it. It is relevant.
- 3,091
- 608
- Thread starter
- #44
Her*
It isn't removal, its reworking into less labelled, misleading terminology thats being misused and misinterpreted. It cuts the redundancy of Supporter/Neutral/Opponent, the last 2 specifically, and is changing it into something more useful and efficient for reaching people willing to answer abt the verse
- 5,625
- 7,099
I agree with this.
- 18,393
- 14,311
No one from the opposing party of the idea actually commented on this, so no, not everyone “agreed” with it. Agnaa, DDM and Ant did not comment yet or give clear stance on this. This is not a new thread's idea
- 18,393
- 14,311
There is no conclusion if not everyone agreed with it.
- 32,811
- 38,013
@Antvasima @DontTalkDT @AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @Wokistan @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Mr._Bambu @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @Maverick_Zero_X @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Shadowbokunohero @Crazylatin77 @Zaratthustra @Just_a_Random_Butler @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Agnaa @Nehz_XZX @Dereck03 @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Planck69 @Crabwhale @Eficiente @DarkGrath @Moritzva @DemonGodMitchAubin @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @Emirp sumitpo @Duedate8898 @Lonkitt What do you think of this proposal?
- 32,811
- 38,013
Since this revision proposes some major changes to the entire site overall, I have tagged all the relevant bureaucrats, admins, content mods and thread mods to evaluate.
- 18,393
- 14,311
- 18,393
- 14,311
Moreover, replacing the knowledgeable section with the verse page is not ideal because not all verses have a corresponding page on the fandom (unless this has changed, and I am not aware of it).
- 18,393
- 14,311
My bad for “mispronouncing”. Also, hey :3
If the only concern in this discussion is the specific issue being discussed, it is possible to create a rule based on @Bobsican's policy to clarify its definition. However, it is worth noting that while some may see the current rule as not being misleading, others may have a different perspective.
- 3,091
- 608
- Thread starter
- #57
??? Careful please.
It isn't efficient, or aeshtetically pleasing, for a page to need to clarify what each section is meant to mean on every Verse page. Im considering more the casual viewer here, as there are far more people who skim/refer to vs battles wiki rather than actually contribute to it. To a general audience, then its far more likely to misinterpret 'Opponent', on its factual definiton, and is overall far more confusing and redundant than a new section that doesnt put labels that give this impression, such as Knowledgable Members.
It just isnt relevant to a verse page on an individuals stance on whether they like the series or not. The more useful information to give someone is who they can refer to that knows, without giving any initial view of bias that Ant suggested in any 'Supporter' or 'Opponent' term. Neutral in itself is even more unnecessary as it tells you that someone just doesnt know/care about the verse, or has minimal knowledge that isn't going to be able to answer more detailed questions
Also if a series doesn't have a verse page, theres likely only 1 or 2 characters that profiles 'can' (not should) be made for, or there just aren't any dedicated people in the first place that would act as a 'Knowledgable Member'. So it sadly isn't something the wiki could provide as of this moment, nothing to be done about it
- 10,502
- 11,574
Personally, I like the sections as they are. Aside from just being some harmless fandom stuff (y'know, listing what you like or not), I also think it's good to know opponents. Heck, even opponents that are not knowledgable, although knowledgable opponents are, of course, even better.
Too many things go too unchallenged, so knowing who might wants to argue against something isn't so bad.
All in all, I think knowing who is knowledgable and knowing which standing people have regarding a verse is both useful, so I like the current system where we can have both information.
- 18,393
- 14,311
Why is there confusion? We've dedicated a page for this and have numerous pages that explain everything clearly.
If you're unfamiliar with the fandom, check out the following link: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Standard_Format_for_Verse_Pages
Bob has even written a comprehensive explanation for the purpose of this page. I'm unsure how a visitor could misunderstand its meaning. When I first visited the site, I never interpreted it as "people with a bias towards the verse." In fact, I've previously provided a detailed explanation of its actual purpose.
But it is
Based on which evidence? There is no rule that a character page need a verse page as far as I am not mistaken.
- 3,091
- 608
- Thread starter
- #60
This wiki doesn't do any major debating tournaments, or anything as such that warrants your personal viewpoint on a series to be on an official opinion, and I don;t think i've ever seen an 'Opponent' in a thread feel the need to just oppose for the sake opposing, and they definitely shouldnt if thats their only reason. It gives a false impression on what this wiki is meant to be as a general resource for power-scaling, rather than being its own.
You can state whether you like or dislike a series on your personal profile, but its unnecessary and misleading to put on a public page
- 10,502
- 11,574
You completely ignored my entire point about how it's useful to know who opposes a verse for CRTs, huh?
- 3,091
- 608
- Thread starter
- #62
General audiences aren't going to be as 100% adept to the wiki as you are, nor is this stopping people
Literally have not at all stated this was the purpsoe of the site, only that the one section on every verse page is misleading and can be done better in what Ant is saying they do.
Its...not. Your personal views of whether you like or dislike a series outside of its powerscaling is not necessary information to know. This lowkey just sounds like a trolling response
Im literally not saying that. Nor is this something that needs 'evidence', the evidence is that someone hasnt made a Verse page for a series, and likely wont if they dont actually care enough about the series or thinking a series with a few profiled reps needs one. Theres many profiles with just 1 character rep and no verse page, cause they're just one-offs that dont require the navigation
- 3,091
- 608
- Thread starter
- #63
No, this has already been talked about majorly in this thread on how 'Opponents' provide 'Critical' elements, but sadly people arent using this section correctly, basing it off personal likes and dislikes to the series in general, nor does the label of opponents make it a valid reason to oppose a CRT.
If you have a valid reason to oppose a CRT, then you are knowledgable of the series, but labelling yourself an opponent, as if its expected of you just to oppose it, is counterproductive. This change in the section would not get rid of opposition for CRTs.
As much as it might be 'fun' or 'harmless fandom stuff', it just clogs a page, provides a misleading image, and could be so much more improved upon. If this wiki is trying to be as professional as possible, it should be striving for more streamlined, easier approaches than sections like this
Last edited:
- 18,393
- 14,311
We have numerous ongoing debating tournaments and various discussion threads that prompt you to express your personal opinion on a variety of topics. Just because you haven't encountered an opponent doesn't justify making a sweeping statement.
I, for one, have faced many opponents in my own debates.
Furthermore, this is not even the main focus of DT want to address.
Why would yours be going to be as 100% adept to the wiki? And based on what?
But the section serves for this. (or more over, it is one of the reasons)
This needs indeed an evidence, since till now I saw a lot of character pages without verse pages, therefore your idea of replacement is bad idea.
Or if you are a supporter of the verse, then it is excepted of you to just support it even if it is wrong, is also counterproductive? This is not even a counterargument at all.
- 13,450
- 3,767
I’ve always believed “Opponents” meant they hate the verse in general whether it would be bias or other personal reasons, but if it means that it hardly helps in finding knowledgable people, I’m fine with removing the Neutral/Opponents sections
- 3,091
- 608
- Thread starter
- #66
@ImmortalDread
Im sorry, I genuinely cant tell if you're just trying to troll at this point, I can't read these cues well online and I'm confused on whether youre legitimately thinking all this but in case you are
1. None of them are major or associatied officially to the wiki. The Wiki is a database, and the forum community on vs threads are a sideline. At most theres a 'Notable Victories/Losses/Inconclusive section, but that doesnt mean its valid to include peoples personal tastes of a verse on the main page. This terminology of 'supporters/opponents' is best suited to things like that, and not in the way of helping people talk to knowledgable ppl about verse information.
2. You arent using the word adept properly in this case
3. It isn't meant to, nor is it relevant enough information to put on a main page than a profile (As Ant has already stated). If you want people to know what verses you like/dislike, put it on your user profile, not in a section where people can contact you for info about it if you cant provide.
4. 'This needs indeed an evidence, since till now I saw a lot of character pages without verse pages, therefore your idea of replacement is bad idea.'
I genuinely think this is why its a troll, which i dont appreciate. If the verse page doesnt exist, then it isnt affected or relevant in the slightest to changing the sections. I dont see why this gets in the way, or is any different with a S/O/N section
5. Literally already acknowledged this. For the last time, I don't believe in the Supporter terminology idea. Its certainly better than 'opponent', but the whole section should be renamed to avoid this confusion. Please take this on board
Im sorry, I genuinely cant tell if you're just trying to troll at this point, I can't read these cues well online and I'm confused on whether youre legitimately thinking all this but in case you are
1. None of them are major or associatied officially to the wiki. The Wiki is a database, and the forum community on vs threads are a sideline. At most theres a 'Notable Victories/Losses/Inconclusive section, but that doesnt mean its valid to include peoples personal tastes of a verse on the main page. This terminology of 'supporters/opponents' is best suited to things like that, and not in the way of helping people talk to knowledgable ppl about verse information.
2. You arent using the word adept properly in this case
3. It isn't meant to, nor is it relevant enough information to put on a main page than a profile (As Ant has already stated). If you want people to know what verses you like/dislike, put it on your user profile, not in a section where people can contact you for info about it if you cant provide.
4. 'This needs indeed an evidence, since till now I saw a lot of character pages without verse pages, therefore your idea of replacement is bad idea.'
I genuinely think this is why its a troll, which i dont appreciate. If the verse page doesnt exist, then it isnt affected or relevant in the slightest to changing the sections. I dont see why this gets in the way, or is any different with a S/O/N section
5. Literally already acknowledged this. For the last time, I don't believe in the Supporter terminology idea. Its certainly better than 'opponent', but the whole section should be renamed to avoid this confusion. Please take this on board
- 10,502
- 11,574
People know which sides of CRTs they tend to pop up on. It's no secret that many people consider certain verses they dislike wanked. And such people might find themselves arguing against upgrades, even when not particularly knowledgeable.
Because testing arguments doesn't require you to be knowledgeable. We staff members all the time evaluate stuff that we know nothing about and we are expected to do it well. You can have a valid reason to oppose something without being knowledgeable.
Many people that are knowledgeable on verses have a bias for them, which tends to make them more likely to accept questionable reasoning. That's how things are. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be, but we need to face reality here. As a "counterforce" to such bias, the opposite can be useful. Someone that looks at some reasoning and tries to poke holes into it. An opponent. Yeah, maybe they do it due to bias against the verse, but it still helps nonetheless.
So yeah, a section of personal likes has its uses, because it can be useful to know who likes or dislikes a verse.
And don't come with "well, deleting it doesn't get rid of opposition". Deleting the knowledgeable members list doesn't get rid of knowledgeable members either. But you couldn't tell who they are anymore, so we wouldn't do that.
And I'm fairly sure nobody ever felt actually misled by this section. Even if, the worst that can happen is that you message someone and they don't answer your question.
- 18,393
- 14,311
@Jinx666 I'm not trolling, but your counterarguments are weak. I wonder why the same arguments can't be applied to the supporter's side.
- What evidence do you have to support your argument? Simply stating whether something is valid or not is not enough without providing a reason.
- Neither do yours.
- Ant was actually against the idea proposed in this thread, so I don't understand why you're using him as an argument.
- It is valid, as the knowledgeable member list that you want to replace contains verses that do not have pages. Calling me a troll will not make your argument stronger, Jinx.
- Nobody really cares about your beliefs, Jinx. Nobody has ever felt this way.
- I don't understand why you have a problem with someone opposing a verse. Why do you want everything to be positive?
- 3,091
- 608
- Thread starter
- #69
Thats just debating, theres many different interpretations, and media is subjective. We can only vote and accept these democratically, we arent going to please everyone.
For staff it is a job yeah, if people want your input then you have to generically take the context without knowing the series in depth. But 'opponents' arent limited to staff, and staff members shouldn't be labelled as 'Opponents' against series they know nothing about. They should be fair, rational, and taking in the accounts from people who know the series if they are needed. But generally you shouldn't be the final word on something being accepted or not if you dont know the series. The staff always seemed more like they moderated and mediated the conversation to prevent it from being negative, long-wonded etc, but you should have a decent counter-argument, no matter how much you know the series, in order to pass it off. If staff can provide that on series they dont know, and its not refuted then sure, but either way its generally not valid to have a strong opinion on something you dont know very well
This doesnt work, as this 'counterforce' could also be bias for the exact opposite reason, a.k.a the existence of spite matches or stomp threads. Supporters can suggest bias, but so can opponents, since like supporters, people expect you to just 'go against' the series cause you've labelled yourself as such. To minimise bias-suggetsing labels in general, you should note yourself as a 'Knowledgeable member' which neither confirms nor denies whether you really like the series, and just says you confidently know enough to be approached on it.
This can all be done on your own user profile, but it really doesn't seem relevant, and counter-productive on promoting your authenticity of an argument to put on a public page whether you like or dislike the series OUTSIDE of its power, on the Vs Battles Wiki.
No one is deleting it, its more getting reworked into less confusing labelling, both by how it can provide bias 'motives, and by people confusing it for a place to let everyone know they just 'like' the series than knowing about its full power.
Well other than the many other people who disagree that its misleading from this thread, I can tell you for certain the first time i looked at that thread, i thought the wiki constantly had some debating vs threads people would compete for to try and defeat/target a certain verse. And even if theres not some major bad consequence, its much easier to avoid that scenario when you can do it.
- 3,091
- 608
- Thread starter
- #70
Alright this is for certain the last time.
For the Last time.
I am not opting for 'Supporters'. They share the same issue as opponents and I am actively trying to change the entire sections terminology to JUST knowledgeable members. I just think they are in a much better place than 'opponents' are, since Supporters can also suggest they are just people who know the Verse, than opponents.
I am literally NOT for keeping JUST supporters, i want to change the name entirely
PLEASE take this on board
I really dont want this form of communication, Ant was never clear about whether he was against or opposed it, only explained what its use was, and since then hasn't commented since, nor how you think im doing this for the sake of 'making everything positive', which is wildly off the ball. I merely want to minimise confusing terminology that can be used to promote bias motives, such as supporter or opponent, by giving it all a blanket term by what the section is meant to be. Knowledgeable Members. We already have a page thats literally just a list of this. It's important information to know, far more important than whether or not someone just likes/dislikes the verse, as that is potential motives for bias.
Nobody should be blamed for bias if they have a factual argument, just because the impression of 'Opponent' or 'Supporter' gives as such
EDIT: We don't have to get rid of Knowledgable Members List immediately, for the sake of these apparent verses that dont have pages listed on there (cant find anyway), but if someone REALLY wants to backtrack to find someone knowledegable on Scrimblo Bimblo or whatever character, they can maybe look at whose made/edited the profile. Otherwise its not that much a sacrifice, and nothing can be done if theres genuinely no active members who can help someone in that regard
Last edited:
- 14,767
- 20,639
I support removing the Neutral/Opponents sections.
- 7,925
- 8,252
Consider me against this proposal, this just seems pointless. As I never really seen what exactly was the problem with them sticking around, being an Opponent of the said verse doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to just downplay/spite the verse just for the sake of it. And just simply removing the O/N section and just slapping "Knowledgeable Members" won't really improve anything either way.
- 18,393
- 14,311
So in simple terms, you want to get rid of the whole section because it serves nothing (or potential “bias”) and is misleading? Then, ya I am opposed to this idea. Nothing misleading in my opinion. Also, the section is not served to list knowledgeable members. This is wrong and DT already pointed out.
- 29,915
- 25,072
That's why the proposal is to replace it. If it already did the job we're talking about there would be no need to replace it.
- 3,091
- 608
- Thread starter
- #75
Its not the most essential change ever currently sure, but even if Opponents/Neutral arent meant ot mean those terms, they still
1. Come across that way, and can serve as motives for bias. It avoids unnecessary arguments and reasons to believe your stance on a thread isnt coming from factual logic
2. Its used for unnecessary information such as whether people like/dislike the verse. This isn't relevant to powerscaling, and members who arent knowledgable on the series are posting their names within opponents/supporters just for liking the series, when that can be done on a user profile.
Its essentially making the wiki more professional than making pages needed to vocalise someones personal taste to a verse, and instead replace it with a clear-cut, non-biased section that lets people know who they can contact that merely 'knows' the series' rather than 'supports' or 'opposes' it.
- 18,393
- 14,311
It serves only to list which standing people have regarding a verse.
- 3,091
- 608
- Thread starter
- #77
It does serve nothing yes. Why keep redundant info? And yes, bias isnt something to advocate for, we should make decisions as logical as possible for the main wiki.
You've already admitted that Supporter is just as misleading as Opponent. You can be opposed sure but just because you personally dont find it misleading (Heck i dont find it THAT misleading, mainly cause ive never cared abt it since my first impressions, and ive been on this wiki for a while), doesn't mean the general audience would.
Antvasima literally says this is the reason for the section im afraid, he's the one with the highest authority. But theres a better way to get this across, and most people are in agreement
- 7,925
- 8,252
You realize with this kind of logic, even with just "Knowledgeable Members" can still have possiblities for bias right? This doesn't really change anything at all.
This is mostly an indexing site, not just a whole battleboard considering it's considered secondary on this wiki. So I really don't see why people putting their names as supporters etc. are that even much of an issue since it doesn't really matter.
See above
- 3,091
- 608
- Thread starter
- #79
Which is what a new, blanket term section would do WITHOUT needing to separate these standing people into 'Supporters' or 'Opponents'.
Whats the difference?
Are supporters the people to go to when you want to hear ONLY positive things, and opponents vice versa?
Thats just factually ineffective, which is why its better to list people on whether they're confident they KNOW the verse than segregate into people on potentially different bias spectrums. Its just much easier.
- 3,091
- 608
- Thread starter
- #80
Theres literally no way to get rid of someone's bias, but at least theres no separating labels between people who apparently know the series, leading you to suggest they could be bias either way. If you truly want the most accurate response, then you can ask multiple people rather than just 1.
Its just...impossible to eradicate all sense of bias completely, but the section would now only just be for people to put whether they KNOW a series, not exactly suggesting whether they 'like' or 'dislike' it, but merely they're confident in being people you can message for an opinion.
'Knowledgable Members' in my opinion, does not give any prejudices of bias like 'Opponents' (or 'Supporters) does. Which is why its the terminology used for that list page. Its simply Members that think they're knowledgable and capable in a certain verse.
This is what i'm saying. Like, this is exactly FOR my argument.
Im not as opposed to supporters as i am opponents, but there still needs to be an index of people to personally talk to (The reason for the Knowledgable members list), but in an easier format that the casual wiki viewers can do so.
But theres also the point that people just...generally arent using the section like this at all, and just putting their names down on what they like/dislike personally, without regards to power. This is not necessary or helpful to the section, and as such it needs to be made clearer to those people
