The necessity of Neutral/Opponents on a Verse page?

[Antvasima]

I strongly agree with DontTalk and Medeus here.

We should keep the Supporters, Neutral, and Opponents sub-sections as it would cause chaos when trying to find people to participate in our content revision threads if we only replace them with the members listed in our knowledgeable members list, as it isn't anywhere near as extensive or all-inclusive, and in addition it is useful to know in which direction somebody's bias might be leaning.

However, I do think that it would avoid a lot of misunderstandings (useless additions of listed usernames) if we replace the title of the main section ("Supporters/Opponents/Neutral", which contains the sub-sections underneath it) with "Knowledgeable Members" instead, as currently quite a lot of members have written their usernames there without actually being knowledgeable.

For practical reasons we will have to first replace all of the main section titles with "Knowledgeable Members" (while keeping the "Opponents", "Neutral", and "Supporters" sub-sections underneath it), and later likely highlight a news and announcements thread that asks our community members to individually gradually remove their usernames from such pages if they barely know anything about the verse and only like or dislike the thematics, but are not actually capable of providing useful input for it in content revision discussions (and yes, I am guilty of this as well).

 

[Bobsican]

TBH I'd suggest to rename the section to "Knowledgeable Contributive Members" (over just "Knowledgeable Members"), to also highlight that users listed should also be willing to contribute, rather than just knowning a given topic, especially as this can vary a lot from merely knowning what's on this very wiki or how the main character(s) is named/looks like to properly knowning sufficient to properly comment on CRTs and so on.

 

[ImmortalDread]

You got now two disagreements from Bureaucrats, still not official rejection? (Ant suggested one new suggestion, so it still needs opinion)

 

[Jinx666]

You got now two disagreements from Bureaucrats, still not official rejection? (Ant suggested one new suggestion, so it still needs opinion)

Can you please stop escalating

And if you read, Ant is very willing to change the current section in a better way

 

[ImmortalDread]

You were insulting and accusing me, don't mind me, but I am not accepting being humiliated like this.

Also, @Antvasima adding knowledgeable members section sounds unreasonable if their opinions can't be counted at all.

 

[Propellus]

I strongly agree with DontTalk and Medeus here.

We should keep the Supporters, Neutral, and Opponents sub-sections as it would cause chaos when trying to find people to participate in our content revision threads if we only replace them with the members listed in our knowledgeable members list, as it isn't anywhere near as extensive or all-inclusive, and in addition it is useful to know in which direction somebody's bias might be leaning.

However, I do think that it would avoid a lot of misunderstandings (useless additions of listed usernames) if we replace the title of the main section ("Supporters/Opponents/Neutral", which contains the sub-sections underneath it) with "Knowledgeable Members" instead, as currently quite a lot of members have written their usernames there without actually being knowledgeable.

For practical reasons we will have to first replace all of the main section titles with "Knowledgeable Members" (while keeping the "Opponents", "Neutral", and "Supporters" sub-sections underneath it), and later likely highlight a news and announcements thread that asks our community members to individually gradually remove their usernames from such pages if they barely know anything about the verse and only like or dislike the thematics, but are not actually capable of providing useful input for it in content revision discussions (and yes, I am guilty of this as well).

I think this method while maintaining the S/O/N section should fine

 

[Jinx666]

I strongly agree with DontTalk and Medeus here.

We should keep the Supporters, Neutral, and Opponents sub-sections as it would cause chaos when trying to find people to participate in our content revision threads if we only replace them with the members listed in our knowledgeable members list, as it isn't anywhere near as extensive or all-inclusive, and in addition it is useful to know in which direction somebody's bias might be leaning.

I do not see why it is not extensive or all-inclusive to list someone as a Knowledgable Member. This rids the notion of Supporter and Opponent entirely, and lets anyone know you simply 'know the verse'. It doesn't imply you like or dislike it as Supporter and Opponent would, and keeping these around will still incline people to jot their names down.
The name of the section was never the big issue here, it was more so the 3 sub-categories that list the 3 allignment titles

I dont think this would rid the problem of people putting down their names under these sections either in the future, such as for 'finding friends'. If someone is confident enough to be contacted and give their take on a verse (People can go to multiple ppl if they do not want to trust the opinion of 1 person anyway), rather than find the notion of opponents or supporters, trying to get a tilted view

Theres nothing stopping people from putting their names down in this section either. It doesnt have to be as tight cut as the Knowledgable Members List, and people arent going to be disuaded from putting their names down UNLESS they were using these sections to explain their actual view of the verse.

 

[Jinx666]

You were insulting and accusing me, don't mind me, but I am not accepting being humiliated like this.

You were literally sitting here, telling me im 'new' nonetheless, telling me to stop bumping, that im trying to change the outcome, and it came across as super condescending

 

[ImmortalDread]

And then you accuse me and insult me and humiliate me for saying you are new? Seems reasonable reaction.

 

[Jinx666]

And then you accuse me and insult me and humiliate me for saying you are new? Seems reasonable reaction.

No i just genuinely have not appreciated your tone or eagerness to point out 'its rejected! its rejected! Stop bumping it'. Ive expressed this multiple times. Even now you've felt the need to go 'Omg now Ant disagrees!!!! You're rejected!!!!' after derailing the thread. Please just stop and input this elsewhere

Please can we stop clogging the chat from the actual topic at hand?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Sure after you apologize for humiliating and insults that you made in this thread.

 

[Jinx666]

Sure after you apologize for humiliating and insults that you made in this thread.

Discuss this with me elsewhere please, but i don't feel this is owed

 

[ImmortalDread]

Alright, sure.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

I agree with the thread opponents has always seemed like a useless feature, and came off to me as a visual representation of people who don’t like the verse.

 

[Jinx666]

I agree with the thread opponents has always seemed like a useless feature, and came off to me as a visual representation of people who don’t like the verse.

True, even today ive seen this type of comment
People dont see Opponents in the way that its meant to be intended, and its all to do with terminology that needs to be changed (otherwise this will just keep on being a problem no matter how many temporary announcements). Its been here for ages but it's just not efficient anymore for what the wiki is trying to do - Provide a useful, biased-minimal database based on found fact.

 

[Quantu]

At the end of the day, it serves no meaningful purpose other than to potentially alienate some people in CRTs. It's an archaic battle boarding feature that's outdated for where this site is today (in my opinion). It's not like people don't/can't display their verse preferences on their profiles anyway.

 

[Damage3245]

However, I do think that it would avoid a lot of misunderstandings (useless additions of listed usernames) if we replace the title of the main section ("Supporters/Opponents/Neutral", which contains the sub-sections underneath it) with "Knowledgeable Members" instead, as currently quite a lot of members have written their usernames there without actually being knowledgeable.

For practical reasons we will have to first replace all of the main section titles with "Knowledgeable Members" (while keeping the "Opponents", "Neutral", and "Supporters" sub-sections underneath it), and later likely highlight a news and announcements thread that asks our community members to individually gradually remove their usernames from such pages if they barely know anything about the verse and only like or dislike the thematics, but are not actually capable of providing useful input for it in content revision discussions (and yes, I am guilty of this as well).

This seems like a practical solution, and would be fairly easier to implemenent than earlier suggestions.

 

[Jinx666]

This seems like a practical solution, and would be fairly easier to implemenent than earlier suggestions.

Im not really sure how its easier

You still have to change something from every single Verse Page, only this time the title instead of the sub-titles. And even then the terminology of Supporter and Opponent will still be existent that will continue having people put down their names based on other reasons than them knowing the series. It will only continue these problems

 

[Damage3245]

Im not really sure how its easier

You still have to change something from every single Verse Page, only this time the title instead of the sub-titles. And even then the terminology of Supporter and Opponent will still be existent that will continue having people put down their names based on other reasons than them knowing the series. It will only continue these problems

If you're just changing the heading, it can be accomplished by a Mass Edit.

I think we've got to approach this in gradual steps of change tbh. I think the arguments against the subheadings are still valid.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Just create a policy about the section to clear misconception. Also, I actually like Ant's idea, but you need to solve the issue that most of the time their opinion never really counts in content revisions.

 

[Jinx666]

Just create a policy about the section to clear misconception. Also, I actually like Ant's idea, but you need to solve the issue that most of the time their opinion never really counts in content revisions.

On every single verse page? Casual viewers wont see any policies on wiki-based pages otherwise and could approach people who arent going to be able to help them.

How do you differentiate which people in this section are putting themselves down for legitimate reasons and who isnt though? For the people that arent but are getting approached by people looking to ask questions, then it doesnt create a helpful scenario.

 

[ImmortalDread]

On every single verse page? Casual viewers wont see any policies on wiki-based pages otherwise and could approach people who arent going to be able to help them.

What? We have literally a page for policies, Jinx?

How do you differentiate which people in this section are putting themselves down for legitimate reasons and who isnt though? For the people that arent but are getting approached by people looking to ask questions, then it doesnt create a helpful scenario.

Create a different thread for asking why knowledgeable member page exists.

 

[Jinx666]

If you're just changing the heading, it can be accomplished by a Mass Edit.

Would the same not be possible for getting rid of all sub-categories in a section, bringing the current lists all together and letting ppl remove themselves on their own whim? Idk how mass edits work though

I think we've got to approach this in gradual steps of change tbh. I think the arguments against the subheadings are still valid.

Suppose its a start but I dont really think we should stop at this cause its still not ridding of the old inefficient terminology

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Damage3245 Do you have a code for the massedit or you are assuming it is possible?

 

[Jinx666]

What? We have literally a page for policies, Jinx?

I am aware. But it goes mostly unviewed by the causal viewers (A.k.a the main audience this wiki has). People who arent looking to get into the wiki immediately and just want to talk to a knowledgable member arent going to want to read the entire policy page normally

Create a different thread for asking why knowledgeable member page exists.

I personally think these changes could rid the use of the knowledgable member page, given its literally just a simple-looking page with a list of name, much more annoying to anvigate than just having these listed on each verse page, but It shouldnt be immediate and could likely find its own unique use. Theres no need to.

 

[Chariot190]

I think the notion of a supporter and opponent is inherently dumb and one should judge a CRT based on knowledge and if it's accurate or fair instead of a preconceived bias like "this person opposes this verse so let's contact them to argue this" as that directly implicates the person in question is arguing for the sake of it instead of if the content is fine, same with some supporters who agree just because big number.

So I agree with the proposal, it also, indirectly, invites toxicity because let's be real, if someone puts themselves as "opponent" on a verse, 90% of the time it's because they just have a thing against it, and ngl, I personally would be very cautious of taking the opinion like that, and I know from seeing it happen first hand, people will act petty and toxic to those listed as opponents just because of the notion of bias at play, not gonna say any names but that shit is very common. Like sure that might not be the intent behind such a tabber but intent doesn't always reflect the end result.

Axe that shit imo, if it's a matter of making friends or like-minded people, that's what the discussion threads are for or this very forum.

Also don't @ me.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I am aware. But it goes mostly unviewed by the causal viewers (A.k.a the main audience this wiki has). People who arent looking to get into the wiki immediately and just want to talk to a knowledgable member arent going to want to read the entire policy page normally

This argument can literally be used in every type of issue like this. As long as we define the terminology, it's fine.

I personally think these changes could rid the use of the knowledgable member page, given its literally just a simple-looking page with a list of names, but It shouldnt be immediate. Theres no need to.

In my opinion, Jinx, it would be more beneficial to replace them on their respective verse pages rather than maintaining a separate page for them. Additionally, are you inquiring about the process or the criteria for selecting these members? Established members who consistently exhibit active participation and contribute significantly to the verse can be deemed knowledgeable members.

 

[Damage3245]

@Damage3245 Do you have a code for the massedit or you are assuming it is possible?

It's extremely possible. I use it all the time (not on VSBW, but on wikis in general).

 

[ImmortalDread]

It's extremely possible. I use it all the time (not on VSBW, but on wikis in general).

Then its fine by me tho. As long as you have the code, its good (you are trustworthy person, so I don't think Ant has any issues with it)

 

[Jinx666]

This argument can literally be used in every type of issue like this. As long as we define the terminology, it's fine.

Terminology should be clear and shouldnt give the wrong impression like Supporters/Neutral/Opponents does, as is widely agreed upon, even by people who you think are rejecting this idea entirely.

In my opinion, Jinx, it would be more beneficial to replace them on their respective verse pages rather than maintaining a separate page for them. Additionally, are you inquiring about the process or the criteria for selecting these members? Established members who consistently exhibit active participation and contribute significantly to the verse can be deemed knowledgeable members.

This is exactly what im saying? (in regards to your first sentence), so you agree?

That sounds reasonable yes, At least to the level of which the Verse is debated at, and should include multiple different opinions/viewpoints on the verse power if possible (even people who disagree with eachother). This, as a power scaling record wiki, should be reserved exclusively for this notion rather than someones personal opinion on the verse.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Terminology should be clear and shouldnt give the wrong impression like Supporters/Neutral/Opponents does, as is widely agreed upon, even by people who you think are rejecting this idea entirely.

Which we have a page for this, tho

This is exactly what im saying? (in regards to your first sentence), so you agree?

Mhm, I only disagree with removing the current section.

That sounds reasonable yes, At least to the level of which the Verse is debated at, and should include multiple different opinions/viewpoints on the verse power if possible (even people who disagree with eachother). This, as a power scaling record wiki, should be reserved exclusively for this notion rather than someones personal opinion on the verse.

Ya :3

 

[Jinx666]

Which we have a page for this, tho

We do, for people more seriously looking to get into the wiki, but sadly that isnt the majority and theres a lot of people who just want to speak to an expert. The verse page is the natural first page to look

 

[ImmortalDread]

We do, for people more seriously looking to get into the wiki, but sadly that isnt the majority and theres a lot of people who just want to speak to an expert. The verse page is the natural first page to look

Mhm, but we can't really control this. I mean, its the same reason for ToS, you will still get punished even if you did not read it.

My point is, the existence of such clarification at least solve the issue.

 

[Jinx666]

Mhm, but we can't really control this. I mean, its the same reason for ToS, you will still get punished even if you did not read it.

No one should get punished for not knowing every single bit of terminology as opposed to actual rules like ToS. They arent comparable 'offenses'. Its likely a casual viewer isnt even gonna read the ToS if they arent interested in figuring out the wiki

My point is, the existence of such clarification at least solve the issue.

It'd be something but it wouldnt remove the preconcepted view of the words definition, and its better to change it than entertain its existence now

 

[ImmortalDread]

No one should get punished for not knowing every single bit of terminology as opposed to actual rules like ToS. They arent comparable 'offenses'. Its likely a casual viewer isnt even gonna read the ToS if they arent interested in figuring out the wiki

I used “punishment” as an example of consequence metaphorically.

It'd be something but it wouldnt remove the preconcepted view of the words definition, and its better to change it than entertain its existence now

Jinx, we only try the best we can, if we are going to literally tell every new visitor and give them a pop-up message to read what the section serves for, like its pointless in my opinion.

 

[Jinx666]

I used “punishment” as an example of consequence metaphorically.

Either way terminology should be made as efficient to understand as possible.

Jinx, we only try the best we can, if we are going to literally tell every new visitor and give them a pop-up message to read what the section serves for, like its pointless in my opinion.

Yeah, which is...exactly what I want to change the terminology for so its easier to understand for both casual members and actual members of the wiki. They can understand what is meant by 'Knowledgeable member' rather than thinking 'Supporter' 'Opponent' directs to the persons allignment to the verse, rather than whats apparently meant to be their critical view. It doesnt work though.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Either way terminology should be made as efficient to understand as possible.

In my opinion, it is adequate. We have additional pages at our disposal where we can further educate visitors on this matter.

Yeah, which is...exactly what I want to change the terminology for so its easier to understand for both casual members and actual members of the wiki. They can understand what is meant by 'Knowledgeable member' rather than thinking 'Supporter' 'Opponent' directs to the persons allignment to the verse, rather than whats apparently meant to be their critical view. It doesnt work though.

I am against modifying the terminology; the current usage is acceptable. Providing an explanation and raising visitors' awareness would be sufficient.

 

[Jinx666]

I am against modifying the terminology; the current usage is acceptable. Providing an explanation and raising visitors' awareness would be sufficient.

Despite the multiple people even saying they assumed Opponents meant someone who was actively against the series, and people who are treating it as such to put their names down? It just...really does not make it obvious whatsoever and we should strive for being as efficient as possible on our side

 

[ImmortalDread]

Are you kidding? I could make a similar argument for the “Boundless” Title. It is one of the most frequently misinterpreted concepts on this forum, yet we haven't created an additional section to explain it. I don't understand why the approach I proposed couldn't be enough. I'm not going to spoon-feed them; they need to experience it for themselves.

 

[Jinx666]

Are you kidding? I could make a similar argument for the “Boundless” Title. It is one of the most frequently misinterpreted concepts on this forum, yet we haven't created an additional section to explain it. I don't understand why the approach I proposed couldn't be enough. I'm not going to spoon-feed them; they need to experience it for themselves.

Tiering terminology is a different boat to the type of terminology Supporters/Opponents is, its actually used in debating and would need clarification within an argument. These things get their own pages, rather than wiki-based terminology.

We should not lump the Wiki's own terminology for policies/describing users with those we use of actually ranking the powers and qualities of a character