The necessity of Neutral/Opponents on a Verse page?

[Chariot190]

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.

Probably should do that actually, the fact it's been misinterpreted so much, and the fact the misinterpretation has spread to so many places outside the wiki as well is a **** up entirely on us.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

I also agree with the removal of Neutral/Opponents on a verse page and just replacing the entire section with "Knowledgeable Members".

And yes. There is a chance that people who list themselves as opponents of a verse will be biased. I once made an admittedly awful CRT on a verse, and the very first comment I got was someone saying "Stop overestimating this verse." I then looked at the page for said verse, and that same user listed themselves as an opponent.

 

[Antvasima]

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.

Your idea itself is good, but your phrasing would still be somewhat easy for our members to misunderstand. How about "Knowledgeable & Contributing Forum Members" or "Knowledgeable & Contributing Experienced Members" instead, to more easily get the intended point across? Or would some other phrasing be better?

 

[Bobsican]

Your idea itself is good, but your phrasing would still be somewhat easy for our members to misunderstand. How about "Knowledgeable & Contributing Forum Members" or "Knowledgeable & Contributing Experienced Members" instead, to more easily get the intended point across?

The former could work TBH, good idea.

 

[Antvasima]

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

Staff members need to know who to ask/send notifications to if they need useful information.

 

[Antvasima]

The former could work TBH, good idea.

Thank you.

What do the rest of you think about "Knowledgeable & Contributing Forum Members" as a replacement title for the "Supporters/Opponents/Neutral" sections, while keeping the current sub-sections for practical reasons?

 

[RandomGuy2345]

Thank you.

What do the rest of you think about "Knowledgeable & Contributing Forum Members" as a replacement title for the "Supporters/Opponents/Neutral" sections, while keeping the current sub-sections for practical reasons?

I'm cool with it.

 

[Antvasima]

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

Do you have a bot account that you can use in our verse pages for this purpose?

 

[Antvasima]

I'm cool with it.

Thank you for the reply.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

Thank you for the reply.

 

[LordTracer]

Thank you.

What do the rest of you think about "Knowledgeable & Contributing Forum Members" as a replacement title for the "Supporters/Opponents/Neutral" sections, while keeping the current sub-sections for practical reasons?

I still think the subsections are pretty useless for the purposes of the site, but I don’t mind this suggestion.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

This is probably an unnecessary thing to say, but I would also like to add that it's probably best to ask if someone wants to be added to the Knowledgeable and Contributing Members list (this should be discussed within the people who actively participate in the verse).

 

[Antvasima]

I still think the subsections are pretty useless for the purposes of the site, but I don’t mind this suggestion.

The issue currently is mainly that it would be so extremely impractical for our work to suddenly remove all of them, but the points that DontTalk and Medeus brought up also apply.

 

[Jinx666]

Thank you.

What do the rest of you think about "Knowledgeable & Contributing Forum Members" as a replacement title for the "Supporters/Opponents/Neutral" sections, while keeping the current sub-sections for practical reasons?

I still dont understand what the practical reasons are. It still keeps the bias-sounding terminology thats making people sign their name based on personal liking

But other than being a mouthful, yeah thatswhat i imagined the title should be yeah. The change would be something at least.

 

[Antvasima]

The practical reasons are that we cannot just suddenly remove all of our stored knowledge regarding members that we can call for during content revision threads, as well as that it can be useful to be able to balance out the subjectivity of the input when necessary.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, I still feel as those sections are necessary. Some people just want to consider themselves familiar/interested to talk about or debate a series even if they do not consider themselves and expert on the series. Plus I like having a variety of people showing their input, not exclusively supporters, especially for verses full of fanbases that just want to upgrade their favorite verse for the sake of upgrade.

 

[Propellus]

Yeah, I still feel as those sections are necessary. Some people just want to consider themselves familiar/interested to talk about or debate a series even if they do not consider themselves and expert on the series. Plus I like having a variety of people showing their input, not exclusively supporters, especially for verses full of fanbases that just want to upgrade their favorite verse for the sake of upgrade.

You kinda double posted there

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It's a glitch in the system.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Agreed with Ant and DDM

 

[Jinx666]

The practical reasons are that we cannot just suddenly remove all of our stored knowledge regarding members that we can call for during content revision threads, as well as that it can be useful to be able to balance out the subjectivity of the input when necessary.

We dont have to remove them if we just combine everyone from supporters, neutral and opponents. They can remove themselves if necessary but given theyre all meant to be 'knowledgeable' for putting their names down there, it doesnt seem like its bad to mix them together.

Its literally just removing the sub-titles, the list of names just come together all to make 'Knowledgable Members', and then your wiki-wide message can prompt them to adjust their standings

 

[Jinx666]

Yeah, I still feel as those sections are necessary. Some people just want to consider themselves familiar/interested to talk about or debate a series even if they do not consider themselves and expert on the series. Plus I like having a variety of people showing their input, not exclusively supporters, especially for verses full of fanbases that just want to upgrade their favorite verse for the sake of upgrade.

They wouldnt be supporters, they'd just be knowledgeable members. Thats literally what the section is for. If theyre only interested in the series and dont expect people to come to them asking questions then it seems like they can just participate in threads, or put it on their profiles, but ultimately you should only put your name down if you think you are able to help.

Supporters would be as gone as neutral and opponents, and opponenets can work int he same ways that people think they're spiting a verse just for the sake of opposing it. This is everything a new section overhaul can still do for people, but it can remove the bias-suggesting labelling that people aren't using properly

 

[Antvasima]

We dont have to remove them if we just combine everyone from supporters, neutral and opponents. They can remove themselves if necessary but given theyre all meant to be 'knowledgeable' for putting their names down there, it doesnt seem like its bad to mix them together.

Its literally just removing the sub-titles, the list of names just come together all to make 'Knowledgable Members', and then your wiki-wide message can prompt them to adjust their standings

Well, that would be much less bad than removing all of the listed members, as was suggested earlier, but it would likely be considerably harder to automate such a revision with a Bot, and also remove some potentially useful information.

What do other staff members here think?

 

[Damage3245]

Well, that would be much less bad than removing all of the listed members, as was suggested earlier, but it would likely be considerably harder to automate such a revision with a Bot, and also remove some potentially useful information.

What do other staff members here think?

Removing the subheadings wouldn't be a problem with a bot, I think. It'd take three sweeps, one to remove each subheading and by the end of it the lists would be combined.

 

[LordTracer]

Its literally just removing the sub-titles, the list of names just come together all to make 'Knowledgable Members', and then your wiki-wide message can prompt them to adjust their standings

I think this will work.

 

[Antvasima]

Removing the subheadings wouldn't be a problem with a bot, I think. It'd take three sweeps, one to remove each subheading and by the end of it the lists would be combined.

Okay. Thank you for the information.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Promestein

Which solution do you think that we should use here?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I still don't like the idea of trying to hard to fix what isn't broken. And I prefer just keeping those three sub sections, I honestly would remove my name from verse familiars if I'm an opponent but stay if I'm neutral for some. But I still feel as if being allowed to say you like/dislike the verse should be fine.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That makes sense to me.

Then I also think that we should only change the title for the main section to "Knowledgeable & Contributing Forum Members", but keep the sub-sections the way that they are.

 

[Damage3245]

I find putting that information onto a verse page to be weird personally.

I find myself opposed to many CRT's for a lot of verses but I'd also be comfortable with saying I "like" those verses or that I'm a "supporter" of those verses. If you just want to express that you like or dislike a verse (or that you're neutral on it, which seems entirely pointless IMO since that applies to 95% of verses on the wiki for each user), then that information can just be on your user page if you wish to have it stated.

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

Honestly, what Damage says here tends to make sense I find. It's super impractical and pointless to have that kind of information on a Page as opposed to a profile. I also find the argument of "Not fixing what isn't broken" to seem more so like, well, laziness, no offense to DarkDragonMedeus. A handful of people here have expressed that the work for this would supposedly be minuscule, too, so I don't think the argument even holds up too well. We should strive to make our information as clear as possible, as well as to remove any info that could inherently harm our wiki- And I think this page counts as that, when it's so easy for people to look at these Sections and go "Oh! You're biased For/Against (Insert Verse) because you're a Supporter/Opponent of it!", whether they express this openly or let this subconsciously influence their actions in regards to a member.

While Ant's idea doesn't exactly address my concerns, it is a step towards the right direction, so to speak. So even though I am not staff (And thus, my "Vote" is non important), I find that Ant's proposal is something I can get behind.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, let's see what the other staff members and former staff member that I called here think seems to be the best solution among what was suggested by Medeus and what was suggested by Damage.

 

[Promestein]

It should probably be removed.

 

[Jinx666]

I would also want to repeat that the labels of 'Supporter' and 'Opponent' (and 'Neutral' doesnt really mean anything?) are still flawed and give people the wrong perception in themself on what they're meant to mean, even if people want to keep their existence to put down their personal opinion on the verse.

These can all be done on user pages or discussed on forums, but the wiki is about documenting Powerscaling of all of these characters/franchises, and it would be best if it stuck to the focus of that and only listing members that 'know' the verse, especially now that it is trying to up the level of professionalism (such as the pushing for references).

'Supporters' and 'Opponents' are usually terms used within actual debating tournaments too (there are discord servers that do specifically this), but since the wiki doesnt hold anything official like this that people sign their names down for, it seems misleading to have as an official section on every verse page

 

[Antvasima]

It should probably be removed.

Well, we won't remove the contents entirely. We are just considering to change the main section title, and possibly merge together the three sub-sections below it.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'd like to hear AKM's thoughts on the matter, and possibly Bambu's.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, and preferably DontTalk's as well.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

DT already commented, though It is unsure if new comments may have swayed him.

 

[Antvasima]

Persolly, 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.

You completely ignored my entire point about how it's useful to know who opposes a verse for CRTs, huh?

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.

Yes. You are correct. It seems like he would likely prefer your solution, but it is best to let him speak for himself instead.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I don't feel particularly strongly one way or another. The lists are just another small means of interaction with the verse- not worth much to the wiki, but also not really harming anything. I'm not sure I agree with the notion that it is good to call people who dislike verses to their CRTs, though.

 

[Jinx666]

I don't feel particularly strongly one way or another. The lists are just another small means of interaction with the verse- not worth much to the wiki, but also not really harming anything. I'm not sure I agree with the notion that it is good to call people who dislike verses to their CRTs, though.

Less to do that its harming anything, but the terminology is confusing people on what they're meant to be used for, such as labelling yourself an 'opponent' does give off you dislike the verse rather than you're supposed to be 'critical' of it.

Getting rid of these 3 labels entirely just lets us list off people who can confidently say they 'know the verse', and not let being a 'supporter' or 'opponent' call in a question of bias about what they're saying. Its being used too much for people to say their personal preferences when thats really something that should be kept on a user profile and not on any public pages

 

[Antvasima]

I don't feel particularly strongly one way or another. The lists are just another small means of interaction with the verse- not worth much to the wiki, but also not really harming anything. I'm not sure I agree with the notion that it is good to call people who dislike verses to their CRTs, though.

Okay. What do you think about my suggestions to change the "Supporters/Opponents/Neutral" main section title to "Knowledgeable & Contributing Forum Members" instead? I think that it would avoid many misunderstandings regarding the intended purpose of these sections.