• 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 Vs. Battles Wiki Problem

Status
Not open for further replies.
Schnee One said:
Define too unfriendly
Click to expand...
Not buying into their wank

Moreso I suppose just using expletives in my argument, which to be fair aren't directed at anyone, yet people somehow tend to get offended by it nonetheless over multiple threads, to the point it's just derailing the threads I'm on.

Anyways seeing as my presence is derailing the thread, I'll stop commenting, cheerio
 
welp, guess after being called out for failing the audit group, time to retire gg

Jokes aside, seeing that the audit group only has 2 active members is a bit of a wake up call. While I've genuinely been particularly busy as of late, I'll see what I can do to continue helping out with the project. 3 heads is better than 2, after all.
 
Thank you for helping out. It is appreciated.
 
People have a habit of ignoring the things they read. I wouldn't be surprised if people blame me for staff resignations. Oh well :/

Like Sera said above, if you are already dedicated to this site and have just not been allocating time properly or have not been doing everything you want to do, this isn't much of a call to 'get off the site, we don't want you'. On the contrary, when Sera says we are overstaffed but understaffed, it means that staff members who are actually active leaving hurts the site greatly, and it's her specifically saying 'we have a lot of staff, but we don't have enough staff doing this or that'.

This thread is mostly just saying - hey, if you have disposable time, and like using that time on this site already, there's some parts of the site that need more of your time than others, and perhaps we shouldn't keep asking you to put more time into things you don't want to put time into to begin with. Obviously if you stopped liking spending time on this site and have other matters to attend to, attend them, but even then this thread is not saying you are unwanted; it's adressed to active and interested users.
 
Yeah as for the CRT thing, if I don't know anything about the series I'm being asked to look at there's only 3 real options.

  • I say no/forget about it
  • I just give a sort of half hearted "sure maybe" if things look fine
  • I scrutinize the hell out of everything, maybe turn an upgrade into a downgrade, get people mad and drag out a thread.
I agree with what dargoo typed on the matter about how we sorta make that issue ourselves, since I also typed something to the effect of that earlier.
 
Well, the creators of CRTs should preferably make their cases in a manner that is easy enough to clearly understand, with linked evidence, for more unfamiliar staff members to be able to evaluate them anyway.
 
I agree, OP's should ensure their threads are organized and sourced and all that jazz.
 
Since we're on the topic of CRTs and there's a fair amount of eyes on this thread, I'll leave a friendly reminder to discussion mods/administrators to enforce the new discussion rule:

Content Revision Threads need to be supported by scans, quotes, video clips, accepted calculations, or any other direct proof that claimed events actually happened in the source material. In the absence of this evidence, CRTs may be closed without notice.
Rules are nothing if they aren't enforced, after all.
 
I also agree with Assalt. While we'll admit we're not without faults, not everything is as bad as they seem.

Also we're already critical with CRTs, not much to go on with it.
 
I really hope that we will be able to convince Sir Ovens and Zark to reconsider their resignations in any case.
 
Well, they said so higher up in this thread, but I would appreciate help to convince them otherwise.
 
HIGHKEY agree with this wiki becoming a meme. Remember the NINETEEN Gumball Losses? Remember how long it took for anyone to do anything about it? It's a joke.
 
Assaltwaffle said:
Man y'all are taking on a lot of big issues simultaneously. I think it would really be beneficial to put a lot of this on the backburner until time can be made for it. That's what has always happened with massive revisions, after all.
Click to expand...
Precisely.
 
Antvasima said:
I really hope that we will be able to convince Sir Ovens and Zark to reconsider their resignations in any case.
Click to expand...
They have both made it clear, in private and publicly, that they do not want to be pestered about their decision.
 
Clear out ancient, non-active staff. Clear out staff that don't contribute much anymore and if a staff member is good at one role they have and ignore the other, remove the second role. Cut staff drives for awhile and genuinely stop giving positives for people without genuine reason to be staff.

I'd like to try to defend myself in the following ways: I provide calculations when I can muster enthusiasm and check calcs when I can get there before DMUA does, the snake. Page wise I guess you could say I contribute to the problem when I post some 30-odd pages all at once but they all have stats based on calculations and get edited by me. The only critique I have of the OP is the vague sense of someone pointing fingers at everyone, including themselves. A lot of the stuff just flat out isn't wrong, a staff member shouldn't wander into a verse they know nothing about and be expected to accurately discuss the concepts of said verse and be able to call out supposed experts on these concepts being misrepresented, this expectation is what one feels leads to the afforementioned "seems alright, moving along" mentality.

Gonna go be depressed over two of the staff members I actually like being snaked away in a single thread. Good god this wiki really wants me out, doesn't it...
 
I guarantee you, Bambu, we don't want you out. Everyone here appreciates all you've done for the wiki, and you're one of the coolest guys I know on here. :D
 
DarkGrath said:
I guarantee you, Bambu, we don't want you out. Everyone here appreciates all you've done for the wiki, and you're one of the coolest guys I know on here. :D
Click to expand...
wasn't really fishing for this but noted

its less you guys and more just the atmosphere of the place slowly but surely wearing down on my poor poor weary psyche. it seems every other week we get more wiki-altering discussions that will then immediately be forgotten for eight or so months only to be stonewalled. this place ain't the wiki I joined and the alienation feels compounded when friends like Ovens get filtered out by the times changing. dunno what to do, really.
 
Yeah, it's really sad without Ovens and Zark as staff. Plus it's especially Marvel and DC that need more experts. And the worst part is that they were promoted to recently to step down.
 
Agnaa said:
Again, moving upwards isn't inherently a bad thing.
But if there are two possible approaches we can take to evaluate something, and on the surface with one choice they both seem to produce identical results, but if iterated dozens of times one spirals out into infinity, while one remains controlled and doesn't change, the one with the positive feedback loop on itself seems to be more unreliable, since it takes its own results and increasingly exacerbates itself, while we'd be expecting behaviour that slowly narrows in on the correct answer.

Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...
They wouldn't iterate unless we made an unrelated error tho, its not like these characters get upgraded for no reason. Either new information is found, old information is reinterpreted into a new context, or it is discovered that there was an issue with the old interpretations. They don't get upgraded further because they were previously upgraded, so avoiding a higher interpretation over a lower interpretation for fear that higher interpretations will make it so then next revision that occurs will just so happen to be higher than the one before it is fallacious. Hell, let's reverse this. If lower interpretations make it less likely for a stat to be revised in the future, then that means the lower interpretation is less likely to be fixed if it happens to be wrong, just because it happened to be lower than the previous option it was presented with. So, if the risk of a highball is that (for unrelated reasons) the statistics are more likely to change, then the risk of a low ball would be that the statistics are less likely to change even if those statistics (for unrelated reasons) are unreliable or simply less reliable than whatever new findings/interpretations may yield. Forgoing an equally correct interpretation for the fear that we may risk an error in the future is going to get us nowhere, and its a borderline non-sequitur.

I understand what you are saying but it doesn't really make logical sense to me.
 
It doesn't iterate for unrelated errors, it iterates because accepting a higher value sets a new baseline that makes even higher values less likely to be outliers. I've already explained this - accepting a High 8-C feat makes an 8-A feat less of an outlier. Accepting a 4-D feat makes a Low 2-C feat less of an outlier. It's not about speed of changes, it's that it makes higher feats less like outliers, and thus pushes things towards those.

Why are lower interpretations less likely to be fixed if they're long? I don't understand the logic behind that.
 
Agnaa said:
It doesn't iterate for unrelated errors, it iterates because accepting a higher value sets a new baseline that makes even higher values less likely to be outliers. I've already explained this - accepting a High 8-C feat makes an 8-A feat less of an outlier. Accepting a 4-D feat makes a Low 2-C feat less of an outlier. It's not about speed of changes, it's that it makes higher feats less like outliers, and thus pushes things towards those.
Why are lower interpretations less likely to be fixed if they're long? I don't understand the logic behind that.
Click to expand...
That's not how outliers work tho, and if that's how you people think they work then y'all have been statistically doing it wrong. What is an outlier and not an outlier should not change based on what has been accepted. Outliers are outliers due to being significantly beyond the range of the other data points/feats, whether low or high, so determining a consistently valid tier, given that no new information has been introduced, should not change what is an outlier. The only way something would stop being an outlier is if new information was introduced or old information was reinterpreted. Also, by your logic, choosing lower feats would also make it so lower end feats are also less likely to be outliers, but lower end feats do not limit higher end feats unless they are anti-feats or something approximating one. Choosing a tier is not changing a baseline, or if it is, then that itself is an error.

Because, as you said, higher interpretations tend to spawn further new revisions, where as lower interpretations, according to you, are less likely to spawn further revisions. therefore, it is naturally the case that since there are less revisions, it is less likely for incorrect information to be fixed.
 
That's not how outliers work tho, and if that's how you people think they work then y'all have been statistically doing it wrong. What is an outlier and not an outlier should not change based on what has been accepted. Outliers are outliers due to being significantly beyond the range of the other data points/feats, whether low or high, so determining a consistently valid tier, given that no new information has been introduced, should not change what is an outlier.

But new information is introduced because a new feat is added. That's the entire point of this conversation - if a new calc is created, accepting it as a higher value makes even higher values less likely to be considered outliers.

Also, by your logic, choosing lower feats would also make it so lower end feats are also less likely to be outliers

Yes, but accepting lower feats and making even lower feats less outlier-ish doesn't result in a spiral of downgrades, while the reverse leads to a spiral of upgrades.

Like I already said, adding a new 9-B feat doesn't make a character more likely to be downgraded to 9-C, those feats can coexist and the highest consistent value is taken, which would be 9-B.

Because, as you said, higher interpretations tend to spawn further new revisions, where as lower interpretations, according to you, are less likely to spawn further revisions. therefore, it is naturally the case that since there are less revisions, it is less likely for incorrect information to be fixed.

This feels extremely fallacious to me. Higher interpretations spawn further upgrades using that upgrade as the basis for other feats no longer being outliers. Higher interpretations do not spawn more "incorrect information" fixes. Even though both of those things fall under the umbrella term of "revisions", conflating the two as if there's a causal link between them is fallacious.

To give an analogy for where increasing the number of revisions does not lead to correcting information, if I went around and replaced every profile's picture with new art and 90% of it was fanart, there would need to be a revision thread to remove it, since there's no easy automatic way to handle that. So my action would have objectively spawned further revisions, the negation of that being that not replacing them would have spawned fewer revisions. Using your logic, not replacing profile's pictures with fanart makes it less likely for incorrect information to be fixed, which it doesn't.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
It's less you guys and more just the atmosphere of the place slowly but surely wearing down on my poor poor weary psyche. it seems every other week we get more wiki-altering discussions that will then immediately be forgotten for eight or so months only to be stonewalled. this place ain't the wiki I joined and the alienation feels compounded when friends like Ovens get filtered out by the times changing. Dunno what to do, really.
Click to expand...
All that we can do is try our best to help out as best we can in the ways that we are able to. We cannot get absolute success in everything, but I think that the wiki is continuously gradually improving thanks to our efforts, including your own. We definitely do not want you to leave.

In retrospect, I think that Ovens mentioned to me a while back that he wanted to quit soon, so it was likely not caused by this thread in particular, and Zark had previouly mentioned uncertainty in her staff role as well. I am just very distracted in general.
 
This thread seems to have derailed, and to demoralise part of the community, despite my attempts to help in this regard. Should we close it?
 
Antvasima said:
This thread seems to have derailed, and to demoralise part of the community, despite my attempts to help in this regard. Should we close it?
Click to expand...
Closing the thread won't make the issues listed in the OP go away, but dealing with them is for some time and place after the forum move and when we have resettled.
 
I suppose that is a good point, but as I mentioned earlier, I think that some of the complaints are inaccurate and others simply seem to demoralise the community, which isn't productive. All that we can do is try to help out as best as we can. Even an overworked perfectionist like myself realises that we cannot expect a 100% success rate.
 
Still closing this thread hardly makes a good impression on us addressing the issues above

Especially since some seem to share them (Including myself)
 
" But new information is introduced because a new feat is added. That's the entire point of this conversation - if a new calc is created, accepting it as a higher value makes even higher values less likely to be considered outliers. "

Ok, then this is completely unrelated to the situation I mentioned them. I'm only speaking when 2 interpretations are equally valid in a vacuum. If you introduce new information, then it casts new light on which of the original feats is more valid, so the situation has changed and they (at least given the situation that you described) are no longer equally valid interpretations. Accepting a higher value doesn't make the higher values any less outliers than a lower interpretation makes it more likely that lower interpretations are considered outliers, and simply that more upgrades might spawn from choosing the greater isn't any worse, unless of course those higher interpretations (for unrelated reasons) happen to be incorrect, but that would again be due to an unrelated flaw in a judgement call.

" Yes, but accepting lower feats and making even lower feats less outlier-ish doesn't result in a spiral of downgrades, while the reverse leads to a spiral of upgrades.

Like I already said, adding a new 9-B feat doesn't make a character more likely to be downgraded to 9-C, those feats can coexist and the highest consistent value is taken, which would be 9-B. "

Ok, let me ask, why is it bad that choosing a higher end interpretation causes might cause iteration? You say that you aren't presupposing that the higher interpretations being taken are less accurate. We are speaking in a vacuum here, so we would be assuming that no outside errors would take place, right?

What kind of feat are you talking about here? Are we talking about an 8-C character who just so happens to destroy a fall in the fall out of their fight or are we talking an 8-C character struggling to destroy a 9-B brick wall or what?

" This feels extremely fallacious to me. Higher interpretations spawn further upgrades using that upgrade as the basis for other feats no longer being outliers. Higher interpretations do not spawn more "incorrect information" fixes. Even though both of those things fall under the umbrella term of "revisions", conflating the two as if there's a causal link between them is fallacious."

But, as I said, using an upgrade as the basis for another upgrade in and of itself should not be happening due to simply being not how outliers work, but on the other hand, if the introduction of new data to a set happens to pull feats that were once outliers into the range of validity, and no outside errrors were made, then why would that be a bad thing?

But, they do, just raw definitionally based on what you said. previously you said straight up that upgrades spawn more upgrades. Upgrades cannot happen without revisions, and what is a revision but trying to change a page to correct outdated or incorrect info (within the context that we are speaking)? If a revision or upgrade is not done for pushing for more correct information, then it is either done in bad faith or not a proper revision. All an upgrade is, is a revision that states that certain statistics should be higher, because those higher stats are more accurate. All a downgrade is, is a revision that stats that statistics should be lower, because those lower stats are more accurate. Therefore, assuming that no outside errors have been made, the spawning of more upgrade/revisions should be correcting information that has been found to be incorrect, assuming that the upgrades would only go through if the information they present is correct, more upgrades would naturally generate more correct information. A Higher interpretation that does not lead to more correct information should not go through, and if it does than that is an outside error, which is not what we am discussing. If an upgrade is raised and it does not go through, then the recursion stops and we have no issue, but if it does then it would be due to outside errors.

"To give an analogy for where increasing the number of revisions does not lead to correcting information, if I went around and replaced every profile's picture with new art and 90% of it was fanart, there would need to be a revision thread to remove it, since there's no easy automatic way to handle that. So my action would have objectively spawned further revisions, the negation of that being that not replacing them would have spawned fewer revisions. Using your logic, not replacing profile's pictures with fanart makes it less likely for incorrect information to be fixed, which it doesn't. "

Are you trying to negate that more revisions means more correct information? I'm not claiming that as a universal rule, I'm claiming that this is the case in this very specific context. It brings nothing to this conversation to negate it outside of the context in which we are speaking.
 
@Iapitus For context for others on the thread, I've moved this discussion to Discord.
 
Xulrev said:
A simple yet effective way to address some of the staff issues is to increase the amount of overlapping staff knowledge so that CRTs that are pretty important can get a lot of knowledgeable discussion going without just a few staff hopping into a thread to say 'seems legit' without any further discourse (or, on the other end, two single staff members bickering publicly with one another and attempting to insinuate the other is mistaken instead of a calm discussion with a good conclusion); a lot of the issues stated seem to really boil down to that, a lack of keeping CRTs accountable.
Click to expand...
Does that mean that I get more supporters for Pretty Cure?
 
Can you stop quoting gigantic textwalls? This thread is a pain as it is, I'd rather prefer if you users try to shorten your messages to be concise, and snip off any unnecessary derailment, thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

AKM sama
New Staff Promotions
2
Replies
67
Views
5K
Lloydblitzed
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
VS Battles Is Nonsense / Delete My Account
Replies
6
Views
1K
Dragonite007
Dragonite007
Antvasima
I am taking a vacation
2
Replies
76
Views
7K
Zeinx1
Zeinx1
DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Colonel_Krukov
  • Sticky
New Year, New FC/OC Battles Wiki
Replies
9
Views
2K
Colonel_Krukov
Colonel_Krukov
Back
Top