-
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
- Thread starter Sera_EX
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vs battles wiki
- Status
- 18,196
- 19,622
How many profiles have calcs to back up their claims? Any stat that isn't from a blatantly obvious feat or power-scaling needs a calc to back it up. Whatever happened to all that math we're so proud of?
From what I remember of the VSBW audit attempt, the vast majority of profiles have calcs backing up their claims. Sure you can go to profiles made 5 years ago and they're pretty garbage, but I don't think this is a newly expanding issue, quite the opposite.
Meaning: Upgrades are now, more than ever before, accepted due to simply "looking okay" if there's enough statements or second hand information (such as WoG or guidebooks) to pass as acceptable, rather than using objective feats, powerscaling, and calculations to determine stats, and only relying on statements as supportive evidence - statements are used as primary evidence to justify anything that has a modicum of possibility, regardless if it's even consistent or not.
I can't tell what you're arguing against here, so I can't tell if I agree or not. Is a character with a ridiculously casual 6-B feat who's far above the rest of the cast and has two statements of being able to destroy the Earth like they destroyed a shrine worthy of being called 5-B? Or is this talking about statements that contradict feats? Or is this even talking about all statements that have no backing in general?
How many featless characters are treated as OP powerhouses in vs threads or general discussions despite not even fighting another character before?
We're covered with a swarm of characters with 0 feats who have never fought before? Because I've never seen a single one of those. You mentioned Grand Priest as an example, but the last sentence of his AP seems to be a feat, and quite a few of his abilities seem sourced from feats.
This wouldn't be so bad if we didn't allow anything with a story to be eligible for profit-making status here. Allowing the most obscure verses hardly anyone has ever heard of to be allowed here also creates the gatekeeping effect where only "knowledgeable members" can actually verify the stats with further context.
Doing anything otherwise would be infinitely worse (requiring a certain number of active members on a verse, disallowing verses that aren't in the popular consciousness, etc). At best you're yelling at clouds here.
Obscure high tiered verses need to be banned. Period. Things like the Masadaverse should have nothing more than its translated material accepted for profile creation (Dies irae, not Kajiri Kamui Kagura).
No they don't, they just need to face the same scrutiny as all other verses, and if no-one puts in the time to do that then they don't get a high tier. This is exactly what happened with Ergenverse, it was sitting at Unknown for ages until people came along to verify it. Also, KKK has fan translations, and the parts we use have been verified by many multilingual members. If you're disqualifying material like that then we'd have to kick off dozens of non-English verses for no good reason (since we have the information and have verified that it's reliable).
Deleting any pages without calculations (unless the feats are straightforward, are incalculable, or are based in powerscaling). Sadly, the staff honestly believe that because "one of the reasons our site is so popular is because of our number of pages" that we should just accept having well over 20k pages despite most being suspicious. Really? Quantity over quality. That's what we care about? Qwynbleidd was right. Matt was right. We need less pages.
Everyone agrees with this part. That's why the audit group was allowed to start and do its thing. People aren't defending these pages because "WE NEED QUANTITY OVER QUALITY!" Any defense of them was just "Maybe someone will come around and fix them up, so don't delete them for a week or two."
With more verses comes more CRTs about those verses.
You're missing a very important part of this equation. More users means more verses means more CRTs about those verses, means there's always a similar ratio of users to deal with those CRTs. I don't think this is an issue.
Some people clearly have abused their ability to calc to get the highest result possible. Of course there's calc-stacking, but this here is done Nito by calc-stacking. But by re-calcing the same feat over and over again.
"But Sera" I hear you say, "if the calc is legit, what can we do about it"? Well...are they legit? Lately, I've been seeing some questionable calcs get passed simply by someone (usually our overworked bureaucrat Antvasima) and maybe one calc member saying it "looks okay". That's it.
These two issues are completely and wholly separate and right around never stack with each other. Obsessive re-calcing makes results more accurate, and that's fine. They don't get random acceptances because they have a huge degree of scrutiny. These sorts of calcs usually get over a dozen comments, while the sorts of calcs that have a random calc member agreeing usually get exactly three comments: Ant telling them to go to the calc evaluations thread, the member saying "this looks fine", and Ant saying it can be used.
I agree that the second thing you mentioned is an issue, but you're putting it right next to the first to create the illusion of an issue that doesn't exist.
Most others who accept the calc are regular users, many of whom are supporters of the verse. Hmm… is there some sort of… connection there ƒæÇ?
Good thing we mostly use regular user comments to discredit calcs, rather than to approve them, I guess?
As for powerscaling, as I've stated before, we've went from powerscaling via feats of consistent comparable prowess to powerscaling via statements of comparable prowess
Funnily enough, I actually prefer the latter here. We shouldn't scale a 7-B to a 7-A if they've never fought just because their feats are close, we should scale if we have actual statements/feats of them being comparable.
We gotta stop being so lazy and additionally stop treating every statement from a fictional character with no agency as reliable just because it makes sense in-universe.
I don't get the points. Aren't statements more reliable since the characters have no agency? It's not like the characters can say things the authors didn't want them to, and therefore, when characters say something the author wanted that thing said. There's other reasons to prefer feats over statements, but this one doesn't make sense.
It pains me to say it, but we have too many staff members (although ironically, we don't have enough at the same time).
You know what that means? We don't have enough staff members, and you're expecting staff members to do more than they will. There is no such thing as too many staff members, as long as they aren't unfit for their positions.
This brings me to my main point as to why we have too many staff members. Unless I miss counted, we have somewhere along the lines of 73 staff members. Of those staff members, how many can you say actually participate in and help bring down the Hammer of Judgment in a CRT? The way the site was supposedly managed was that discussion mods and admins mostly help out with CRTs. Do they?
I cannot believe that your evidence for us having too many staff members, is that staff member duties aren't happening. And I personally can at least attest to many staff members helping out with CRTs.
The only staff member to actually walk into a CRT regardless of their familiarity on the topic is Antvasima. DarkDragonMedeus and AKM sama do come close. The rest of us mostly handle the verses we are comfortable with/are knowledgeable on. This is unfortunate because as I stated before, the number of upgrades are increasing.
I would like to take this time to point out the many staff members that I know that have helped out with CRTs from verses that they're not familiar on, but you did say that other staff members only "mostly" do otherwise.
Why do we need 70+ staff members, especially discussion moderators, when the three most prominent CRT reviewers are two administrators and one bureaucrat?
Because we need them to review CRTs, even if they aren't the most prominent. If 99.9% of people won't review CRTs outside of their verses, and all of them are already staff, yet we need more CRT reviews, then we should bring people on to review their specific verses.
Regardless, becoming staff is now an inevitability for any long-running member here who participates in enough CRTs and doesn't have a bad record.
Yes. As it should be.
We have too many staff who do what any regular member can do.
I mean, yeah. Our needs in staff aren't all specialized technical stuff, sometimes it really is just having a person we trust to do what anyone could do if they put their mind to it. Any normal person has the technical skill to lock/unlock pages, or lock/unlock threads, or participate in discussions of the direction of the site, but we only want trusted people doing stuff like that.
The staff have lost the ability to assume good faith in their community
I mostly stick to my own on this site, so I can't comment much on this. I haven't seen this in almost all of the staff I speak to, and I'm assuming that you don't think 100% of the staff have lost faith, but the one member I have seen doing this probably just doesn't have the time to evaluate every complex CRT from every verse they're not involved in, so deferring to trusted members is probably mandatory. But if others are distrustful of non-staff when both members are knowledgeable on the verse, that should stop.
Prioritization of the OP, the Philosophical, and the Technical
I don't really know what you're complaining about or what you ideally want here. To start with the most concrete thing, we don't accept platonic concepts as 1-A, so even if a handful of people argue with that it isn't really impactful. The rest is about fawning over hax, and I actually think you might be missing a large part of this. Many people fawn over verses in the 9-B range simply because that's where the art that they like is. Sure people are interested in high-tier stuff, but the majority of people care about the art they like, so I'm not sure if any culture shift really needs to happen.
What has the new system done except allow for more Tier 0s and put an end to the godawful assumption that any mention of higher dimensions = a larger verse than one that doesn't?
Those two things were kinda the point. Make the higher tiers measurable, and stop the assumption of 12-quintillion dimensional squirrels being 1-B.
The intent behind a new system was all wrong, once again the result of caring too much about the obscure and niche high tiers... Rather than prioritize the more feat-based tiers, you know the ones most often associated with vs debating, the site decided to prioritize Tiers 1 and 0.
Uhh, yeah. There was an issue with tiers 2 to 0, so a revision was made on them. There's different issues with different tiers, and there's a resolution being worked on by different people. The sorts of people that talk about which ordinals should correspond to 1-A are different than the sorts of people that talk about where we should start town level. Prioritization doesn't matter a huge amount here. But you did say you'd go more into it later, so I'll wait for that.
I'm not going to read or respond to the summary since I'm hoping you're not introducing any new points there.
From what I remember of the VSBW audit attempt, the vast majority of profiles have calcs backing up their claims. Sure you can go to profiles made 5 years ago and they're pretty garbage, but I don't think this is a newly expanding issue, quite the opposite.
Meaning: Upgrades are now, more than ever before, accepted due to simply "looking okay" if there's enough statements or second hand information (such as WoG or guidebooks) to pass as acceptable, rather than using objective feats, powerscaling, and calculations to determine stats, and only relying on statements as supportive evidence - statements are used as primary evidence to justify anything that has a modicum of possibility, regardless if it's even consistent or not.
I can't tell what you're arguing against here, so I can't tell if I agree or not. Is a character with a ridiculously casual 6-B feat who's far above the rest of the cast and has two statements of being able to destroy the Earth like they destroyed a shrine worthy of being called 5-B? Or is this talking about statements that contradict feats? Or is this even talking about all statements that have no backing in general?
How many featless characters are treated as OP powerhouses in vs threads or general discussions despite not even fighting another character before?
We're covered with a swarm of characters with 0 feats who have never fought before? Because I've never seen a single one of those. You mentioned Grand Priest as an example, but the last sentence of his AP seems to be a feat, and quite a few of his abilities seem sourced from feats.
This wouldn't be so bad if we didn't allow anything with a story to be eligible for profit-making status here. Allowing the most obscure verses hardly anyone has ever heard of to be allowed here also creates the gatekeeping effect where only "knowledgeable members" can actually verify the stats with further context.
Doing anything otherwise would be infinitely worse (requiring a certain number of active members on a verse, disallowing verses that aren't in the popular consciousness, etc). At best you're yelling at clouds here.
Obscure high tiered verses need to be banned. Period. Things like the Masadaverse should have nothing more than its translated material accepted for profile creation (Dies irae, not Kajiri Kamui Kagura).
No they don't, they just need to face the same scrutiny as all other verses, and if no-one puts in the time to do that then they don't get a high tier. This is exactly what happened with Ergenverse, it was sitting at Unknown for ages until people came along to verify it. Also, KKK has fan translations, and the parts we use have been verified by many multilingual members. If you're disqualifying material like that then we'd have to kick off dozens of non-English verses for no good reason (since we have the information and have verified that it's reliable).
Deleting any pages without calculations (unless the feats are straightforward, are incalculable, or are based in powerscaling). Sadly, the staff honestly believe that because "one of the reasons our site is so popular is because of our number of pages" that we should just accept having well over 20k pages despite most being suspicious. Really? Quantity over quality. That's what we care about? Qwynbleidd was right. Matt was right. We need less pages.
Everyone agrees with this part. That's why the audit group was allowed to start and do its thing. People aren't defending these pages because "WE NEED QUANTITY OVER QUALITY!" Any defense of them was just "Maybe someone will come around and fix them up, so don't delete them for a week or two."
With more verses comes more CRTs about those verses.
You're missing a very important part of this equation. More users means more verses means more CRTs about those verses, means there's always a similar ratio of users to deal with those CRTs. I don't think this is an issue.
Some people clearly have abused their ability to calc to get the highest result possible. Of course there's calc-stacking, but this here is done Nito by calc-stacking. But by re-calcing the same feat over and over again.
"But Sera" I hear you say, "if the calc is legit, what can we do about it"? Well...are they legit? Lately, I've been seeing some questionable calcs get passed simply by someone (usually our overworked bureaucrat Antvasima) and maybe one calc member saying it "looks okay". That's it.
These two issues are completely and wholly separate and right around never stack with each other. Obsessive re-calcing makes results more accurate, and that's fine. They don't get random acceptances because they have a huge degree of scrutiny. These sorts of calcs usually get over a dozen comments, while the sorts of calcs that have a random calc member agreeing usually get exactly three comments: Ant telling them to go to the calc evaluations thread, the member saying "this looks fine", and Ant saying it can be used.
I agree that the second thing you mentioned is an issue, but you're putting it right next to the first to create the illusion of an issue that doesn't exist.
Most others who accept the calc are regular users, many of whom are supporters of the verse. Hmm… is there some sort of… connection there ƒæÇ?
Good thing we mostly use regular user comments to discredit calcs, rather than to approve them, I guess?
As for powerscaling, as I've stated before, we've went from powerscaling via feats of consistent comparable prowess to powerscaling via statements of comparable prowess
Funnily enough, I actually prefer the latter here. We shouldn't scale a 7-B to a 7-A if they've never fought just because their feats are close, we should scale if we have actual statements/feats of them being comparable.
We gotta stop being so lazy and additionally stop treating every statement from a fictional character with no agency as reliable just because it makes sense in-universe.
I don't get the points. Aren't statements more reliable since the characters have no agency? It's not like the characters can say things the authors didn't want them to, and therefore, when characters say something the author wanted that thing said. There's other reasons to prefer feats over statements, but this one doesn't make sense.
It pains me to say it, but we have too many staff members (although ironically, we don't have enough at the same time).
You know what that means? We don't have enough staff members, and you're expecting staff members to do more than they will. There is no such thing as too many staff members, as long as they aren't unfit for their positions.
This brings me to my main point as to why we have too many staff members. Unless I miss counted, we have somewhere along the lines of 73 staff members. Of those staff members, how many can you say actually participate in and help bring down the Hammer of Judgment in a CRT? The way the site was supposedly managed was that discussion mods and admins mostly help out with CRTs. Do they?
I cannot believe that your evidence for us having too many staff members, is that staff member duties aren't happening. And I personally can at least attest to many staff members helping out with CRTs.
The only staff member to actually walk into a CRT regardless of their familiarity on the topic is Antvasima. DarkDragonMedeus and AKM sama do come close. The rest of us mostly handle the verses we are comfortable with/are knowledgeable on. This is unfortunate because as I stated before, the number of upgrades are increasing.
I would like to take this time to point out the many staff members that I know that have helped out with CRTs from verses that they're not familiar on, but you did say that other staff members only "mostly" do otherwise.
Why do we need 70+ staff members, especially discussion moderators, when the three most prominent CRT reviewers are two administrators and one bureaucrat?
Because we need them to review CRTs, even if they aren't the most prominent. If 99.9% of people won't review CRTs outside of their verses, and all of them are already staff, yet we need more CRT reviews, then we should bring people on to review their specific verses.
Regardless, becoming staff is now an inevitability for any long-running member here who participates in enough CRTs and doesn't have a bad record.
Yes. As it should be.
We have too many staff who do what any regular member can do.
I mean, yeah. Our needs in staff aren't all specialized technical stuff, sometimes it really is just having a person we trust to do what anyone could do if they put their mind to it. Any normal person has the technical skill to lock/unlock pages, or lock/unlock threads, or participate in discussions of the direction of the site, but we only want trusted people doing stuff like that.
The staff have lost the ability to assume good faith in their community
I mostly stick to my own on this site, so I can't comment much on this. I haven't seen this in almost all of the staff I speak to, and I'm assuming that you don't think 100% of the staff have lost faith, but the one member I have seen doing this probably just doesn't have the time to evaluate every complex CRT from every verse they're not involved in, so deferring to trusted members is probably mandatory. But if others are distrustful of non-staff when both members are knowledgeable on the verse, that should stop.
Prioritization of the OP, the Philosophical, and the Technical
I don't really know what you're complaining about or what you ideally want here. To start with the most concrete thing, we don't accept platonic concepts as 1-A, so even if a handful of people argue with that it isn't really impactful. The rest is about fawning over hax, and I actually think you might be missing a large part of this. Many people fawn over verses in the 9-B range simply because that's where the art that they like is. Sure people are interested in high-tier stuff, but the majority of people care about the art they like, so I'm not sure if any culture shift really needs to happen.
What has the new system done except allow for more Tier 0s and put an end to the godawful assumption that any mention of higher dimensions = a larger verse than one that doesn't?
Those two things were kinda the point. Make the higher tiers measurable, and stop the assumption of 12-quintillion dimensional squirrels being 1-B.
The intent behind a new system was all wrong, once again the result of caring too much about the obscure and niche high tiers... Rather than prioritize the more feat-based tiers, you know the ones most often associated with vs debating, the site decided to prioritize Tiers 1 and 0.
Uhh, yeah. There was an issue with tiers 2 to 0, so a revision was made on them. There's different issues with different tiers, and there's a resolution being worked on by different people. The sorts of people that talk about which ordinals should correspond to 1-A are different than the sorts of people that talk about where we should start town level. Prioritization doesn't matter a huge amount here. But you did say you'd go more into it later, so I'll wait for that.
I'm not going to read or respond to the summary since I'm hoping you're not introducing any new points there.
- 5,510
- 718
I mostly agree with this
- 3,461
- 1,726
6. Highly disagree with this point. WE regular users have lost faith in the staff due to the aggressive nature of staff members in the past, coming into CRTs, throwing out insults and treating supporters like idiots. Further more many times in the past Staff have gotten automatically higher priority than actual knowledgable members, as shown when Ant was like "What should we do here Ultima" on a WoD thread and Udl was like "Wtf but im the knowledgable guy here."
8. We priortizied the higher tiers with the (albeit lackluster) tiering revisions, because they had the most problems with them. There wasn't nearly as much wrong with tiers 10 through 2, then there was Tier 1. It needed to be fixed and thats why it got priority. As for "Philosophical mumbo jumbo" I have to disagree with this as well. If a verse says "platonic" and doesn't elaborate, ignoring it is fine. But if a verse goes in depths on it's overall cosmological concepts we should pay attention to that. Philosophical concepts in fiction have been used to scale a character before, it simply depends on how the concept is defined and how it is used in that inverse context.
And lastly I will adress your points on "obscure" verses, and your whole "feats before statements" philosophy of ignoring guide books. Banning "Obscure" matches is absolutely ludicrous. Characters and verses shouldn't be banned just because they aren't popular. Being obscure means there are less "Knowledgable" members but thats just the way things are, its how it is. Some verses are less known or popular than others. Secondly I shall move onto your guidebook point. If the guidebook is from a reliable source, doesn't contradict canon, and isn't flowery language, why is it bad to use guide books? There have been good and consistent guide books out there, they aren't all bad.
8. We priortizied the higher tiers with the (albeit lackluster) tiering revisions, because they had the most problems with them. There wasn't nearly as much wrong with tiers 10 through 2, then there was Tier 1. It needed to be fixed and thats why it got priority. As for "Philosophical mumbo jumbo" I have to disagree with this as well. If a verse says "platonic" and doesn't elaborate, ignoring it is fine. But if a verse goes in depths on it's overall cosmological concepts we should pay attention to that. Philosophical concepts in fiction have been used to scale a character before, it simply depends on how the concept is defined and how it is used in that inverse context.
And lastly I will adress your points on "obscure" verses, and your whole "feats before statements" philosophy of ignoring guide books. Banning "Obscure" matches is absolutely ludicrous. Characters and verses shouldn't be banned just because they aren't popular. Being obscure means there are less "Knowledgable" members but thats just the way things are, its how it is. Some verses are less known or popular than others. Secondly I shall move onto your guidebook point. If the guidebook is from a reliable source, doesn't contradict canon, and isn't flowery language, why is it bad to use guide books? There have been good and consistent guide books out there, they aren't all bad.
- 14,409
- 1,693
I can somewhat understand where Aogiri comes from about the staff problem but it's not all staff. Just like normal users staff members can also be reported as well.
I agree with Agnee most definitely about high tier verses. I don't see any logical reason as to why high tier verses should be banned just because. First of all this is something that will definitely keep users away.
I agree with Agnee most definitely about high tier verses. I don't see any logical reason as to why high tier verses should be banned just because. First of all this is something that will definitely keep users away.
- 2,505
- 918
I heavily, heavily disagree with the opinion on the Staff/Community Schism
It is very obviously written from the position of someone who is either uninformed of or willfully ignorant towards the bad actions of staff previously.
Certain staff have not made any attempt to be kind or neutral, or in any way be unbiased moderators. Certainly, I don't expect people to be completely unbiased, but when an admin, who is supposed to be a neutral judge, jumps into a thread and even makes threads doing nothing but insulting the community members who care about a verse, they very clearly send a message. And that message is that they are egotistical about their position, and are and have abused said position to stonewall revisions, yes even downgrades, they dislike. And because their is no effective punishment for acting in this way, they do so again and again and again.
Nobody would or should be expected to agree with that, or even tolerate it in the slightest.
Furthermore, it is worsened by the fact that when they do this, they receive either no or minimal punishment. On other sites, or in a job, outbursts of a similar nature would result in immediate demotion or even banning.
Yet, in this site, moderators agree with the person despite the fact that they call supporters idiotic or even worse insults, which I will refrain from using due to not wanting to be banned.
Blatantly put, if you have an outburst like that because something happened that you didn't like:
You. don't. deserve. to. be. staff.
It is very obviously written from the position of someone who is either uninformed of or willfully ignorant towards the bad actions of staff previously.
Certain staff have not made any attempt to be kind or neutral, or in any way be unbiased moderators. Certainly, I don't expect people to be completely unbiased, but when an admin, who is supposed to be a neutral judge, jumps into a thread and even makes threads doing nothing but insulting the community members who care about a verse, they very clearly send a message. And that message is that they are egotistical about their position, and are and have abused said position to stonewall revisions, yes even downgrades, they dislike. And because their is no effective punishment for acting in this way, they do so again and again and again.
Nobody would or should be expected to agree with that, or even tolerate it in the slightest.
Furthermore, it is worsened by the fact that when they do this, they receive either no or minimal punishment. On other sites, or in a job, outbursts of a similar nature would result in immediate demotion or even banning.
Yet, in this site, moderators agree with the person despite the fact that they call supporters idiotic or even worse insults, which I will refrain from using due to not wanting to be banned.
Blatantly put, if you have an outburst like that because something happened that you didn't like:
You. don't. deserve. to. be. staff.
- 3,461
- 1,726
You know what with this staff discussion going on still and the fact I haven't seen anything done about a problem in particular I believe something needs to be addressed.
You. All of the staff that decide things here are biased to other stuff and trusted members. Heavily biased.
How biased? How long did members give complaints about Matt, Weekly, and other aggressive members before any action was taken? Because it went on for a while. And how about Everlasting? How about we talk about him? Because I still haven't seen anything done about Everlasting.
Everlasting was banned across FANDOM, FANDOM got involved in the drama that i'm sure all of you are aware of. They made it clear they did not want him anywhere near a FANDOM wiki, yet the staff still hasn't lifted a finger about the fact Ever is still contacting the wiki members and getting his tiering and scaling on this site, for Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts. We're giving a literal SEXUAL PREDATOR a platform and why? Because he was a trusted member that staff liked. Does no one see anything wrong with that? This level of bias needs to end. We can't keep giving Staff and trusted members slaps on the wrist. They need to be punished just like everyone else, or else it will lead to people like Ever abusing their power just as he did, as well as being aggressive and insulting the members that make up this community.
You. All of the staff that decide things here are biased to other stuff and trusted members. Heavily biased.
How biased? How long did members give complaints about Matt, Weekly, and other aggressive members before any action was taken? Because it went on for a while. And how about Everlasting? How about we talk about him? Because I still haven't seen anything done about Everlasting.
Everlasting was banned across FANDOM, FANDOM got involved in the drama that i'm sure all of you are aware of. They made it clear they did not want him anywhere near a FANDOM wiki, yet the staff still hasn't lifted a finger about the fact Ever is still contacting the wiki members and getting his tiering and scaling on this site, for Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts. We're giving a literal SEXUAL PREDATOR a platform and why? Because he was a trusted member that staff liked. Does no one see anything wrong with that? This level of bias needs to end. We can't keep giving Staff and trusted members slaps on the wrist. They need to be punished just like everyone else, or else it will lead to people like Ever abusing their power just as he did, as well as being aggressive and insulting the members that make up this community.
- 34,634
- 41,954
Sera was not suggesting we ban obscure verses, she made that perfectly clear later on in the thread. Also, the critique was towards both staff and regular users equally. Yes, there are plenty of staff who; mostly former who've been resorting to bad insults, but there have been a lot of regular users who plot a rebellion against the wiki; mostly trolls. And it is the staff that usually deal with a lot more harassment from trolls and the like. Not an excuse, but still a fact. That being said, it literally everyone; don't point the finger at staff or non staff. But literally everyone here needs to be more civil.
- 5,510
- 718
Wait what's this with Ever?
- 8,594
- 2,582
Don't know who that is but if he/she is banned from FANDOM, I don't see what else could ever be done. If he still has friends that talk to him and whatnot, I don't see how the wiki can stop this.
- 3,461
- 1,726
Ever still gets a say on Kingdom Hearts and Final Fantasy scaling. Despite the grotesque actions he was banned for.Hellbeast1 said:
- 18,196
- 19,622
Well yeah. If people want to present the opinions of a banned member that's okay, as long as that presentation doesn't otherwise break the rules. And if people in the thread find those points legit, they can listen to them.AogiriKira said:
- 16,932
- 7,380
HR actually did tell someone to not sponsor banned users (or at least we were supposed to, I wasn't the one to personally do it), but it's impossible to police if people aren't being super blatant about it. At the very least, people really shouldn't halt threads just to wait for the banned users, which has happened before.
- 34,634
- 41,954
Please do not bring up any controversial topics surrounding Everlasting or any other banned user. Thank you. Also, just because some staff members were globally blocked doesn't mean they're allowed to keep in contact. Kepekley was still allowed to message people offsite when he was globally blocked.
Anyway, keep any topics that are prone to causing drama publicly in general. Especially staff Vs non staff drama.
Anyway, keep any topics that are prone to causing drama publicly in general. Especially staff Vs non staff drama.
- 2,485
- 309
Honestly, most of the OP makes sense apart from the staff/Community part, which is presented in a way that makes the staff look better than in reality. There are staff who've done nothing but stonewall like Knight and Aogiri have pointed out, and them not getting much to dissuade them from such behaviour for a while has not helped their case at all.
- 16,932
- 7,380
But anyways, as for my responses:
How exactly should we define notability standards here? If proof is able to be offered, why should it be deleted just because not enough people know it? If this is more an issue with untranslated stuff, it can be presented better.
How exactly is this going to be solved? A Quota on CRTs doesn't seem like it's the most effective plan, and where does the whole "10 CRTs at once" thing even happen besides Kingdom Hearts and the HST? Even when I spam Worm CRTs it's because it's an ongoing series and they're usually resolved within a day or so. As for the statements thing, there are verses entirely composed of statements. Books. What upgrades have happened that you would say are through abuse of statements?
I know literally nothing about powerscaling like this going on so okay maybe. As for the calc thing, regular users can't approve calcs and you can just remove them if they're being used and haven't been properly approved. Calc Group's more for checking the math anyways.
I actually agree with this, but it's kinda unfixable since we can't just start demoting people who haven't done anything. People are being active, having way too much staff is more due to having like 6 staff drives back to back. I think a more clear expression of what should be done that isn't seeming done enough would be nice, as that seems more likely to correct the issues that importing more staff is supposed to solve.
I agree with this. Staff shouldn't really have any more power in a discussion than a normal beyond the tools to keep things moving along in a civil manner, and evidence should trump status.
I think this is inevitable staff schism or not, and ultimately can only really be solved through sweeping mindset changes or debunking. There is no real objective truth. The only things we can say are true is that which we can prove. If people are able to prove high ratings, that's just how it is.
Yeah, people are attracted to powerful things. A lot of the point of vs debating is to argue that characters you think are strong are strong, I'm not sure why this is surprising or whatever.
| 1. Having too many pages due to our staff's pitiful unwillingness to cull the number of pages in favor of our popularity and fear of workload. We value quantity over quality. |
| 2.Having too many CRTs to manage our 25k pages. The vast majority of CRTs nowadays are upgrades, proving that the community at large values the most consistent high-ball. |
| 4. Powerscaling being abused as well. A good deal of powerscaling is now hardly from if a character can consistently compete with whom they scale to, but if there's any minute statement to back it up. |
| 5. Having too many staff members despite only a few actually doing what they are positioned for, and some having admittedly lost interest (just retire then). Having this many staff is unneeded as mass editing is a community effort or can be done by bots. Despite not needing over 70 staff, we still do. |
| 6. The staff having lost their ability to assume good faith in regular members due to the scars of our past filled with vandalism and trolling, and since the staff are the "trusted members" this leaves the community at large feeling invalid in comparison, due to having not as important enough input in a discussion. |
| 7. The schism between the staff and community continuously prolongs the inflation of our stats and pages, and thus our unreliability increases. |
| 8. The community over-emphasizing higher tiers, as evidenced with the new system not actually being implemented in such a way that solves the inflation problem despite being marketed as "objective and mathematically accurate". We also over-emphasize philosophical mumbo jumbo that sounds impressive and try to use that as evidence for these higher tiers. 1-A Platonic concepts dozens of types of powers that really aren't that complicated come to mind. |
- 16,932
- 7,380
Oh hey, I missed one.
You can just remove them if normal users have approved them and nobody else, and I've personally seen issues with calcs being hammered out before they're even posted quite often by having calc people walk dudes through shit. Calc Group just checks the math anyways, so while there are def lazy approvals going on, it isn't lazy because of not taking into account a verse they may not even know.
| 3. Calculations (arguably one of the best tools at our disposal) are not checked and reviewed as they are supposed to be. Most calcs I've seen recently just get an "this looks okay" from normal members and staff that aren't even calc members. |
- 2,505
- 918
What Sera posted: The staff don't have faith in the community.
What you posted in response: Sera's ignoring actions of staff! In reality, staff don't have faith in the community!
By far the asbolute worst possible representation of what I've said.
I did not once criticize the staffs faith in the community. I criticized their actions, specifically the ones in which the have acted unbecoming of how staff should be expected to act, and I criticized the nepotism staff have for each other.
Did you even read the post?
What you posted in response: Sera's ignoring actions of staff! In reality, staff don't have faith in the community!
By far the asbolute worst possible representation of what I've said.
I did not once criticize the staffs faith in the community. I criticized their actions, specifically the ones in which the have acted unbecoming of how staff should be expected to act, and I criticized the nepotism staff have for each other.
Did you even read the post?
- 5,510
- 718
Still Matt is considered one of the go tos on many subjects and many subjects are rejected without his say so regardless of the alternate views
- 528
- 418
Without going to focus too much, i'll just say i disagree with the bit about obscure verses and non-english verses
I honestly think that options such as going strictly by only localized/translated settings or "famous" works would be a huge negative to the wiki in general. Limiting ourselves to famous/known fictional works is too boring, too limiting and wouldn't favor a site who desires to expand on and cover more works. It's what makes it so fun to begin with. Finding new works just by looking at these unknown profiles you've never see them before. And there isn't much harm to it. Same for untranslated verses. It's fine as long as the most important aspect (information) is valid and concreet. We have many jforeign speakers here whom can confirm the validity of info that we get so we can analyze it safely
Shinzaverse cannot truly work without KKK. I've see you many time openly say DI on its own is fine but that's not true at all. Kajiri Kamui Kagura serves as a stepping point for Masada to expand the cosmology of the work and add more depth to it (Singularity, the law of a God, Hadou-Gudou explanations, Eras explanation, Apoptosis and so on). This is just for Masadaverse though
Time for me to die. 3 PM.
I honestly think that options such as going strictly by only localized/translated settings or "famous" works would be a huge negative to the wiki in general. Limiting ourselves to famous/known fictional works is too boring, too limiting and wouldn't favor a site who desires to expand on and cover more works. It's what makes it so fun to begin with. Finding new works just by looking at these unknown profiles you've never see them before. And there isn't much harm to it. Same for untranslated verses. It's fine as long as the most important aspect (information) is valid and concreet. We have many jforeign speakers here whom can confirm the validity of info that we get so we can analyze it safely
Shinzaverse cannot truly work without KKK. I've see you many time openly say DI on its own is fine but that's not true at all. Kajiri Kamui Kagura serves as a stepping point for Masada to expand the cosmology of the work and add more depth to it (Singularity, the law of a God, Hadou-Gudou explanations, Eras explanation, Apoptosis and so on). This is just for Masadaverse though
Time for me to die. 3 PM.
- Dies
- 18,196
- 19,622
Their actions were criticized by Sera. Being unbecoming and having nepotism for each other is also known as not having faith in non-staff. They don't have faith so they put each other above non-staff. They don't have faith so they treat non-staff badly.KnightOfSunlight said:
- 16,623
- 1,796
I agree over all, but I'll point out a few things I disagree with. Also, note that just because I point out an issue with part of a point does not necessarily mean I disagree as a whole on that point.
This first point I make is an overarching one: You yourself stated that downplay and wank are equally bad, which I agree with, but even within this very post, you act as if it is better for something to be low balled rather than it being inflated. A High ball is equally valid/preferable to a low ball, yet it is an almost unspoken rule that everyone prefers low balls because they are "safer" and it avoids inflation. You address the problem of verses being high balled into absurdity, but verses that are consistently downplayed are just regarded as fine because people prefer it to the "risk" of inflated statistics, when really this should be treated as equally undesirable. Why is it better to dismiss a cosmological statement that isn't cut and dry because it might be "flower language", as opposed to statements being regarded on their own merits? because people would prefer downplay to inflation. Its irrational, but its a necessary evil in the VS community, that has been ingrained into all of us. If a character is properly High 1-A, then it should be equally wrong for them to be downplayed into 1-A, than for them to be wanked to tier 0. One should not be prefered over the other
I will also say this. My experience with the way people regard VS wiki is that we are usually regarded more as downplayers than wankers. Yes, I have certainly experienced both, but of all the complaints I heard about this place before coming here, and even while I am here, has always been with regards to how we downplay verses.
Now for other stuff:
The statement thing is interesting, but in my experience I've had more issue with the opposite. People deny a statement made by a character just because they have lied before, and not even in the same context. Also, if we say that character context should be largely ignored because they have no agency, would that not instead make them more reliable, as it is just the voice of the author?
For the banning of specific profiles, its a blatant double standard that an obscure verse should be banned for being high tiered or OP, while an obscure lower tier verse is regarded as fine. As I mentioned in my first paragraph, the power of a verse should never be the basis for its regard towards validity. Also, yes, it is a necesary evil, but it is the quantity of different series that makes this place preferable. And, as my first paragraph referenced, the eye should equally be on low tier verses as high tier verses.
With the issue of too many CRTs, just as my first paragraph says, Upgrades and Downgrades should serve the same purpose, a push towards validity. If we have a multitude of upgrades it should be interpretted that out statistics are too deflated, not that people are trying to inflate their verses too much. If you issue is with too many CRTs, then it should be for reasons apart from what kind of CRT they are, upgrade or downgrade.
" The community had its role to play in this too. I'm happy that we're a lot more open than we were back in the day and I appreciate opinions from many different perspectives. But, similar to an open-border policy (this is not a political argument, just pay attention), when there's an influx of individuals from all over the net (mostly from G+ tbh), the prioritization of "the most consistent high-ball became clear. Why? Because the guys who came here from Downplay City didn't last long. Mostly due to their attitudes towards the site. This means we have a lot more high-ballers coming into town and staying than low-ballers. The inflation spoken of previously didn't really start getting ridiculous until after the shutdown of Google+. Trust me, that is no simple coincidence. "
this paragraph specifically I want to address. For personal context, I have a lot of verses experience, I came from G+, and watched first hand the distribution of the debaters from there. When I say what I am about to say, I want you to understand where I come from. Here it is: I have seen segnificantly more people pass this place over for percieved downplay than I have wank.
For examples from verse I actively support on: Most of the Medaka Box debaters I knew specifically avoided here due to the, to put in kindly, inherent need for "safe" statistics and the dismissal of most of the statements that they use to power scale. My claim is not whether our statistics are accurate or not, but all I can claim is why people passed this place over. Most of the Fate and Nasu debaters I saw have passed this place over due to the hardline dismissal of higher tier speed feats, particularly lightspeed and infinite speed feats.
For examples from verse I have actively opposed: Most of the Re:Creators debaters I know and knew actively avoid this place due to how we regard the metafictional elements in the series. Don't get me wrong, I think our standards for this series are correct. I actually had an ongoing fewd with the Re:creators debating circles back on G+ for years, due to my frequent attempts to debunk their reality-fiction difference wank. You can actually see examples of re:creators debaters bringing up past spats with them in the past in from off-site lol. I also had many run ins against the Touhou community. Despite me being usually at odds with them, i still had several friends who debated it, so this isn't just one-sided conjecture. Although many of them tried to upgrade their verse repeatedly, most of them gave up, and steered clear of this place when the mass migrations started happening. Only those who could stand what they saw as extreme downplayed have stuck around.
" Thanks to reality being boring and many people suffering from Chuuni syndrome, the site is constantly discussing the OP and the impressive. Feats? Nah that's boring, but that one author that explains everything in a neoplatonic fashion that just sounds so cool? E p i c. Who cares about carefully calculated stats when we have conceptual attacks bypassing all durability? Look, these things are cool, yes, but they are just part of a spectrum. To prevent inflation, we need to stop fawning over hax and go back to the basics every once in a while. A little balance is all we need. At the end of the day...this is just fiction. Authors create this art that can be interpreted in many different ways. Just because Platonic concepts are technically 1-A, doesn't mean they should be at the slightest mention of them. The same argument was used against string theory and dimensions, so it applies here. No one cares about Many-Valued Logic, no one cares about Metaphysics. All that stuff takes the backseat from the linearly measurable and the physically observed. Platonic guy blowing up a planet just blew up a planet, you're not getting 1-A out of that. We have to stop prioritizing fancy concepts just because they sound inconceivably overpowered, in reality, they just might be hyperbole or flowery language fluff with no actual merit. "
This I want to specifically address as well. As i mentioned before, I've been around VS debating circles for a good few years, and I've watched the trends on how VS debaters grow many times over. I started debating before I started highschool, and I'm still debating in my second year of college. I debated through raw AP and scaling for a long time, but it got very very old, very very fast (within the first year or two). Breaking down a cloud clearing feat, figuring out the radius of an explosion, watching characters blow up planets and stars, all start to blur together after a while. Hax and creative abilities are what stayed fresh. Time Stop and Cauality Manip were interesting long after figuring out the exact AP of the 17th tier 5 and 6 character grew stale. Don't get me wrong, seeing the same kind of hax got boring too. Passive mind hax character #85 who wins all battles by standing there turned me away from plenty of verses in no time. I gave them about as much thought as hax-less planet buster #43. I've gotten into skill debating more, which was pretty fresh for a while, but I've quickly found that these end up going to straight up aids even faster than most hax debates I've had.
This tiering system actually forces people along this path far faster than I have seen off-site. Hax or notable abilities is just about the only way you can stand out, expect maybe the occasional character like Ikki, RoR Kojiro, Yujiro Hanma, and Saber Musashi who have notability for their skill. People get board of haxless wall level fight #28739, and at some point almost all of these seem to blur into the same match over and over. If AP debates, and those that are measurable and directly quantifiable stayed as interesting long term, then hax debates wouldn't become a prevalent as they are now.
These are the main problems I have, but you over all make good point. I hope I could give a unique perspective. also, sorry for the off the cuff style lol
This first point I make is an overarching one: You yourself stated that downplay and wank are equally bad, which I agree with, but even within this very post, you act as if it is better for something to be low balled rather than it being inflated. A High ball is equally valid/preferable to a low ball, yet it is an almost unspoken rule that everyone prefers low balls because they are "safer" and it avoids inflation. You address the problem of verses being high balled into absurdity, but verses that are consistently downplayed are just regarded as fine because people prefer it to the "risk" of inflated statistics, when really this should be treated as equally undesirable. Why is it better to dismiss a cosmological statement that isn't cut and dry because it might be "flower language", as opposed to statements being regarded on their own merits? because people would prefer downplay to inflation. Its irrational, but its a necessary evil in the VS community, that has been ingrained into all of us. If a character is properly High 1-A, then it should be equally wrong for them to be downplayed into 1-A, than for them to be wanked to tier 0. One should not be prefered over the other
I will also say this. My experience with the way people regard VS wiki is that we are usually regarded more as downplayers than wankers. Yes, I have certainly experienced both, but of all the complaints I heard about this place before coming here, and even while I am here, has always been with regards to how we downplay verses.
Now for other stuff:
The statement thing is interesting, but in my experience I've had more issue with the opposite. People deny a statement made by a character just because they have lied before, and not even in the same context. Also, if we say that character context should be largely ignored because they have no agency, would that not instead make them more reliable, as it is just the voice of the author?
For the banning of specific profiles, its a blatant double standard that an obscure verse should be banned for being high tiered or OP, while an obscure lower tier verse is regarded as fine. As I mentioned in my first paragraph, the power of a verse should never be the basis for its regard towards validity. Also, yes, it is a necesary evil, but it is the quantity of different series that makes this place preferable. And, as my first paragraph referenced, the eye should equally be on low tier verses as high tier verses.
With the issue of too many CRTs, just as my first paragraph says, Upgrades and Downgrades should serve the same purpose, a push towards validity. If we have a multitude of upgrades it should be interpretted that out statistics are too deflated, not that people are trying to inflate their verses too much. If you issue is with too many CRTs, then it should be for reasons apart from what kind of CRT they are, upgrade or downgrade.
" The community had its role to play in this too. I'm happy that we're a lot more open than we were back in the day and I appreciate opinions from many different perspectives. But, similar to an open-border policy (this is not a political argument, just pay attention), when there's an influx of individuals from all over the net (mostly from G+ tbh), the prioritization of "the most consistent high-ball became clear. Why? Because the guys who came here from Downplay City didn't last long. Mostly due to their attitudes towards the site. This means we have a lot more high-ballers coming into town and staying than low-ballers. The inflation spoken of previously didn't really start getting ridiculous until after the shutdown of Google+. Trust me, that is no simple coincidence. "
this paragraph specifically I want to address. For personal context, I have a lot of verses experience, I came from G+, and watched first hand the distribution of the debaters from there. When I say what I am about to say, I want you to understand where I come from. Here it is: I have seen segnificantly more people pass this place over for percieved downplay than I have wank.
For examples from verse I actively support on: Most of the Medaka Box debaters I knew specifically avoided here due to the, to put in kindly, inherent need for "safe" statistics and the dismissal of most of the statements that they use to power scale. My claim is not whether our statistics are accurate or not, but all I can claim is why people passed this place over. Most of the Fate and Nasu debaters I saw have passed this place over due to the hardline dismissal of higher tier speed feats, particularly lightspeed and infinite speed feats.
For examples from verse I have actively opposed: Most of the Re:Creators debaters I know and knew actively avoid this place due to how we regard the metafictional elements in the series. Don't get me wrong, I think our standards for this series are correct. I actually had an ongoing fewd with the Re:creators debating circles back on G+ for years, due to my frequent attempts to debunk their reality-fiction difference wank. You can actually see examples of re:creators debaters bringing up past spats with them in the past in from off-site lol. I also had many run ins against the Touhou community. Despite me being usually at odds with them, i still had several friends who debated it, so this isn't just one-sided conjecture. Although many of them tried to upgrade their verse repeatedly, most of them gave up, and steered clear of this place when the mass migrations started happening. Only those who could stand what they saw as extreme downplayed have stuck around.
" Thanks to reality being boring and many people suffering from Chuuni syndrome, the site is constantly discussing the OP and the impressive. Feats? Nah that's boring, but that one author that explains everything in a neoplatonic fashion that just sounds so cool? E p i c. Who cares about carefully calculated stats when we have conceptual attacks bypassing all durability? Look, these things are cool, yes, but they are just part of a spectrum. To prevent inflation, we need to stop fawning over hax and go back to the basics every once in a while. A little balance is all we need. At the end of the day...this is just fiction. Authors create this art that can be interpreted in many different ways. Just because Platonic concepts are technically 1-A, doesn't mean they should be at the slightest mention of them. The same argument was used against string theory and dimensions, so it applies here. No one cares about Many-Valued Logic, no one cares about Metaphysics. All that stuff takes the backseat from the linearly measurable and the physically observed. Platonic guy blowing up a planet just blew up a planet, you're not getting 1-A out of that. We have to stop prioritizing fancy concepts just because they sound inconceivably overpowered, in reality, they just might be hyperbole or flowery language fluff with no actual merit. "
This I want to specifically address as well. As i mentioned before, I've been around VS debating circles for a good few years, and I've watched the trends on how VS debaters grow many times over. I started debating before I started highschool, and I'm still debating in my second year of college. I debated through raw AP and scaling for a long time, but it got very very old, very very fast (within the first year or two). Breaking down a cloud clearing feat, figuring out the radius of an explosion, watching characters blow up planets and stars, all start to blur together after a while. Hax and creative abilities are what stayed fresh. Time Stop and Cauality Manip were interesting long after figuring out the exact AP of the 17th tier 5 and 6 character grew stale. Don't get me wrong, seeing the same kind of hax got boring too. Passive mind hax character #85 who wins all battles by standing there turned me away from plenty of verses in no time. I gave them about as much thought as hax-less planet buster #43. I've gotten into skill debating more, which was pretty fresh for a while, but I've quickly found that these end up going to straight up aids even faster than most hax debates I've had.
This tiering system actually forces people along this path far faster than I have seen off-site. Hax or notable abilities is just about the only way you can stand out, expect maybe the occasional character like Ikki, RoR Kojiro, Yujiro Hanma, and Saber Musashi who have notability for their skill. People get board of haxless wall level fight #28739, and at some point almost all of these seem to blur into the same match over and over. If AP debates, and those that are measurable and directly quantifiable stayed as interesting long term, then hax debates wouldn't become a prevalent as they are now.
These are the main problems I have, but you over all make good point. I hope I could give a unique perspective. also, sorry for the off the cuff style lol
- 6,104
- 5,108
- Thread starter
- #69
Guys, I am well aware of the staff's contradictory actions and how that is born out of their lack of good faith in regular users. I'm defending the community when I criticize the staff's over importance while defending the staff due to having a sense of mutual trust. It's a tangled mess that I directly list as one of the main contributing factors in the site's inflation. However this is about the site and my personal feelings (albeit not perfect) on how it has become unreliable imo. Not drama. So bringing up Ever, Matt, and Weekly is only proving my point. I purposefully avoided the drama as that is an entirely different discussion. I'd appreciate it if you didn't turn my final thoughts into some drama fest. I may have started with drama, but I won't end with drama.
From this point forward, any dramatizing posts will be deleted. If not by myself (I won't be online for too much longer), then hopefully a moderator will delete them.
From this point forward, any dramatizing posts will be deleted. If not by myself (I won't be online for too much longer), then hopefully a moderator will delete them.
- 2,485
- 309
?? Not having faith in the community =/= being blatantly biased towards staff members. The two things are not directly linked to each other. You can still favour staff while having faith in normal members and vice versa. Like "I feel that X Staff made a better argument than Y Normal member" when both arguments have merit in threads.
Knight's referring to blatant bias in his post.
Knight's referring to blatant bias in his post.
- 6,104
- 5,108
- Thread starter
- #71
This is not about blatant bias so there's no reason to bring it up. This isn't "complain about the staff or complain about regular users time". You can make your own thread for that.
Again:
From this point forward, any dramatizing posts will be deleted.
Again:
From this point forward, any dramatizing posts will be deleted.
- 17,167
- 5,027
Im likely going to get at least some heat for this, but there's also another issue as far as the general community goes that I feel needs to be brought up in a thread like this. And I need to be quite frank on it (forewarning, I have no personal issues with any member here, so please don't get the wrong idea of what I say).
For our CRT's, whether they're upgrades or downgrades, I feel our community is FAR too sensitive to other peoples views/opinions on particular topics. And what do I mean exactly? I mean the kind of users who have their heads so far up their asses when supporting a verse they know that they will go on a passive-aggressive 100 year war quest to antagonize any user who even remotely has skepticism about a feat, let alone disagreement. And then that user is universally branded as some kind of downplayer, hater, or opponent to the verse by it's fanbase all because they don't see things the same way as other users do with their rose-tinted glasses, which leads to uneccessary drama and more issues. Obviously, I won't name specific verses that do this (It's not required anyway as im sure some know who im referring to) for the sake of not turning this into a pointing-fingers thead, thats not what this is for. But this is a particular issue for many verses these days. To not sound like a hypocrite, your's truly himself has gone off the deep end at times when a disagreement from someone else meets me head on (and this is something im genuniely trying to change), so I have the utmost certainty that this is an issue and a bigger one than people think it is.
Defending a verse is certaintly and obviously expected, but some in particular tend to go far enough to try and flex their debating to the point where if they encounter anyone who has the slightest opposing opinion to there's, they will go for their throats. This is something that most definitely needs improvement. Just because someone has lesser knowledge or experience in dealing with a verse than other user's doesnt mean you get a pass at branding them as automatic downplayers/wankers when they don't see things your way. Opposing opinions are expected, and it should be expected of everyone to stop being self-centered purists when defending their verses and actually remain civil. Regardless of the given opinion.
For our CRT's, whether they're upgrades or downgrades, I feel our community is FAR too sensitive to other peoples views/opinions on particular topics. And what do I mean exactly? I mean the kind of users who have their heads so far up their asses when supporting a verse they know that they will go on a passive-aggressive 100 year war quest to antagonize any user who even remotely has skepticism about a feat, let alone disagreement. And then that user is universally branded as some kind of downplayer, hater, or opponent to the verse by it's fanbase all because they don't see things the same way as other users do with their rose-tinted glasses, which leads to uneccessary drama and more issues. Obviously, I won't name specific verses that do this (It's not required anyway as im sure some know who im referring to) for the sake of not turning this into a pointing-fingers thead, thats not what this is for. But this is a particular issue for many verses these days. To not sound like a hypocrite, your's truly himself has gone off the deep end at times when a disagreement from someone else meets me head on (and this is something im genuniely trying to change), so I have the utmost certainty that this is an issue and a bigger one than people think it is.
Defending a verse is certaintly and obviously expected, but some in particular tend to go far enough to try and flex their debating to the point where if they encounter anyone who has the slightest opposing opinion to there's, they will go for their throats. This is something that most definitely needs improvement. Just because someone has lesser knowledge or experience in dealing with a verse than other user's doesnt mean you get a pass at branding them as automatic downplayers/wankers when they don't see things your way. Opposing opinions are expected, and it should be expected of everyone to stop being self-centered purists when defending their verses and actually remain civil. Regardless of the given opinion.
- 63,529
- 8,508
There's basically nothing for me to say accept that I agree, as someone who's frequently voiced that people get promoted way too quickly and easily.
Not much I can say that wasn't said, that's what happens when you're late
Not much I can say that wasn't said, that's what happens when you're late
- 15,741
- 5,341
As someone who primarily evaluates powers & abilities, I have to say that you absolutely nailed it on inflation as a major problem. I always see reliable users & staff granting a common acceptation for a CRT with vague words that very much indicate they did not put a lot of effort in their evaluations, and indeed they didn't as I then come and disagree with a number of things. Not sure how to say this properly but I deal with this inflation in a far more noble way; there are many CRTs I haven't evaluated yet, either because I didn't start reading them or I'm analyzing them in installments, but when I do my job, I always do it properly, I can't rememer any instance of me not reading all the pages sent to prove a single thing or something like that.
Anyway I have solutions for some of the problems. A few of them were expressed before and got kind of ignored for avoidable reasons (the people who evaluated them failed to see the benefits they would bring/they would take too much time and/or they would supposedly f*ck up all users in favor of making things more strict). I will point out my proposals tomorrow.
Anyway I have solutions for some of the problems. A few of them were expressed before and got kind of ignored for avoidable reasons (the people who evaluated them failed to see the benefits they would bring/they would take too much time and/or they would supposedly f*ck up all users in favor of making things more strict). I will point out my proposals tomorrow.
- 63,529
- 8,508
Of course we are, Low Balled results are safer
- 16,623
- 1,796
No... no it isn't. Whether it is too high or too low, inaccurate is inaccurate. This is just what I brought up in my comment. It is just a bad that a character be downplayed as it would be if they were wanked. Stuff like this is one of the most flagrant and inherent biases seen on this wiki and in debating in generalSchnee One said:
- 34,634
- 41,954
Low balled results are usually safer. If they have multiple feats, it;s usually high end feats that are more scalable. But if a calc has multiple results, it's usually the low end that's safer.
- 16,623
- 1,796
Why would a statistic being too low be any better than it being too high? If they are inaccurate than they are inaccurate. Neither direction is more "safe" than the otherDarkDragonMedeus said:
- 1,027
- 685
People are taking the wrong things away from this post, it's only furthering the problem by just arguing in an endless cycle about it. We all have the capacity to be civil so let's show that respect because Sera worked pretty damn hard to type up the thread.
To be honest, I largely agree with most points here. I think that I do have a few problems with what was said however.
I never really saw anything with statements in the verses I monitored to be honest. In fact, I mostly saw the opposite when regarding them. There have been cases such as Zelda where something being called an alternate universe was labeled as Hyperbole, something being shown to have aliens and stars in the sky was called only Planetary, random things like assuming a sun is shared between worlds just because Gensokyo, a completely different verse as Touhou, has it, etc. I agree statements need to be verified because that's the reason there's an entire page to explain them to begin with.
Regarding the OP, I'm not exactly in agreement on this personally. I think there are people who do exploit it like that, yes, but I wouldn't say the majority do. I don't think I have to explain too heavily how god awful the original pages for abilities like Acausality or Conceptual Manipulation were as they didn't define much on the subject. It's natural as the standards are more refined and comprehensible to a majority of people that they will start trying to give a verse more accurate representation. I think this also just comes from the evolving understanding of abilities and hypotheticals in general. The idea of too many CRTs also falls into here too.
I don't think ending "the schism" is really possible. You can't please everyone and that is fine, but I do think that some of the more active users and staff should be friendly with each other. I don't know how many times I've been sent an SS or witnessed staff and other frequent members decide to shit talk to the point they gain eventual resentment off-site. But I can tell you put a good amount of work into this, I hope we begone with this labeling of "blue names", "green names", etc.
To be honest, I largely agree with most points here. I think that I do have a few problems with what was said however.
I never really saw anything with statements in the verses I monitored to be honest. In fact, I mostly saw the opposite when regarding them. There have been cases such as Zelda where something being called an alternate universe was labeled as Hyperbole, something being shown to have aliens and stars in the sky was called only Planetary, random things like assuming a sun is shared between worlds just because Gensokyo, a completely different verse as Touhou, has it, etc. I agree statements need to be verified because that's the reason there's an entire page to explain them to begin with.
Regarding the OP, I'm not exactly in agreement on this personally. I think there are people who do exploit it like that, yes, but I wouldn't say the majority do. I don't think I have to explain too heavily how god awful the original pages for abilities like Acausality or Conceptual Manipulation were as they didn't define much on the subject. It's natural as the standards are more refined and comprehensible to a majority of people that they will start trying to give a verse more accurate representation. I think this also just comes from the evolving understanding of abilities and hypotheticals in general. The idea of too many CRTs also falls into here too.
I don't think ending "the schism" is really possible. You can't please everyone and that is fine, but I do think that some of the more active users and staff should be friendly with each other. I don't know how many times I've been sent an SS or witnessed staff and other frequent members decide to shit talk to the point they gain eventual resentment off-site. But I can tell you put a good amount of work into this, I hope we begone with this labeling of "blue names", "green names", etc.
- Status
Similar threads
