• 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.

Two On One Battles Being Added to Profiles.

Status
Not open for further replies.
... wat... we are going with Wokistan's suggestion right?

In that case just add in the footnotes for those with partners "Often partnered with (partner name), and can be in versus threads together." Is that good enough wording?
 
You can't have characters allowed to partner with another character, AND have characters partner only with characters that they've demonstrated they fight together with summed up in only a versus thread rule... that's not possible?

It requires a case by case basis on who we would allow to partner up together, and for us to determine that we'd need to edit profiles so that everyone understands. If it's not clear which specific characters they can partner up with, then we'll have a bunch of people teaming up Superman and Aquaman just because their in the same verse. Putting it in the versus thread rules leaves it up to users to decide which characters are partners, which will result in a mess of derailment in those created threads by people saying "those characters aren't partners close this thread!", and just unneeded arguments about partners in general.

I don't think what your asking for is possible without us going through profiles to clarify specifics, Antvasima. That's why a lot of if not all of these suggestions ultimately revolve around changing something in these characters profiles, whether it be adding it under their standard equipment, footnotes, or creating a new tab in general.
 
Antvasima said:
I agree with Reppuzan and Monarch Laciel. Do either of you have a suggestion for how to word an appropriate new regulation text?
Click to expand...
Let me give it a try.

"There is an exception to the rule that disallows the addition of results of battles between more than two fighters. That is if and only if the characters fight together in a regular base in their universe of origin and complement each other in battle, and preferrably only if they are supplementary to each other, that is, if they need each other's aid in order to fight at their full potential. Race profiles of species that fight in packs in their settings (e.g wolves) may team up with themselves."

There are parts of this that may be removed depending on your veto, thus shortening the rule. The explicit restriction of the teams to duos may also be added.
 
@Mand21 how about we try to meet in the middle with Ant's need for simplicity and we go back to the category suggestion, and create categories of characters whom are considered partners.

Also I don't know about the wording on species, wouldn't that mean wolves can team up with The Wolf Gang from DBS? Or that any human can pretty much team up with each other?

EDIT: Nvm I guess it's covered when you say "their universe"
 
ProfessorLord said:
@Mand21 how about we try to meet in the middle with Ant's need for simplicity and we go back to the category suggestion, and create categories of characters whom are considered partners.
Also I don't know about the wording on species, wouldn't that mean wolves can team up with The Wolf Gang from DBS? Or that any human can pretty much team up with each other?

EDIT: Nvm I guess it's covered when you say "their universe"
Click to expand...
Oh, damn. I meant race profiles. Like our real life Wolf profile.
 
All that I have agreed about is that we should allow characters that are useless on their own to use characteristic summons or partner characters during matchups, as is the case with Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh! Anything beyond that is not compatible with our standards and practices.
 
And this is also part of the reason why I prefer official policy discussions to be staff only. They easily lose track otherwise.
 
@Antvasima then there is no real change being proposed. Red from Pokemon was an example given, his page already has his partner characters featured on his page. Most characters don't have their summons seperated from them, it's already included on their page.

From my understanding (and others judging by their responses) we were pairing characters that usually fight together in some form or fashion like Xayah and Rakan. Yes they CAN be independant, but the whole point of their characters and fighting style is being together. That's what me and others were trying to achieve with suggestions.

I think you agreed to something you didn't quite understand when this thread was created, but maybe I did as well.

Also staff are just as capable at derailing threads, I've seen it time and time again. I'd much rather we gain the input from everyone who has input over just staff who have input. Also, isn't it staffs job to make sure we stay on track? If so aren't staff just as much at fault for not re-directing discussion?
 
Antvasima said:
And this is also part of the reason why I prefer official policy discussions to be staff only. They easily lose track otherwise.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry for disappointing you. Anyways, allow me to attempt a fix:

"There is an exception to the rule that disallows the addition of results of battles between more than two fighters. That is if and only if both characters of the same side fight together in a regular base in their universe of origin and they are supplementary to each other, that is, if they need each other's aid in order to fight at their full potential. This also includes characters which are useless on their own, but useful when with their duo.

Examples: Navi, Cortana, [insert here the 10-C/2-C boy and girl duo from upthread]"
 
@Ant

To be honest...I also don't think we should accept every duo under the sun just because they always work together.

As mentioned earlier on I think they should meet two criteria

1)They must fight together on a regular basis.

2)The two characters must need one another to properly fight at their full potential.

I believe that both of these criteria must be met in order for an exception to be applicable.

As I said before: only allowing Pokemon, Yu Gi Oh characters and the like is unfair to characters who have explicit and extreme weaknesses simply because they don't have their partner who they usually fight with. We allow Kiba to fight with Akamaru, yet we don't allow Yuno Gasai to fight with Yukiteru Amano? It makes no sense.
 
@ProfessorLord

Staff are generally appointed partially due to their abilities to be reasonable and rational. They usually have an easier time keeping the discussion threads on track when left on their own, but cannot be expected to constantly straighten out every chaotic derailment or unreasonable argument that tends to pops up otherwise.

@Mand21

It is a better worded regulation, but not quite there yet. Maybe something like this instead:

"Matchups between more than two participants are only allowed under specific circumstances. This is if they canonically need the aid of another character in order to fight at their full potential, are useless on their own, but useful when with their defining partner, or use a characteristic summon. Examples include, but are not limited to, Pokémo trainers or Yu-Gi-Oh! card users."

@YungManzi

Feel free to offer suggestions for additions of characters to use as examples in the above text.
 
@Reppuzan

Thank you for the help, and take care to sleep well.

I would appreciate your input after you wake up.
 
I think the suggestion is mostly fine, but it doesn't include characters who are known for regularly teaming up like Batman and Robin.

I'll see what I can do when I wake up.
 
Hmm. There were some sloppy errors in my post above that needed to be fixed.
 
@Reppuzan

Okay. Take care and good night.
 
Raphtalia and Naofumi are still good examples. By the way, shouldn't you make it more explicit that only a single partner is allowed? This makes it look like a trainer may invoke up to the 6 pokémon they can carry.
 
I have made an adjustment. Is the current version better?
 
I think it's fine. We should wait until tomorrow to see how more suggestions can refine it, then add it.
 
I think kudos are a good indicator of whether or not a user agrees of a comments importance. My suggestions (others too) have consistently been received well throughout this thread, end of the day you don't want to make the change on profiles because it's too much work, which is fine if you just came out and said it, not a good like but fine, but instead I've just received the "not important" argument despite me putting out paragraphs worth of reasoning on why it is and how we can handle it.

My points have yet again been misconstrued or ignored by the same two people, but I'll accept fault since it's my job to make sure I'm being clear. I guess I also misunderstood the purpose of what Antvasima would end up accepting so my fault again. I'll clarify now.

Are we just accepting "main" characters to work with their "side" characters now? For Link and Navi to work together? For Red to work with his Pokémon? For Master Chief to work with Cortana?

If so this already generates inconsistencies that require profile changes and edits. Red has all his "side" characters on one profile. Link and Navi have separate profiles despite Navi being useless. I don't recall seeing Cortana anywhere on Master Chiefs profile. Which of these profiles now become the standard? Do all side characters now have to have separate pages? Do all side characters need to be listed on the main characters page? Do we not acknowledge them at all?

Putting in this rule just so is going to generate a lot of miscommunication, a lot of people getting threads shut down because they don't know what two characters are partners and not, and a lot of inconsistencies between character pages. I don't see you avoiding this and not editing relevant character pages, site wide.
 
Well, as we mentioned, we are not willing to spend considerable time on any site-wide revisions based on your suggestions alone, when there is very little gain from the effort.

In addition, we do not resolve these types of threads by the number of kudos a post receives, but by what the staff find reasonable and realistic to apply.

I would appreciate input from other staff members regarding how we should define the specifics and avoid misunderstandings.
 
I have more inconsistencies upon rereading Avtvasimas latest revision. Xayah and Rakan, Nana and Popo, Batman and Robin, Cup head and Mugman. None of these characters are useless without each other, but it still falls under the guise of them needing each other to reach full potential. Xayah and Rakan both have separate pages, but Ice Climbers don't? Despite them never working together in the original News game? What do we do to these pages? Ignore them and leave the inconsistencies?
 
@Antvasima

There is a lot of gain, it would allow characters to fight with each other. Did you even read it?

My kudos part was more to address Rep saying nobody agrees with me more than anything. And ultimately I think the staff will agree with doing the least work possible, even if it's inaccurate and inconsistent.
 
@PL

I am not certain. Versus threads are technically not my area. I would appreciate further staff input.
 
@PL

I am busy with lots of different tasks and do not have the time to argue with you, but no, this is not remotely important enough to warrant a site-wide revision comparatively speaking. We have some projects lined up with considerably higher priority that we haven't been able to apply yet.
 
That's the problem, your telling me what you will and will not do and refusing my proposal without knowing yourself what is blexactly being proposed in the first place. You still haven't answered my large post asking what we'd do about the inconsistencies that would arise if we put this rule as is into effect.
 
I know what is realistic and not realistic to apply, but as I mentioned, I would appreciate further staff evaluation help, as I am extremely busy with other tasks, and cannot afford sufficient time and focus on this one alone.

It is also impossible to word regulations so they exactly cover every possible eventuality.

I would appreciate if you stopped being relentlessly argumentative, and proposed a solution regarding how we can better reword the suggested regulation text instead.
 
It is more important to avoid any pointless site-wide revisions that we are in no position to apply than it is to add a rule, so all that you are arguing for is that we should permanently shut down this discussion and not perform any changes to our current standards.

Also, perhaps it is just my current bad mood, but I cannot say that I trust you very much. You joined at the exact same time that a massive amount of sockpuppets were created by a fanatic psychopathic troll, you messaged him to call his antics entertaining, and you are repeatedly relentlessly argumentative and demanding towards the staff.
 
"I would appreciate if you stopped being relentlessly argumentative, and proposed a solution regarding how we can better reword the suggested regulation text instead."

I did propose a solution, editing character pages, you told me it would take too much effort. You said you wanted regulation text. I explained how it would still require for you to edit and change existing character pages. You told me you are not certain. What am I supposed to do for you other than provide arguments and criticism? That's the whole point of a discussion, to critique and revise.

"It is more important to avoid any pointless site-wide revisions that we are in no position to apply than it is to add a rule, so all that you are arguing for is that we should permanently shut down this discussion and not perform any changes to our current standards."

Adding a regulation under the versus battles rules will still create a site-wide revision, as there are many characters whom we would have to change and edit to fix their inconsistencies because of this rule. I'm happy to explain this one to you again.

"Also, perhaps it is just my current bad mood, but I cannot say that I trust you very much. You joined at the exact same time that a massive amount of sockpuppets were created by a fanatic psychopathic troll, you messaged him to call his antics entertaining, and you are repeatedly relentlessly argumentative and demanding towards the staff."

"And this is also part of the reason why I prefer official policy discussions to be staff only. They easily lose track otherwise." - Antvasima, a staff member, whom literally just derailed the threads focus by accusing me of being a sockpuppet and bringing up irrelevant discussions.
 
It really would take too much effort to check through 15000+ character profiles to edit all of the cases where this applies.

We can create as precise a regulation as possible, but not make certain that every single potential case is accounted for.

Gradual changes over time is usually the better way to handle cases such as this.

Also, I did not say that you are a sockpuppet, I said that your behaviour is tiresome and suspicious when taken in combination with your background.

And this sort of issue never pops up in staff only threads, so your point is moot.
 
You don't need to check every character page, that's unnecessary. We would just need to edit pages of those who are relevant. If someone believes a character is relevant, we can create a mega-thread where they can post who and why, and staff can decide if it has any merit or not. This would take very little effort compared to what you're making it out to be.

Creating a regulation will still warrant editting of character pages, just like my first option. I already explained this. It doesn't matter what combo of words you use, if you put the rule in, you'll have to make character edits. I can explain this again for you if you want.

What's the problem with gradually editing character pages then? Why make a rule at all if your still going to have to change character pages?

You still derailed the thread by acccusing me, while also suggesting staff members are above it.

@Spino there's nothing to trust me about, I'm not saying we as a site need to invest into a certain stock, this is black or white changes I'm proposing. There's no grey area where an untrusted user can be trying to harm the site. Your trust in me is 0% relevant to this discussion. You two could both understand this if you read my entire post. If you don't have time to read my post, you shouldn't have time to tell me why I'm wrong. But you clearly do, so read my posts.
 
I don't have the time to deal with this, but as I mentioned, I am fine with gradual changes to character profiles after the regulation has been applied.

Again, we never have this type of problem in staff only discussions, and I thought that it was relevant to mention your background to the community, so they can help to keep an eye on you. Regardless, I agree that we should return to the main topic.
 
... really? what about this crazy idea of, i dunno, letting people inform us which pages are relevant? especially since 60% are not active for months on end?..

i call it, and get this, a gradual change over time
 
Let's wait for Reppuzan to come back here, and I actually agree with Antvasima on making most of these kind of threads staff only. @ProfessorLord, Not because we have anything against new or non staff members; quite the opposite actually. It's because we prefer to discuss things in a proper, organized matter. Yes, we all started as normal users and were once new, but the reason we became staff is do to our ability to remain both knowledgeable and polite. Non staff have occasionally been given permission to comment on staff threads due their reasoning skills, and there are staff members who are willing to hear other opinions via message walls.

Also, Antvasima is often very busy and does often feel heavily overworked on top of RL situations also being troublesome. So it's a good idea to respect his time, decision, and authority. Anyway, this isn't really a major thing and not worth looking at every profile obviously. And no one accused you of being a sock, he's just tired of arguing and simply feels you may not quite be ready to be the one handling the added rule.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

YmTheSuper
Location dependent abilities
Replies
2
Views
241
Homie890
MasqueTLDF
  • Locked
DxD Rule addition: Class Scaling
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
MasqueTLDF
MasqueTLDF
Guileal
Tate no Yuusha/Shield Hero Verse Deletion Request (WebNovel Only)
Replies
8
Views
2K
DontTalkDT
DontTalkDT
Recon1511
  • Locked
One Punch Man: Orochi Profile Revamp
Replies
17
Views
1K
Recon1511
Recon1511
Nierre
  • Locked
[BORUTO] Versus Momoshiki New Scaling (Part 4 of ?)
Replies
8
Views
2K
Nierre
Nierre
Back
Top