- 15,637
- 5,392
That's kind of an oxymoron. There can't be a universe with multiple co-existing feats if all the stories don't line up properly in said universe.DarkDragonMedeus said:
-
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.
VSBW Profile Standards (Staff Only)
- Thread starter Sera_EX
- Start date
-
- Tags
- editing rules
- 16,142
- 14,475
Because we expect more professional productions like Looney Tunes and Rhythm Heave to have more consistency with their feats despite the lack of continuity, while we don't expect that from other mediums.Dargoo Faust said:
The kind of paper the story is written on absolutely matters. If an author's novel was put on fanfiction.net instead of being published and printed we wouldn't allow it on the site. If that novel was put on the scp wiki it would also be treated by different standards than if it were a published novel.
- 15,637
- 5,392
Why should what we expect from something matter when we're looking at what's given?Agnaa said:
Continuity is either a factor or it isn't. If there's problems with a verse not having it, that should apply universally, not just stop at more popular or more 'professional' works for the only reason them being 'expected' to meet our standards, when they don't.
If we 'expect' a work not to be fanfiction but Sans from Undertale becomes a main-starring character halfway through, that doesn't make the work stop being fanfiction.
If an author's novel was put on fanfiction.net instead of being published and printed we wouldn't allow it on the site. If that novel was put on the scp wiki it would also be treated by different standards than if it were a published novel.
Fanfiction.net is a poor example as the site itself proclaims that verses written on it are fanfiction, which we don't allow for various reasons. It, as a platform, not meeting our rules doesn't mean that platforms as a whole matter, it just means that specific platform is full of verses that we don't allow by nature. Correlation does not equal causation.
Except we treat published works just like we treat SCP. The SCP rules we made were based on existing rules for Marvel and DC, which are comics. It's what's on the site that matters, not the site itself, agai.
- 16,142
- 14,475
Continuity matters because a lack of it ca lead to other problems, but doesn't always. What we expect matters is because some platforms/mediums tend to have those followup problems more than other ones. And since looking at those followup problems is extremely difficult, we use a shorthand that gets us most of the way there for practicality.Dargoo Faust said:
I'm pretty sure works on fanfiction.net aren't required to have fictional characters from other properties in them, so you could find stories that aren't fanfiction on there. If I'm wrong you can easily swap it out with deviantart or any other similar website.Dargoo Faust said:
While they may generally have fanfiction, to use your argument, why does what we expect from something matter when we're looking at what's given? If we expect a website to have fiction, but we find a story that isn't, that doesn't suddenly make it fanfiction.
1. We treat two other properties "like" we treat SCP (even though we have completely different pages written out for those two). Acting like how we treat SCP is common among published properties is dishonest.
2. I'm treating SCP as a published verse in this example. I was going to use Marvel/DC for the example instead, but those are comic books not novels.
3. The site itself matters. If SCP had the exact same stories but no quality control mechanisms then much more people would be fine with it being deleted. It is not just the literal content of the stories that matters, it's the context around them.
- 15,637
- 5,392
Please give an example of something that doesn't have continuity, but lacks any of the problems that I've explained above that come as a result of that. Continuity lets us bring together feats and abilities from different times, without it you might as well slap 'Composite' next to the characters from verses without it.Agnaa said:
Also, the exception does not make the rule. If the lack of continuity causes problems for all but one verse (somehow, I still don't believe that for a single second), it still, unsurprisingly, causes problems by virtue of being there.
I'm ... fanfiction.
You've just deconstructed your own argument. If that's true, then the website itself doesn't matter. Which is my point.
We treat two other properties "like" we treat SCP (even though we have completely different pages written out for those two). Acting like how we treat SCP is common among published properties is dishonest.
Dude, I wrote the SCP rules. I copy + pasted much of it from the Marvel/DC Rules.
Acting like I claimed the practice was common is dishonest. I was talking about Marvel and DC, not 'most published works', but say what you want, sure.
The site itself matters. If SCP had the exact same stories but no quality control mechanisms then much more people would be fine with it being deleted. It is not just the literal content of the stories that matters, it's the context around them.
If SCP had no quality control mechanisms it would not have the exact same stories, so your imaginary example makes no sense. The quality control effects and is part of the content, acting like it's some separate thing entirely ignores the effects of those rules to make a convenient argument.
The platform itself has no part to play, again.
- 16,142
- 14,475
Please give an example of something that doesn't have continuity, but lacks any of the problems that I've explained above that come as a result of that.
Rhythm Heave
Also, the exception does not make the rule. If the lack of continuity causes problems for all but one verse, it still, unsurprisingly, causes problems by virtue of being there.
As you said, why should what we expect (the general rule) matter for what's given (individual texts themselves)? You're advocating for case-by-case for works on generally problematic sites, while also advocating for a sweeping ban for generally problematic story constructions.
You've just deconstructed your own argument. If that's true, then the website itself doesn't matter. Which is my point.
It doesn't deconstruct my own argument, since I think the site matters regardless of that being true.
Dude, I wrote the SCP rules. I copy + pasted much of it from the Marvel/DC Rules.
"Most" being the important word here. There's necessary differences. My only point being that they're not treated exactly the same.
Acting like I claimed the practice common is dishonest. I was talking about Marvel and DC, not 'most published works', but say what you want, sure.
Mb, that's how I interpreted "We treat published works like we treat SCP".
If SCP had no quality control mechanisms it would not have the exact same stories, so your imaginary example makes no sense. The quality control effects and is part of the content, acting like it's some separate thing entirely ignores the effects of those rules to make a convenient argument.
EXACTLY. And the context and culture of every site and medium shapes the works on them. Which is why the site matters. Many licensed works have publishers and editors in the way that effectively act as rules of the medium. Every site and medium is its own microchasm of this.
Rhythm Heave
Also, the exception does not make the rule. If the lack of continuity causes problems for all but one verse, it still, unsurprisingly, causes problems by virtue of being there.
As you said, why should what we expect (the general rule) matter for what's given (individual texts themselves)? You're advocating for case-by-case for works on generally problematic sites, while also advocating for a sweeping ban for generally problematic story constructions.
You've just deconstructed your own argument. If that's true, then the website itself doesn't matter. Which is my point.
It doesn't deconstruct my own argument, since I think the site matters regardless of that being true.
Dude, I wrote the SCP rules. I copy + pasted much of it from the Marvel/DC Rules.
"Most" being the important word here. There's necessary differences. My only point being that they're not treated exactly the same.
Acting like I claimed the practice common is dishonest. I was talking about Marvel and DC, not 'most published works', but say what you want, sure.
Mb, that's how I interpreted "We treat published works like we treat SCP".
If SCP had no quality control mechanisms it would not have the exact same stories, so your imaginary example makes no sense. The quality control effects and is part of the content, acting like it's some separate thing entirely ignores the effects of those rules to make a convenient argument.
EXACTLY. And the context and culture of every site and medium shapes the works on them. Which is why the site matters. Many licensed works have publishers and editors in the way that effectively act as rules of the medium. Every site and medium is its own microchasm of this.
- 15,637
- 5,392
Rhythm Heave
Right. Let's start with some simple analysis. How, for Rhythm Heaven, if it lacks continuity, can we attach feats to a singular character in good faith?
You're advocating for case-by-case for works on generally problematic sites, while also advocating for a sweeping ban for generally problematic story constructions.
"Generally problematic story construction" actually effects cataloging feats, which is what we're concerned with.
If a site is "generally problematic", it implies there's something that's causing all or most of the constituent works to have "generally problematic story construction".
It doesn't deconstruct my own argument, since I think the site matters regardless of that being true.
If what you think and what you're arguing aren't matching up, then you're just making a poor argument, no offense.
EXACTLY. And the context and culture of every site and medium shapes the works on them. Which is why the site matters. Many licensed works have publishers and editors in the way that effectively act as rules of the medium. Every site and medium is its own microchasm of this.'
So, essentially, the site only matters once we've looked at how it's particulars effects the content, which is what we're actually concerned with.
Which means we're still just concerned with the content.
Right. Let's start with some simple analysis. How, for Rhythm Heaven, if it lacks continuity, can we attach feats to a singular character in good faith?
You're advocating for case-by-case for works on generally problematic sites, while also advocating for a sweeping ban for generally problematic story constructions.
"Generally problematic story construction" actually effects cataloging feats, which is what we're concerned with.
If a site is "generally problematic", it implies there's something that's causing all or most of the constituent works to have "generally problematic story construction".
It doesn't deconstruct my own argument, since I think the site matters regardless of that being true.
If what you think and what you're arguing aren't matching up, then you're just making a poor argument, no offense.
EXACTLY. And the context and culture of every site and medium shapes the works on them. Which is why the site matters. Many licensed works have publishers and editors in the way that effectively act as rules of the medium. Every site and medium is its own microchasm of this.'
So, essentially, the site only matters once we've looked at how it's particulars effects the content, which is what we're actually concerned with.
Which means we're still just concerned with the content.
- 16,142
- 14,475
Right. Let's start with some simple analysis. How, for Rhythm Heaven, if it lacks continuity, can we attach feats to a singular character in good faith?
Feats are generally either for identical members of a species (where they are given a composite), or the same identical character across one/a few minigames, where they have consistent showings.
"Generally problematic story construction" actually effects cataloging feats, which is what we're concerned with.
Yes, but the important part is "generally", it's not "always".
If a site is "generally problematic", it implies there's something that's causing all or most of the constituent works to have "generally problematic story construction".
Yep.
If what you think and what you're arguing aren't matching up, then you're just making a poor argument, no offense.
They match up fine. I think the site matters even though it doesn't exclusively have fanfiction on it. Where's the misalignment here?
So, essentially, the site only matters once we've looked at how it's particulars effects the content, which is what we're actually concerned with.
Which means we're still just concerned with the content.
Yes, but our regulations affect entire websites, rather than just picking at each individual story and ignoring the broader context of the site it's on.
Feats are generally either for identical members of a species (where they are given a composite), or the same identical character across one/a few minigames, where they have consistent showings.
"Generally problematic story construction" actually effects cataloging feats, which is what we're concerned with.
Yes, but the important part is "generally", it's not "always".
If a site is "generally problematic", it implies there's something that's causing all or most of the constituent works to have "generally problematic story construction".
Yep.
If what you think and what you're arguing aren't matching up, then you're just making a poor argument, no offense.
They match up fine. I think the site matters even though it doesn't exclusively have fanfiction on it. Where's the misalignment here?
So, essentially, the site only matters once we've looked at how it's particulars effects the content, which is what we're actually concerned with.
Which means we're still just concerned with the content.
Yes, but our regulations affect entire websites, rather than just picking at each individual story and ignoring the broader context of the site it's on.
- 15,637
- 5,392
Feats are generally either for identical members of a species (where they are given a composite), or the same identical character across one/a few minigames, where they have consistent showings.
...
So... the problem actually exists (there's no connection regarding the feats and characters), we just deal with it by not dealing with it (composite so we don't have to worry about continuity).
Yeah, heck to the no. That sets up some pretty grim implications for verses, if we can composite characters without labeling them as such and suffering the implications of that.
They match up fine. I think the site matters even though it doesn't exclusively have fanfiction on it. Where's the misalignment here?
You're telling me the site matters but actively demonstrating, through explaining that the site doesn't need to have characters from other verses in its stories, that the site doesn't actually matter.
Yes, but our regulations affect entire websites, rather than just picking at each individual story and ignoring the broader context of the site it's on.
If the broader context of the site doesn't actually make a difference to the text itself, why must such a regulation exist?
The vast, vast, majority of YouTube has no coherency and can't be used for verses. Would this "broader context" have us remove verses that don't present the same issues? The answer is certainly 'no'.
...
So... the problem actually exists (there's no connection regarding the feats and characters), we just deal with it by not dealing with it (composite so we don't have to worry about continuity).
Yeah, heck to the no. That sets up some pretty grim implications for verses, if we can composite characters without labeling them as such and suffering the implications of that.
They match up fine. I think the site matters even though it doesn't exclusively have fanfiction on it. Where's the misalignment here?
You're telling me the site matters but actively demonstrating, through explaining that the site doesn't need to have characters from other verses in its stories, that the site doesn't actually matter.
Yes, but our regulations affect entire websites, rather than just picking at each individual story and ignoring the broader context of the site it's on.
If the broader context of the site doesn't actually make a difference to the text itself, why must such a regulation exist?
The vast, vast, majority of YouTube has no coherency and can't be used for verses. Would this "broader context" have us remove verses that don't present the same issues? The answer is certainly 'no'.
- 10,758
- 6,491
Given some of our conversations, I don't know if Kaltias would appreciate being summoned to these revisions anymore. But I guess I can ask him if it is too much trouble or not
- 16,142
- 14,475
So... the problem actually exists (there's no connection regarding the feats and characters), we just deal with it by not dealing with it (composite so we don't have to worry about continuity).
"No connection" when they look the exact same, are sometimes in sequentially numbered minigames, and have feats of a similar level. What is the issue there? Only one of them is composite out of a dozen characters.
You're telling me the site matters but actively demonstrating, through explaining that the site doesn't need to have characters from other verses in its stories, that the site doesn't actually matter.
It doesn't matter under your criteria, but it does under mine.
If the broader context of the site doesn't actually make a difference to the text itself, why must such a regulation exist?
Because it does make a difference to the text itself. Just in a subtle way
The vast, vast, majority of YouTube has no coherency and can't be used for verses. Would this "broader context" have us remove verses that don't present the same issues? The answer is certainly 'no'.
It wouldn't have us remove them, it would have us apply stricter regulations so we don't get those incoherent verses in.
Also we kinda already do that sort of thing with non-notable verses. The vast majority of non-notable verses have no coherency and can't be used for verses. This broader context has us remove verses that don't present the same issues.
"No connection" when they look the exact same, are sometimes in sequentially numbered minigames, and have feats of a similar level. What is the issue there? Only one of them is composite out of a dozen characters.
You're telling me the site matters but actively demonstrating, through explaining that the site doesn't need to have characters from other verses in its stories, that the site doesn't actually matter.
It doesn't matter under your criteria, but it does under mine.
If the broader context of the site doesn't actually make a difference to the text itself, why must such a regulation exist?
Because it does make a difference to the text itself. Just in a subtle way
The vast, vast, majority of YouTube has no coherency and can't be used for verses. Would this "broader context" have us remove verses that don't present the same issues? The answer is certainly 'no'.
It wouldn't have us remove them, it would have us apply stricter regulations so we don't get those incoherent verses in.
Also we kinda already do that sort of thing with non-notable verses. The vast majority of non-notable verses have no coherency and can't be used for verses. This broader context has us remove verses that don't present the same issues.
- 15,637
- 5,392
"No connection" when they look the exact same, are sometimes in sequentially numbered minigames, and have feats of a similar level. What is the issue there? Only one of them is composite out of a dozen characters.
All of these guys look pretty similar, but aren't connected canonically, so we can't use feats from one for another. We do this for good reaso, as you've established a situation where there is no definable canon, that anything that looks vaguely like the character in a Rhythm Heaven game is the same despite no continuity.
It doesn't matter under your criteria, but it does under mine.
Aren't you trying to prove the site matters? How does that benefit that claim?
Because it does make a difference to the text itself. Just in a subtle way
What's this subtle way?
Also we kinda already do that sort of thing with non-notable verses. The vast majority of non-notable verses have no coherency and can't be used for verses. This broader context has us remove verses that don't present the same issues.
wdym by 'non-notable'? What makes a verse 'notable', in your book?
All of these guys look pretty similar, but aren't connected canonically, so we can't use feats from one for another. We do this for good reaso, as you've established a situation where there is no definable canon, that anything that looks vaguely like the character in a Rhythm Heaven game is the same despite no continuity.
It doesn't matter under your criteria, but it does under mine.
Aren't you trying to prove the site matters? How does that benefit that claim?
Because it does make a difference to the text itself. Just in a subtle way
What's this subtle way?
Also we kinda already do that sort of thing with non-notable verses. The vast majority of non-notable verses have no coherency and can't be used for verses. This broader context has us remove verses that don't present the same issues.
wdym by 'non-notable'? What makes a verse 'notable', in your book?
- 16,142
- 14,475
All of these guys look pretty similar, but aren't connected canonically, so we can't use feats from one for another. We do this for good reason, as you've established a situation where there is no definable canon, that anything that looks vaguely like the character in a Rhythm Heaven game is the same despite no continuity.
I never said "vaguely". They have the exact same sprite, pixel for pixel. And you're also throwing out the nuance of how they all have feats in the same range, and have almost no unique abilities. Sure, we could have a dozen identical profiles for identical-looking characters with the same name and with a difference of one or two abilities across the profiles, but that seems like a huge waste.
AND none of this even mentions all the other valid profiles for the verse, just the one composite you take issue with.
Aren't you trying to prove the site matters? How does that benefit that claim?
? I'm still trying to convince you that site matters, but that's part of the following point...
What's this subtle way?
Culture, history, how works are published, what review process there is, how much cost it takes to put something somewhere. All of these things have subtle influences on the work.
Do you really need me to explain how the history of video games affects what video games are made, or how the culture around a website affects what's posted on it?
wdym by 'non-notable'? What makes a verse 'notable', in your book?
I never said "vaguely". They have the exact same sprite, pixel for pixel. And you're also throwing out the nuance of how they all have feats in the same range, and have almost no unique abilities. Sure, we could have a dozen identical profiles for identical-looking characters with the same name and with a difference of one or two abilities across the profiles, but that seems like a huge waste.
AND none of this even mentions all the other valid profiles for the verse, just the one composite you take issue with.
Aren't you trying to prove the site matters? How does that benefit that claim?
? I'm still trying to convince you that site matters, but that's part of the following point...
What's this subtle way?
Culture, history, how works are published, what review process there is, how much cost it takes to put something somewhere. All of these things have subtle influences on the work.
Do you really need me to explain how the history of video games affects what video games are made, or how the culture around a website affects what's posted on it?
wdym by 'non-notable'? What makes a verse 'notable', in your book?
- 1. Must be known outside of vs debating circles.
- 2. Must not be added to the vs battles wiki by its own creator.
- 3. Must have people willing to translate it, or a pre-existing translation must exist if the work was not written in English.
- 15,637
- 5,392
Alright, I'm heading to sleep soon. I'll comment on this tomorrow.
- 10,822
- 1,646
Why does not going through that make something less deserving of a profile?
- 10,822
- 1,646
Why is talking about real people killing and being killed worse than any of our current The Real World profiles?
- 10,758
- 6,491
Our real world profiles are mostly weapons, events and species of animals, you'll notice we don't feature any particular real life individual
- 31,891
- 35,145
Yeah, the real life profiles are mainly here to give examples of fictional characters out wrestling large animals or one shotting big ships. None of the RL people are on the wiki. However, Composite Human is only here due to his popularity and is technically a character we created.
We used to have composites for a lot of animals species and a composite tree, but they all got moved to Joke Battles Wiki.
We used to have composites for a lot of animals species and a composite tree, but they all got moved to Joke Battles Wiki.
- 10,758
- 6,491
And even then, composite human isn't exactly a real life person
- 15,637
- 5,392
Alright, let's keep things civil and keep this from being the shitfest that was last thread:
It doesn't need to be debated because the debate is already practically over. No change needs to be specifically made to the rules to delete the Markiplier profiles.
I agree we should stop bickering over this, though. We already have a clear consensus with the staff and should just be done and through with this.
I do agree we should focus on fixing problems with the wording of the rules themselves, but we don't need to do so to decide to delete the Markiplier profiles, which we practically already have.
I'd say I'm fine continuing debating how they don't adhere to our current rules, but since you seem to think this is "pointless bickering" I'm fine with just going to other administrators for their say, which is "delete the profiles".
From the vast consensus on the previous thread we agreed that the profiles don't adhere to our current rules. I just made a point out of the fact that rules-lawyering when 2/3 of the admins who commented and both active beuros said no the the profiles when these people make and agree on the rules is just silly.Andytrenom said:
It doesn't need to be debated because the debate is already practically over. No change needs to be specifically made to the rules to delete the Markiplier profiles.
You're acting as if the rules themselves weren't a criteria in the previous thread's discussion when my off-hand commend about the people making the rules saying "no" to the profiles was right at the rear end of all that.Andytrenom said:
I agree we should stop bickering over this, though. We already have a clear consensus with the staff and should just be done and through with this.
I do agree we should focus on fixing problems with the wording of the rules themselves, but we don't need to do so to decide to delete the Markiplier profiles, which we practically already have.
I'd say I'm fine continuing debating how they don't adhere to our current rules, but since you seem to think this is "pointless bickering" I'm fine with just going to other administrators for their say, which is "delete the profiles".
- 819
- 85
I apologize if I'm infringing on "Staff Only"...
but people seem not to have much reason to deny "copyrighted works only" other than "it removes a lot of hard-worked profiles on the wiki"...
so what? If half of verse get bombed, that's unfortunate but necessary. No internet works ever? Partially questionable but still a Too Bad... Part of Cthulhu Mythos, SCP Foundation, Internet profiles, some indie games, some of your favorite verses... you should have asked them to get copyright, but unfortunately they didn't.
but people seem not to have much reason to deny "copyrighted works only" other than "it removes a lot of hard-worked profiles on the wiki"...
so what? If half of verse get bombed, that's unfortunate but necessary. No internet works ever? Partially questionable but still a Too Bad... Part of Cthulhu Mythos, SCP Foundation, Internet profiles, some indie games, some of your favorite verses... you should have asked them to get copyright, but unfortunately they didn't.
- 6,104
- 5,106
- Thread starter
- #146
Well, when the only thing stopping an OC verse from FC/OC from being allowed here is the fact that "it was creating for vs debating" (which isn't true for all of them since some people go to FC/OC to build up and share their works not to put them in vs matches) we have a serious problem no one wants to address because a strict rule would axe certain verses. As if that matters when defining a standard.
For example, given that we have alternative canon files, what's even stopping us from hosting fan fiction? Fan fics tending to have bad quality? Well quality isn't a factor here according to you guys. Copyright? Well copyright isn't a factor here according to you guys. Popularity? Well popularity isn't a factor here according to you guys. Therefore there is nothing stopping FCs from being here other than the fact that we simply don't want them here.
For example, given that we have alternative canon files, what's even stopping us from hosting fan fiction? Fan fics tending to have bad quality? Well quality isn't a factor here according to you guys. Copyright? Well copyright isn't a factor here according to you guys. Popularity? Well popularity isn't a factor here according to you guys. Therefore there is nothing stopping FCs from being here other than the fact that we simply don't want them here.
- 168,861
- 77,876
I agree with Sera. We have to set personal preferences aside and do our jobs properly by maintaining a structure and coherence in this wiki, which means that we have to draw firm lines sometimes.
- 15,637
- 5,392
The sooner people realize that the majority of this issue is people pushing the limits of our rules to joke around, the sooner we can take a firmer hand in solving the issue.
I seriously agree with Sera, there needs to be some seperation between OCs and what we allow on the site. If what we come up with makes us have to remove a few verses, I'm fine with that.
I seriously agree with Sera, there needs to be some seperation between OCs and what we allow on the site. If what we come up with makes us have to remove a few verses, I'm fine with that.
- 15,637
- 5,392
So, Andy, to put it bluntly, you'd have us judge verse's eligibility for the site based on the size of the fanbase, or how badly people want it here?
The rest of your criteria is stuff that we already expect even from copyrighted verses.
The rest of your criteria is stuff that we already expect even from copyrighted verses.
- 15,637
- 5,392
Guys, let's not have this thread turn into an exclusive Suggsverse discussion.
- 6,104
- 5,106
- Thread starter
- #154
Dargoo, we need to address this anyway because even someone as reasonable as Agnaa believes we should allow that here. It's gotten that bad. Apparently breaking the tiering system isn't a good reason. People who only read the wikia seem to believe that it doesn't and that it can actually be tiered.
- 15,637
- 5,392
Because that's literally what your argument is without the "we treat uncopyrighted verses like we treat copyrighted verses" clause. You aren't proposing anything new - we would of course hold verses to the standards by which we hold all verses.Andytrenom said:
So the only criteria that would come into play for these verses is, again, popularity and drive to have it on the site. If that's true, I'm sure the people at FC/OC would love to have some of their verses here, and I'm sure that some of them meet our consistency and worldbuilding standards.
- 10,822
- 1,646
@Andytrenom What are some other things that are important?
Similar threads
- Locked
