-
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.
Why the wiki is managed the way it is
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
- Status
- 2,334
- 312
@Antvasima
Please stop fearmongering. You say I'm trying to distort things to portray you as totalitarian and inflexible, and then you make an entire post using totalitarian reasoning? I'm not distorting anything, you're providing the content yourself at this point.
Please stop fearmongering. You say I'm trying to distort things to portray you as totalitarian and inflexible, and then you make an entire post using totalitarian reasoning? I'm not distorting anything, you're providing the content yourself at this point.
- 165,989
- 73,728
- Thread starter
- #43
To quote you from earlier, no I do not think that I exaggerated. Abolishing all enforcement of regulations would instill anarchy and an extremely hostile environment, whereas not having any franchise-specific discussion rules, would force us to handle the same topics endlessly over and over and over.
- 14,195
- 2,574
@Ant, while I don't necessarily agree with everything Xcano said and how he says it, I'm pretty sure they want it for the greater good of the wiki, what you said, is extremely antagonizing.
- 2,334
- 312
@Antvasima
"Abolishing all enforcement of regulations would instill anarchy and an extremely hostile environment"
Where did I say to abolish all rules?
"whereas not having any franchise-specific discussion rules, would force us to hamdle the same topics endlessly over and over and over."
You're missing the part where I said:
"At the very least change the rule so that it's "Don't bring this up unless you have evidence that wasn't presented in X, Y, Z threads."
"Abolishing all enforcement of regulations would instill anarchy and an extremely hostile environment"
Where did I say to abolish all rules?
"whereas not having any franchise-specific discussion rules, would force us to hamdle the same topics endlessly over and over and over."
You're missing the part where I said:
"At the very least change the rule so that it's "Don't bring this up unless you have evidence that wasn't presented in X, Y, Z threads."
- 165,989
- 73,728
- Thread starter
- #47
I am not fearmongering. You are the one trying to destroy this wiki from within by undermining all staff authority, and overthrowing the wiki management that have worked ridiculously hard to help build this community into a stable and far more mainstream popular environment.
- 1,855
- 292
Ant, you're getting quite worked up. You're just making blatant accusations without prover evidence, my man. All XCano did here was leave suggestions. They weren't forced or demanded, and all of his arguments were in the sake of having his own opinion. He's not meaning to change anything, nor does he believe himself that anything can be changed.
Trust me dude, you're taking this way too far than it needs to be.
Trust me dude, you're taking this way too far than it needs to be.
- 1,855
- 292
I know you weren't. I'm just trying to prevent you from doing something you might have not wanted to do. I think you just need to sleep and think about this conversation later. You took the conversation and took it to places it didn't need to, have to, or deserve to go. Just get some sleep, man.
If you went any further, your accusation and possible further actions may have been heavily regretful.
If you went any further, your accusation and possible further actions may have been heavily regretful.
- 33,405
- 8,417
Can I ask? What changes to the wiki are you talking about? Or more specifically, define "changes to the wiki". Because I'm pretty sure stuff like Striking Strength and Content Revision are classified as "changes to the wiki".
@SD Define "Greater Good".
Is it truly great for us? Or is it just great for his standards?
@SD Define "Greater Good".
Is it truly great for us? Or is it just great for his standards?
- 1,092
- 919
Totalitarian? Some of you literally gang up on people, provoking, intimidating, or insulting them just because they disagree with you. And you liken Ant's response/behavior to Totalitarianism?
- 1,092
- 919
@Arigmary
Of course, but that shouldn't be allowed in staff. We aren't "elite" but we damn sure need to set an example.
Of course, but that shouldn't be allowed in staff. We aren't "elite" but we damn sure need to set an example.
- 3,179
- 503
This has gotten out of hand.
- 815
- 570
@LordXcano:
"This is provably false by the mere fact drama exists"
This is provably true by the fact that the wiki has grown for the past 4 years, even now continues to grow monthly, and the so-called "drama" has been caused by a specific bunch of users, who have grown more bold in the last 4 months or so.
"We don't."
Pray tell, who is this "we" you speak of? Because the only person I see right now is...you...alone. Which means your statement should be, "I don't."
"That's why I asked for the leadership to be changed. We don't want a good system that is sustainable. What we want is for things to stay as they are. This is why every thread either ends with "Drop it" or "Case by case basis". Nobody wants change."
Actually, people do want change. Just not the change you're demanding. That's all. You might be stewing because according to you, it seems like, "don't fix what ain't broke". But unlike you, a wild cannon with exactly zero foresight and no responsibility (as witnessed by your frustration over having more franchise rules than general rules, which I then proceeded to explain was pretty dumb), the bureaucrats at present also have a responsibility towards the site, and that is to ensure that in the process of growing, it doesn't crumble from underneath.
You might find the patience of the existing leadership frustrating, but the truth is, I find your recklessness foolish, and dare I say, dangerous.
Additionally, nothing you have suggested even remotely suggests a sustainable growth model. All your suggestion boils down is, "hmm...let's try this instead?"
Lastly, if you had even an iota of understanding of teamwork, never mind that of a large organization, you would realize yourself that change is slow-paced, not instantaneous, as a reckless person would believe. For instance, this is the new sample format I've been tinkering with. Why haven't I pushed for it's implementation already? Because I can see that doing so would bring the wiki to it's knees at present. We need far greater manpower for it to be feasible. But of course, you probably don't get it, do you?
"That's pretty rude coming from a bureaucrat."
Please. Let's not start with the name-calling, alright? Not only does it make you sound petulant, "rude" coming from you at present also sounds hypocritical.
"I know there's no perfect system, but there are certainly better ones than we have right now, and currently the leadership we have actively prevents any possibly changes to it."
There are better ones, for sure. And we are trying to grow as well. Only difference is, the pace of the transition is glacial at times. Then again, if you understood organizational mechanics, I doubt we would be having this discussion in the first place.
"You're saying that we're trying to improve, but we aren't. No change ever happens here."
Uh-huh. Look at above of mine. Also, not sure what sore of mind-boggling "changes" you're expecting. From what I know, the site just went through a Striking Strength project, a site-wide project to increase accuracy of the statistics.
"Even right now you're trying to prevent even as minor a change as "staff should have less power"!"
Uh...not really? What you're asking for is not a "minor change" or even "staff having less power". Your earlier arguments at least made sense, but your given your vicious rejection of the site's rules, what you're suggesting is actually close to playing fast and loose with the rules.
"You're just further emphasizing my point that our current leadership is completely opposed to any and all changes."
And you're the one emphasizing my point by proving you are a reckless hot-shit without an actual long-term plan who's whining about not getting your way at present.
"I'm not saying what I'm proposing is perfect, but by trying to shut down any changes that can be made you are treating it as if it needs no change and therefore is perfect."
Actually, I'm the one who has been saying it's not perfect, and has been saying it all along. And if you're going to "paint me as the villain" for trying to prevent you from causing the wiki to implode, you can keep painting because I'm going to be doing that, no problem.
So go ahead. Cry about how I'm "preventing change" by stopping the wiki from potentially turning into a disorganized mess, and see if I give a shit. If I have to be the villain in the little farce you're creating, in order to keep the wiki safe, you can bet I'm going to be the most goddamn tenacious villain you will ever see.
"Wording this as politely as I can, how does "This is a controversial topic so we should shut it down and never discuss it again" sound like a good idea? At the very least change the rule so that it's "Don't bring this up unless you have evidence that wasn't presented in X, Y, Z threads.""
Okay, now you're pissing me off. Have you actually read a goddamn franchise rules?
Here, let me find some sample rules:
Also, a warning: Everything else about your argument was a debate, but this was the first spot of trolling. Don't troll please.
"Site rules set by who? Discussed by who? Justified by who?"
Site rules set by the community. Discussed by the community. Justified by the community.
"Who says these rules are necessarily good or correct?"
Uh-huh. Go play that redundant card elsewhere. If you wanted to change the rules, all you had to do was start a staff thread and provide some basis when the rule harmed the accuracy of the site.
That might have caused a change in the rules. But...um, whining about it while trying to play it cool isn't going to cut it.
Also, did I mention that you might be given to anarchy?
"If there was a rule that you could no longe rmake any changes to a specific franchise would it matter as to whether or not that franchise is ranked correctly? No."
Hmmm...you know what would have been better before answering with a presumptuous "No" to your own question? Actually asking, and actually waiting for the answer. Pretty sure, that with the right proof, it would have been yes.
"This is provably false by the mere fact drama exists"
This is provably true by the fact that the wiki has grown for the past 4 years, even now continues to grow monthly, and the so-called "drama" has been caused by a specific bunch of users, who have grown more bold in the last 4 months or so.
"We don't."
Pray tell, who is this "we" you speak of? Because the only person I see right now is...you...alone. Which means your statement should be, "I don't."
"That's why I asked for the leadership to be changed. We don't want a good system that is sustainable. What we want is for things to stay as they are. This is why every thread either ends with "Drop it" or "Case by case basis". Nobody wants change."
Actually, people do want change. Just not the change you're demanding. That's all. You might be stewing because according to you, it seems like, "don't fix what ain't broke". But unlike you, a wild cannon with exactly zero foresight and no responsibility (as witnessed by your frustration over having more franchise rules than general rules, which I then proceeded to explain was pretty dumb), the bureaucrats at present also have a responsibility towards the site, and that is to ensure that in the process of growing, it doesn't crumble from underneath.
You might find the patience of the existing leadership frustrating, but the truth is, I find your recklessness foolish, and dare I say, dangerous.
Additionally, nothing you have suggested even remotely suggests a sustainable growth model. All your suggestion boils down is, "hmm...let's try this instead?"
Lastly, if you had even an iota of understanding of teamwork, never mind that of a large organization, you would realize yourself that change is slow-paced, not instantaneous, as a reckless person would believe. For instance, this is the new sample format I've been tinkering with. Why haven't I pushed for it's implementation already? Because I can see that doing so would bring the wiki to it's knees at present. We need far greater manpower for it to be feasible. But of course, you probably don't get it, do you?
"That's pretty rude coming from a bureaucrat."
Please. Let's not start with the name-calling, alright? Not only does it make you sound petulant, "rude" coming from you at present also sounds hypocritical.
"I know there's no perfect system, but there are certainly better ones than we have right now, and currently the leadership we have actively prevents any possibly changes to it."
There are better ones, for sure. And we are trying to grow as well. Only difference is, the pace of the transition is glacial at times. Then again, if you understood organizational mechanics, I doubt we would be having this discussion in the first place.
"You're saying that we're trying to improve, but we aren't. No change ever happens here."
Uh-huh. Look at above of mine. Also, not sure what sore of mind-boggling "changes" you're expecting. From what I know, the site just went through a Striking Strength project, a site-wide project to increase accuracy of the statistics.
"Even right now you're trying to prevent even as minor a change as "staff should have less power"!"
Uh...not really? What you're asking for is not a "minor change" or even "staff having less power". Your earlier arguments at least made sense, but your given your vicious rejection of the site's rules, what you're suggesting is actually close to playing fast and loose with the rules.
"You're just further emphasizing my point that our current leadership is completely opposed to any and all changes."
And you're the one emphasizing my point by proving you are a reckless hot-shit without an actual long-term plan who's whining about not getting your way at present.
"I'm not saying what I'm proposing is perfect, but by trying to shut down any changes that can be made you are treating it as if it needs no change and therefore is perfect."
Actually, I'm the one who has been saying it's not perfect, and has been saying it all along. And if you're going to "paint me as the villain" for trying to prevent you from causing the wiki to implode, you can keep painting because I'm going to be doing that, no problem.
So go ahead. Cry about how I'm "preventing change" by stopping the wiki from potentially turning into a disorganized mess, and see if I give a shit. If I have to be the villain in the little farce you're creating, in order to keep the wiki safe, you can bet I'm going to be the most goddamn tenacious villain you will ever see.
"Wording this as politely as I can, how does "This is a controversial topic so we should shut it down and never discuss it again" sound like a good idea? At the very least change the rule so that it's "Don't bring this up unless you have evidence that wasn't presented in X, Y, Z threads.""
Okay, now you're pissing me off. Have you actually read a goddamn franchise rules?
Here, let me find some sample rules:
- The possibility for Madara Uchiha and the rest of the Naruto franchise characters to move at light speed has already been discussed and debunked repeatedly. Currently, any repetition of said discussion is highly annoying, and bar presence of a new canon movie, not subject to discussion.
- Do not attempt to upgrade Naruto to sub-relativistic speed, especially based on feats from Naruto, The Last. This is an extremely exhausted topic that has been repeatedly addressed and denied on the basis of abuse of cimematic timing.
- Please refrain from attempting to upgrade Kaguya to Star level, or above. We have exhausted the topic and decided it's inconsistent with the franchise's overall showing of power and thus it is now typically viewed as an outlier. Also, it was similarly decided that Kaguya should not be granted planet level attack potency for her casual attacks, as the only scene where this rating would be warranted is strife with PIS and a lack of feats, thus forcing us to rate her at this level only via the Expansive Truth-Seeker Ball. Insistence of this will be unappreciated. Also, although at least one of her pocket realms was confirmed to contain a star, the relative size of it was deemed questionable, and it was discarded as a result.
- When upgrading Naruto and Sasuke, please refrain from powerscaling to the Sage of Sixth Paths. As discussed here due to the likelihood of the Sage creating the Moon with aid, thus placing him in a lower range of "Small Planet level" than previously believed, it would not affect their current ratings, as they were depicted to have gained half of this power. This is validated by their own feat, and appropriate calculatio.
- Do not try to upgrade Toneri to Moon level, as a discussion regarding this was held here.
- Avoid using the Naruto databook descriptions or statements from the manga about the Juubi, or otherwise, to attempt to upgrade the verse. These sources are typically not consistent and/or hyperbole and thus their contents are questionable at best.
Also, a warning: Everything else about your argument was a debate, but this was the first spot of trolling. Don't troll please.
"Site rules set by who? Discussed by who? Justified by who?"
Site rules set by the community. Discussed by the community. Justified by the community.
"Who says these rules are necessarily good or correct?"
Uh-huh. Go play that redundant card elsewhere. If you wanted to change the rules, all you had to do was start a staff thread and provide some basis when the rule harmed the accuracy of the site.
That might have caused a change in the rules. But...um, whining about it while trying to play it cool isn't going to cut it.
Also, did I mention that you might be given to anarchy?
"If there was a rule that you could no longe rmake any changes to a specific franchise would it matter as to whether or not that franchise is ranked correctly? No."
Hmmm...you know what would have been better before answering with a presumptuous "No" to your own question? Actually asking, and actually waiting for the answer. Pretty sure, that with the right proof, it would have been yes.
- 14,195
- 2,574
@Dragon and Sera
Did you guys read everything in my post or just that?
In context, I was stating that that is what they percieve to be for the best of the wiki, so idk how you guys got that interpertation.
@Sera
We've actually been less lenient these past few months, not saying one is better than the other.
@Dragon
Uh reword that, the question you're suggesting only makes like you're trying to do an appeal to motive.
Did you guys read everything in my post or just that?
In context, I was stating that that is what they percieve to be for the best of the wiki, so idk how you guys got that interpertation.
@Sera
We've actually been less lenient these past few months, not saying one is better than the other.
@Dragon
Uh reword that, the question you're suggesting only makes like you're trying to do an appeal to motive.
- 33,405
- 8,417
"Uh reword that, the question you're suggesting only makes like you're trying to do an appeal to motive."
I am simply asking for an objective analysis. Not trying to do an appeal to motive. Not saying he's wrong, but is it truly good for us as a whole?
I am simply asking for an objective analysis. Not trying to do an appeal to motive. Not saying he's wrong, but is it truly good for us as a whole?
- 69
- 8
I got to say but its kinda sad to think people complain about this place. No website is perfect but laws mean order and order is a good thing. The leaders and mod team i have found out work hard to make this place accurate and enjoyable to people who care for this place. DaFritzi and Promstein have both worked closely with me in our shared efforts to modernize the Nier Automata characters and verse pages and i did not ever see them as rude and they were very proffessional. Anyway my whole point is that this place and the SCP foundation are places who have high moral fiber and they sacrifice their lives to this website for the sake of quality content. I want to thank the mod team and leaders for their dedication and tell them that the silent majority stands with them and dont listen to the loud minority.
- 165,989
- 73,728
- Thread starter
- #67
It was always going to get out of hand from the moment LordXcano created his original extremely incendiary post that actively encouraged a complete overthrow of our system, with nothing better to replace it with. It is highly unlikely that it was not intended to get out of hand from the beginning.RadicalMrR said:
- 14,195
- 2,574
@Dragon ah that makes more sense.
I think we should try an objective analysis, though I'm not sure, considering how the thread's gotten, if we should do it in this thread.
I think we should try an objective analysis, though I'm not sure, considering how the thread's gotten, if we should do it in this thread.
- 1,855
- 292
@Kav
"Also, a warning: Everything else about your argument was a debate, but this was the first spot of trolling. Troll again, and I will block you. And don't cry after it happens, because consider yourself warned right now."
? Kav, I don't agree with what you're saying, I'm 100% confident that what he said wasn't trolling. You're both being smug and enraged about it. You're also taking this way out of hand and being extreme about the situation. This isn't a practice I'd agree with doing, and the way you warned him wasn't a warning, you're just pissed off. You actually have no reason to block him, more you're making a title for it despite it not being done.
"Also, a warning: Everything else about your argument was a debate, but this was the first spot of trolling. Troll again, and I will block you. And don't cry after it happens, because consider yourself warned right now."
? Kav, I don't agree with what you're saying, I'm 100% confident that what he said wasn't trolling. You're both being smug and enraged about it. You're also taking this way out of hand and being extreme about the situation. This isn't a practice I'd agree with doing, and the way you warned him wasn't a warning, you're just pissed off. You actually have no reason to block him, more you're making a title for it despite it not being done.
- 1,421
- 84
Now this thread completely looks like the "Staff Wars" that Sera talked about Ant fearing. 
- 14,195
- 2,574
@Sera I was trying to remain neutral so no I haven't, so tell what's obviously going here?
- 1,421
- 84
Look, this wikia is too valuable to lose because 1 or several members believe that the current system is obsolete. At least it seems the site is has a democracy-like approach on when and how to make changes to said system. But the mere allegation of attemping a "coup d'etat" on the current system is making this become very serious. The longer this goes on the longer the VSwikia staff's control on this site will deteriote. Perhaps it's about time to CEASE & DESIST before bigger mistakes are made.
- 1,855
- 292
It's obvious that nobody is going to agree with pushing for most of XCano's suggestions. Keep in mind that they were just that: suggestions. Not demands. Not ransoms. Not forced ideas. There's a clear disagreement with practices, and there is a clear way to tell that nothing he said that is being argued will be pursued or implemented from the thoughts of both Buearucrats alone.
Every detail that XCano was attempting to antagonize the Staff, patronize the Staff, bring Chaos to the wiki, and furthermore break it down it complete bullshit. Mind the language, I'm being as fully honest as I wish to be. He never has nor had any intention to do so. He never has nor had any intention to deliberately attack people. And honestly, I feel offended for being called out in terms of wanting to do that alongside him (I do go the Discord, yes.) among other people who are just there to talk.
To describe this as an attack is also false. To describe this as a malevolent plan is false. And finally, to describe this as deliberate insulting among the Staff in a master plan to end the site is false.
There is clear disagreements, hatred, and spying among other Staff. This isn't a regular user's ordeal, this is only the Staff being involved. I can see the damage its caused, and the damage we've already seen by XCano retiring. His retirement is no plan to self-destruct the wiki. That's a plainly irrelevant and foolish premise.
These misunderstandings I believe are no more than mere speculation and hateful gossip.
These are also unable to leave this case solved because of the misunderstanding that all XCano did was bring his own ideas into light. They were only ideas, and I just expressed that image in the first paragraph. It is not the fault of LordXCano to bring up the idea, it is the fault of seeing it as something far different than what it is: A Resignation Letter with his own Opinions.
He's already demoted. He cannot change a single thing. It's best to leave this thread closed before someone goes off again, because there is no real solution or ending to this. There never will be one, not today at least.
Every detail that XCano was attempting to antagonize the Staff, patronize the Staff, bring Chaos to the wiki, and furthermore break it down it complete bullshit. Mind the language, I'm being as fully honest as I wish to be. He never has nor had any intention to do so. He never has nor had any intention to deliberately attack people. And honestly, I feel offended for being called out in terms of wanting to do that alongside him (I do go the Discord, yes.) among other people who are just there to talk.
To describe this as an attack is also false. To describe this as a malevolent plan is false. And finally, to describe this as deliberate insulting among the Staff in a master plan to end the site is false.
There is clear disagreements, hatred, and spying among other Staff. This isn't a regular user's ordeal, this is only the Staff being involved. I can see the damage its caused, and the damage we've already seen by XCano retiring. His retirement is no plan to self-destruct the wiki. That's a plainly irrelevant and foolish premise.
These misunderstandings I believe are no more than mere speculation and hateful gossip.
These are also unable to leave this case solved because of the misunderstanding that all XCano did was bring his own ideas into light. They were only ideas, and I just expressed that image in the first paragraph. It is not the fault of LordXCano to bring up the idea, it is the fault of seeing it as something far different than what it is: A Resignation Letter with his own Opinions.
He's already demoted. He cannot change a single thing. It's best to leave this thread closed before someone goes off again, because there is no real solution or ending to this. There never will be one, not today at least.
- 14,195
- 2,574
@Ringo I get that, but I got a feeling that's not what she means.
- Status
