YouTube Profiles Quality Control Discussion 2 (STAFF ONLY)

[Sir_Ovens]

Continued from this thread.

Let's remain civil.

If any non-Staff wishes to make a comment here, bring it up with one of the staff members who can convey your message here.

This thread will be used to tackle both the issue of what's accepted on the wiki, and what should go.

If a profile on the list below is in Bold, that means it has been agreed to be kept. If a profile is struckthrough, that means it will be deleted or revised, with additional specifications accompanying in (parentheses).

Note: Staff Only


Edit: A list of the YouTube profiles in this wiki:

The Nostalgia Critic

Anthony Padilla (Food Battle only)

Ian Hecox (Food Battle only)

The Nameless One (CalebCity) (Waiting on profile creator)

The Guitar Guy

The Glitch Gremli

Death Mwauthzyx

Wilford Warfstache

The Detective (Who Killed Markiplier?)

Oishi Kawaii

Noodles

The Angry Video Game Nerd

HABIT

Filthy Frank (Francis of the Filth)

Sassy the Sasquatch

The Ginosaji

Cecil the Sasquatch

Choomahviatha

Leslie Mackerel

Clarence

Mike Nola

Ellis Warningto

Brandon Rogers (Character)

Bryce Tankthrust

Donna Phitts

Eldest Elmer

Sam (Brandon Rogers)

Balgar

Super Spiro

Boris

Green Man (Petscop)

Marvin (Petscop)

Firey (Battle for Dream Island)

Announcer (BFDI)

Four (Battle for BFDI)

Look-See

Animator (Animator vs. Animation)

The Chosen One (Animator vs. Animation)

The Second Coming

Small Girl

The Observer (TribeTwelve)

Slenderman (Jeff the Killer Saga)

Salad Fingers

Splendor Man (Jeff the Killer Saga)

The Rake (Jeff the Killer Saga)

Ticci Toby (Jeff the Killer Saga)

Zalgo (Jeff the Killer Saga)

Jeffery Keaton (Jeff the Killer Saga)

Mr. WideMouth (Jeff the Killer Saga)

Eyeless Jack (Jeff the Killer Saga)

Jane the Killer (Jeff the Killer Saga)

Elo

Slenderman (EverymanHYBRID)

Slenderman (The Angel's Game)


Verses

Smosh (Verse)

CalebCity (Verse)

Cinemassacre (Verse)

Brandon Rogers (Verse)

Balgar (Verse)

Petscop

Animator vs. Animatio

Jeff the Killer Saga

ASDF (Verse)

Dross (Verse)


New

I Like Trains Kid (ASDF)

Mine Turtle

Stegosaurus (ASDF)

Mr. Muffi

Do The Flop Guy (ASDF)

Darkiplier

Sock

Mephistopheles (Welcome to Hell)

Tao

The Beard

The Sweeping Ma

Resident Enis

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you, but you need to insert a summary and a list of the relevant profiles.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Done.

 

[Antvasima]

Thanks.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

The bold names are still subject to change, correct? Hopefully discussions for moving Cinemascare to FC/OC are still on the table; would really suck if I was the only one who thinks it has no place on this site.

My stance hasn't changed at all since the first thread; I can repost my list with some of the shade-throwing edited out later today.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I still think the Cinemassacre/AVGN profiles are fine to stay here for reasons mentioned both by me and other users and Andy mentioning that we should be more open-minded. I will also note that Matthew Schroeder mentioned that at the very least, it is fine to his Video Game version to have a profile. While he did note that he's not a big fan of YouTube characters having profiles and hasn't really given an opinion on his main series part. He for certain said the AVGN Adventures key can stay. DarkAnine a while back did agree that AVGN characters seem to be fine here; though he's retired now.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Personally, I feel like saying that YouTube profiles shouldn't be allowed in general is a very narrow minded statement. RWBY, Red vs Blue, and Rock Hard Gladiators all started from YouTube. I'm of the opinion that select verses should be allowed as long as they follow a certain set of standards.

What those standards should be should be put up to a vote, just like how we settle everything else on the wiki. But once those rules are in place, they should be abided by. Not exceptions. YouTube, much like SCP, is a place where anyone can make anything. But unlike SCP, there are no standards to what people can make, which makes defining accepted media much harder. As such, I feel like there should be a set boundary of what we allow and what we don't.

 

[Andytrenom]

Isn't SCP a verse while Youtube is a platform? That's a giant difference right there

 

[Wokistan]

The SCP wiki's more a platform in itself.

 

[Andytrenom]

Yeah but it's treated as a verse here. Youtube would be more akin to the medium than a shared universe, just being a platform for completely unrelated works to be made.

I am not sure what the point is in comparing it to SCP's guidelines.

 

[Antvasima]

Should I highlight this thread as well, to get more staff participation?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Personally, I feel like saying that YouTube profiles shouldn't be allowed in general is a very narrow minded statement. RWBY, Red vs Blue, and Rock Hard Gladiators all started from YouTube. I'm of the opinion that select verses should be allowed as long as they follow a certain set of standards.

Unless you weren't referring to my posts, if you thought my posts concluded in "YouTube Profiles shouldn't be allowed in general" my only conclusion is that you didn't understand my post, you didn't read my post, or are trying to misrepresent my argument to make it look worse than it actually is on purpose.

Because there is absolutely no one here saying "YouTube profiles shouldn't exist with few exception".

YouTube, much like SCP, is a place where anyone can make anything. But unlike SCP, there are no standards to what people can make, which makes defining accepted media much harder.

That's actually a fair point against the validity of many of the meme/gag/reviewer profiles.

Yeah, let's make profiles out of gag collections and game reviewers on a platform with less regulation than SCP. Definitely won't hurt our site as a whole.

As for the "put it up to a vote" part, I'm fine with an open vote although am not optimistic in that regard.

I still think the Cinemassacre/AVGN profiles are fine to stay here for reasons mentioned both by me and other users and Andy mentioning that we should be more open-minded.

What reasons? How do those reasons invalidate anything I brought up on them?

Their repeated use of material from other verses? The fact that the 'plot' is only occasionally 'consistent' or meaningful in any way? The fact that we're making who-would-win profiles for freaking game reviewers and youtube personas?

I'm all for being open-minded. I've explained how many of the pages from YouTube are fine. But there's a clear line with "open-mindedness" and "anything goes".

I like to try and understand other people's perspectives on issues. When I debate on verse stats and character fights I can tell myself "the other person might actually have a point". But I honestly can't think of how people can think that review series, stage personas, fanfiction, and inconsistent gag collections are solid territory for this site. What I keep on hearing is manipulation of linguistics to make it sound different than what this actually is.

 

[Promestein]

I think review shows like TNC and Cinemassacre should definitely go, and I'm inclined to agree with Dargoo overall.

 

[Wokistan]

I think using other media produced, like the actual avgn game that sold quite well, that have defined narratives and feats is fine. Besides that I personally agree more with dargoo (especially for shit like ASDF) but don't really know enough about most of the verses for specifics.

 

[Antvasima]

I also largely agree with Dargoo. Much of the popularity of our wiki is due to that we take ourselves seriously in terms of quality control and perfectionism, even if the subject matter itself is rather silly.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I do agree that we do need to take our profiles and verses seriously, but the main reasoning seems to include the double standards. Our wiki won't really be much more of a "Laughing Stock" just because we include profiles for said characters. There are plenty of people out there who laugh at are wiki due to even iconic Vs debating characters being rated "Too high" or "Too low".

And we already agreed that reviewers like JonTron shouldn't be here due to him being nothing more than a guy who reviews video games or movies. However, AVGN and Nostalgia Critic make their reviews more like short movies and interact with not only parodies of copyrighted characters, but also plenty of original characters with powers and abilities. No one's scaling them from characters such as Bugs Bunny or in turn scaling them to characters such as Jason Voorhees. We can also already establish that those aren't the actual Bugs Bunny or Jason, but different versions of them. We are instead using feats actually shown in their own continities.

Also, Death Mwauthzyx was already discussed to not actually even be a YouTube character, but a Movie/Video Game character. You see him in a Vs Thread, it's not "LOL who would win between these reviewers" it's the final antagonists of a movie/video game plus all powerful creator/destroyer of the multiverse. Gaming Glitch Gremlin is also another character people like to compare to the likes of Discord.

Also, Sera has given other details about simply saying, "It's not combat oriented" or "It's not intended to have in depth narrative" aren't good reasons for not having them as many Saturday morning cartoon characters and live action Comedy show characters aren't much different than various YouTube series. Not to mention we got things such as Edd world; a low budget Newgrounds work of all things. I'm pretty sure if there was an actual television series or even an Anime series where the plot throughout the majority of the series is writing reviews; they'd be treated no different than the Internet ones.

Also, Fanfiction is stuff like Super Mario Bros Z, where fans right their own fan based narrative for a Mario/Sonic crossover with DBZ style plot and animation. Another fanmade work would probably be something like SuperMarioLogan as it's a skit featuring Mario plush toys; I'm sure a lot of people would cringe if someone like Jeffy the Puppet was on our site. So something like that should stay away. I know this might be a bad example since characters and verses being "Poor taste" isn't a good reason to reject it as long as the page as well as the abilities are well structured and reasonable.

If you guys still thing we shouldn't have Cinemassacre or Awesomeverse on our wiki, that is fine. But at the very least, the AVGN Adventures versions of the characters should be fine to stay. They have just as much legitimacy as various RPG Maker games and other popular Indie titles like Shovel Knight, Cuphead, Undertale, ect. And AVGN Adventures did sell well on both Steam and Nintendo eShop.

We still need more input before doing anything, but If the decision is made to not have those verses. Then don't delete them persay, but just get rid of some of the keys, alter some of the powers and abilities so that it only includes feats from the games so that it does meet the guidelines. Should note we allow things like Jason Voorhees (NES) and Homicidal Maniac (Halloween Atari 2600). So the popular Indie Game versions are definitely good to stay.

 

[Wokistan]

"I'm pretty sure if there was an actual television series or even an Anime series where the plot throughout the majority of the series is writing reviews; they'd be treated no different than the Internet ones. "

Actually, Adam Conover isn't allowed. Read the rest in a bit but this jumped out at me

 

[Promestein]

Yeah, that's enough of a precedent for me.

 

[Antvasima]

Should I highlight this thread as well, to get more staff participation?

Anyway...

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Should I highlight this thread as well, to get more staff participation?

Anyway...

I agree, yeah.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will do so.

 

[Andytrenom]

So the Markiplier stuff is next right? If we were using Dark's appearance across every video ever that might have been cause for a concern but just the WKM series and direct expansions of it should be fine

The biggest problem people seem to have is the matter of personas and, while I don't know what exactly the agreeable standard is for separating persona and character, playing a vital role within a fictional narrative, not having the same level of interaction and lack of fourth wall between you and the audience as the real life youtuber, having a past and a present life situation which, whether fully fleshed out or not, are elements of a fictional plot rather than references to the youtuber's own experiences, all tilt the scales in favor of "character" more than "persona" to me

The videos that are used for these characters are all part of a legitimate storyline with plot, characters and a setting distinct from the real world and very clearly separated from Mark's own life considering this version of Mark is a seeming millionaire living in a mansion with bulters and creepy chefs, who plots his own death for vengeance

They are at the very least far more than "markiplier rule skirting shenanigans" as Dargoo likes to call them

 

[Antvasima]

Staff help to solve this would be very appreciated.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

snip

You're honestly making this far more complicated than it actually should be.

We don't need to delve into a philosophical discussion of "what constitutes a persona and a character" to look at these pages and say "this is a Markiplier page", "this is a PewDiePie page", then say "we don't want youtuber personas on a who would win site", then say "we should delete this".

You're practically giving any and all proper pages like this a backdoor to just say "well, it's technically a character", and making policy only apply to the most egregious shitpost pages while more subtle joke pages fly under the radar.

Here's something more simple: Let's just not have any pages fashioned after major youtube personailities, such as the aforementioned Markiplier and PewDiePie. As well as characters who participate in a "story" that revolve around characters that are fashioned after youtube personailites.

They are at the very least far more than "markiplier rule skirting shenanigans" as Dargoo likes to call them

Are they, though? Are they really?

They're from a series called "Who killed Markiplier", played by Markiplier, the story of which revolves around Markiplier, the major youtube persona.

This thread is seriously on the VS Forum. Not fun and games. Think about that for a second.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Unrelated, but for the love of God we should also delete this page.

 

[Promestein]

I strongly agree with Dargoo, here.

 

[Antvasima]

I also very much agree with Dargoo.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Uh....

I know this is strictly staff only, but is it okay if I chime in to correct a few points since I was here for most of the previous discussions?

 

[Antvasima]

I am uncertain. The last discussion turned into an incoherent mess thanks to there being too many contributors.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I feel like since Yobo was one of the major voices for the anti-deletion side of the argument on the previous thread, he should be able to drop a few comments and/or engage in a back-and-forth.

 

[Crabwhale]

Was gonna say that as well, but couldn't find the exact words.

Thanks Drag Queen

 

[Sera_EX]

I agree with Dargoo and Prom here. I do agree with Andy in that we need to keep an open mind, as always, with absolutely everything, but yes there's a fine, thick, bold line between keeping an open mind (not outlawing a verse because it is from YouTube) and anything goes (so long as it's an "original character with an audience, it should be allowed!)

 

[Andytrenom]

You're honestly making this far more complicated than it actually should be.

The separation between youtube personas and legitimate character was an important factor when the new youtube rules were first established, which is why it's an important thing to discuss here, and you literally didn't address anything regarding my points, just brushed it off by calling it "philosophical discussion".

Yeah such unnecessary philosophical discussion I'm bringing here, laying out three simple points for treating something more as a character than a youtube persona, good that you called me out and avoided what I say actually being necessary to discuss in this discussion.

You're practically giving any and all proper pages like this a backdoor to just say "well, it's technically a character", and making policy only apply to the most egregious shitpost pages while more subtle joke pages fly under the radar.
I don't get what you mean by "subtle joke pages", is it a page whose content is a "subtle joke" (what?), is it a page that is inherently silly because of who it features,or what is it? Either way, only the content of an actual page being written as a joke is any reason to remove it for me, the page originating from a source that is silly or being intended for joke purposes in a non-serious part of the site is not a problem

Here's something more simple: Let's just not have any pages fashioned after major youtube personailities, such as the aforementioned Markiplier and PewDiePie. As well as characters who participate in a "story" that revolve around characters that are fashioned after youtube personailites.
No. Suggesting that being modeled after a youtube personality is enough reason to be forbidden all the while ignoring the greater details of the actual work and how the personalities are utilized within it is just an utterly prejudiced way of analyzing profiles

Would we disqualify a movie if it features an actor playing himself but is about him fighting monsters and supernatural beings with sci fi weapons? If the answer to that is yes, then I guess this argument could work but if it's no then I don't think it makes any sense

Are they, though? Are they really?
They're from a series called "Who killed Markiplier", played by Markiplier, the story of which revolves around Markiplier, the major youtube persona.

This thread is seriously on the VS Forum. Not fun and games. Think about that for a second.

Think about what? That someone made a meme matchup in a vs thread instead of a fun and games thread? Yeah that's not anything remarkable at all and I'm actually dumbfounded that you mentioned this as a legitimate point

And yes, being heavily tied to Markiplier in that way absolutely does not mean they are just "Rule skirting shenanigans", not that calling something a rule skirting shenanigan is a worthwhile argument in the first place

 

[Antvasima]

I feel like since Yobo was one of the major voices for the anti-deletion side of the argument on the previous thread, he should be able to drop a few comments and/or engage in a back-and-forth.

I think that nothing will get done if we start to open this thread to the community at large.

 

[Sera_EX]

@Ant

I agree, but I think he meant 'just' Yobo though.

@Andy

I don't think he was saying that if something is silly it shouldn't be allowed. Joke profiles as we come to know them aren't just silly, they are often incoherent or utterly nonsensical. Stuff like AVGN is borderline nonsense (the action sequences, not the reviews), it's popcorn entertainment and I'm a big fan of James in general.

@All

What matters is logical consistency. Logical consistency + continuity forms what we know as "canon". Joke profiles are the exact opposite. Something being goofy does not inherently disqualify it, just look at Family Guy for example, but Family Guy characters have more of a logical consistency than most Youtube personality content that people are pushing for despite Family Guy being mostly parodies and nonsense.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Sera I'm more just trying to ask what exactly a "subtle joke profile" is supposed to mean, since it's not really clear to me what he means by that

And on the matter of logical consistency, the who killed Markiplier stuff really doesn't go against that, the only thing you can argue is that it's vague and maybe a bit confusing but apart from that it's no different than any other story with plot, characters and a fictional world even if it's modelled after a popular youtube personality

 

[Sera_EX]

I don't know anything about Markpiller, so I can't make an argument for or against it. I think "subtle joke profile" means borderline joke profile, which I have defined above as we currently know joke files to be, incoherent, memetic, nonsense not meant to be taken literally or seriously. Not saying anything that's fictional should be taken completely seriously, but taken seriously in the most basic general sense of "this actually has logic behind it".

As I've said plenty of times already, it isn't Youtube profiles that should be put in question here, but our standards of what is to be taken as a notable fictional verse based on the critera of original, logical, and canonical, needs to be strictly defined.

Youtube (the platform) is not the problem here. It's the type of verses from Youtube that are the problem. This can easily be solved by coming to an agreement on the one and only fact that matters being canoncity.

Everything we do must be based on reason and logic. It's why most of our senior members are heavy on scientific consensus. If we don't follow reason and logic because "it's all for fun", we may as well not have standards in the first place.

 

[Andytrenom]

I do agree with that, but frankly Dargoo's arguments regarding youtube profiles to me hinge less on the idea that we're undermining standards due to the wiki being for fun and more on the idea that superficial details like "being a Markipilier profile, being a pewdiedpie profile" can make the site into a joke, which I feel is just worrying too much about appearances for what is ultimately a fun hobby.

I just want to make it clear that if I bring up/have brought up the "site being fun/non-serious" then that is essentially what I mean by the argument, not that we shouldn't have serious standards, but that we shouldn't be worrying about coming off as serious so much

 

[Yobo_Blue]

I personally would be more worried about us looking like a pseudo-intellectual condescending elitist group of fans, which seems more likely if we're going to do this whole "other peoples opinions matter more than logic" thing, and seems to be the more likely at this point with the "we have to not let it in based on what we see and it being a joke".

That's all I'll say for now.

 

[Andytrenom]

Yobo may have said it bluntly, but that's honestly my concern as well. Having filthy frank, Pewdiepie or AVGN on this wiki would harm our reputation way less than flimsy gatekeeping perputuated by the fear of "not becoming a joke". Keep in mind I don't necessarily support the mentioned profiles, but if they are to be on the chopping blocks, they should be for other reasons than saving appearances