YouTube Profiles Quality Control Discussion 2 (STAFF ONLY)

[Yobo_Blue]

Just passing through, and you can delete this comment if you feel the need, but I think we should message more individuals in order to finish this in a relatively timely manner.

 

[Antvasima]

That seems like a good idea. Feel free to ask all of the remaining bureaucrats, administrators, discussion moderators, and content moderators to comment here.

 

[A6colute]

Well, I'm mostly agree with Dargoo Faust there.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

Only read this thread not the last one but I'm in overall agreement with Faust

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the input.

 

[Theglassman12]

Ehh, I'm siding with Dargoo on the situation here.

 

[Andytrenom]

Please, if someone can, at least explain what specific rules the profiles from Who Killed Markiplier are currently breaking, I can only see two relevant rules both of which I tried to address to the best of my abilities in this post

I won't demand much of anyone's time anymore, but at minimum I feel proof of a profile breaking regulations before deletion are warranted over vague "i agree". You can even point to the portions of an arguments that bring up things I ignored or debunk my points regarding the regulations if you feel you don't need to create your own arguments

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm still in agreement with Andy, and everyone agrees with Sera that the video games based on YouTube personas are definitely allowed for reasons mentioned by her and other people. Dargoo seems to disagree with allowing those games, but we gave explanations why they aren't problems.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Popping back in: I still plan on making another megapost. Got sidetracked with a test today that I had to grind for on Sunday.

 

[Antvasima]

@Dargoo

Okay. No problem. Thank you for the help.

 

[Crabwhale]

I'm mostly in agreement with Darg here.

Real talk, a lot of these things are absolute garbage that took advantage of the confused state of lax regulations for a little bit to post whatever shit they thought they could get away with. Most of them deserve the big delet.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Crabwhale.

 

[Elizhaa]

I'm still in agreement with Andy, and everyone agrees with Sera that the video games based on YouTube personas are definitely allowed for reasons mentioned by her and other people. Dargoo seems to disagree with allowing those games, but we gave explanations why they aren't problems.

I agree. Video games profiles based on Youtuber should be fine as their platform medium is gaming not youtube which is not in this thread's topic.

 

[Elizhaa]

I'm mostly in agreement with Darg here.
Real talk, a lot of these things are absolute garbage that took advantage of the confused state of lax regulations for a little bit to post whatever shit they thought they could get away with. Most of them deserve the big delet.

Minus the youtuber gaming profiles, I agree.

Though I am not an expert in many of these youtuber series, I think any profiles that violated the current Editing Rules should be deleted:

• Characters and verses that originate from a YouTube series are allowed, but they should have a reasonably coherent narrative. Being a joke franchise with inconsistent feats and powerscaling should not automatically disallow the verse. However, the original YouTube characters should only scale from feats demonstrated within their own continuity rather than cross-scale from any notable cameo characters. For further information, read the following information pages: Crossovers, Alternative Canon and Composite Profiles, Outlier, and Plot-Induced Stupidity.

 

[The_Impress]

Isn't the point to revise the said editing rules to combat creation of profiles deemed unacceptable by moderation standards?

Because as far as I can remember, atleast the Markiplier profiles were deemed acceptable when they were added, across the profile deletion thread and this thread, so the current rules should be adjusted beforehand attempting to nuke profiles.

 

[Andytrenom]

I am only focused on judging profiles by our current rules because I think discussions revisions yet again in this thread will just take away focus from it's original purpose and make progress difficult

Don't know if others decided to talk about revisions as well tho

 

[Antvasima]

I think that we mentioned that we should investigate if we need to revise our rules to turn stricter, or was that the hentai profiles thread?

 

[Elizhaa]

Isn't the point to revise the said editing rules to combat creation of profiles deemed unacceptable by moderation standards?

We already have the new Youtube rules:

• Characters and verses that originate from a YouTube series are allowed, but they should have a reasonably coherent narrative. Being a joke franchise with inconsistent feats and powerscaling should not automatically disallow the verse. However, the original YouTube characters should only scale from feats demonstrated within their own continuity rather than cross-scale from any notable cameo characters. For further information, read the following information pages: Crossovers, Alternative Canon and Composite Profiles, Outlier, and Plot-Induced Stupidity.

The point of the thread is to know if the youtube characters meet the current ruling because some users took advantage on the confusion on Youtuber profiles to make profile not to our wiki standard. If the profiles does not fit the current ruling, then the profiles will be deleted or revised.

 

[Elizhaa]

I think that we mentioned that we should investigate if we need to revise our rules to turn stricter, or was that the hentai profiles thread?

I think it was about the hentai profiles thread.

The revised statement here was about revising some profiles if they don't need fit the new rule about the Youtuber profile that I posted above from the Editing Rules.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the information.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I mean, simply because we already edited our rules doesn't mean we can't discuss small changes/clarifications when discussing implementing said rules.

Having to make a new thread to propose "Let's avoid adding depictions of Youtube personalities in general" is beurocratic nonsese, since we've already established that we don't want Youtube personalities on the site to begin with as a precedent. If people don't want the small addendum, we continue on, if people do, we throw it on and dicsuss implementing it in the same thread. Saves time for everyone.

I will admit that technically, under our current rules; the Markiplier and spin-off game profiles are okay, with the caveat that they conflict with the spirit/purpose of the rules that I'll expand on when I respond to Andy's posts proper. Which is why I hope to make the rules more clear on the matter. Even if the rules don't end up being edited with my proposal, I still feel like we should remove the profiles do to the aformentioned conflict with why the rules were made to begin with; as they ultimately pose the same issues as the personaility itself when it comes to discussion. You can't tell me people will treat a Markiplier (Markiplier The Show: The Game: The Movie) profile any different than the same profile minus the parenthesis.

Similarly, we can also discuss profiles that fall under a similar umbrella, since we're talking personalities and actors. It should be absolutely fine to bring up how Vanilla Ice (Cool as Ice) should be removed since we're already discussing how YT personalities that are part of an otherwise okay story cause issues.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

I'm sorry for commenting but this is really bothering me,


So just because an actor is playing himself in a movie or that it just is a celebrity that is being played by someone in a movie or video game it can't be on this sight? Why would they cause issues? It's like claiming spliting goku's profile into 3 so it wouldn't be so messy caused issues because people wouldn't Recognize the difference between them.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

So just because an actor is playing himself in a movie or that it just is a celebrity that is being played by someone in a movie or video game it can't be on this sight? Why would they cause issues? It's like claiming spliting goku's profile into 3 so it wouldn't be so messy caused issues because people wouldn't Recognize the difference between them.

Yes, an actor playing as themselves poses the same issues as "real life people on the wiki". I go back, agai, to my "Bill Murray (Zombieland)" example: it's literally Bill Murray acting as himself; the profile in turn is just Bill Murray, maybe with some fantastical twist like him being a zombie.

Debating real living people fighting one another, even with a fantastical twist, isn't okay for the same reason as, say, religious debating isn't okay. It will has, can, and will lead to poor user behavior; it's why we developed these rules to begin with. It's also, and please don't hyperfocus on this point, bad for the site's image. You honestly can't say banning real people but letting in real people playing themselves isn't self-contradictory in purpose/ruling.

Goku is just a regular character. He has none of the baggage a real person or a personality/persona has, obviously.

And for the last time, I'm not saying "no" to alternative characters in general. I'm saying "no" to alternative characters of characters we already don't allow as profiles.

 

[The_Impress]

So... the prescence of Bill Murray doesn't invalidate other profiles based on Zombieland, right, like of Tallahassee or Columbus?

That logic would imply that as long as we don't make a profile for Mark's character in the series, the rest of the verse would be fine to add, since they contain purely fictional characters (i.e. There's not an IRL person named Wilford Warfstache)

 

[InfiniteSped]

Would this Jackie Chan profile be affected as well?

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Jackie_Chan_(Jackie_Chan_Adventures)

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

So... the prescence of Bill Murray doesn't invalidate other profiles based on Zombieland, right, like of Tallahassee or Columbus?

No, as, unlike Markplier, Zombieland isn't "Bill Murray's Zombie Adventure"; the movie doesn't revolve around him, he's a cameo. Alternatively "Cool as Ice" is a movie about Vanilla Ice, the real person/persona, so profiles from characters other than the titular one shouldn't be permitted.

"Who Killed Markiplier" is, whether you like it or not, a movie about Markiplier, where Mark himself plays titular characters. Whether that Markiplier is the same as the persona (a fluid thing that can't honestly be defined, so I have no clue on what basis Andy or Weekly are arguing that 'he's different') isn't related to that fact, the association is strong regardless.

A persona, in an isolated skit or even a published story, can have the veneer of a legitamate character. I want to look at the whole picture, here.

Would this Jackie Chan profile be affected as well?

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Jackie_Chan_(Jackie_Chan_Adventures)

I'd that that's right on the border, unless he's playing himself, in which case it should go.

 

[The_pen_or_the_sword]

As far as I know the real Jackie chan wasn't an archeologist and didn't have neice named jade...he also didn't find magical talismens and fight evil henchman. While the character shares the name Id say there are severe enough differences to allow it

 

[Bobsican]

That Jackie Chan one is a cartoon, and it´s surprisingly different (has actual lore in-verse, a new family, etc.), so it can stay

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

As far as I know the real Jackie chan wasn't an archeologist and didn't have neice named jade...he also didn't find magical talismens and fight evil henchman. While the character shares the name Id say there are severe enough differences to allow it

Again I think it's on the border. If it's just the name I can see your case, but everything else that matches should be taken into account. If he's supposed to be the literal Jackie Chan "but this, this, and this", still no.

 

[The_Impress]

Literally the entire second act of that movie is them hanging around Bill Murray's mansion, but whatevs.

Honestly, the character "Markiplier" is barely in the series save for 5 minutes in the first episode, and 5 in the spin-off "Damien" short. In an eight parter series of which each episode clocks in at 20 minutes, he physically appears in less than 6% of the runtime

 

[Walker21232123]

It say staff only

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Literally the entire second act of that movie is them hanging around Bill Murray's mansion, but whatevs.
Honestly, the character "Markiplier" is barely in the series save for 5 minutes in the first episode, and 5 in the spin-off "Damien" short. In an eight parter series of which each episode clocks in at 20 minutes, he physically appears in less than 6% of the runtime

I meant figuratively revolving around him, not literally.

The character physically appearing little doesn't change the premise regarding him, or the other characters he plays, just saying.

It say staff only

That's true. @Zark/@other users, we can continue this on a message wall if need be.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

Again I think it's on the border. If it's just the name I can see your case, but everything else that matches should be taken into account. If he's supposed to be the literal Jackie Chan "but this, this, and this", still no.

It's...really really.not, I've seen that show and, it's really really not.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that Dargoo makes sense. Also, this is supposed to be a staff only thread.

 

[GojiBoyForever]

Let's please try to keep this staff only.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I have a message wall, just so you guys know.

 

[Sera_EX]

@Dargoo

Just so we're on the same page here, you're not saying no to, for example, John Wick (played by Keanu Reeves) but a literal Keanu Reeves based character?

In other words:

Actors playing original characters = okay

Actors playing themselves in a fictional setting = not okay?

Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question but I'm kinda lost here.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Dargoo
In other words:

Actors playing original characters = okay

Actors playing themselves in a fictional setting = not okay?

Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying.

Let me reiterate that's not part of my argument on the Markiplier discussion; that's a matter of his stage/YT persona, which I'm still not convinced isn't part of his movie.

I also have issues with depictions of real, living people in fiction (or recently deceased people) in general, such as those found in parody comedy.

 

[Sera_EX]

Kk, gotcha.

 

[Antvasima]

So, since most people agree with Dargoo, should we proceed here, so we get something productive done?