• 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.

YouTube Profiles Quality Control Discussion (Staff Only)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have been told that this thread has gone out of control, but don't have the time to read everything.

Should it be closed and restarted with an updated list and summary of the conclusions so far in the beginning, with the new thread genuinely kept staff only, and all other posts deleted, in order to get it to stay somewhat focused and on track this time? It seems unlikely that we will achieve any results for our spent time and energy otherwise.
 
The slight issue with keeping it strictly staff-only is that many profiles were made by non-staff, so they'd need to give their input. But the thread should be watched stricter than this one was for stray opinions about various profiles (like mine).
 
Andytrenom said:
I will just make it clear that judgements not based on official rules but assumption regarding motives are completely worthless, we need some level of objectivity when dealing with matters like this and this is the furthest thing from it
Click to expand...
I strongly agree with this. We should try to objectively simply follow the regulations, and stop arguing against them out of personal affection for the profiles.
 
Just providing input: When this thread was first started, Sir Oven commented on the Youtuber Profiles? thread saying to message him with any defenses for characters. So, something like that could be done again?

Like, say, if a new profile comes up created by a non-staff that staff aren't sure one way or another, message them to ask for their defense?
 
Agnaa said:
The slight issue with keeping it strictly staff-only is that many profiles were made by non-staff, so they'd need to give their input. But the thread should be watched stricter than this one was for stray opinions about various profiles (like mine).
Click to expand...
I disagree. The staff are capable of evaluating the profiles on their own merits, regarding if they fulfill our standards and regulations or not, we have already received more than enough community input in this thread, and wasting time on a chaotic mess that does not and will not lead anywhere is not constructive and focused on achieving results.
 
So, is some staff member willing to restart the thread in a genuine staff only manner, to close this one afterwards? It has almost reached the maximum of 501 posts anyway.
 
I must bring up, some profiles should be discussed separately in a different thread if at all due to the fact some profiles here like Tobuscus is completely unrelated to YouTube counterparts and built off of games. These shouldn't be discussed in a YouTube thread. I recommend any profile that wasn't built from YouTube version itself, and really only have characters who once came from YouTube, they shouldn't be on the list for discussion (at least in the YouTube thread). So ones like Pewdiepie (Legend of the Brofist) and Tobuscus. If issues on these profiles exist, they should be in a different thread completely to the YouTube one.
 
I don't know how much power I have here in this conversation, since I retired almost a year ago at this point. And I don't really know where I lean either, as I can see the points made by both sides.

But, from what I can tell, it appears that we're currently trapped in a stalemate over whether or not the lore of the Cinemassacre verses should take priority over the primary focus, which is the reviews that take up 98% of the content. One question I must ask: Is there anything actually happening from a narrative standpoint in that 98%? If not, then why should we be bothered to take that into account when debating over whether or not profiles from said verses should be recognized on a wiki that focuses on characters within their narratives?

I'm not a big fan of the appeals to motives made earlier, either. People have been making those arguments long before, and it's always been a big pet peeve of mine. Like Andy said, who cares if we just want to shitpost on this wiki? I made three verses that were almost entirely run by the motive of, "dude, wouldn't it be funny if someone actually made profiles for this". We now have verses like Care Bears and Baldi's Basics, as well as the original Pepe from Boy's Club. Do you honestly think the motive for including them was, "this is an important and relevant verse that absolutely needed to be recognized on this wiki"?
 
@arbitrary

The thing is that the 98% of the content which is reviews is the majority of the series

Its reviews with a side of skits not a series with a side of review which is the problem people have from what I can see
 
The real cal howard said:
Because JBW exists for a reason. Meme content belongs there, not here.
Click to expand...
I don't see how this point takes away from Andy's. Andy's point was that if you want a profile removed, you should make a case against it with respect to our standards and guidelines, not by appealing to motives.
 
Paul Frank said:
@arbitrary
The thing is that the 98% of the content which is reviews is the majority of the series

Its reviews with a side of skits not a series with a side of review which is the problem people have from what I can see
Click to expand...
But again this begs the question:

When debating whether or not we should include a verse (on a wiki about characters within their stories), why should I care about that 98% of the content where nothing is being added storywise within that content?

I'm not knowledgeable on either of these verses, and I'm not taking a stance, but this seems like an important point to address if those who are against AVGN and NC being included on the wiki want to make the "98% derivative content" argument.
 
I'm pretty sure the standards we chose to have were similar to our standards on verses with sexual content

With that being that it is okay as long it is a minimal part in the series/verse and isn't the majority of the content

In this case these verses have the majority of the content be reviews instead of original content which goes against the standards I believe is the argument
 
Antvasima said:
So, is some staff member willing to restart the thread in a genuine staff only manner, to close this one afterwards? It has almost reached the maximum of 501 posts anyway.
Click to expand...
^
 
ArbitraryNumbers said:
But, from what I can tell, it appears that we're currently trapped in a stalemate over whether or not the lore of the Cinemassacre verses should take priority over the primary focus, which is the reviews that take up 98% of the content. One question I must ask: Is there anything actually happening from a narrative standpoint in that 98%? If not, then why should we be bothered to take that into account when debating over whether or not profiles from said verses should be recognized on a wiki that focuses on characters within their narratives?
Click to expand...
I don't know why we wouldn't want a verse like CoC then, that's 98% narrative-irrelevant ****, with 2% non-**** content, comprising a narrative that SFW profiles can be made from.
 
@Andytrenom I don't want to clog up what remains of this thread with that discussion, but I think it's pretty easy to argue that the comparison's fair.

@ArbitraryNumbers Wikia doesn't have issues with us discussing verses that include ****, only with posting ****. That's why we can have verses like MGQ here. CoC and other ****-verse pages would be purely SFW.
 
We have now reached 464 posts in this thread. 501 is the maximum as far as I am aware.
 
My opinion hasn't changed in the slightest since the last thread.

Since I'm particularly busy with a job this weekend, can someone sum up the bulk of the discussion that I missed since yesterday night?
 
Andytrenom said:
The "it's just trying to skirt the rules", "people are just pushing the site's boundaries", "people are just trying to shitpost" are appeal to motives, nothing more nothing less. Is anyone actually supposed to take decisions based on assuming someone's intent instead of inspecting profiles in reference to our official standards seriously? No, if you want to remove profiles, make a case based on the accepted standards, personal dissatisfaction has no place here.
Click to expand...
And isolating a single point of mine to critique my greater argument is called a stawman. Yeah, I'm pointing out the motives behind many of these profiles, and sure, call me out for using a "appeal to motive" because that's exactly what I did and I'm not particularly ashamed of it. I think motive is relevent to this topic; this isn't a VS Debate.

But don't use that as a prop to discount anything else I said, or claim that my argument was entirely founded on "lol these people are trying to troll the site". I have genuine concerns for the appearance and content of the site. I don't want VS Battles to be a laughing stock of a site, and while there can be room for fun and games, we keep that on a forum, not on our pages.

Oh, and don't even start on "personal dissatisfaction". Our standards are based on what dissatisfies us on the site. Trying to say my argument is based on my opinions of what should be on the site ignores that literally any of our existing regulartions are based on collective opinions of what should be on the site.

Absolutely none of this is objective. The only thing that is objective is how these profiles affect the perception of our site from an outsider's perspective, and how they shift the additude of our site from trying to seriously catalogue feats to trying to find obscure gag-verses to make it on the Top 5 Most Powerful Lists. I'm speaking from experience seeing these pages pop up more and more frequently, and seeing threads like "PewDiePie vs. Tobuscus" actually being valid VS Threads because our rules have more holes in them then a block of Swiss Cheese.

I can tell I'm in the minority here on trying to keep a lid on the amount of gag collections, fanfiction, and meme profiles we let slip onto the site, but don't try and critique me for explaining how I think these profiles are a determent to the site as a whole. Trying to discount these profiles by our own flawed regulations has historically failed. We need new regulations, which is what I'm arguing.

Even the I'm explaining much of my argument on our existing regulations. How we have other sites for these kinds of profiles, for one.

Andytrenom said:
And assuming people do want to make meme content for the hell of it why does that even matter?, are we actually trying to judge what compels someone to use an entertainment site now.
Click to expand...
Wow! It's almost like we have an alt site dedicated to "meme content for the hell of it"!

That additude: "People are just having fun so what's the use of regulations", is what's making me loose faith. It's an easy out to not bother with issues on the site, by dismissing the fact that they're even issues to begin with. We have, can, and hopefully will judge what people post on our "entertainment site".

Andytrenom said:
I don't think comparing a **** heavy verse to a review heavy verse is at all fair
Click to expand...
It's an example of how we have regulations to begin with. It's not directly comparing the verses, so that argument isn't fair in the slightest as well.
 
For what it is worth, I agree with Dargoo, and appreciate that he is trying to look after our standards and public perception.
 
What are your problems? I see three main ones, making the site appear like a joke, some stuff about technicalities and some stuff about AVGN being fan fiction which I'm not particularly interested in debating

The first one is the worst because this is just letting public perception influence our policies, and not in a good manner as in seeing the faults in our system pointed out by external sources and doing something about it, this is trying to appear more serious because we have silly things people can make fun of.

The second I really have to question if you're pointing out technicalities. If the rule has an intended message thst should have been obvious but isn't being followed due to not explicitly being spelled out, that would be a technicality and a reason for deletion. The cases here seem more like they do follow the rules and are simply not things that were originally expected to be on the site, which isn't a reason to disqualify them

Also, I don't even understand how you made that point about personal dissatisfaction. Standards are based on what's most manageable, what's likey to inherently cause problems and what our purpose is, they aren't simple matters of dissatisfaction and even if they were the fact that the dissatisfaction is something you say dissatisfies "us" ie collective not personal. So yeah, no clue what you're doing here
 
"People are just having fun so what's the use of regulations",

No one said standards aren't important, we have standards and they should be adhered to but if people within those standards are having fun in their own way and you still have a problem, then I take huge issue with thst because at that point you're not regulating affairs on the site according to established rules, you're just trying to dictate how people are allowed to use the site for no real reason
 
Dargoo Faust said:
I can tell I'm in the minority here on trying to keep a lid on the amount of gag collections, fanfiction, and meme profiles we let slip onto the site, but don't try and critique me for explaining how I think these profiles are a determent to the site as a whole. Trying to discount these profiles by our own flawed regulations has historically failed. We need new regulations, which is what I'm arguing.
Click to expand...
I've really got to agree with this. Things are really getting out of hand. JBW and FC/OC exist.
 
One final thing, if you do want to try and revise standards then I say go ahead. But this thread was supposed to be about efficiently removing profiles based on new standards, not another revision thread, so this isn't a place to be arguing such things

Also it's late night and I've been sick for a while so I'll go to sleep soon. Not planning on debating anything further for a while
 
Wall of Text



Andytrenom said:
What are your problems? I see three main ones, making the site appear like a joke, some stuff about technicalities and some stuff about AVGN being fan fiction which I'm not particularly interested in debating
Click to expand...
"Some stuff about technicalities" is a very easy way to brush all of my arguments using rules we set up on our site under the rug without actually addressing them.

If you're not particularly interested in debating, why on the Earth are you calling me out on any of this? Why are you even asking me what my problems are, if you have no interest in discussing them to begin with?

Andytrenom said:
this is trying to appear more serious because we have silly things people can make fun of.
Click to expand...
Why is it a good thing to encourage silly content that people can make fun of as actual pages on our site?

Sure, there'll always be stuff that other sites think are a joke. But we can at least control this.

Andytrenom said:
If the rule has an intended message thst should have been obvious but isn't being followed due to not explicitly being spelled out, that would be a technicality and a reason for deletion.
Click to expand...
That is... exactly what I'm saying, to the T.

Andytrenom said:
The cases here seem more like they do follow the rules and are simply not things that were originally expected to be on the site, which isn't a reason to disqualify them
Click to expand...
Didn't you say in the very line previous to this that if the rules "isn't being followed due to not explicitly being spelled out, that would be a technicality and a reason for deletion"? They follow the rules by technicality. It should be obvious that they're breaking the spirit/purpose of the rule; we shouldn't just shrug and call it a day because we didn't write our rules specifically enough.

Andytrenom said:
Also, I don't even understand how you made that point about personal dissatisfaction. Standards are based on what's most manageable, what's likey to inherently cause problems and what our purpose is, they aren't simple matters of dissatisfaction and even if they were the fact that the dissatisfaction is something you say dissatisfies "us" ie collective not personal. So yeah, no clue what you're doing here
Click to expand...
"What's likely to inherently cause problems" is what dissatisfies us, as a userbase. Standards are based on what we want on the site, and what we want off the site. They're based on our purpose as a site; it's why so many discussions on VS Threads are shut down with "we're a feat cataloging site".

I'm speaking from a personal perspective, yeah. I say "us" and "we" and "our site" mostly as shorthand for "the community", but not because I feel like I have a license on what should and should not be on the site. If the majority of our administration and userbase wants these profiles, let them have it. I'm explaining why I think it's a bad idea, and I personally would not like the site for allowing them, but I'm not the wiki.
 
That's the issue I'm having. It doesn't matter if it actually comes from YouTube. I'm seeing profiles that follow rules and yet are still under threat of being nukes because they come from YouTube even though they don't come from YouTube.
 
We now have at least 478 posts, and the thread will be automatically shut down around 501. Is some staff member willing to restart it in a genuine "staff only" format, preferably with a summary and a page list in the beginning?
 
Guess sleep will have to wait...

>Some stuff...with

All I can say is you're reading too much into "some stuff" by assuming I'm just trying to brush off your arguments. And the "not interested" is regarding the fan fiction debate which I haven't called you out for so in turn I wonder, why are you so surprised by me calling you out despite not having an interest in only one single thing you're arguing

>Why...this

Because trying to get rid of more silly aspects of oneself just out of a worry for appearances is simply not a logical thing to do. I don't care if people laugh at us for having Darkiplier on our wiki because it does sound silly and I can understand people finding it funny or if they're more malicous I don't feel they deserve any of our attention. I do care tho if people are laughing at us for being a site about fictional characters blowing shit up that actively tries to take itself seriously because that does feel like something to be mocked for

>Didn't...enough

Yes I did and I also don't see why all the profiles you have a problem with fall under this as opposed to "are allowed but weren't expected to be". Some may do but not all

>"What's...not the wiki"

Yes you aren't, and I can't expect you to speak on behalf of the wiki if you are just giving your own subjective interpretations on why something is bad, instead of referring to the guidelines proper. I can only take your points as your own dissatisfaction, not the dissatisfaction of the wiki or anything actually comparable to the site's policies that were decided by community at large
 
Yobo Blue said:
To quote what Bambu said on Public Perception in another thread, other people's opinions on whether or not we're a joke are immaterial and shouldn't factor into what we allow.
Click to expand...
I can't agree with making the wiki look like a Jokes Battles Wiki that takes itself seriously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dark_Soul20189
  • Locked
The Necessity for references rule change/addition
Replies
29
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
PrinceofPein
  • Locked
LET US BRING SHINZA BACK Part 1
2
Replies
57
Views
15K
Antvasima
Antvasima
LordGriffin1000
  • Locked
Human Statistics Scaling Standards in Fiction (Staff Only)
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
LordGriffin1000
LordGriffin1000
ImmortalDread
  • Locked
Most Important Discussion Rule Section - Staff Thread Creation Guidelines
2
Replies
63
Views
7K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
  • Locked
Maou Gakuin Resistance Discussion [STAFF ONLY]
2 3
Replies
113
Views
10K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top