• 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.

Versus Match Addition Rule Removal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Assaltwaffle

Assaltwaffle

VS Battles
Retired
8,438
3,293
The way we currently do Versus Match additions forces a grace period of 24 hours after 7 votes for either character A, character B, or inconclusive has been reached. After the grace period has past the thread can be posted in the Versus Match Additions Thread (for locked profiles) or it can be added by a user that knows the format. However, a rule exists that if the vote is unanimous, the match does not need to be given a grace period but instead can be added immediately. This rule should go.

This rule does nothing to encourage good discussion. Within 24 hours another user can easily arrive and present new and insightful arguments as to why a character should or shouldn't win, which will shift votes. Even if a definitive conclusion has been reached and no vote will be changed, nothing is lost. The thread will be remembered by someone involved the next day and the match will be added.

The only thing the rule rewards is blind "FRA"ing by removing the time needed for a valid counterargument to be presented. For popular characters, such as Altair or Rimuru Tempest, 7 unanimous votes can be reached very quickly and a potentially bad/invalid matchup can be added to the profiles without contest. While removing this rule will not prevent bad matches from being added, it will limit such occurrences while not punishing well-argued threads.
 
This seems fine to me. blind FRAing just because someone requested it in their thread is not really that fair in my perspective.
 
So in short, Grace Period is needed regardless of whether or not it unanimous?
 
Seems like something about implementing a GP after Unanimous Vote Counts

If so, I agree with that
 
This seems fine to me as well.
 
Seems fine, but in reply to matthew schroeder, I wouldn't like that at all as I tend to fra for reasons monarch said. I don't feel that it's necessary to post another way for them to win when a valid conclusion has already been made. But I suppose I could start mentioning the argument I stand with.
 
AguilaR101 said:
We should not count simple "FRA" posts as a valid votes unless they mention the poster/s they agree with.
Click to expand...
That's a whole 'nother can of worms that can be covered later. This thread shouldn't start on that issue.
 
I would like to say that "FRA"-ing is legitimate assuming the person voting is knowledgeable (or, at least, somewhat knowledgeable) on the arguments for either side. If one argument is simply more legitimate than the other, I don't think we should denounce people for saying 'blank FRA'.

Anyhoo. I'm neutral on the ordeal. I see points for keeping it (rewards quick responses with the prospect of actually getting matches done) and removing it (does potentially lead to the lack of an argument for the other side).

I will say, this sort of thing is exactly what the Removal board is for, no? So I am very much neutral about this.
 
I completely agree with removing this rule. I'm getting tired of people coming into my threads and blindly FRAing. This is getting old and it really needs to stop. Removing this rule would be better because people would be able to look back at their votes.
 
People could just give their own valid reasoning/justification or could point out the user and say (For example) "Voting for Rimuru for Assalt's reason"
 
Lancer45Man said:
People could just give their own valid reasoning/justification or could point out the user and say (For example) "Voting for Rimuru for Assalt's reason"
Click to expand...
That's splitting hairs. That's the same thing as saying "Rimuru FRA'.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
I will say, this sort of thing is exactly what the Removal board is for, no? So I am very much neutral about this.
Click to expand...
The removal board is for removing matches which are outdated and/or are no longer applicable. Not removing matches which were just made and added because of hasty FRAing before the people from another time zone even get a chance to debate.

This kind of debate should happen in the vs thread itself instead of the Removal Board, hence why I feel a 24-hour window is necessary.
 
I know this is the wrong place for it, but for everyone who says that we should specify our reasonings for using FRA's, or just banning them altogether...no.

FRA literally means "For Reasons Above." You shouldn't have to go further than that, unless there is a good reason why the original reasons you based a vote upon is incorrect. Then, and only then, should the votes be discarded, as the reasons one voted for were proven wrong. Otherwise, there really isn't an issue in it. Plus, to be fair, if people are voting for a specific character, then they must've at least glanced at the reasonings given. And if they skip to the end without realizing that the original reasoning was debunked, then they can be kindly reminded of that, and then they can either change their vote, or their vote can be fully ignored.

Really, it's not that hard.
 
I can agree with having grace on unanimous battles.

I wholeheartedly disagree with removing the ability for regular users to add battles, which I hope is something that I just read wrong from the OP.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
And FRAs should be banned or not count at least.

I personally hate adding Threads to profiles in the first place.
Click to expand...
I heavily disagree with the first, vehemently disagree with the second.
 
Dargoo Faust said:
I can agree with having grace on unanimous battles.
I wholeheartedly disagree with removing the ability for regular users to add battles, which I hope is something that I just read wrong from the OP.
Click to expand...
I don't think the OP mentioned anything about removing regular user's ability to add battles.
 
Ah, I just read incorrectly then.

This looks fine. Although expect people to auto-add at 7 for a while after this because of how engrained the previous rule is, so make sure to enforce it.
 
@AKM The Removal Thread should be a place to fix mistakes made before. Adding stomp matches, cases like the above, or changing matches due to stat changes.

Shouldn't restrict its purpose, and like I said, I'm neutral to the idea of adding a 24 hour wait period. Doesn't affect me one way or the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Planck69
  • Locked
Touhou Thread Rule Removal
2
Replies
56
Views
4K
Planck69
Planck69
MasqueTLDF
  • Locked
DxD Rule addition: Class Scaling
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
MasqueTLDF
MasqueTLDF
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
387
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
YmTheSuper
Location dependent abilities
Replies
2
Views
131
Homie890
PrinceofPein
Minor Overgeared Revision (Naming Rule)
Replies
15
Views
1K
Suigetsuhyugs
Suigetsuhyugs
Back
Top