• 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.

A new rule against profiles for tools and toys?

Antvasima

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
He/Him
VS Battles
Head Bureaucrat
Bureaucrat
Administrator
167,857
76,474
Hello.

Lately there have been some profiles created for ordinary tools, toys, and similar, which we have then deleted if they are noticed.

Do the rest of you think that it would be a good idea to create a specific rule against creating these types of profiles. That way we would at least have a clearer precedent for this than common sense.
 
We have a Weapons category because certain weapons deserve profiles, such as many types of swords, guns and bombs.

Toys do not fall under this category in my opinion.

And unless said tools can and have been used as weapons, such as sledgehammers or pickaxes, I don't really see a reason why they should be added.

I'd support a new rule on this.
 
Thanks for the support.
 
I am neutral about this as you should be able to figure out what belongs and what doesn't but a rule adding clarification wouldn't hurt.
 
Joaco0902 said:
Does this mean that characters like Forky would be deleted? He falls under two of those categories (Tools and toys).
Click to expand...
I think Forky doesn't fall under this since he's a fictional character before anything else. He also has abilities that no IRL toy could have.
 
Joaco0902 said:
Does this mean that characters like Forky would be deleted? He falls under two of those categories (Tools and toys).
Click to expand...
He is an actual character. I am referring to real world objects.
 
To be clear, we are talking about a rule against IRL toys and tools only, correct?

Edit:

Just now seeing that this is in the staff board, my bad.
 
KLOL506 said:
AFAIK no real-world toy has a profile on this page.
Click to expand...
There were Nerf toys and a floating flamenco just yesterday. The latter's case is what generated this discussion since an user doesn't understand that it is a toy rather than an actual vehicle so he argued about its worth.

That's why we're here now.
 
I need to double check because I've been feeling a lot of deja vu over this. Did I previous upload Labo Robot and was it deleted for this reason? I tried to search for any sign of it being posted previously but didn't see anything, so I thought maybe I just forgot to post it in the first place?

(Sorry, didn't realize this was staff)
 
Robot972, the deletion logs state the profiles was deleted because of "Unreliable statistics".

The statistics should be back by accepted calculations.

I don't think this profile would fall under the proposed rule.
 
If the Labo Robot is a toy it still probably shouldn't be allowed in the wiki.
 
Well, a brief rule doesn't hurt at least. It would allow us to cite something other than common sense.
 
The profile is based off the game character, not the cardboard controller itself. Now, I'm not gonna make a profile for, say, the weird bug thing that you attach the joycons to and shake because that is purely a toy, but the robot itself is a character. I just didn't know if was deleted. I'll calc the stats when I get a chance
 
Zark2099 said:
I mean, people were legitimately being serious in adding haxless 10-B sitcom characters and going out to contact authors and stuff. We can never really judge how stupid someone is tbh, since the answer is they're stupider than that. I'm in favour of adding the rule
Click to expand...
^ This is an immensely good point in favour of adding the rule.
 
Well, I would have worded it in a more neutral manner, since I do not want to cause offence, but there is always a big possibility that somebody misunderstands without clear instructions, yes.
 
If I see one more "profiles that are allowed" thread...

First and foremost, it's not that people are stupid, it's classic lite-trolling. They want sitcom characters for the lulz, they want toys for the lulz. They aren't taking this seriously enough (keyword: enough) and that's the problem.

Not everyone is as serious as say, Antvasima, when it comes to the site. This is both a good and bad thing. What matters is balance. This is mostly just a hobby for people.

However, it's clear that we have standards in place for a reason. We have basic integrity. Our role and the very purpose of this site is index fictional characters. Preferably modern-day characters from notable series (but there's room for exception).

We aren't having ordinary toy profiles here. Period. Simply draw line between having fun and boderline trollish behavior.
 
You'd imagine people would be pushing the boundaries of what's acceptible on the site less after the recent YouTube purge on the site.
 
Zark2099 said:
I mean, people were legitimately being serious in adding haxless 10-B sitcom characters and going out to contact authors and stuff. We can never really judge how stupid someone is tbh, since the answer is they're stupider than that. I'm in favour of adding the rule
Click to expand...
Barney Stinso
 
>9-B

>Has actual abilities

>Has speed feats that shouldn't be possible for a sitcom character

Barney's fair play.
 
I think it's common sense and a rule is not necessary. Unless there is a noticeable increase in such profiles currently by multiple users due to legitimate confusion. In that case I can support the rule.

Perhaps we can incorporate the new rule into this existing rule and make it clear that real world tools and toys are not allowed.

"The only exception to these rules is Real Life, which serves as more of a reference for feats and common weapons, events, and animals, rather than being an actual verse."
 
"Common weapons" being a key word there, as well as being a note of contention for some.

Couldn't we add a sub-rule to that one, stating what exactly qualifies as a common weapon?
 
@AKM

I am fine with incorporating a brief mention into another rule. I just don't think that adding such a rule in the first place causes any harm.
 
@Starter Pack

That is probably fine. I am open for suggestions regarding what exactly that our modified rules should say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Locked
A new rule for social media links?
2
Replies
76
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Dark_Soul20189
  • Locked
The Necessity for references rule change/addition
Replies
29
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Locked
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
21
Views
2K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
Flashlight237
Upscaling: Should There Be A Number For It?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Antvasima
  • Locked
Slightly adjusting our rules for bolded "powers and abilities" links
Replies
32
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top