FANDOM


  • 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.

      Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Thanks for the support.

        Loading editor
    • Does this mean that characters like Forky would be deleted? He falls under two of those categories (Tools and toys).

        Loading editor
    • I support Starter's assessment.

        Loading editor
    • I don't think a new rule is necessary at all. It's common sense to not add toys that don't qualify as weapons, and this subject is a thing because a single user doesn't understand the difference while the rest of the wiki does.

      It's kinda pointless to me.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Starter.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Joaco0902 wrote:
      Does this mean that characters like Forky would be deleted? He falls under two of those categories (Tools and toys).

      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.

        Loading editor
    • Thanks for responding.

        Loading editor
    • Joaco0902 wrote: Does this mean that characters like Forky would be deleted? He falls under two of those categories (Tools and toys).

      He is an actual character. I am referring to real world objects.

        Loading editor
    • I support Starter's statement.

        Loading editor
    • AFAIK no real-world toy has a profile on this page.

        Loading editor
    • They have apparently been deleted.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Exactly.

        Loading editor
    • KLOL506 wrote:
      AFAIK no real-world toy has a profile on this page.

      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.

        Loading editor
    • GojiBoyForever
      GojiBoyForever removed this reply because:
      Changed mind
      16:17, November 19, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • 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)

        Loading editor
    • Adding a new rule looks fine.

        Loading editor
    • Labo is a game.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Got it. I'll do that when I get a chance

        Loading editor
    • If the Labo Robot is a toy it still probably shouldn't be allowed in the wiki.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Starter Pack here: Thread:3728611#2

      But Calaca also makes a good point here: Thread:3728611#6

        Loading editor
    • Well, a brief rule doesn't hurt at least. It would allow us to cite something other than common sense.

        Loading editor
    • 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

        Loading editor
    • 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

        Loading editor
    • Zark2099 wrote:

      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

      ^ This is an immensely good point in favour of adding the rule.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Intelligence and common sense are dead.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Zark2099 wrote:
      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

      Barney Stinson

        Loading editor
    • >9-B

      >Has actual abilities

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

      Barney's fair play.

        Loading editor
    • I personally was talking about that Charlie Sheen character that was being added.

        Loading editor
    • 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."

        Loading editor
    • @Zark

      Yes. Whoever wrote it gave him Disease Manipulation for having multiple STD...

        Loading editor
    • "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?

        Loading editor
    • @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.

        Loading editor
    • @Starter Pack

      That is probably fine. I am open for suggestions regarding what exactly that our modified rules should say.

        Loading editor
    • We don't need to add a rule disbarring every dumb profile. You know the profile was dumb. Everyone knows the profile was dumb. We shouldn't humor him with a debate.

        Loading editor
    • Actually, "common weapons" is probably bad phrasing, now that I think about it.

      "Conventional weapons" would serve us a lot better, as that would probably cover normal weapons and other items like hammers that are used as weapons.

      Thoughts on that?

        Loading editor
    • @Promestein

      Well, I like to have a clearly understood structure preventing these kind of things, and a brief rule doesn't cause any harm.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      @Zark

      Yes. Whoever wrote it gave him Disease Manipulation for having multiple STD...

      That sounds like a troll to me, which is already against the rules.

      Clarification can't hurt though, I suppose

        Loading editor
    • Starter Pack wrote:

      "Conventional weapons" would serve us a lot better, as that would probably cover normal weapons and other items like hammers that are used as weapons.

      Thoughts on that?

      That works better.

        Loading editor
    • ^^

      I agree.

        Loading editor
    • Prom has a really good point, I'll just be blunt for once and straight-up tell you what the problem really is. It's our method of handling things. We're doing the opposite of what we should be doing. Rather than makes rules for every single type of profile we don't allow, we should simply better define what we do allow.

      If I made a wikia for fruit battles (Fruit Battles Wiki) and clearly state that only fruit are allowed, then it's common sense and obvious that a profile for a potato isn't allowed. I shouldn't need a rule saying "no vegetables", a rule for "no meat or poultry", or a rule for "no wheat", etc. All of those things are not fruit, so they are automatically disallowed by only allowing fruit. See what I'm saying?

      Keep in mind that I mean no offense, I understand wanting to be as clear as possible to prevent recurring misunderstandings and misconceptions, but I think the current approach we're continuously taking is becoming a bit reductive, if not redundant.

        Loading editor
    • @Sera

      Well, it is harder to define for this type of wiki with a wider range of what we allow, especially as many real world creatures, weapons, and events have been included, which is technically outside of the main point of the wiki. Mind you, I think that they should stay, but nevertheless.

        Loading editor
    • We have noted the exceptional nature of those files. Many real life files can be used as references for calculations and scaling.

      Anyway, Colonel Krukov had this to say on the matter:

      I think that it's best to use common sense as a first judgement as to what is isn't allowed. The second thing is that people should ask an experienced/regular member for their opinion. If people are still struggling if it's acceptable, then a staff member (Preferably a Content Moderator or Administrator) should answer the question.

      We shouldn't be allowing generic items (We're not adding every inanimate object known to man nor blow up water rafts etc.)

      It's somewhat debatable, but I don't think we should be adding every vehicle known to man. I can understand military vehicles but adding every car, boat, plane etc is unnecessary. My solution is to either pick specific things that stand out. For example: World record holders, world's first, technical marvels, and things that have unique technology.

        Loading editor
    • Promestein matches my thoughts exactly.

        Loading editor
    • I agree that we don't need to add a new rule; it should just be common sense that toys such as nerf guns. I think an already existing rule already says no stupid profiles that don't really contribute to anything. Not like we make profiles for every single inanimate object in existence.

      Various guns, swords, and bombs can have profiles, but toys are barely even weapons.

      Also, Sera is right that making a new rule every time becomes redundant as similar to various Discussion Rules; they is far too much redundancy.

        Loading editor
    • Well, it seems like I am starting to get outvoted then. I still don't think that a brief regulation text would cause any harm though.

        Loading editor
    • People are really testing the boundries of what is allowed on the site and it's really starting to wear out my patience. While I can understand not wanting to have an outright rule made for such profiles, not making it known that you'd have to be high as a kite to not see a problem with a goddamn pool floatie on this site is an issue we seiously have to address.

      Also, while we're on the topic of unacceptable profiles, for the love of God, can we please get rid of all the 10-B to 9-C profiles with nothing but the most mundane powers & abilities like Social Influencing that gets you laid and basic level Stealth Mastery I could perform at 3 AM on the way to the fridge? At what point do we just allow Desperate Housewifes profiles, or Bizaardvark profiles?  I honestly don't see the appeal of having these kinds of characters on the wiki, but I don't have a proper argument as to why I think they should go. I think this just boils down to common sense and I can nither expand on that, nor should I have to.

        Loading editor
    • Getting rid of the 10-Bs I could maybe understand but why 10-As?

        Loading editor
    • Honestly, just any of the sitcom verses with profiles that lack any outstanding feats. I think if any one of us can perform all of the feats a character has, it shouldn't be on the wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Well, Sir Ovens has a point about the sitcom characters.

        Loading editor
    • I think we already have a rule that covers tools and toys.

      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.

      Perhaps the only addition that's needed is adding "military vehicles" to the list.

        Loading editor
    • That might be an idea.

        Loading editor
    • I think we should consider prohibiting Nemo from making profiles as he seems to just make them to push boundaries and fond loopholes.

        Loading editor
    • Apologies for speaking on a non-staff thread.

      Anyway, I agree with Goji. I get the vibe Nemo created the profile in the first place to exploit the loophole for the sake of exploiting the loophole which is unnecessary and has already wasted our time even debating this issue.

        Loading editor
    • As with numerous other issues of this vein, I'm tossing in my agreement with Sera.

        Loading editor
    • There are go to be more user like Nemo.

        Loading editor
    • Well, I don't think we need to get rid of every single 10-B character that doesn't have feats. And it is true that due to Google+ getting shut down and plenty of them possibly migrating here, some have complained that the overgrowth in quantity in traffic is leading to drop in quality control. Not going to get into too much detail, and would rather avoid sounding harsh like a few other staff members have, but their motives behind the sentiment is true.

      But yeah, people are introducing a lot of characters, verses, weapons, ect that don't really belong in a Vs debating community; regardless of whether they're published works or fanfiction. I can agree the family sitcom characters where everyone is exactly normal human are out of place around here. And if Nemo is the one making those profiles, I suppose we could ask him not to make any more.

        Loading editor
    • I'd like to clarify, since some people seem to have this misconception, that the 10-B sitcom characters were made by Laguna97, not by Nemo.

      Nemo made a real world weapons profile for a Nerf gun 3 months ago, incessantly argued about why it didn't break the rules, and just yesterday made a real world vehicles profile for a pool floatie, and incessantly argued about why it didn't break the rules.

        Loading editor
    • Well, I am fine with both getting rid of the sitcom characters, the unnecessary toys, tools, and equipment profiles, inserting brief mentions into our rules against them, and forbidding the people who write them from creating any further similar loophole profiles.

      This seems like the most convenient solutions to apply.

        Loading editor
    • As far as I can tell, Nemo clearly broke the rules. As Sera said it's not about making rules for what we don't allow, it's about what we allow. And Nemo is in direct violation of a pretty clear rule which only specifies "common weapons, events and animals". Calling it loophole isn't gonna cut it. We should just tell him to stop and if he doesn't comply then...

        Loading editor
    • You can forbid him from continuing with more of similar behaviour if you wish. He has otherwise been a well-behaved member though, and this did not cause any actual harm, so a ban seems like a serious overreaction.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote: Well, I am fine with both getting rid of the sitcom characters, the unnecessary toys, tools, and equipment profiles, inserting brief mentions into our rules against them, and forbidding the people who write them from creating any further similar loophole profiles.

      This seems like the most convenient solutions to apply.

      Is this acceptable?

        Loading editor
    • Promestein wrote: We don't need to add a rule disbarring every dumb profile. You know the profile was dumb. Everyone knows the profile was dumb. We shouldn't humor him with a debate.

      This ^

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Prom.

      The best thing I can think of is to add something like "If you create unnecessary profiles you will receive a warning or be banned from creating profiles if the behaviour isn't stopped"

        Loading editor
    • Well, I don't think warning.banning them bluntly is the best approach, but I think the first thing would just be telling them that the profiles seem unnecessary or inappropriate. Being naive doesn't make them malicious by default. But I do agree with Prom regardless.

        Loading editor
    • I concur with Colonel Krukov and Prom.

        Loading editor
    • Can somebody remind me what we are supposed to do here/what the conclusions are?

        Loading editor
    • The conclusion was to not change anything, I have no idea why Jasonsith bumped the thread...

      To quote Prome

      We don't need to add a rule disbarring every dumb profile. You know the profile was dumb. Everyone knows the profile was dumb. We shouldn't humor him with a debate.
        Loading editor
    • Okay. Thank you for the reminder.

        Loading editor
    • If you'll forgive my asking: Which varieties of profiles, if any, are henceforth to be disallowed as a result of this thread?

        Loading editor
    • Imaginym wrote: If you'll forgive my asking: Which varieties of profiles, if any, are henceforth to be disallowed as a result of this thread?

      The same stuff that was disallowed before.

      Toys that aren't weapons (such as nerf guns), "vehicles" that aren't weapons (such as pool floaties).

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.