After encountering this issue a multitude of times, I am forced to take action and seek clarification on a certain nitpick in our Versus Thread Rules. Specifically in regard to this rule in particular:
If both sides have equivalent posts with constructive arguments, the thread shall be deemed inconclusive.
This comment in and of itself has been causing many issues as of late. The problem seems to be, at least in my eyes, that this is too vague, and can be wide open to any number of personal interpretations. Some around the wiki have stated that, because of this, any debate that has more than 7 votes on either side, but does not surpass a 3 vote differential, will immediately be placed into grace period, and then added thereafter as Inconclusive once 24 hours have passed.
Incidentally, there are others, such as myself, that suggest that this is wrong, and what determines what gets added as Inconclusive in this way is not the vote count, but time and effort. For instance, if a match goes on for too long with neither side passing the 3 vote differential in order to have a conclusive verdict, then everyone can decide whether or not to finalize the debate as Inconclusive.
Obviously, this divide has been causing a lot of tension and confusion as of late, with this debate being a good example of this, and we need to solidify this ruling to clarify what exactly we should do when we're faced with a situation such as this.
I do not believe that it grace should be placed immediately as it is still an open thread with open arguments still able to be made. Not to mention that at any given time a single vote can give the leading character the win. Putting the match into grace immediately as inconclusive dissuades that from happening when most of the time it’s just that certain vs threads simply do not get as much traction or attention.
I believe that for the thread to go into definite inconclusive there must be no new arguments on either side as well as no new votes for a lengthy amount of time (even a week if only one vote is required to put the match into grace favoring a character).
I think it’s up to discretion of the participants to make the call however if there is more argument to be made or not and whether there will be others participating or not.
I don't mind the idea of giving a lengthier time if such a situation is reached, but I think it should also be allowed for the users, if they have arrived at the conclusion that there is nothing new to be added despite disagreeing still, to decide the inconclusive grace counter can be rolled,
Granted, I do agree the idea from Nico is much better because leaving it to the choice of people can always bring trouble due to, again, a difference of opinion.
I do agree with Nico. And addition to that, I do have to be honest when most Vs threads admittedly get treated more like popularity contests rather than actual Vs debates. Way to often do some people vote for one characters based on one or two simplistic reasons and a bunch of people say FRA. And a lot of people who aren't very knowledgeable on the other character use "Resistance to a certain ability" without distinguishing the level of resistance or said ability. And in the end, it's often times where the only reason a victory was as decisive or at the very least there were votes on one end to get inconclusive simply because of the most popular or most liked character got all those votes because of that.
But yeah, Grace Periods shouldn't be rushed too much.
Being a staff should be irrelevant to this. A KM, specifically one who is knowledgeable on both verses, would have a more important opinion than any singular user on the topic if anyone, and that is only in the event they explain why such an outcome would be the case.
Personally I feel like we should abolish FRA or at the very least heavily restrict how it's used. I had to go out of my way on my own thread to show a character resists BFR when no one else cared to and just said FRA
Discounting FRA in this case is a .... bold option. I don't think anyone will accept it either as we may as well mot count them in general as the only difference between this and other matches is that there are more votes.
Also we don't have to abolish FRA entirely, but if you use it you have to state who's reasons you're using and why, and if someone still has a decent argument to make against said reasons than FRA wont be counted for the time being
That still requires judges of sort to go over all the messages and decide which is a valid vote and which isn't. Now that already kinda is but this is a bit more demanding than simply counting votes and avoiding the obviously uninformed/troll comments.
Maybe? That is kind of why we applied grace periods to 7-0 matches so that FRA trains can't get an auto win. Saying FRA isn't necessarily the issue as it is only meant to save space and not clog the thread with repeated argumentation.
Maybe only once a thread is clearly heading towards ad nauseam? At this point new arguments are likely not to be brought up or else ad nauseam wouldn't be happening and users can then decide which side has better reasoning for themselves by FRA specific users' posts which won them over. If anything, it at least forces people to read the arguments or else their votes are invalid.
Edit: I know I said FRA is to help prevent repetition but in regards to the threads this one was made for, ad nauseam is nigh impossible.