Controversial Powers on New Pages - Editing Rules Tweak

[Agnaa]

From our Editing Rules

Blogs for 2-A or higher tier and particularly controversial powers will be subject to extra scrutiny and will need the approval of staff members.

The first word here seems out of place to me; why would we limit what is on blogs, rather than what is on profiles?

To make more sense, I think that the wording should be tweaked to

Profiles with a 2-A or higher tier and particularly controversial powers will be subject to extra scrutiny and will need the approval of staff members.

But that makes me wonder whether we want that as a rule, given this rule immediately above it:

Profiles for characters that have any statistic or ability that is Low 1-A or above are not allowed to be created unless their reasoning has been evaluated and accepted by the wiki staff via a content revision thread or explanation blog, or if they scale to characters whose reasoning has already been evaluated.

If we have that exact wording, the implied rules I get are:

1. If a character has any new statistic or ability at Low 1-A or above, that needs to be accepted in a CRT or explanation blog.
2. If a character has a tier of 2-A or above, and has any controversial abilities, that needs to be accepted by staff members, and this can be done outside of a CRT.
3. Otherwise, the profile can be posted freely.

Which I think is a bit awkward. We may want to roll them into one rule, so that "this can be done through CRTs or a blog" and "scaling is an exception" explicitly apply to both.

Or heck, we may just want to get rid of the "2-A or above and has controversial abilities" one entirely. idk

 

[FinePoint]

I think it would make the most sense to just require a CRT for both, rather than either have a strange situational standard and/or pass it off to the overworked content moderators who don't realistically have enough time or feedback to consider the accuracy of complicated statistics.

I also feel like there was another staff thread about this recently.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't mind if we combine these two rules into one whole.

 

[Vietthai96]

I say, we combine two into one rule, and have 2-A as a baseline threshold that require the creation of CRT for evaluation and acceptance. Though if other feel 2-A is too harsh, we can increases the threshold

Remove the blog part cause nowaday we need to make actual page for any major blog, such as cosmology blog

 

[Agnaa]

I say, we combine two into one rule, and have 2-A as a baseline threshold that require the creation of CRT for evaluation and acceptance. Though if other feel 2-A is too harsher, we can increases the threshold

Remove the blog part cause nowaday we need to make actual page for any major blog, such as cosmology blog

To clarify, combining them would mean the rule would essentially function as "If the character has a tier of 2-A or above and a controversial ability, or has any statistic or ability at Low 1-A or above, it needs approval in a CRT or blog. Unless those come from scaling to already accepted profiles."

It would not require CRTs/blogs for all profiles with any statistic or ability at 2-A or above.

 

[Vietthai96]

Welp, that is not fine at all, certain things still need to be evaluated to pass, such as controversial abilities.

 

[Agnaa]

So, say, you might want all profiles with controversial abilities to have a CRT/blog, and all profiles above a certain tier (perhaps 2-A) to go through that vetting, too?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm kind of divided at the moment.

 

[Vietthai96]

So, say, you might want all profiles with controversial abilities to have a CRT/blog, and all profiles above a certain tier (perhaps 2-A) to go through that vetting, too?

Only in case those abilities wasn't accepted anywhere first, it is fine if the abilities was accepted. The impression i get from the rule is that any profile that is Low 1-A and above are free to be created and added as long as the reasoning for their tier and abilities have been evaluated, accepted and established. 2-A and above profile however will be subject to extra scrutiny and will need the approval of staff members mean you aren't free to make profile regardless the reasoning for their tier or abilities have been evaluated, even minor abilities

 

[Agnaa]

Only in case those abilities wasn't accepted anywhere first, it is fine if the abilities was accepted. The impression i get from the rule is that any profile that is Low 1-A and above are free to be created and added as long as the reasoning for their tier and abilities have been evaluated, accepted and established. 2-A and above profile however will be subject to extra scrutiny and will need the approval of staff members mean you aren't free to make profile regardless the reasoning for their tier or abilities have been evaluated, even minor abilities

I don't fully understand what you're saying.

 

[Vietthai96]

I don't fully understand what you're saying.

I mean both rules are somewhat contradicting

Profiles for characters that have any statistic or ability that is Low 1-A or above are not allowed to be created unless their reasoning has been evaluated and accepted by the wiki staff via a content revision thread or explanation blog, or if they scale to characters whose reasoning has already been evaluated.

This mean you can create Low 1-A or above profiles freely and add them as long as they scales to an already evaluated and accepted Low 1-A or above profile, effectively bypass the need for evaluation, CRT

Profiles with a 2-A or higher tier and particularly controversial powers will be subject to extra scrutiny and will need the approval of staff members.

This however mean any 2-A and above profile (including Low 1-A and above), no matter what, need to be evaluated in a CRT. Which contradict the rule above. Unless we have another form of profile acceptance that isn't require CRT that i'm not aware of

 

[Agnaa]

Ah yeah, I pointed out that tension earlier

Which I think is a bit awkward. We may want to roll them into one rule, so that "this can be done through CRTs or a blog" and "scaling is an exception" explicitly apply to both.

 

[Catzlaflame]

Meh, I don't think 2-A needs a crt. Determining what should require a crt should be more holistic than just higher tier = should need a crt. Tier is obv a major factor to consider because requiring crts for higher tiers mitigates trolls/vandals/"wankers" -- but that population tends to focus a lottttt more on tier 0/1.

I think complexity is the other big thing to consider. 2-A is relatively easy to understand, and thus less likely to need a crt. Tier 1 and 0 is all this reality-fiction trancendence, qualitative superiority, higher infinities, higher dimensions stuff which is harder to digest, whereas I feel like most people can gather what the AP of affecting infinite universes looks like much more easily.

I think we should require CRTs for controversial abilities, regardless of tier.

 

[AlipheeseXIV]

Permission to comment granted by Catzlaflame.

To clarify, combining them would mean the rule would essentially function as "If the character has a tier of 2-A or above and a controversial ability, or has any statistic or ability at Low 1-A or above, it needs approval in a CRT or blog. Unless those come from scaling to already accepted profiles."

It would not require CRTs/blogs for all profiles with any statistic or ability at 2-A or above.

I personally believe this should be the standard moving forward, with some minor differences. Profiles that are at least L1A in my opinion should require evaluations no matter what, as L1A-H1A generally serves as the predominate apex tier one can typically reach on the wiki not including tier 0 (can see this based off the exact numbers of profiles that are in L1A vs something like 1B), considering how important it is for the wiki to stay as reliable as possible I think this would make the most sense. However, in the case of profiles being below L1A but above 2A I think it should be fine to release them without a CRT if, and only if, said character(s) are scaling to already accepted profiles at these tiers. I think this would lighten the workload of the amount of CRT's staff have to evaluate, while simultaneously giving still high rated but not very popular verse's a chance to push forward with their profiles without having to wait long stretches of time for an accepted CRT. Especially when they may largely be echoing already accepted and existing concepts, constructs, or character profiles within a verse.

However, conversely, this naturally does carry the obvious risk of increased "wanked" or improperly indexed profiles slipping under your guys radar. So its understandable if you guys disagree with this, but yeah, that's my personal opinion as someone who's on the opposite side of the spectrum I mentioned here and could benefit from such a thing being instated.

I think complexity is the other big thing to consider. 2-A is relatively easy to understand, and thus less likely to need a crt. Tier 1 and 0 is all this reality-fiction trancendence, qualitative superiority, higher infinities, higher dimensions stuff which is harder to digest, whereas I feel like most people can gather what the AP of affecting infinite universes looks like much more easily.

I agree with this as well, but at the same time I think it should be handled on a case by case basis. Since, at times such tier increases for a verse tend to be applied to a fairly broad list of fighters I'd say. Like, for example, Magic Gods in Toaru all scaling to/above Othinus, or similar chain scaling in something like DBH.
In a case like this, I think it would be fine to scale those characters to their respective tiers without a CRT. Assuming they then have statements of being comparable to, or stronger than that character of course, such a thing should be resolved by adding said proof to the justification for AP or whatever.

 

[Vietthai96]

Ehmmm, the problem isn't about making CRT or not, but it is about how there are two contradicting rules which need to be solved. The Low 1-A and above rule allows you to freely create ad add profile to the wiki without the need of a CRT as long as those profile scales to an already accepted profile or blog. But the 2-A and above rule said CRT is required when one want to add a profile, even if that profile scale to an already accepted profile

 

[Thermor]

Permission given by @Vietthai96

So how do we determine if an ability is controversial or not? Also would the rule apply to layered "normal" abilities? Like 100 layers of mind manip.

 

[Agnaa]

User judgement. It's unfeasible to write a concrete list, since there's too many possibilities.

 

[Vietthai96]

Permission given by @Vietthai96

So how do we determine if an ability is controversial or not? Also would the rule apply to layered "normal" abilities? Like 100 layers of mind manip.

Iirc, Conceptual Manipulation, Information Manipulation, Plot Manipulation, Causality Manipulation, Fate Manipulation, Abstract Existence, Nonexistence Physiology, Nonduality (Transduality in the old days), Regeneration (Low-Godly to High-Godly, the deleted True-Godly), Acausality (Types 4 & 5). These abilities is considered as controversial abilities due to the belief of them being overpowered abilities

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Mr. Bambu @Qawsedf234 @Celestial_Pegasus @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist

Your help would be appreciated here.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Your help would be appreciated here.

In my mind I agree that it should be combined into one rule. These are my opinions;

• Any controversial ability requires a CRT (List Viet's stuff)
• Any tier higher than Low 2-C requires staff approval/a CRT to be added unless an existing scaling chain already exists for that franchise
• Any statistic that is Low 1-A or higher requires staff approval/a CRT regardless of an existing scaling chain

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out. I suppose that seems reasonable.

Should 2-B and above statistics require two staff members, and Low 1-A and above statistics require four staff members including at least one administrator or higher who is somewhat experienced with the standards of the high tiers in question?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

In my mind I agree that it should be combined into one rule. These are my opinions;

• Any controversial ability requires a CRT (List Viet's stuff)
• Any tier higher than Low 2-C requires staff approval/a CRT to be added unless an existing scaling chain already exists for that franchise
• Any statistic that is Low 1-A or higher requires staff approval/a CRT regardless of an existing scaling chain

Guess this is reasonable.

 

[Vietthai96]

IIRC, Tier 2 already requires a hard number of at least 3 staff members, including 1 admin?

 

[Antvasima]

IIRC, Tier 2 already requires a hard number of at least 3 staff members, including 1 admin?

Okay. I hope that even more different overlapping rules do not turn too hard to keep track of for our members.

 

[Vietthai96]

Okay. I hope that even more different overlapping rules do not turn too hard to keep track of for our members.

So do you want to keep this, or do we proceed to discuss the new staff requirement for tiering evaluation? A reminder that if I'm not wrong, 3 staff members with evaluation rights, including at least 1 admin, is a fixed number for tier 2 and above. That means it also applies for Low 1-A, 1-A, High 1-A and even 0

 

[Qawsedf234]

IIRC, Tier 2 already requires a hard number of at least 3 staff members, including 1 admin?

You're mixing the rules a bit

Approval of Revisions
In order to ensure that all revisions are thoroughly reviewed and approved, it is necessary for a minimum of two staff members to sign off on any proposed changes. The concluding evaluations must be handled by Thread Moderators, Administrators, and Bureaucrats, who should make an effort to base their evaluations on valid arguments, not personal opinions.

It is essential that at least one staff member is present during any content revision process, as their expertise and knowledge of a verse will be instrumental in ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the revised material. Any suggested changes that do not meet the necessary approval standards will not be implemented.

In cases where the series verse has a significant following or a large amount of material has been published based on its content, it may be necessary to seek approval from a minimum of three staff members to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed revisions (Examples: Naruto, Marvel Comics, DC Comics, Dragon Ball, Devil May Cry, God of War, One Piece, Bleach).

It is important to note that this requirement should not be interpreted as a guarantee that the proposed revisions will be approved if a minimum of three staff members have given their approval. In cases involving big or controversial changes, or in situations where a verse is one where many of our staff members are knowledgeable, it may be advisable to involve as many staff members as possible in the review and approval process. This requirement is in place to ensure that revisions to popular or widely-recognized series verses are thoroughly reviewed and approved by a sufficient number of individuals with the necessary expertise and knowledge.

For content revisions that affect Tier 2 or higher, the participation of at least one Administrator in the review and approval process is required.
The Administrator(s) should provide their evaluations and input regarding the suggested revision, and their decision will be given significant weight in the final determination of approval.

The review and approval of content revisions that affect Tier 1 and/or Tier 0 ratings or that are highly controversial should preferably be conducted by a larger number of staff members in order to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed changes. It is essential that these revisions are evaluated by staff members who possess a reasonable level of genuine understanding and expertise in these areas in order to maintain the accuracy and quality of the revised material.

Input from highly respected members of the community, such as experts on the topic, should be taken into consideration when determining the necessary level of review and approval.

The rules are as follows:

• You need at least 2 staff members for a CRT to pass
• For Tier 2 and higher you need one of the 2 staff to be an Admin
• You need 3 staff for large or controversial franchises
• Tier Low 1-A and higher typically require more staff input with 0 usually requiring the most

Not every Low 2-C profile requires three staff. It just needs at least one Administrator to look at it and these changes don't effect or alter that current standard.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the information Qawsedf234. That seems fine then.

 

[Agnaa]

In my mind I agree that it should be combined into one rule. These are my opinions;

• Any controversial ability requires a CRT (List Viet's stuff)
• Any tier higher than Low 2-C requires staff approval/a CRT to be added unless an existing scaling chain already exists for that franchise
• Any statistic that is Low 1-A or higher requires staff approval/a CRT regardless of an existing scaling chain

I don't like the extra burden this would impose on users, by requiring CRTs in more situations, so I disagree.

But I ofc won't stonewall the thread if I'm outvoted.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I don't like the extra burden this would impose on users, by requiring CRTs in more situations, so I disagree.

I mean the only real change I can think about is changing Low 2-C to 2-A. Since right now that's the current or close to the current standards anyways.

 

[Agnaa]

It also makes Low 1-A and above characters need CRTs even in cases of scaling to already accepted ratings. It also means there's no scaling exemption for controversial abilities.

 

[Antvasima]

It also makes Low 1-A and above characters need CRTs even in cases of scaling to already accepted ratings.

I suppose that may be a valid complaint.

It also means there's no scaling exemption for controversial abilities.

Please elaborate.

 

[Agnaa]

Please elaborate.

If any controversial ability requires a CRT, that sounds like it would apply, even if it's already accepted for the verse in general (i.e. a character with a verse-specific power that contains a controversial ability, a character that's part of a group with an innate controversial ability, or a character that copied another character's controversial ability).

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That objection also seems to make sense then.

How would you modify Qawsedf234's listed solutions above?

 

[Agnaa]

I would allow scaling as an exception to the rule in all cases.

And I would start the vetting at Tier Low 1-C, since I think that's the tipping point for there being less understanding among users/staff of what qualifies.

 

[Antvasima]

I would allow scaling as an exception to the rule in all cases.

Hmm. Shouldn't we still try to use safety precautions for somebody not spamming extremely high tiers?

And I would start the vetting at Tier Low 1-C, since I think that's the tipping point for there being less understanding among users/staff of what qualifies.

Agreed. That makes sense.

 

[Agnaa]

Hmm. Shouldn't we still try to use safety precautions for somebody not spamming extremely high tiers?

1. If they're making new verses, they would still need CRTs for that.
2. If the series itself has a bunch of characters that legitimately qualify, we couldn't really stop them, unless it was spam of indistinct characters whose profiles are essentially copies of each other, which we already try to stop with other rules. Since that spam is bad regardless of whether they're 1-A or 9-C.
3. If the series has characters that don't legitimately qualify, this only applies on page creation, so it could be stalled by a few targeted CRTs to prevent that scaling, or in the profile deletions thread if the reasoning for scaling is nonsensical.

So I don't think that's an issue we need to handle through a rule like this.

 

[Antvasima]

I meant that the scaling likely needs to be proven properly in higher tier cases for the sake of reliability, so we do not get lots of inaccurately scaled 1-A pages, for example.

 

[Agnaa]

I just think such proof isn't very difficult. One could usually sufficiently check it by briefly reading the reasoning and scan(s). Just as with scaling on lower-tiered pages.

As I see it, the big risks are a character having dubious scaling to other characters. If an existing character is rated at 1-A or above, having so many weaker characters scale off of them would probably provide enough anti-feats to downgrade them, so it should prompt us to create a CRT anyway. The other risk is the new profiles simply having anti-feats. These are the sorts of issues that need to be pointed out by another person knowledgeable on the verse. Simply creating a CRT where two admins will say "seems fine" does not actually stop these. And if there is another attentive knowledgeable member, they can simply create a CRT to downgrade it.

 

[Qawsedf234]

And I would start the vetting at Tier Low 1-C, since I think that's the tipping point for there being less understanding among users/staff of what qualifies.

So how about:

• Any controversial ability requires a CRT if it hasn't already been accepted for that franchise (List Viet's stuff)
• Any tier Low 1-C or higher requires staff approval/a CRT to be added unless an existing scaling chain already exists for that franchise
• Any statistic that is Low 1-A or higher requires staff approval/a CRT regardless of an existing scaling chain

 

[Agnaa]

Better, but still doesn't line up with other stuff I wanted. I would also quibble about some of the wording, but that can wait until the draft's posted.