Possible new rule for Upgrade/Downgrade threads

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

It may be me just over-reacting but I still would like to say what's on my mind at the moment.

After participating in some recent threads, but more specifically Upgrade and Downgrade threads for some characters, I felt I should make this thread to explain my personal thought on this matter. And that is.....I believe we should make a rule about voting. In other words, Agreeing/Disagreeing. That people who vote on something in a thread should give a more detailed explanation as to why they are voting for said part in topic rather than just saying "I agree" or "I disagree".

Now don't get me wrong. People are completely entiltied to their opinions about any topic they are in and it is NO different here. That's not what im discussing. Im not targeting anyone's right to choose a side in a topic, nor am I targetting anyone period. What I wanted to discuss is a more In-General basis.

Recently, im beginning to feel that some members (again, in general) are absuing the way we agree/disagree on threads. For example, if someone makes a thread for Character A to be upgraded to such and such Tier and some who comments just says "I agree" or "Disagree", I believe the only reason they are saying as such is to further support/stop a character from getting the upgrade, with no other purpose in mind. And it also works the same for Downgrade threads as well. With all due respect, I find this method sort of unfair and somewhat strange. Because if we were to keep this kind of method in-check, it wouldnt rightfully represent how we treat characters. We would only be agreeing just to make a character go higher or lower and then it starts to become Biased. In other words, there wouldnt be any fair, real actual reasons towards the topic. Furthermore, keeping this kind of method would also potentially make characters go into certain tiers that they were never rightfully supposed to be in to begin with. And this also works the same if a character gets downgraded when they were never supposed to be. It might lead to an unfair upgrade/downgrade for that character when other characters do not get the same treatment. And it would all be because of no specific, concrete reasoning. It would just be because "we have more people who agree/disagree" with said proposal.

I suggest that in future threads, we should make a rule about this so that we can get more members to use more detailed reasonings as to why they believe Character A should be placed "here" or receive "that" specific ability. Not only that, but it would also make things more fair for other verses so that no one gets more special treatment then the other. It would make things more balanced and un-biased. Im not asking for everyone to explain their opinions, as they really shouldnt have to at all, but all I am suggesting that they should have at least a bit of creditablity behind their interpretations so that at least the said topic has real thinking and discussion put into it.

Does anyone see issues with this?

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

I agree with this idea. This way the system is less biased and more democratic.

 

[Ryukama]

I see your point, however often times someone has already said all of the things you had in mind. So you really have nothing but your support to add to the conversation. And support is very important.

Of course the reasons people are agreeing with has to be legitamate. If one random person says "We should make Naruto 1-A" and a 12 people say "I agree with X" that isn't going to get accepted.

If someone has illegitamate reasoning for a thread, it will likely get called out by someone else. And regardless of other people supporting it, we'll listen and consider.

So in all, I respectfully do not think any major rule needs to be implemented or enforced. Rather we make sure that if several users I saying "I agree with X," that X's reasons are legitamate in the first place.

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

I do agree that members should write more then a few words saying they agree or disagree, but I don't think forcing them to write paragraphs is necessarily a good idea. If they agree or disagree, it be helpful for others to back up their reasoning as to why they agree or disagree and whether or not its consistent or legitimate in the context of the series. Although, I'm not sure if accept upgrades/downgrades solely on the amount of people who agree, but on staff input and input from people really knowledgeable of the verse.

In short, I think this should be encouraged, but not enforced.

 

[ScarletFirefly]

^^ This

The matter has been discussed other times, also regarding vs threads, me being someone that started one of these discussions.

The thing is, you can't completely remove the fact that people are biased towards or against certain characters/verses. If someone writes detailed arguments as to why X revision should be accepted, people should have the right to agree with said arguments, without rewriting them themselves. This way you let biased people slide, but there's nothing you can really do about that, voting is a popularity contest to some extension,

The only thing I would like is this. If someone presents an argument and other people agree with it, it should be their responsibility to defend that argument should someone else challenge it. Unless no one defends the argument, everyone's votes argreeing with it, should not be counted.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Oh yea of course they shouldnt have to write paragraphs about their reasoning. A few words or a sentence is good. I understand that it really shouldnt be enforced but at the same time I feel it should, or just be extremely encouraged

It's not just about a character being upgraded to another tier, such as Naruto being 1-A, the problem with that example is that it would be ridiculous for those to agree and I highly doubt anyone would agree at all. It would be for more of those who are upgrade/downgradeable, but that the actions actually make sense. As in, Im extremely certain people do not need to make an essay about how a low tier character such as Luffy needs to be upgraded to a level that wouldnt even make sense for One Piece to ever get. See what I mean?

Furthermore, if its only encouraged, that would still make it optional and, coming from an in-general perspective, those of us who are either biased or are "fanboys" to one character could just choose not to give a reasoning to their agree/disagreement and could continue to rinse and repeat this small issue. And it would then be hard to distinct or separate the biased from the un-biased.

Not that your example was dumb tho Ryukama. You were making out your point and I appreciate your input completely and definitely.

 

[Ciruno_Fortes_(COB)]

It makes sense but what if there's nothing else to say or everything is covered? I do support this though since it'll make us debate more regarding the credibility and would showcase points more easily. But what if it's a simple scaling buff or something along the likes of that that's basically common logic?

 

[RadicalMrR]

Well we say, "I agree/disagree for reasons above" so that we dont have to write exactly what the people above wrote. Sometimes I have a very similar opinion to someone on a subject so all I would be doing is paraphrasing what they wrote.

Also if the reason for the upgrade/downgrade is ridiculous say for example "I think Goku should be tier 2 because he deserves it" and we got 80 people blindly agreeing to its still not gonna go through because

• They need a valid reason.

• They need a mod to evaluate it.

Unless the mods, who are supposed to be unbiased as possible, go rogue or something the changes wont blindly be made. Not to mention we already have a rule saying that 1 good argument is better than an infinite amount of people agreeing to an argument with no reason.

 

[Ryukama]

@ProfessorKuku4Life

My example was of course purposely over exaggerated in order to articulate the point in an easier to understand manner.

My point is if someone's justifications for an upgrade/downrgrade are completely unreasonable, it most likely will not get accepted regardless of a bunch of people saying "I agree."

While I acknowledge the potential problem, I believe such a drastic solution is not needed. Rather make sure that the person's points who others are agreeing with make sense.

Also if X said everything I was going to, giving me no new input to add, copy and pasting his/her entire argument won't be much better than just saying "I agree." And hypothetically biased people can just rehash biased arguments.

Hence forcing/immensely encouraging others to write essays instead of "I agree" really won't make things much better.

So once again, as long there is an effort made to ensure arguments are reasonable, we've got a pretty good/the best possible solution for this issue.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

I don't think there should be a rule requiring that members write detailed explanations about why they think a character should be upgraded or downgraded, i think it should be encouraged but not enforced. As was already said, a lot of times what is being argued for an upgrade or downgrade has already been discussed before numerous times and if someone simply explains why that upgrade or downgrade happen last time, and other people agree with that reasoning i don't see anything wrong with that. However just because a lot of people agree with something doesn't mean it's right either.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Hmm. Fair Enough.

Thank you for giving your input and my fault if I caused any unneccessary trouble

 

[Gemmysaur]

I agree.


No, really, I do. Just that, it's more "strongly recommended/preferable" than "required" as it would be difficult as a commenter/voter to give his 2 cents if he has to explain himself but the points that can be discussed have already been exhausted but that's just a case by case basis methinks.

It'd be nice though if they don't simply say "I agree" but that they could at least point out which points they find agreeable and vice versa, along with whatever insights they have if there is any.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

It makes sense but what if there's nothing else to say or everything is covered? I do support this though since it'll make us debate more regarding the credibility and would showcase points more easily. But what if it's a simple scaling buff or something along the likes of that that's basically common logic?

To be fair here it depends

For example if the scaling makes sense and if it involves characters scaling to other characters, then that could be possibly questioned and/or explained in your reasoning.

Tho there are exceptions too. For example (man I REALLY need to stop saying that lol), if its a thread that involves calcs then they wouldntt be effected by this. Unless the numbers or values are inaccurate, there's nothing really to question since its simple math. Tho given how most of us who comment on these types of threads don't know everything about calculating, there wouldnt be much of anyone to question the math anyway

But I see your point here tho

 

[Akira1298]

I agree , That system is fine as long the person proves the character needs to be buffed or nerfed, if there isn't any real proof the nerf or buff should be discarted.

 

[Burning_Full_Fingers]

^^ This

The matter has been discussed other times, also regarding vs threads, me being someone that started one of these discussions.

The thing is, you can't completely remove the fact that people are biased towards or against certain characters/verses. If someone writes detailed arguments as to why X revision should be accepted, people should have the right to agree with said arguments, without rewriting them themselves. This way you let biased people slide, but there's nothing you can really do about that, voting is a popularity contest to some extension,

The only thing I would like is this. If someone presents an argument and other people agree with it, it should be their responsibility to defend that argument should someone else challenge it. Unless no one defends the argument, everyone's votes argreeing with it, should not be counted.

This. It happens in versus threads too. Sometimes, it's a matter of who gets there at the right time. I agree with this completely especially the last part.

 

[Nico-v11]

I agree with what has been said. Sometimes a person may simply agree for one character winning a fight while misinterpreting the information. If the person misinterpreted the information then how would we know if their criteria is acceptable?

For example, lots of fights have speed equalized. Some simply win due to that simple fact. Like many of us (me included) we have accidentally not read the fact that there are restrictions in a certain fight, which may make us choose the wrong character that should actually win.

A simple and short explanation of why a character should win would clearly help the community determine whether the vote was casted appropriately.

Of course making it a rule would make others shy away from the site by being forced to do things a certain way, yet I believe we definitely should encourage this.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Well in terms of fighting, we already don't count votes that dont have reasoning behind it

But in general wise you could say that.

 

[Lasatar]

I'd say we don't necessarily have to write tremendously long paragraphs, but we do at least have to provide a reason as to why we agree or not. If someone else has said a reason that you support as well, you could say "I agree with (Username)", and maybe put a bit more evidence in there as well. I'd wager that most people on the wiki have done TEEEC paragraphs at least once in school. Just do a somewhat simplified version of that.

 

[Antvasima]

Ryukama is correct.

Repeating previously stated arguments is pointless, and for practical reasons, the staff, who are the ones usually clearing upgrades or downgrades, have to listen to the arguments, and make a call, without spending lots of time rehashing old points.

We handle lots of different topics every day, and cannot work ourselves to burnouts arguing extensively in all of them for hundreds of posts.

In fact, usually we do not have enough know-how about a topic to do so. We simply have to make do with listening to other people's points, and attempting to evaluate if they sound reasonable.

Is it an imperfect system? Yes, but for the sake of efficiency, and that there should even remain a staff to prevent this wiki from collapsing, and clearing that anything at all gets done, we have to be practical about this issue.

Enforcement rules would be an extremely bad idea.

 

[Tivanenk]

I completely agree.


...Crap.

 

[Antvasima]

Agree with the first post, or agree with somebody else?

 

[Tivanenk]

Agree with the first post, or agree with somebody else?

Oh, I agree with the first post because I've always thought that a simple agreement doesn't add much to the discussion and usually self-serves to spite a theory or glorify it. I'm guilty of it in several occasions as well.

I just made a joke about it by going completely against what the post was addressing while agreeing with it at the same time.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, as I mentioned, from a practical angle, this would be completely unworkable for me and the rest of the staff, and largely cripple our work with the wiki.

If we would essentially forbid ourselves from replying, almost no upgrades or downgrades whatsoever would get cleared.

Hence, this suggestion is definitely not going to be accepted.

 

[Lasatar]

It might be best to have explainations as a reccomendation, but not an actual rule. That should be good enough.

 

[A6colute]

It might be best to have explainations as a reccomendation, but not an actual rule. That should be good enough.

Agree.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, again, speaking as one of the people who has to do much of the work with clearing content revision threads, inserting a regulation about this would be downright dangerous for the wiki.

Even a recommendation might help regular members to constantly question our judgement, preventing lots of threads from reaching a conclusion.

That said, as Ryukama mentioned, of course the agreement has to actually be based on a solid argument from another member.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I am with agreement with Ryukama and Antvasima, though I understand Tivanenk and the OPs concerns.

In a battle thread, or an upgrade / downgrade thread, simply posting one word responses that don't clarify anything isn't enough.

Let me show you a hyphotetical scenario:

Person A: I believe that this character should be upgraded from his current Status as Building level and Subsonic. In a recent chapter, he not only dodged automatic fire but also destroyed numerous city-blocks with a punch.

In a thread like this, there is no reason whatsoever for someone to respond like:

Person B: I agree with upgrading Character X to Multi-City Block level and Supersonic+, due to his feats of dodging automatic fire with ease and destroying multiple city blocks with a punch.

It's redundant and doesn't sound natural. Similarly in battle threads, you don't need to write 4 paragraph posts in order to win. Often just a couple of lines, or one paragraph can explain your reasons.

 

[Antvasima]

Exactly.

 

[RadicalMrR]

For anyone who doesnt know what were talking about just read the comments here, we have like 8 people who have written a paragraph all saying the same thing but slightly differently.

 

[Kyo_Zero]

I agree with what you're saying, however I imagine a lot of the time people say agree/disagree mainly because of what's already been said and they can't add anything more to the discussion that what's already been brought up, it's just that they didn't state that they agree for reasons already given. And if you ask me, it's completely absurd to expect everyone to bring forth their own reasoning and arguments to the table in order to have their opinion considered, since with some of the larger threads, we'd run out of things to say pretty fast outside of just simply discussing with people.

Granted if the first thread of a match is just simply "This character wins" and fails to state a reason, then yeah, that's not good enough (No doubt I'm guilty of this at one point in this wiki). I mean heck I'd disagree that simply stating "This character wins due to higher AP and Durability" since a good matchup usually has more factors than just who has the bigger numbers, and frankly seems rather pointless, since if that was genuinely all that mattered, then the person who made the topic could have just looked at the numbers and though "This person has bigger numbers therefore = win", and may well have just posted the topic for the sake of giving a win to a character they like.

TLDR; Encouraged but not enforced.

 

[Anderson2003]

Really good. This makes the most sense out of anything.

Basically, one needs to have coherence and actual reason, with specifications and logic for their statement. It changes a "Yes or No" question to a "Explain" question, and by all means has my support.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, again, this is definitely not going through. It would cripple the staff and the wiki itself.

 

[Reppuzan]

I'm also on the side of Encourage rather than Enforce, since it would be tiresome and impractical to monitor hundreds of users and make sure they all explain their points on every thread. I'm a weirdo in that I don't mind writing out short essays to explain my points, but others aren't the same and it is simply too daunting and downright authoritarian to do so.

If it isn't going through I might as well close this since the Staff consensus is ultimately against it due to how tedious and restrictive this would be.