Proposal for Off-Site Links Revision

[Agnaa]

Currently, it's allowed to link off-site respect threads or calculations, as long as certain rules are followed, as outlined in our Editing Rules...

If one desires to feature them, they must be backed up to archive.vn, after which the backed up pages are linked to in blog posts in the wiki (only link to one respect thread or calculation per blog post), with credit given to the original creator(s). It should then be requested that our staff and knowledgeable members evaluate which of the feats that seem reliable or not in the blog post comment sections, and uncertain cases may be handled in content revision threads as well.

Most of this makes sense, but I don't get the part in bold.

I can see some threads of reasoning behind it, those being:

1. The risk of a respect thread/calculation being difficult to link to, due to being cluttered with a bunch of other links.
2. The risk of a user posting many at once, and them essentially getting no oversight due to that.

But I think those can be handled in other ways, such as by:

1. Simply by changing the part in brackets to "formatted such that it's easy for a casual viewer to find the link they're looking for when directed there".
2. Trusting that our staff/knowledgeable members won't be hoodwinked by that sort of thing, as we already expect with profiles and calculations posted directly on the wiki/forum (as there's no real limit for the characters handled by a CRT, or the number of calculations in one blog).

And while the current rules are probably fine for most situations, I'm finding myself working on a verse with ~30 characters, where I'll be creating profiles and respect threads for each of them. I don't want to create 30 blogs, each with a comment from me saying "Yeah, I made this, this is fine", because this aspect of bureaucracy wasn't thought through well.

Also, while we're changing this rule anyway, I'd also suggest adding something about blogs which link to off-site calculations stating the results in the terms of our statistics. I don't want some slip-up where another website draws the line for "Massively Hypersonic" somewhere else, causing confusion.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath

What do you think about this?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

All of that seems fine to me. No complaints.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks alright to me.

 

[Elizhaa]

The changes seem fine.

 

[Flashlight237]

I do have a question since Ant did get on me about this. If I were to put multiple calculations in a single blog (especially ones focusing on various aspects of a character, not just AP/Dura), would I still be restricted to one singular link to said blog, or would I still have the right (and sometimes obligation, unfortunately) to link-spam?

Also, in one aspect...

(as there's no real limit for the characters handled by a CRT, or the number of calculations in one blog).

Hadn't the limit always have been five calcs per blog? Or is it just me being an Oldhead?

 

[Agnaa]

I do have a question since Ant did get on me about this. If I were to put multiple calculations in a single blog (especially ones focusing on various aspects of a character, not just AP/Dura), would I still be restricted to one singular link to said blog, or would I still have the right (and sometimes obligation, unfortunately) to link-spam?

I'd say that you could just post one link, I could imagine formatting like:

Multiple Calculations

Tony's Speed: FTL (1.5c)

Joe's Earth Sphere: 8-C (0.8 tons)

Hadn't the limit always have been five calcs per blog? Or is it just me being an Oldhead?

I remember seeing many get posted and evaluated with more, and I don't remember seeing that limit around anywhere, but it could be a thing.

But my guess is that, at most, it's a preference among CGMs.

 

[FinePoint]

I agree.
It makes for more sense for the rule to stress clarity than to set a hard limit on specific links per blog post.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Agnaa That seems like enough approval, so you can probably apply this.

 

[Antvasima]

I also think so, yes.

@Agnaa

 

[Agnaa]

I've applied it, locking.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.