Talk:2020 Super Smash Bros. sexual misconduct allegations

Deletion

I've always been iffy on this page being created, except I wasn't around to oppose it at the time it was considered. In general, the majority of the information here is already found on the accused Smasher pages. The topic in general is very sensitive and this page is just going to draw more attention to these than is needed. Yes it sparked outrage in the community, but as put here not everything needs to be noted. I guess one point is that even Nintendo has responded to this, yet even that's already covered on the Smasher pages. Overall I don't even see a reason why we need this article, let alone it is rather poorly written. All of it is already covered in the Smasher pages so this is just repeating already controversial information. Omegɑ Toɑd 22:15, December 8, 2020 (EST)

Hard Oppose: I really don't see anything wrong with compiling everything that went down on one universal page. Sure, it's already covered on individual player articles, but this article serves to bring all that together. I also can't say I really agree with it being poorly written. This was a major event in the scene's history and as thus it should deserve it's own article. Señor Mexicano (talk) 02:37, December 9, 2020 (EST)

Strongly oppose. I’m of the camp of loving to know why there was such a large wave of allegations, and such an article is great for explaining the story. Black Vulpine of the 🦊Furry Nation🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 07:07, December 9, 2020 (EST)

Oppose, not only is this way to important to not be documented, but I would argue we owe it to the victims, and to other potentially vulnerable members of the community, to make this information as accessible as possible, so that everyone can know what happened, and also to let vulnerable people know they're not alone if something like this were to happen to them. Alex the Weeb 07:27, December 9, 2020 (EST)

If this were created, say, in July, then I would have supported this, especially since new information was still on the rise. Now, however, we have a lot of solid information to fill the page with. Oppose. Aidan, the Festive Rurouni 12:20, December 9, 2020 (EST)

Mega Oppose: I mean unlike what I talked about in The Big House Online, this one gives more information already. The fact that lots and lots of details are already placed on there makes sense but going into other Smasher pages and just looking at them is a pain. Plus the reactions from the article also give more sense into it, thus concluding that we should keep the page. Howplayz 19:45, December 9, 2020 (EST)

I'm going to have to Oppose as well. It's a touchy subject I agree, but it's part of Comp Smash history and I feel like it needs to be documented, especially all in one convenient place. WolfBloodSpam (talk) 21:02, December 9, 2020 (EST)

Aright you win. I'll just pay you guys my pokedollars, remove the tag, and go black out. Omegɑ Toɑd 21:14, December 9, 2020 (EST)

Expanding this page to include an aftermath section

So it's been over a year since the initial fallout, and needless to say, a lot of information and testimony has come out about many of these cases that have rerailed the discussion in a completely different direction. As such, I've been thinking for a while that this page could use some restructuring: the timeline section deals solely with the initial allegations (so basically the first week of July); the response deals with the community response and subsequent fallout, while going over details such as the age restricted brackets (i.e. the rest of July); and a new "aftermath" section deals with everything after that, most notably the Technicals videos (so in effect all of the later info about Nairo's case would go there). This is a high risk page, though, so I want to make sure I'm not stepping on anyone's toes by proposing this. - EndGenuity (talk) 20:55, September 20, 2021 (EDT)

Agree Rather Strongly. As someone pointed over a year ago, the article is poorly worded with regards to hindsight, using language like "Jisu, one of the victims of ZeRo" for example, showing a particular bias towards a situation that is still left to be validated. The issue here in particular is that a significant portion of the allegations were proven to be valid, so treating unresolved cases in the same light throws the entirety of the page's honesty into question. I'm also not sure what the purpose of quoting Leffen in the same paragraph as the quote aforementioned is, especially considering that he himself is a polarizing figure. I don't think its totally invalid to include his statement, but its framed in a particular way that shows a lot of bias towards one side of the story. - [[SaxonTheDan]] 02:45, January 16, 2022 (EST)