Forum talk:Smash Arena

Archive

1. 1

Semi-protect this page

It appears that there are people who create accounts just to vote in Smash Arena and their user pages, which is not what this wiki is mainly about. In keeping with SmashWiki is not just Smash Arena, I think we should semi-protect this page to discourage people from creating accounts only for this purpose. We could also semi-protect user pages as well. Please share your thoughts. Awesome Cardinal 2000 22:04, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

No. We will continue to allow IPs to vote, and it is pointless to semiprotect userpages because the requirements to get into autoconfirm are trivial. Toomai Glittershine The Yellow 23:07, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

IPs would not be able to vote in the Smash Arena, preventing them from interacting with the Wiki at all. In editing Smash Arena, I believe that the IPs are eventually going to want usernames and such to be individuals along the votes so that they may be unique. Semi-protecting the page would prevent any IP from editing the page, which results in no lack of reason to create accounts in the first place should an IP become interested in the Wiki due to Smash Arena. MegaTron1XD 23:10, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

All right then, I guess I didn't really see it that way. Thanks. Awesome Cardinal 2000 07:14, 14 March 2013 (EDT)

I'll also point out that probation system is in place for these kind of users (though we give them a chance to get used to the Wiki and reform before probating them). Omega Tyrant 09:57, 14 March 2013 (EDT)

Are we really doing this now?

Are we really going to start censoring Smash Arena votes for arbitrary reasons now? That's ridiculous. Not only is this thing about "arguing" not a rule at all, it's completely arbitrary, as Omega Tyrant has not decided to bring up this "issue" until now, when people have done this long post expressing their thought/opinions about a subject many other times before with out any sort of problem. We can't just pick and choose which "arguments" we are going to censor. It's also nonsensical. Isn't the point of Smash Arena to express one's opinion? DoctorPain99 15:19, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

Dude, users ignoring the "Smash Arena is not for argument" in the past doesn't make it right now. The rule got implemented in the first place from users turning Smash Arena into a debate hall, and users before have been warned about posting excessively long votes in Smash Arena. Those linked examples may have got by, that doesn't make them right. Why did those get by? Other users didn't join in on the debate and they just went by unnoticed. I'll certainly start being more strict about this in the future however.

"Isn't the point of Smash Arena to express one's opinion?"

No, it's about picking who you like more, not to debate about why X is better (or in this case, debating about something that isn't even relevant to the Smash Arena matchup). Omega Tyrant 15:33, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

(edit conflict) That rule applies to the comments section, not the votes themselves. It doesn't even imply that they belong to the votes.

I would also like to point out what it says in rule 12, bullet 2: Users can vote for any reason they want. DoctorPain99 15:34, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

"Can vote for any reason they want" does not equal "posting an excessively long vote arguing about it or something unrelated".

If you guys want to argue about Ridley in Smash 4 that badly, make a damn forum about it, don't turn a Smash Arena match with Ridley into a debate hall about it. That is not what Smash Arena is for.

"That rule applies to the comments section, not the votes themselves. It doesn't even imply that they belong to the votes."

It certainly does, why would something that applies to Smash Arena comments not apply to votes? Saying "Terrible's/OT's vote reasoning is dumb" in your vote, as well as any other type of arguing vote, is just as bad as doing it in the comments. Like I said, Smash Arena is not for arguing. Omega Tyrant 15:39, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

If you want to crack down on long votes, fine. But don't make users completely change the message what they say. No matter what way you put it, it's censorship, and censorship doesn't belong here. Also, what types of votes are going to be considered "arguing"? Just the ones you feel like? Are tier positions going to be counted too? Really, pretty much any vote on Smash Arena can be considered "arguing" to some extent. You're going to come up with something more concise if you want this to hold any water because right now to me and to other users, it seems like you're picking and choosing, especially when you were the one who brought up Ridely being playable in the first place actually, Terrible did first, but you did also, and said "dumb people" which was what provoked me into mentioning you, and made a user on the opposite side change what he said in his vote.

And the reason it doesn't apply to the votes is because the comments and votes are two different fucking things. The votes are meant to be the user's thoughts about why the picked who they picked, and the comments aren't supposed to be for that; they're supposed to be things like factual corrections, discussing issues with voting like people voting twice, etc. Any talk of the match-up in the comments clouds its true function and is then just argument. That's why we wouldn't want things about the match-up in the comments, the same doesn't apply to the votes, which, yes, are supposed ot be opinions. If I like Samus better because I don't think Ridely should be playable in Smash 4, that is my opinion and belongs in the votes.

I will admit that me addressing your vote specifically was bad and I will not do it again. And if you want to say long votes are bad, I can't say I completely disagree. But I don't see why stating an opinion about something is such a problem. DoctorPain99 15:50, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

"If you want to crack down on long votes, fine. But don't make users completely change the message what they say. No matter what way you put it, it's censorship, and censorship doesn't belong here."

No it's not, we're not forbidding users from voting who they voted for, they are just being told to adjust their vote so it follows the rules (i.e. not provoking more arguing and not inflating the size of the page so users with browsers that can't handle large pages can still vote).

"Also, what types of votes are going to be considered "arguing"? Just the ones you feel like? Are tier positions going to be counted too? Really, pretty much any vote on Smash Arena can be considered "arguing" to some extent."

Don't be a pedantic ass, you very well know what an argumentative statement is. "I like Samus because I hate Ridley" is clearly not argumentative. "Ridley shouldn't be in Smash 4 because X, Y, and Z" is clearly an argumentative statement, as well as a comment specifically addressing another user's vote reasoning. You want an exact definition of argumentative? "Prone to argue or dispute". You can make a clear cut case for such comments.

"You're going to come up with something more concise if you want this to hold any water because right now to me and to other users, it seems like you're picking and choosing"

Accusatory much? I addressed Toast when he called Terrible's reasoning dumb, and I would of certainly done the same I did to LB to a user who posted a long vote arguing why Ridley should be in Smash 4.

"especially when you were the one who brought up Ridely being playable in the first place, and made a user on the opposite side change what he said in his vote."

If you payed attention to time stamps, you would see Terrible made his vote before me (where he complains about people wanting Ridley in Smash 4), so no, I "didn't bring it up first", and that my vote is a clear parody of it. Did the joke flew over your head? If you want, I'll change what I write in my vote if you and all the other users with votes about Ridley being in Smash 4 edit it out of their votes.

"And the reason it doesn't apply to the votes is because the comments and votes are two different fucking things. The votes are meant to be the user's thoughts about why the picked who they picked, and the comments aren't supposed to be for that; they're supposed to be things like factual corrections, discussing issues with voting like people voting twice, etc. Any talk of the match-up in the comments clouds its true function and is then just argument. That's why we wouldn't want things about the match-up in the comments, the same doesn't apply to the votes, which, yes, are supposed ot be opinions."

The rules apply to each to cut out the same shit; votes are meant for why you like X, not to argue why X is better, as Smash Arena is not for argument. Calling another user's vote dumb in your vote or posting some argument is going to provoke the same shit posting it in the comments does, whether it be retaliatory votes from others or from the user addressed addressing you in the comments. Stop being dense about this, just because it's not clearly written does not mean it does not apply.

"If I like Samus better because I don't think Ridely should be playable in Smash 4, that is my opinion and belongs in the votes.

Cool, you can think that all you want, it doesn't mean you can make a a vote like this arguing X, Y, and Z on why Ridley shouldn't be in Smash 4, or call others dumb for thinking Ridley can be in Smash 4. You want to argue about Ridley in Smash 4? Make a forum about it and don't turn Smash Arena into a debate hall about it.

"But I don't see why stating an opinion about something is such a problem."

Dude it's not stating "just an opinion" that's the problem, it's posting flat out arguments, calling out other users, or any other sort of clear argumentative comment, in your vote that is. This isn't "censoring opinions", it's to keep Smash Arena from turning into Smash Debate, and keep it from draining attention from the rest of the Wiki and keeping it accessible to all non-probated users. Omega Tyrant 16:24, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

Last response: In short, calling out other users is a problem, and I am sorry I did it. Perhaps, MAYBE long votes are a problem. But other than that, no one I know of besides you sees any issue with the vote Blue made. And you keep saying it's a rule. It's not. If you want it be, propose the rule and see if the community supports it or not. Don't stretch rules where you and as far as I can tell, you alone think they apply. DoctorPain99 16:28, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

"Perhaps, MAYBE long votes are a problem."

When Smash Arena consistently breaks the 32K mark and your vote has the same value regardless of what it says, needlessly long votes that just inflate the size of Smash Arena are certainly a problem.

"But other than that, no one I know of besides you sees any issue with the vote Blue made. And you keep saying it's a rule. It's not."

You are certainly familiar with "spirit of rule"? Why do we expressively forbid comments from arguing? To keep Smash Arena from turning into Smash Debate and keep the size of the page down. Blue's original vote is just as much a problem being a vote as it would of been in the comments. Both needlessly argue, both provoke argumentation, and both needlessly inflate the size of Smash Arena. Blue posting his argument in his vote doesn't make it any damn different. Again, stop being a pedantic ass about this. And if "no one but me" sees the issue, they can come here and refute what I said. That comment otherwise holds no water. Omega Tyrant 16:54, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

And if "no one but me" sees the issue, they can come here and refute what I said. That comment otherwise holds no water.

I see otherwise to this. In turn, Smash Arena shouldn't be a place to just add votes with not adding your take on why. Everyone has a voice to say what they feel about the other, and not so derogatory to the other. Applying this rule to future Arena events will surely cause an uproar in the community to counter it, and cause disruptions amongst even the older users who see it as a bit late for addition. It has been done countless of times, and now that it's suddenly a problem is not how it should be like.

Blue's original vote is just as much a problem being a vote as it would of been in the comments.

Then how come this wasn't taken down, and Blue's must be now? Conny 17:05, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

"In turn, Smash Arena shouldn't be a place to just add votes with not adding your take on why. Everyone has a voice to say what they feel about the other, and not so derogatory to the other."

Again, this is Smash Arena, not "Smash Debate". If you guys want to argue something such as Ridley in Smash, make a specific forum for it, don't argue it on Smash Arena. Smash Arena is purely a popularity contest, it's not meant to be anything more, and making it such would be disruptive to the Wiki and prevents users from voting on it who have browsers that can't handle very large pages. This does not refute anything I said.

"and cause disruptions amongst even the older users who see it as a bit late for addition."

"It's too late" is the worst reasoning to not implement/enforce something. Seriously dude, you're going to argue with that? It's never "too late" to implement/start stricter enforcing of something.

"It has been done countless of times, and now that it's suddenly a problem is not how it should be like."

It's always been a problem, why the fuck do you think the "no argument" rule was implemented in the first place? Go look at the damn archive before trying to claim something was "never a problem". A few violations getting through the cracks does not mean it's not a problem.

"Then how come this wasn't taken down, and Blue's must be now?"

Dude did you read anything I posted on here? I already fucking addressed it; it "got through the cracks" as it was one off and no one responded to it. Hell, I did actually reprimand Brian for it on IRC. Also, something not being done in the past doesn't mean it can't be done now; Piratehunter getting away in the past with attacking users on IRC doesn't mean we can't ban users from IRC now for attacking others. Likewise, argument votes getting through in the past doesn't mean we can't put our foot down on it now. Omega Tyrant 17:17, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

LB's original vote is certainly less provoking than OT's, in my opinion. He can put it back as far as I'm concerned. Toomai Glittershine The Dispenser 17:32, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

A big argument post is still provoking others to argue against it (and inflating the size of Smash Arena and turning it into Smash Debate). Refute what I said instead of blatantly ignoring it. Omega Tyrant 17:37, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

Either he is allowed to change his vote back, or you, Terrible, DP99, Cobravictim, Iguy2002, you, Toast, LavaKirby, and ChuckNorris24 must change yours. All those votes are equally argumentative or more compared to LB's in terms of the "should Ridley be playable" debate.

And if you think they're not argumentative at all, that's my point. Toomai Glittershine The Keymaster 17:46, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

In those users' defense (outside DP and Toast), they didn't post an outright argument of "Ridley should/n't be in Smash 4 for X, Y, and Z" (especially a terrible one that was just begging for someone to pick it apart), and I already was contemplating making DP and Toast edit their votes to cut out the callouts. That said, sure, I and the rest can cut out the Ridley in Smash 4 shit. The foot has to be put down to prevent more of it from getting more voters shitting up Smash Arena. Omega Tyrant 17:56, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

@Toomai: Outside of removing the reference to OT, I am vehemently opposed to changing my vote and will support Blue changing his back. DoctorPain99 18:59, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

You better not be telling me you actually thought I was serious about changing all those peoples' votes. Toomai Glittershine The Zesty 19:01, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

You can refute what I said then. The foot has to be put down somewhere, and Blue's vote was the tipping point. Omega Tyrant 19:07, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

Then we'll put your foot down next round, now that this "no seriously, don't post things some people will see as argumentative" standard has been established, and I'll add a rule that says "don't post potentially argumentative stuff as a vote" since that's currently only a rule for comments. Toomai Glittershine The Altruistic 19:10, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

It can be put down now, the "Ridley in Smash 4" shit is getting really out of hand, and is shitting this round up. We don't just go "oh well, next round then" and idly watch as users start posting 500+ large votes/comments arguing with each other about it. Yes the rules should be rewritten to clarify that the votes are not to be used to argue too, but it doesn't mean we can't enforce it now, especially when as pointed out earlier, the "spirit of rule" applies to it. Omega Tyrant 19:16, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

Frankly this was nowhere near out of hand until LB changed his vote in response to your third comment. We can shut this up now and deal with deal with egregious votes/comments and just move on next round. Toomai Glittershine The Jiggy 19:24, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

What, did you actually read the votes/comments and payed attention to the shit that was going on? It was already getting out of hand, with multiple instances of users calling out the votes of others, users on both sides antagonising each other, and then LB making a big and really unneeded argument post. Do you seriously consider the likes of "I'm voting for Ridley just because of how stupid Terrible's reason is.", "Because OT voted for Ridely and thinks he can work in Smash.", "Terrible, that's kind of a stupid reason to not vote for Ridley.", "and besides does ppl really think that Ridley should be in ssb4? Pfft.", "Ridley shouldn't be in Smash because X, Y, Z..", etc., proper Smash Arena behavior? It was all a bunch of asshattery that was only provoking others to jump in, that's certainly a lot more than "nowhere near out of hand". Omega Tyrant 19:47, 13 August 2013 (EDT)

Comments

What exactly is the point of the comments section anyway, now that people have outlawed all the obvious uses of it? Toomai Glittershine The Interspacial 11:13, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

Pointing out how people have gotten facts incorrect is one I can think of. Informing users why their vote was halved is another. Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:11, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

Can't people just write why other people's votes where made half-votes in the edit summary? Scr7(talk · contribs) 15:14, 16 September 2013 (EDT)