Grand Update "Whatever.0" Edition... for Devil Fruits [Idea]
May 6, 2015 7:05:01 GMT -5
stroud likes this
Post by Suriko on May 6, 2015 7:05:01 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't get the outcry against this. I think too many people are assuming that every fruit is going to have to be completely reworked, changed and so on because of this. Rather than that it is more like vio said, It is far more likely that the only fruits that will require a complete rework are those that:
A) have some sort of issues that needs to be addressed. And sorry to say but just because it was approved before, even with the work already put into, doesn't really work for me. Honestly, yes it'd be nice if some powers scaled better, but that isn't really as big of an issue for me. It more applies to the issue of inherent power with the fruit that allows for abusal. My chief example of this is Hanabi and the Tate Tate No Mi. The ability of dissipating the force of an attack throughout the user's body to negate it, is a core ability of this fruit, and one that has caused friction between hanabi and staff on numerous occasions. And this had been ability that had even been re-approved by previous staff.
B) don't meet the standards we currently have. and I'm not talking about the two criteria roin brought up. I've been reviewing some of the fruits already, and I can name at least one that barely meets the word count requirement we currently have, let alone the rest of the issues they might have.
C)This is honestly a very rare case, and one I feel is much more easily remedied that the rest, but wording. Some fruits, while the issue itself might be small, have some questionable wording into their abilities. While this may also not have been intentional. it is something else I feel should be brought to light.
And as for this whole scorched earth thing, As it is currently developing, it is a bit much to call it that. At the moment, it is has better chance of going how vio had previously stated, with the current fruits being reviewed and those with issues being picked out to be addressed more closely. While this may make the process a little longer for staff, it is one that would lead a more smooth transition. And this also would likely be something involving more than one or two staff members as well. And a majority of the fruits would likely only require a small bit of tweaking to their application, at most, a bit of creative copy and paste from an older template to the current one. Which isn't a very hard thing to do
As for the issue of the older fruits not being held to the standard now. Yes, thopse who worked on those fruits may have done their due diligence and getting it approved. And honestly, if they did it properly, I don't see the problem. I won't lie and say that fruit approval isn't a bit stricter now then before, but I don't think the current staff is completely unreasonable either. We'd be just as willing to consider the work put into the fruit before.
As for the fear of how fruit changes will affect older threads, sorry to say, but I'm with roin on this one. These threads are in the past, and should have no bearing on this. Honestly, I feel it is just a means to oppose the idea, rather than have any actual backing.
As for stating whether or not a member may rp with a fruit user because of their fruit, is something that has no backing on either side. No, you can't really show data stating that people have avoided rping with fruit users because of their fruit. but you also can't say that it isn't a possibility, at least until someone comes forth stating such. At times, it is our nature to avoid conflict, even here. Rather than make an issue of it, some may just shrug it off and let the powers that be decide. I personally would rather it not come to that.
As for your check in suggestion, I do feel it could work... if the activity check in was flawed as well. Sorry to say, but the current way we maintain our activity checks, they get abused far too often. Now, I understand certain cases, such as yours, Aubs. and I respect them. But aside from that, we have people who have shown no activity on the site at all, yet still manage to hit the activity check every single time it is brought up. I'm not going to name anyone in particular, but it just seems like it is just a stunt to keep powers they aren't even using simply because they won't have to resubmit them that way. Now again, that may be small group, but it is still a concern associated with this.
Finally, Change always comes with a bit of pain, there is no avoiding that. But to stop ourselves from change because of this fact seems kind dumb. sorry if that offends anyone, but that's the best I can articulate my feelings on that. As for how it may hurt, the most likely reason would be losing older members. And honestly, if people are unwilling to at least consider this to the point of leaving, then that's on them.
A) have some sort of issues that needs to be addressed. And sorry to say but just because it was approved before, even with the work already put into, doesn't really work for me. Honestly, yes it'd be nice if some powers scaled better, but that isn't really as big of an issue for me. It more applies to the issue of inherent power with the fruit that allows for abusal. My chief example of this is Hanabi and the Tate Tate No Mi. The ability of dissipating the force of an attack throughout the user's body to negate it, is a core ability of this fruit, and one that has caused friction between hanabi and staff on numerous occasions. And this had been ability that had even been re-approved by previous staff.
B) don't meet the standards we currently have. and I'm not talking about the two criteria roin brought up. I've been reviewing some of the fruits already, and I can name at least one that barely meets the word count requirement we currently have, let alone the rest of the issues they might have.
C)This is honestly a very rare case, and one I feel is much more easily remedied that the rest, but wording. Some fruits, while the issue itself might be small, have some questionable wording into their abilities. While this may also not have been intentional. it is something else I feel should be brought to light.
And as for this whole scorched earth thing, As it is currently developing, it is a bit much to call it that. At the moment, it is has better chance of going how vio had previously stated, with the current fruits being reviewed and those with issues being picked out to be addressed more closely. While this may make the process a little longer for staff, it is one that would lead a more smooth transition. And this also would likely be something involving more than one or two staff members as well. And a majority of the fruits would likely only require a small bit of tweaking to their application, at most, a bit of creative copy and paste from an older template to the current one. Which isn't a very hard thing to do
As for the issue of the older fruits not being held to the standard now. Yes, thopse who worked on those fruits may have done their due diligence and getting it approved. And honestly, if they did it properly, I don't see the problem. I won't lie and say that fruit approval isn't a bit stricter now then before, but I don't think the current staff is completely unreasonable either. We'd be just as willing to consider the work put into the fruit before.
As for the fear of how fruit changes will affect older threads, sorry to say, but I'm with roin on this one. These threads are in the past, and should have no bearing on this. Honestly, I feel it is just a means to oppose the idea, rather than have any actual backing.
As for stating whether or not a member may rp with a fruit user because of their fruit, is something that has no backing on either side. No, you can't really show data stating that people have avoided rping with fruit users because of their fruit. but you also can't say that it isn't a possibility, at least until someone comes forth stating such. At times, it is our nature to avoid conflict, even here. Rather than make an issue of it, some may just shrug it off and let the powers that be decide. I personally would rather it not come to that.
As for your check in suggestion, I do feel it could work... if the activity check in was flawed as well. Sorry to say, but the current way we maintain our activity checks, they get abused far too often. Now, I understand certain cases, such as yours, Aubs. and I respect them. But aside from that, we have people who have shown no activity on the site at all, yet still manage to hit the activity check every single time it is brought up. I'm not going to name anyone in particular, but it just seems like it is just a stunt to keep powers they aren't even using simply because they won't have to resubmit them that way. Now again, that may be small group, but it is still a concern associated with this.
Finally, Change always comes with a bit of pain, there is no avoiding that. But to stop ourselves from change because of this fact seems kind dumb. sorry if that offends anyone, but that's the best I can articulate my feelings on that. As for how it may hurt, the most likely reason would be losing older members. And honestly, if people are unwilling to at least consider this to the point of leaving, then that's on them.