Deadliest Fiction Wiki
Advertisement
Wiki-wordmark
Battle Policy


Wiki enforcement navigation



Administrators
BeastMan14
Wassboss
Laquearius

B.1: In General

All battles must be written in blog format. This allows users the chance to criticize/offer their opinions about the warriors. Battles written on pages will be deleted after a span of 1-2 days at the discretion of the administrator to give the user a chance to move the information. An incomplete battle blog will be deleted one week after its last edit. Do not have unfair match-ups. If the general audience or administrators agree that the battle is unfair, it will be disregarded e.g., Assyrian Soldier vs. SWAT. Multi-man battles are judged this way based on each warrior against each opponent. For help creating battles or blogs see Creating a Battle.

B.2: Canon Battles

Battles that have already occurred in warriors' canon (e.g., Darth Vader vs. Obi-Wan Kenobi) are forbidden, excepting that a user can demonstrably prove that the version of the battle they desire is clearly materially different from the one that occurred in canon.

B.3: One-On-One Battles and Group-On-Group Battles/Battle Royales

The completion of a battle that features two warriors as members of opposite teams OR as participants in a battle royale does not preclude those two warriors from being used against each other in a one-on-one battle in the future or vice versa. For example, if Batman has already fought against Captain America, both may still be present as members of their respective teams in a future battle between the Justice League and the Avengers.

B.4: Warriors

Any characters posted by the user in a battle will be considered a warrior out of our good faith policy (see U.2). However, if a user discovers that a character is not truly a warrior, then all articles relating to that character will be edited to reflect this, and all battles with that character will be closed.

How to Tell

To tell whether or not your character is a warrior, see the definitions below; a character has to match at least one of the following criteria:

  1. Fights as part of their occupation*
  2. Fights on a frequent basis*
  3. Has being a fighter a core part of their character*
  4. Leads other fighters in battle
  5. Has superhuman powers allowing them to fight, and has used those abilities for that purpose
  6. Commands a warrior/weapon like unit to fight
  7. Is a representation of a user on this wiki
  8. Vehicles that are designed to be and/or modified to act as combat vehicles and have combat history

*Simply killing people does not count as fighting unless the character meets one of the following criteria:

  1. The character conflicts with law enforcement, criminal organizations, or any other type of systemic third party while doing so
  2. The character’s victims consist of people who would be warriors had they not been killed in a way that prevented combat

Prohibited characters include:

  • Any character that does not meet the criteria
  • World leaders that don't fall under the warrior criteria and don't hold any military positions that aren't directly tied to their status as leader of the nation

B.5: Voting

B.5.1: For the Author

All battles must be open for at least three days before being closed. A battle may not be closed if it has zero votes, not including the author's own. If a battle receives no activity for sixty days, it is free to be removed from the reservations on the relevant pages. Authors are allowed to set their own criteria for which votes they will accept. Disregarding votes that meet these criteria simply because the author disagrees with the voter's conclusion is not allowed.

If a battle is closed and the votes are tied, the author may either declare a victor or end the battle in a tie. The author is allowed to give themself a vote if they like. However, this precludes the author from declaring a victor in the case of a tie, as this would essentially be giving themself two votes. The one and only exception to this is in an elimination tournament, where there must be one victor, so the author is allowed to determine the outcome if there is a tie.

If any of the above policies are violated in a battle, the author of the battle will be issued a warning. In case of repeat violations, the user will receive a ban, the length of which is to be determined by the acting admin.

B.5.2: For the Voter/Audience

If you are going to vote, please use the voting method the author provides and states you should use. When voting, please try to provide a good and strong reason why that warrior should win.

B.6: Battle Royales

A battle royale is any battle that features at least five warriors or teams of warriors. If it wouldn't count as an orgy, it doesn't count as a royale. Royales are presented on warrior pages uniquely, using a dedicated section of the infobox and being identified by whatever title the author chooses. After the conclusion of a royale, all participating warriors or teams of warriors must be identified and properly linked either in the written battle or in the expert's opinion and ranked according to the royale's outcome.

B.7: User Battles

User battles are fictional battles between two or more users, ie. Cfp3157 vs WanderingSkull. If you are planning to write a user battle, please consult the user(s) you will be facing in your battle. They must provide the weapons, training, or any forms of debate they will be using. Failing to list the appropriate weapons/provided items will result in a deletion of that battle. In order to prevent the wiki from being flooded by a torrent of user characters, individual user warriors do not qualify for pages.

B.8: User Tournaments

In order to run a User Tournament, the user proposing to run the tournament must post a proposal in the Challenge Arena board. Afterwards, the user has one month to get approval from a majority of the admins/bureaus. If and only if this is achieved, the user may then post sign-ups and start the tourney. Only two tournies may run at any one time.

B.9: Rematches

Rematches can be done with the original author's approval. If the author disapproves, the user requesting the rematch can override the author by gaining the publicly written support of either five users or three users including one staff member. If the original author has had his disapproval overridden, but still feels that a rematch should not be done, he is allowed to gain the publicly written support of other users against the rematch. After one week has passed, the side with the highest number of supporters wins, with ties going to the original author. In the case of inactive or retired authors, the three supporters rule still applies, and an admin approval is needed as well.

If at any point, even after a rematch is done, sockpuppets are found to have been used as supporters, the side using them automatically has their position revoked. If the rematch was already done and found to have been invalid, then the original outcome will be posted in the battle status and the section will have a notification that the rematch was considered void due to sockpuppetting for votes.

In the case of rematching a battle that was a collab between two or more users, all users involved in the collab must give their permission in order for the battle to be rematched. If one of the original collaborators wants to rematch the battle they must get the support of all the other users involved in the collab before they are allowed to rematch. If collab partner/s disagree or are inactive then a rematch request must be made, following the same rules lined out above. In case of a tie in such a scenario, the rematch will not have passed.

There is a limit on how many times an author can rematch their own battle. This includes rematches of their own battles and a rematch of another user's battle. After their first rematch, they must go forward with the traditional rematch proposal process. This same rule would apply to a user seeking to rematch their battle that was the rematch of another user's battle. Ex. If User 1 posts Battle 1, User 2 succeeds in acquiring a rematch of it and posts Battle 2, User 2 must go through the rematch proposal process for Battle 3.

B.10: Nerfing and Buffing

Wizards, super heroes, god warriors, force users, and other warriors with natural abilities cannot be limited to a certain set of powers. All powers canonically used by that warrior are to be accounted for in all of his/her battles. Linking to other sites that provide a full list of the warrior's abilities is allowed. Furthermore, using said warriors from a time period in which they do not have certain powers is not nerfing, so long as all their other equipment and powers is from that point in time.

In addition, it is also a violation of policy to buff, or increase, a warrior’s powers or abilities to points above where they are in canon. This includes, but is not limited to: giving them weapons they never used, powers they did not have access to, or applying game mechanics (i.e., increased durability that is not a canon power) as abilities. Regarding the latter point, when when no clear evidence exists either way for an ability being something in canon or strictly a gameplay mechanic, it is up to the relevant battle's author to decide on the issue.

Regarding warriors or abilities have conditional visibility, such as Stands in JoJo's Bizarre Adventure or Shinigami from Bleach, there are ways to ensure fairness that do not fall under buffing or nerfing. If the warrior's opponent has an ability or experience which is similar to the requirements to view the warrior or ability in question, it would not be considered nerfing or buffing to assume they can.

Using the Stands example above, a character is likely able to see Stands if they have an ability of explicitly magical origin. Using the Shinigami example above, a character is likely to be able to see a Shinigami if they are able to see ghosts, see other otherworldy beings normally invisible to humans, having soul- or ghost-related powers, or can see beings with similar composition to Shinigami.

If this reasoning is used in a challenge, it is on the challenger to demonstrate why the given explanation is invalid, or to demonstrate why the warrior's abilities fall outside of this definition.

B.11: Challenges

Fairness Challenges

"Unfair" means that the battle swings far in favour of one warrior as represented in the battle itself, not the votes. It is not exclusive to one warrior overpowering the other(s) enough that there is zero chance of them winning. Battles that are "one-sided" are unfair. If material is published following the closing of a battle that establishes new canon information pertaining to a relevant warrior that would render the battle unfair, this is not acceptable grounds for a challenge.

The process for declaring a battle as unfair is as follows:

  • First, one person, hereafter known as "the protester", brings up the idea of the battle being unfair, providing a link to the blog in question and stating their reasoning. This should be done either in the forums or in the comments of the battle itself if it is ongoing. Battles may not be closed while there is an ongoing challenge.
  • Second, the protester must then get three other users, including at least one staff member, to clearly state their support to the protester's terms. In place of staff support, if the challenge gets net support from five users, the match is disregarded. If the original author of the blog agrees with the protestor, the battle may be disregarded immediately. Users who disagree with the challenge may also voice their opposition by voting against the challenge. The side with the highest number of supporters wins, with ties going to the original author.
  • Finally, after a week has passed, if the challenge has received sufficient support, the battle will be disregarded. It should be removed from the relevant warriors' battle statuses and moved to the disregarded section of their pages along with a brief summary of why it was disregarded.

Disregarded battles can also be revalidated by following the same procedure: a protester must state their reasoning as to why they believe a disregarded battle is fair and receive the required amount of support.

If material is published that reveals new canon information that would render a closed battle unfair, the battle should not be challenged for fairness on these grounds.

Battle Validity Challenges

"Invalid" means that the author of the battle has provided or deprived a warrior of a weapon, power, or other attributes that they did not have access to in canon. If material is published following the closing of a battle that establishes new canon information pertaining to a relevant warrior that would render the battle invalid, this is not acceptable grounds for a challenge.

The process for declaring a battle as invalid is as follows:

  • First, one person, hereafter known as "the protester", brings up the idea of the battle being invalid, providing a link to the blog in question and stating their reasoning. This should be done either in the forums or in the comments of the battle itself if it is ongoing. Battles may not be closed while there is an ongoing challenge.
  • Second, the protester must then get three other users, including at least one staff member, to clearly state their support to the protester's terms. In place of staff support, if the challenge gets net support from five users, the match is disregarded. If the original author of the blog agrees with the protestor, the battle may be disregarded immediately. Users who disagree with the challenge may also voice their opposition by voting against the challenge. The side with the highest number of supporters wins, with ties going to the original author.
  • Finally, after a week has passed, if the challenge has received sufficient support, the battle will be disregarded. It should be removed from the relevant warriors' battle statuses and moved to the disregarded section of their pages along with a brief summary of why it was disregarded.

Disregarded battles can also be revalidated by following the same procedure: a protester must state their reasoning as to why they believe a disregarded battle is valid and receive the required amount of support.

If material is published that reveals new canon information that would render a closed battle invalid, the battle should not be challenged for validity on these grounds.

Composite Warrior Challenges

Use of a composite warrior, a combination of versions of a warrior from multiple separate canons, is also grounds for invalidation. The process for declaring a warrior as a composite is as follows:

  • First, one person, hereafter known as "the protester", brings up the idea of the battle being invalid, providing a link to the blog in question and stating their reasoning. This should be done in the forums. Battles may not be closed while there is an ongoing challenge.
  • Second, the protester must then get three other users, including at least one staff member, to clearly state their support to the protester's terms. In place of staff support, if the challenge gets net support from five users, the match is disregarded. Users who disagree with the challenge may also voice their opposition by voting against the challenge. In order to be declared a composite warrior, there must be a net of three votes, with staff support, in favour of them being a composite or a net of five users in favour without staff support.
  • Finally, after a week has passed, if the challenge has received sufficient support, the warrior will be declared composite. If this is the case then their page will be removed and any battles against non-composite warriors will also be removed from their respective pages.

Warriors declared as composites can also be revalidated by following the same procedure: a protester must state their reasoning as to why they believe a composite warrior is valid and receive the required amount of support.

If material is published that reveals new canon information that would render a warrior as a composite, the warrior should not be challenged for validity on these grounds.

Invalid Warriors

In some cases a battle may involve a warrior who does not fit the warrior criteria in which case a warrior themselves can be challenged. The process for declaring a warrior invalid is as follows:

  • First, one person, hereafter known as "the protester", brings up the idea of the warrior being invalid and stating their reasoning, preferably by explaining how they do not fit any of the current warrior criteria. This should be done in the forums.
  • Second, the protester must then get five other users, including the majority of staff members, to clearly state their support to the protester's terms. Users who disagree with the challenge may also voice their opposition by voting against the challenge. In order to be declared invalid, there must be a net of five votes in favour, with majority staff support, in favour of them being a invalid.
  • Finally, after a week has passed, if the challenge has received sufficient support, the warrior will be declared invalid. Any battles they have will be moved into disregarded and their battle status will read 'Fails to Meet the Warrior Criteria'. Any battles should also be removed from the relevant warriors' battle statuses and moved to the disregarded section of their pages along with a brief summary of why it was disregarded.

Warriors declared as invalid can also be revalidated by following the same procedure: a protester must state their reasoning as to why they believe a warrior is valid and receive the required amount of support.

B.12: Reservations

Users are allowed to reserve match-ups between warriors thereby preventing other users from doing that battle without gaining permission from the user who currently has the battle reserved. In order for a battle to be reserved, it must be claimed on the site on a userpage, or on a warrior page. Reservations in a sandbox or on a separate site do not count. Reservations only last for 18 months. Past that, the battle is re-opened for use by anyone. Three months of inactivity forfeits all reservations. No more than 20 reserved battles are allowed for one user at any one time.

Advertisement