Rule 1
Evidence and method decide profiles
A conclusion without process is not enough. Rankings, profiles and disputes are judged by documented feats, context, reasoning quality and methodology fit, not by hype, popularity or outcome-only claims.
Standing Orders
Rules Charter
These rules are written to be enforceable, visible and difficult to argue around. The archive should feel structured, not lawless.
Important: this build treats the rules as part of the product, not a forgotten footer page. They are meant to be non-negotiable unless staff explicitly publishes a revision.
Rule 2
Staff interpretation is final on live archive decisions
Moderators and admins may classify characters, reject low-quality submissions, hide weak evidence, remove spam, adjust ranks and resolve disputes when needed to preserve archive quality. These decisions are not overturned by pressure, brigading or popularity contests.
Rule 3
No spam, alts, abuse or vote manipulation
Mass voting, coordinated boosting, repeated submissions, duplicate accounts, harassment campaigns, archive vandalism and any anti-ranking abuse are grounds for silent vote nullification, content removal and account action.
Rule 4
Classification is staff-governed
Realistic, semi-realistic and unrealistic labels are methodology tools. Staff decisions on classification, admissibility and profile structure are final unless revised through an announced methodology update.
Rule 5
Primary evidence beats agenda
Use feats, source context and reasoning. Do not flood profiles or threads with glazing, slander, memes, bad-faith nitpicks or unsupported one-liners. Missing evidence can be rejected even if a claim is common in the community.
Rule 6
Administrative ranking rights are explicit
Admins may move characters on any leaderboard when the public score conflicts with stronger documented evidence, clearer methodology or archive maintenance needs. These moves may be justified publicly, but the authority to keep the archive coherent is not up for vote.
Rule 7
Submission quality standards are mandatory
Low-effort dumps, misleading edits, fabricated scans, AI hallucinations presented as canon, duplicated feats, category stuffing and source-less claims can be rejected or rewritten by staff without negotiation.
Rule 8
Votes are signal, not sovereignty
Public votes help indicate current community pressure, but they do not own the archive. Staff may discount distorted vote waves, freeze movement, or reverse ranking shifts when the evidence record does not support them.
Rule 9
Battle outputs are advisory, not canon
AI comparison pages are analytical tools, not absolute truth. They may summarize, compare and explain dossiers, but they do not overrule archive rules, moderation decisions or future evidence updates by themselves.
Rule 10
Context stripping is unacceptable
A feat may be reduced, reclassified or rejected if it removes conditions, ignores setup, hides limitations, or presents a conclusion without the original context needed to interpret it fairly.
Rule 11
Archive coherence outweighs convenience
Staff may merge duplicates, rewrite unclear labels, relocate feats to better categories, or standardize entries whenever needed to keep the archive readable, searchable and methodologically coherent.
Rule 12
Disputes must be argued, not spammed
If you disagree with a ranking, classification or feat placement, use evidence and reasoning. Repeated pressure without new substance may be ignored, throttled or moderated as disruption.