Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This thread is to discuss some problems that have arisen in the threads regarding debating ONLY! This isn't a platform to complain about fanboys, gripe about threads getting closed, moan about bannings, etc.

This also isn't a debate. All ideas about the topic will be considered. If you must voice an opinion about another poster's idea, please do so in a civil and respectful manner. Right now there are no wrong ideas.

I'm posting some quotes from the old thread.

Darth cont.Originally posted by darthgoober
You know what might help? Scrapping terms like PIS and CIS in favor of new ones. The terms PIS and CIS both originated at CBR if I'm not mistaken and they're actually meant to apply to that kind of debating. This of course leads to all kinds of confusion(especially to visitors from other boards) because the terms aren't really applied correctly even in those rare instances in which most of us agree on them.
Originally posted by darthgoober
I think we should make a rule that specifically covers misrepresenting a scans or taking them out of context. Accidents happen from time to time(I've made them myself), but if someone KNOWS they're passing off bogus info I think it should at least rate a warning. Originally posted by darthgoober
Barring that, we need stricter policies in regards to supporting your case with evidence for those posters who have a tendency to point others to respect threads or cite feats and abilities for characters rather than scans on the grounds of the feat/ability being "common knowledge that everyone should know". All to often I've looked into "common knowledge" only to discover that's actually a common misconception brought about by a misrepresented source or outright speculation. Originally posted by darthgoober
In regards to my earlier thought and Smurph's PM to Bada...

What about replacing the terms PIS and CIS with WIS, which would stand for "Writer induced stupidity". PIS and CIS are very subjective and a large chunk of many debates is wasting on which category something falls into. WIS would be admissible unless otherwise stipulated by the thread starter and it would encompass the "dumb" way characters are written(not BFRing, speedblitzing, etc.) as well as logical extensions of abilities that are never actually seen on panel(like Wonder Woman or Surfer blitzing at lightspeed in combat). Then we'd debate by comics for the most part but if someone wants an "all out at max power" thread all they'd have to do is tack on a "No WIS" stipulation and the thread would effectively go into CBR mode. Just a thought... Originally posted by darthgoober
Hey here's an idea, how about something like a Faq for debating. It could give a basic rundown on the ever shifting Burden of Proof in a debate and cover some of the "poor debating tactics" that's we often see employed by those who don't know any better. Originally posted by darthgoober
I wanted to use a different example because it seems like the only thing I talk about nowadays but pg put me on the spot so it's all I can think of right now. But I'm not suggesting any kind of limits on the Faq or that my way is necessarily the "right way" so if anyone can come up with anything else feel free to pitch it.


Who's responsibility is it to prove whether or not Character X can successfully speedblitz Character Y?

1. Well first things first, since the speedblitz is being pitched by Character X it's up to the person suggesting the tactic to show proof that Character X has both the ability and inclination(since we're talking about "In Character" fighting) to preform a speedblitz at all.

2. With both of those things established, it falls to the person defending Character Y to show that he has the ability to defend against a speedblitz.

If both Character X and Character Y have evidence to support their case, then things have to become a little more specific to keep the debate moving forward(otherwise people just start arguing in circles). So then it becomes...

3. What quantifiable speed feats does Character X have that give an idea as to his max speedblitzing speed(since his opponents ability to defend against a "generic" speed has been established).

4. What quantifiable speed feats does Character Y have that give an idea as to his ability to defend against "high speed attacks"(since his opponents ability to preform more than a "generic speedblitz" has been established).

If Character X's quantified feats are superior to Character Y's quantified feats then there's definite evidence to suggest that the tactic can be preformed successfully so the debate should move on to what the effect of the blitz will be on Character Y. If not, then there's no evidence to support the initial claim so it should be dropped in favor of other tactics.

And that's it, one very simple procedure and a 200 page circular debate becomes a 1 page debate. No one has to change their opinion as to whether or not the tactic will be successful, they just have to concede the point when there's no evidence to support their opinion. And it's not even any kind of actual change to the rules because it goes right along with the "No biased claims" rule that we already have in place but is often ignored. Just apply it to a couple of common claims that are made(one-shotting, weakness exploitation, ect.) for the Faq and it'll give a good idea to all as to who should be providing what in any particular situation.

I know that many topics/tactics are very subjective and because of that are hesitant to support adding guidelines to the debates themselves, but we've got more than enough intelligent members to cover the basics of a debate. I mean Digi and leo are school teachers for God's sake, I'm pretty sure they can successfully come up with some impartial guidelines that will save tons of time all around.

Mindship
Originally posted by Mindship
This thread was inspired by recent, as well as past, debates involving what a given character is capable of.

In debates, on-panel feats are of obvious value in pointing out what a character can do. The only real drawback is the posting of PIS moments, which can be a tough call.

On the other hand: there are some characters -- generally those with open powersets -- where inferring abilities never actually shown (or rarely shown) makes sense when logically reasoned from other (more-consistent) on-panel feats.

Should inferred abilities be allowed in debates? Should feats be restricted to those purely on-panel? And if so, what is the criteria for judging whether something is PIS or not? Doesn't this imply a certain amount of inferential reasoning to weed out PIS (ie, is it not a subjective call)? And if this type of inferential reasoning is allowed, then why not such reasoning for inferring unseen/rarely seen abilities, as long as they are logically deduced?

I'm curious where most members stand. Originally posted by Mindship
All else being equal, I would agree. Eg, Spider-Man stating Sentry stalemated Galactus doesn't equal Sentry actually doing it. On the other hand, if Sentry had stalemated, say, Aegis and Tenegrous, then it would be more logical to assume that Spider-Man's statement would be somewhat accurate.

But I'm talking more about something like this: currently in the Wonder Woman vs Silver Surfer in h2h thread, there seems to be this controversy: WW has demonstrated time and time again her incredible hand speed at blocking multi-vector, high-speed attacks. Having demonstrated such sensorimotor fleetness, wouldn't it be logical to assume she could strike with equal fleetness, even if this has never/rarely been shown on-panel? Another example would be the Surfer, with the now famous flightspeed = or doesn't = combatspeed argument (I won't repeat it here; we all know the points and counterpoints raised).

And what about the Really Famous Panther-SS Armbar, or the Most Famous Of All, Batkick (against Hulk, against Cap Marvel)? These are on-panel feats, yet most of us (I think) have decided these are PIS. Why? What reasoning applies? Much of it seems inferential, based on what we know of these characters and their powersets.

When is inferential reasoning on what a character can do (or shouldn't be able to do) legit? Is an on-panel feat a necessary starting point, or can logic, at times, fill in the gaps (just as logic, at times, determines what is or isn't PIS)?

Smurph
Originally posted by Cavalier
Meh. I think what we should be doing is adding a whole new section to break down every PIS/CIS/feat related rule.

I mean, the purely mechanical ones are fine. But it's each that requires an element of subjectivity that we need to be defining and adding to. Originally posted by Cavalier
Meh. I don't particularly like "Fighting to the best of their abilities" either, because that all too often undermines CIS.

Spider-Man fighting to the best of his ability against Captain America >> CIS-infliced Spidey vs. Cap

As demonstrated on panel. Originally posted by Cavalier
We could try, but it'd be quite a feat to attempt, considering how often we use the terms PIS and CIS.

As for Flash, I'd actually title it under CIS... I think that he's only going to use top speed against characters that can match it, and otherwise will still go fast, but perhaps not super fast... it's really not representative of the characters to assume that they'll do something which we know would never be written.

Looking at it like this also circumvents "speedblitz" arguments.

Digi
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I don't know that they need a full rehaul.

Also, as it pertains to Smurph's point, we can't tell people how to debate comics. Part of the fun of it, even though it leads to disagreement, is that there isn't a set way to gauge them. For example, regardless of what teh rules state, "in character vs. in their power set" will always exist.

I think goober's clarifications are a good start. They leave a lot less gray area about rule interpretation. Originally posted by DigiMark007
Flash's bad showings are more PIS than anything. Ending things in picoseconds would make for tough writing. So even with CIS, he can usually be argued at top speeds. Originally posted by DigiMark007
That's not quite the issue mb, though you've got the starting point there. Few, if any, have a problem with your first type. For the second type (and I won't use examples, for fear of starting a Surfer scan war), the problem isn't so much whether it should be allowed or not, but whether his power set actually infers it. Everyone's ok with inferring when they agree on the inference, but not when it becomes harder to logically deduce without possible doubt.

We can't say "yes, that's allowed" or "no it isn't" because we don't have a definitive stance on the point, nor can we draw a clear line as to what is and isn't acceptable. Thus the problem. It's not really rule-able, and is possibly something we shouldn't be trying to standardize in the first place.

...

Anyway, see my post above for a suggestion on CIS vs. power sets only. It's probably the one thing I'll have a clear opinion on here.

This also relates to it:


Agreed. Originally posted by DigiMark007
Here's a potential solution for one of the problems: just like prep, where it is assumed "no prep" unless the thread-starter specifies, we could have one way be the default unless specified.

Example: Superman vs. Anyone. We could make it that Supes fights to the full extent of his abilities, CIS turned off, as the default. Then the thread starter could specify that character traits, not just power sets, are to be counted, which would override the default setting.

Or the reverse, if we think the majority should include CIS factors like "boyscout mode" and such, and should only be "power sets only" or "bloodlust" when specified by the thread-starter.

Of course, this could easily lead to things like CBR Surfer (if you know about it, you know), but would also make an objective criteria for debating.

....

As for Inferred ability vs. on-panel ability, I'm still thinking about it.

UltimatethorOriginally posted by ultimatethor
Ok, this thread is God sent. Some issues badly need to be clarified . First of all i want to ask about the viability of people arguing tactics that a character has never shown on panel. In numerous threads i have actively argued against people trying to use inference over on panel showings. This is because i believe that the actual comics we are arguing should be the supreme evidence in our debates. So the questions is

" Can we infer powers for a character even if they have consistently failed to do such on panel?" Originally posted by ultimatethor
Exactly. The comics we are debating should be the supreme evidence used barring PIS instances. No form of inference can replace that. This especially occurs when we see people( i wont name anyone but the culprits are obvious) trying to argue tactics for a character which they should technically be able to do but have never actually shown it to be within their abilities in that particular context. Speed especially is an issue which i think should definitely be based on their shoings in comics and not inference.

Like in the recent wonderwomanvs Ss h2h thread. There were many claims that Wondy is so fast that SS wont be able to land a hit on her. Meanwhile nobody even came close to providng a credible scan showing her displaying this sort of speed in a context similar to how she would be fighting SS. HOw then can it be claimed that she will be capable of something which she has been incapable of in comics? At best would it not be highly out of character?

Note the difference between this and arguments that request for exact replications of the situation. For instance, if i want to determine whther thanos can withstand a ram from superman, I dont need to receive a scan of thanos resisting the exact same type of ram. What i do need however is thanos resisting a physical attack that generates equal or more force than supermans ram.

Also the whole "CIS" and "fight to the best of their ability" part of the rule needs to be clearly defined. Because they directly contradict each other. For instance alot of people use the superman speedblitz tactic alot for an instant win, and though it is within his abilities his CIS would cause him NOT to use it as an opening tactic.

On the other hand though, I agree with those ho say that u cant actually tell people how to debate. The different perspectives that people bring in are what makes the forum interesting. But there are definitely some issues that i think need to be definitvely addressed Originally posted by ultimatethor
I think we need to create a balance between how they debate on hero chat and how they debate on CBR. Hence, i think that a character fighting "in character" should maintain his the mindset he has in the comics unless stated by the threadstarter. However we shouldnt just take on panel showings without analyzing them and the context which they occurred.(i.e Hulk beat thor so he can beat superman etc)

FangirlOriginally posted by fangirl101
I dont' like people assuming a character can do something because they think it's in the characters power set. And I don't like people requiring someone prove a negative when they haven't proven the opposite. For instance, people who are asking us to prove that surfer loses his speed while off the board. That is ridiculous. Why wont' they just prove that he keeps it? Originally posted by fangirl101
So let's talk about comics and the sense of time and how they are portrayed. Take for instance Gladiator destroying a planet or planetoid with three punches. was it really three? Or were the panels limited in the fact that it's a comic and they usually draw in panels for motion effect. Was it a planet? How big was it? If someone is fighting at Superspeed and you dont' see the action, are we to assume they didnt' throw any punches becuz it's not expliticly shown? I keep hearing about the Silver Surfer's infinite Amp abiblity but I've never seen it. Should that even be allowed to be mentioned in a forum debate? Originally posted by fangirl101
Ok. So we gotta look at some things in general about comics.

They aren't cameras. It's panel. Which means we really don't see all of the action.

Hyperbole on panel statements without collaborative evidence in said comic or in previous comics may need to be outlawed. For instance transmangor and the omnipotent votronix destroyed countless moons in thier fight. And yet after the fight we see the moons all in tact with no explaination for how they got put back that way. Originally posted by fangirl101
Rules That I believe should be enforced.

1. Absolutely no prep feats should be allowed ever unless given by the thread starter.
2. No Real world or 4th wall writers are Gods Bull should be allowed to be brought up on a COMICS forum.
3. Speed blitz should only be realistic if the characters have myriad uses of Superspeed. I need to see super fast hands, Feat, spinning, flight etc. Not just super fast reaction times and flight.
4. No arm bar shit.
5. I believe we should have a sliding effect where we say the last 10 or 15 years worth of feats count. That leaves out crappy hyperbole and silly shit like PC superman sneezing out stars and Thor and Herculese rocking the planet out of orbit with no actual evidence that they did. It also leaves out shit that doesn't go with the current status quo.
6. Repeated multiple scans of the same thing over and over should be banned.
7. Characters with Unlimted ampming abilities should be limited to what they have done on panel. I get sick of this cosmic God can amp his power. But never does. This cosmic guy can amp his strength. But never does. Blah blah.

Quan
Originally posted by quanchi112
Agreed. I just looked through some of these posts and I agree with this post. Goober has some good points as well. Ill look through this later more and actually weigh in later but I just wanted to state something now thats on my mind.

Ill give you a link here to a cbr thread. Now I went there after my battlezone with nver and just recently have returned. This is what cannot happen imo. Take a look see and read for yourself.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=239606

Now, Id like anyone who is interested in this to take a quick read through this. Basically,Gladiator wins due to his speed and their minds are already made up. They use pis and such to pretty much favor certain characters and argue powerset vs powerset which is pretty boring to say the least. I like herochat's approach because we argue whats in character. Gladiator can use his superspeed sure,but saying he beats anyone without it 10 of 10 is completely and utterly ridiculous especially when Gladiator has never defeated him inside a comic book. Kmc can never turn into cbr.

Here is a pm I received shortly after the mod closed this down for further review. Its from come cbrer who I dont even know. Ill leave his name out of it,but Id like you to see what he wrote.

You can't win with them. They just compare powersets and nothing else. The term "PIS" will be the bane of your existance. If I were you I'd just let it go. The rest of the boards on this site rock, but the rumbles boards...eh.. people outside of that board have a bad opinion about it for a reason.

Im just throwing this in there so we dont become more like cbr. Originally posted by quanchi112
I personally think we should leave this up to the posters. To create rules to limit one's argument no matter how radical it is will kill the fun on kmc. Posters will always get pissed and overheated at one another(just like Rulk) no matter what the rules are.

I agree if we are going to change it then we have to find something in the middle of herochat and cbr although I personally love herochat's way of debating. Its all up to the poster and you cant hide behind pis or use it at your convenience like some seem to do here. Thats how they argue things on cbr and use pis all the time. Most psoters complain about how unfair it is over there as I pointed out earlier.

I think pis and cis should be eliminated altogether. If someone wants to be a dope and argue spiderman beats firelord then school the shit out of them. But rarely in comics does something this awful happen. Granted it does and will continue but how often does a wolverine defeat the juggernaut straight up without a plot device.

Rely on your own unique arguing skills and prove your points however you will. Lets not restrict or try to restrict someone's creativity based on the rules. This is meant to have fun and lets start having fun again.

AvlonOriginally posted by Avlon
My random scribble/notes:

Part of the issue is also that in general people want to make sequential sense of a medium in which is purely for entertainment. Sure in the last 10-15 years things have been getting better in terms of story cohesion, but the fact it that with multiple titles, writers, and simple time there will never be an truly standard version of a character. Power levels can vary per title, per era or even per issue.

People will always pick and choose what they want to believe, whether it's the comics forum or their personal life. As long as a logical argument can be made, it's fair game.

One particular issue is open ended power sets. If it isn't shown, then it shouldn't be implied that it can be done. One particular issue is with energy based characters. Unless that character is shown with 100% success rate at easily controlling every form of energy thrown at them, then it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Green Lantern's don't share feats despite having the same base power set, neither should other energy based characters.

Feats where help is required should also be something that is looked at. For example, a particular poster argued that Quasar can absorb practically any energy easily...an example was named. However, the poster knowingly forgot to mention the outside assistance in that particular example. Thus the example falls into a separate category since it's not viable for the character to perform on their own.

Speedblitz is another one. Traveling vs battle speed is a hot topic a lot of the time. My proposal:

Superspeed isn't limited to traveling or fighting. One way to quantify it is "it something that the character uses often in a myriad of ways?"

For example. Both Flash and Captain America will be shown to dodge lasers as a feat. However, Flash will also be seen vibrating his hands to make fires, changing clothes before someone can blink, mentally calculating complex scenarios at faster than supercomputer speeds ect. We know Flash is far faster because he can do anything at superhuman speeds and while Cap is fast/skilled, he can't duplicate any of flash's other feats in any way.

Is it an inherent ability or is it something that looks cool on panel? Captain Cold may occasionally hit the flash but is that reason to believe that the captain has FTL reflexes?

One time events should be taken with a grain of salt for characters that have a long history. I see some far out stuff from the 70's being used in debates sometimes that is hilarious and that probably will never be duplicated again since the suspension of disbelief would never fly now. Unless these things are at least shown a couple of times, then it shouldn't be a used as undeniable proof.

For now, I'll leave my "notes" as is and hopefully it will makes sense to most of you. Sleep is starting to call me.

Jinzin

There's only so many ways to take certain comments. That list of rules you want enforced, for example, has a lot of ridiculous stuff in it that would never fly on this forum.

I'll just agree with everything Digi said.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
There's only so many ways to take certain comments. That list of rules you want enforced, for example, has a lot of ridiculous stuff in it that would never fly on this forum.

I'll just agree with everything Digi said.


If you say so. But saying Character X can amp indefinitely and thus gives someone the win in a strength only discussion a big FAIL.

If Someone says that Character A holds back constantly, And thus he can do anything he sets his mind to, and uses that as an example of them beating another character is a big FAIL.

Saying Character Y is going to Punch Character Z a hundred times in a second becuz they can move at Superspeed would be a Big FAIL if we've never seen that character do anything like that.

I was thinking of certain instances only of why I made those comments. And if you didn't know what I was thinking about, you could think you knew what you were talking about. I was trying not to put anyone on blast and call out certain instances.

Originally posted by fangirl101
I don't care anymore. you pretty much didn't get the jist of what I was saying and took it your own way. And I don't feel like explaining it any further.
Now don't go getting all defensive, if I misunderstood something than expand on it and set the record strait. I'm not saying that your opinion is "wrong", just that I disagree with it. But my opinion isn't the only one that matters so feel free to press your points, this thread's purpose is to establish what the majority of the forum wants and if you don't speak up now you'll have no right to complain later.

Citing anecdotes and hypotheticals is well and good, but rules are meant to be general, not resembling math proofs. Besides, making a "no arm bar sh*t" rule and "10-15 year limit on feats" rules would incite riots. Ironically, though, the former of those is dealt with already (in much more eloquent form) in the current rules. Originally it was the SM/FL rule, but I think I changed the exact wording because I didn't like teh jab at Spidey. But I wonder how much people realize that much of what they suggest is already contained there, and just needs extrapolation and clarification.

Anyway, I trust Bada to sift through the good and bad ideas, and implement those that are needed, just like I did when I originally amended the rules.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Now don't go getting all defensive, if I misunderstood something than expand on it and set the record strait. I'm not saying that your opinion is "wrong", just that I disagree with it. But my opinion isn't the only one that matters so feel free to press your points, this thread's purpose is to establish what the majority of the forum wants and if you don't speak up now you'll have no right to complain later.
Basically,

I dont' want to see shit like this:

Superman holds back all of the time. There for we can't count his low showings.

Silver Surfer Amps to infinity, And I've never seen him amp his strength to fight Thanos.

Thor and Herculese Knock the Planet out of Orbit ( Silver age Hyperbole)and there are no effects shown of this happening nor is there a way for them to put it back in orbit.

4th world Bullshit. Saying TOAA is marvel's God is fine. But saying he's the writers and they auto win is BULL. It's a character with a name. The Moment it hits the panels in written or illustrated form.

Superman Builds a city at superspeed. We see two panels and Think He's done it in a second flat. WTF. He couldn't possibly move that fast or he'd destroy the air and ignite fires and destroy what he's building. Same can be used of Gladiator hitting a planet only three times. He looks to be angry. So logic would dictate that he hit the planet more than three times in a fit and becuz the artist didn't want to bore us to death, he drew three panels.

We should not be asked to prove Negatives. That speaks for itself.

And repeated Scans speak for themselves. You act as if they need to be posted because someone is ignoring something. Master post trillions of the same scans. And in certain instances, Galan has even expressed circles. So it's not like one person only thinks the excessiveness is looney.
Since you just had to know instances of what I was thinking about.

You seem upset with specific characters and traits, without relating them to a general principle and seeing if it would hold true. It's hard to form them into general rules that make sense when you just seem to be ranting about specific arguments on the forums that you dislike.

Originally posted by fangirl101
If you say so. But saying Character X can amp indefinitely and thus gives someone the win in a strength only discussion a big FAIL.
Luckily enough, characters with amping capacities are the biggest victims of PIS/CIS around and because of that they're generally limited by the writers to amping to the level of the opposition, not leagues above it.

Since the format that most have agreed to wanting makes things like PIS and CIS valid, they'll be limited to the same system in a forum fight.

Originally posted by fangirl101
If Someone says that Character A holds back constantly, And thus he can do anything he sets his mind to, and uses that as an example of them beating another character is a big FAIL.
Example? I can think of plenty of instances in which I'd agree with you, but it's a little difficult to such a broad generalization without knowing what you have in mind.

Originally posted by fangirl101
Saying Character Y is going to Punch Character Z a hundred times in a second becuz they can move at Superspeed would be a Big FAIL if we've never seen that character do anything like that.
I agree completely.

Originally posted by fangirl101
I was thinking of certain instances only of why I made those comments. And if you didn't know what I was thinking about, you could think you knew what you were talking about. I was trying not to put anyone on blast and call out certain instances.
And that's perfectly alright. I'm not trying to start a bickering match here, in fact I'm taking great care in what I put out there because our discussions have a tendency to do just that and it's not constructive to the threads purpose. So feel free to post and expand on your opinions, I'm not looking to attack you I'm just putting my opinions out there. I'm perfectly content to let others decide for themselves who to agree with.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You seem upset with specific characters and traits, without relating them to a general principle and seeing if it would hold true. It's hard to form them into general rules that make sense when you just seem to be ranting about specific arguments on the forums that you dislike.
If that is what you think. But the arguments being presented are indicative of a trend. If it weren't a trend, then we wouldn't be here in this thread now would?

And Upset about specific Characters? What the hell.

And I didn't want to rant about specifics of anything. The way I presented them at first was very vague. Digi brought it up that I shouldn't be defensive. The arguments could be applied to a many a character.

Originally posted by fangirl101
Digi brought it up that I shouldn't be defensive.

That was goober, but fair enough. Just know that where ambiguities exist in interpretation, it's almost impossible to make a rule on it without squelching the very debate process that the forum is for.

Originally posted by fangirl101
Superman holds back all of the time. There for we can't count his low showings.
No danger of that happening under the proposed rule change. Things that CIS and "in character" are the things that are being promoted, so the fact that Supes holds back will HAVE to be taken into consideration and held against him.

Originally posted by fangirl101
Silver Surfer Amps to infinity, And I've never seen him amp his strength to fight Thanos.
No one says that Surfer has an infinite amping capacity with any degree of seriousness. But removing his(or anyone else's) ability to amp his strength to a virtually unlimited degree(the proper phrasing of the ability) just because you don't like it will only lead to trouble because it's not holding true to the character being discussed. You're talking about putting our own preferences over the characters established abilities and that's wrong IMO.

And Thanos has amping abilities of his own and a higher base than Surfer so citing their confrontations as proof that he can't doesn't hold up.

Originally posted by fangirl101
Thor and Herculese Knock the Planet out of Orbit ( Silver age Hyperbole)and there are no effects shown of this happening nor is there a way for them to put it back in orbit.
I'd have to see the actual instance in question to accurately speak on it, but if it's as you say and was never actually depicted on panel in any way shape or form then I'd be inclined to agree with you.

Originally posted by fangirl101
4th world Bullshit. Saying TOAA is marvel's God is fine. But saying he's the writers and they auto win is BULL. It's a character with a name. The Moment it hits the panels in written or illustrated form.
If he's portrayed as being the writers, then how else are we to view him?

Originally posted by fangirl101
Superman Builds a city at superspeed. We see two panels and Think He's done it in a second flat. WTF. He couldn't possibly move that fast or he'd destroy the air and ignite fires and destroy what he's building. Same can be used of Gladiator hitting a planet only three times. He looks to be angry. So logic would dictate that he hit the planet more than three times in a fit and becuz the artist didn't want to bore us to death, he drew three panels.
I'd have to examine the Supes feat in question again to give my two cents on it(since it's been a while since I've seen it), but assuming things that aren't actually depicted in any way, shape, or form just because they're logical to you is a big "No No" IMO.

Originally posted by fangirl101
We should not be asked to prove Negatives. That speaks for itself.
I agree. But we also shouldn't be asked to disprove baseless claims...ever.

Originally posted by fangirl101
And repeated Scans speak for themselves. You act as if they need to be posted because someone is ignoring something. Master post trillions of the same scans. And in certain instances, Galan has even expressed circles. So it's not like one person only thinks the excessiveness is looney.
I didn't act like anything, I said that if you're talking about needless spam then I agree, but if you're talking about scans that are being dodged/ignored because they're not "good enough" for the opposition then I disagree.

Originally posted by fangirl101
Since you just had to know instances of what I was thinking about.
Dude settle down, you're not on trial here. I was just seeking a better understanding of what you were talking about so there wouldn't be any needless arguing due to a misunderstanding. If you don't want to contribute then feel free to exit the thread, but don't expect me to keep my opinion to myself about what you post in a discussion thread about what needs to be changed. And if you're unwilling to make yourself intentions clear, then you shouldn't get angry if/when someone misinterprets the meaning behind your posts.

Originally posted by darthgoober
No danger of that happening under the proposed rule change. Things that CIS and "in character" are the things that are being promoted, so the fact that Supes holds back will HAVE to be taken into consideration.


I've read a lot of Silver Surfer, And Don't remember him Amping his strength. I've seen him, just like thanos, use energy to amp thier strikes. Xman has done something similiar with his TK powers.




He's being portrayed as a character in a comic. Who's name is mentioned on panel. And who's avatar has been shown on panel. Even if the avatar is never shown, the very fact that his name is mentioned on panel makes it a comic adaptation.

let's not do this again Mmkay. FanGIRL. Female. Woman.

Originally posted by fangirl101
Originally posted by darthgoober
No danger of that happening under the proposed rule change. Things that CIS and "in character" are the things that are being promoted, so the fact that Supes holds back will HAVE to be taken into consideration.
Did you mean to say something here or was it something like a typing error?

Originally posted by fangirl101
I've read a lot of Silver Surfer, And Don't remember him Amping his strength. I've seen him, just like thanos, use energy to amp thier strikes. Xman has done something similiar with his TK powers. .
Well if that's your only problem with it then you should have said so, because there are scans floating around that specifically state that Surfer can amp his strength to a virtually unlimited degree. Remind me next time it comes up in an appropriate thread and I'll post one for you or just visit Surfer's respect thread to see it(I'm trying to avoid derailing this thread).




Originally posted by fangirl101
He's being portrayed as a character in a comic. Who's name is mentioned on panel. And who's avatar has been shown on panel. Even if the avatar is never shown, the very fact that his name is mentioned on panel makes it a comic adaptation. .
But if the comic adaption is something that is being written as the person writing and has control over the story, then how else are we supposed to view him and still hold true to the character?

Originally posted by fangirl101
let's not do this again Mmkay. FanGIRL. Female. Woman.
Way to ignore the rest...
Originally posted by darthgoober
*edit* settle down, you're not on trial here. I was just seeking a better understanding of what you were talking about so there wouldn't be any needless arguing due to a misunderstanding. If you don't want to contribute then feel free to exit the thread, but don't expect me to keep my opinion to myself about what you post in a discussion thread about what needs to be changed. And if you're unwilling to make yourself intentions clear, then you shouldn't get angry if/when someone misinterprets the meaning behind your posts.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Did you mean to say something here or was it something like a typing error?


Well if that's your only problem with it then you should have said so, because there are scans floating around that specifically state that Surfer can amp his strength to a virtually unlimited degree. Remind me next time it comes up in an appropriate thread and I'll post one for you or just visit Surfer's respect thread to see it(I'm trying to avoid derailing this thread).





But if the comic adaption is something that is being written as the person writing and has control over the story, then how else are we supposed to view him and still hold true to the character?


Way to ignore the rest...
Just because I didn't respond to it didn't mean I ignored it. There just wasn't anything to say behind it. That sometimes happens you know.

As for TOAA, It is a character, that writes and draws the marvel u. No different than the creator of DCU who creates and makes all the rules. Even how the characters would act. Same idea. Different interpretation. Both are still fictional characters and fictional Ideas.

And I don't want to see a panel of What surfer is said to be able to do. I want to see him actually amping his PHYSICAL strength to a near unlimted degree with no outside energy absorbtion.

Originally posted by fangirl101
Just because I didn't respond to it didn't mean I ignored it. There just wasn't anything to say behind it. That sometimes happens you know.
Yes I do, which is why I asked.

Originally posted by fangirl101
As for TOAA, It is a character, that writes and draws the marvel u. No different than the creator of DCU who creates and makes all the rules. Even how the characters would act. Same idea. Different interpretation. Both are still fictional characters and fictional Ideas.
I'm really not understanding this. I'm not saying anything about DC, I'm saying that if TOAA is portrayed as the guy writing a comic then that's what he is.

Originally posted by fangirl101
And I don't want to see a panel of What surfer is said to be able to do. I want to see him actually amping his PHYSICAL strength to a near unlimted degree with no outside energy absorbtion.
And how are you supposed to depict someone amping their strength to a virtually unlimited degree exactly? It'd be a lot like saying you want proof that GL's ring can create virtually anything via him creating virtually everything on panel. Open ended powers/power sets can't be judged that way.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Yes I do, which is why I asked.


I'm really not understanding this. I'm not saying anything about DC, I'm saying that if TOAA is portrayed as the guy writing a comic then that's what he is.


And how are you supposed to depict someone amping their strength to a virtually unlimited degree exactly? It'd be a lot like saying you want proof that GL's ring can create virtually anything via him creating virtually everything on panel.



TOAA by virtue of the name is a comic book character. Thus when it hits the paper, it is a comic character. It's a character that draws and writes the MU.

And I'm saying that Virtually means nothing with out actual proof. A description of said powers alone holds no weight if no feat is shown to back it up. Case in point. the New magog is said to be as strong as KC superman, but have as much power as Alan Scott's flame. Until he uses said powers to back up those claims, I can't go by that statement alone.

Originally posted by fangirl101
TOAA by virtue of the name is a comic book character. Thus when it hits the paper, it is a comic character. It's a character that draws and writes the MU.
I'm still not seeing your problem here.

Originally posted by fangirl101
And I'm saying that Virtually means nothing with out actual proof. A description of said powers alone holds no weight if no feat is shown to back it up. Case in point. the New magog is said to be as strong as KC superman, but have as much power as Alan Scott's flame. Until he uses said powers to back up those claims, I can't go by that statement alone.
So we should assume that GL's are each limited to creating constructs and preforming feats that they've been depicted as creating on-panel then and ignore their basic powerset? And Takion should only be credited with manipulating the exact forms of energy that he was depicted as manipulating. And time travelers and teleporters are only capable of traveling to periods/places that they've went to in the past?

Originally posted by darthgoober
I'm still not seeing your problem here.


So we should assume that GL's are each limited to creating constructs and preforming feats that they've been depicted as creating on-panel then and ignore their basic powerset? And Takion should only be credited with manipulating the exact forms of energy that he was depicted as manipulating. And time travelers and teleporters are only capable of traveling to periods/places that they've went to in the past?
We shouldn't assume anything.

We should assume that a GL who has never made any complex constructs no matter thier power set, wont' be doing so in a forum fight.

Takion on the other hand, has been shown to manipulate several sources of energy and thus the statement that he can manipulate all energy and has limitless energy manip is believe able. Especially since he's the walking source.

Time travel may or may not be the same. maybe they can travel only so far in time. That would have to be done by a case study of the character.

As for Surfer, All I ask, is where is the feats that show he can amp his physical stats so high.

Originally posted by fangirl101
We shouldn't assume anything.

We should assume that a GL who has never made any complex constructs no matter thier power set, wont' be doing so in a forum fight.
But should they be limited to what they've actually created or not? You can't cap one open ended ability unless you cap ALL open ended abilities if you want to retain any degree of impartiality. Virtually is virtually, if it gets tossed out then it should be tossed out completely.

Originally posted by fangirl101
Takion on the other hand, has been shown to manipulate several sources of energy and thus the statement that he can manipulate all energy and has limitless energy manip is believe able. Especially since he's the walking source.
And Surfer's stood toe to toe with many people of varying levels of strength. If Surfer's and other amper's abilities are limited to what's been shown, then so should everybody elses.

Originally posted by fangirl101
Time travel may or may not be the same. maybe they can travel only so far in time. That would have to be done by a case study of the character.
Case by case examples aren't what you've been talking about, you've been talking about completely neutering a characters given abilities at amping.

Originally posted by fangirl101
As for Surfer, All I ask, is where is the feats that show he can amp his physical stats so high.
You mean like trading punches with someone who had the strength of Gladiator w/Enigma Force?

Anyway we're going off topic and getting into specific character debates that are more appropriate to threads.

It seems that I wasted my time. Same circular arguments even though I specifically stated in the opening post this thread isn't for debating. I'm guessing aside from fanboys and trolls and adhering to current rules, reading the opening post of threads and understanding the stipulations of that thread is the main problem.

Unless it's shown someone amping themselves to infinity, it didn't happen. Same with Hulk's limitless strength. We can only go by what's been shown in the comic, not hyperbole.

Originally posted by Badabing
It seems that I wasted my time. Same circular arguments even though I specifically stated in the opening post this thread isn't for debating. I'm guessing aside from fanboys and trolls and adhering to current rules, reading the opening post of threads and understanding the stipulations of that thread is the main problem.

Unless it's shown someone amping themselves to infinity, it didn't happen. Same with Hulk's limitless strength. We can only go by what's been shown in the comic, not hyperbole.
That's my bad Bada. I have difficulty speaking in gerneral without getting lost in the specifics. Greater effort will be put into avoiding it in the future.

And I agree about "infinite strength" as the term is ridiculous(which is why no one uses it seriously), but are talking about putting a cap on Hulk's very ability to increase his strength with anger as the match goes on(like he'll never under any circumstances be angrier/stronger than he was during WWH, regardless of thread stipulations or match length) or saying that he shouldn't be considered to have infinite strength at the start of the match?

Meh... I don't see why we need to put a cap on that, as it can be argued by anybody in the thread that Hulk wouldn't grow angrier than WWH levels, even if infinite time passed.

And we already do argue that Hulk has a base strength level (varies based on incarnation of Hulk)

Originally posted by Cavalier
Meh... I don't see why we need to put a cap on that, as it can be argued by anybody in the thread that Hulk wouldn't grow angrier than WWH levels, even if infinite time passed.

And we already do argue that Hulk has a base strength level (varies based on incarnation of Hulk)
Along a similar train of thought, what about Sundipped Supes? Are we limiting his abilities to the level they were shown at after a couple of minutes even if the battleground is set inside the sun or the opening post gives him a week long sundip, or is the standard yo be that he can't be sundipped in threads for longer than has appeared on panel?

Can't we just use logic and extrapolation for a power up like that?

Originally posted by Cavalier
Can't we just use logic and extrapolation for a power up like that?
Only if we recognize his virtually unlimited ability to amp via sundip despite his never having done so.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Only if we recognize his virtually unlimited ability to amp via sundip despite his never having done so.
A Week Long Sun amp means nothing unless we know the rate in which he processes a sun amp. We don't know if he'll be hundreds of times more powerful, thousands, millions.

Originally posted by fangirl101
A Week Long Sun amp means nothing unless we know the rate in which he processes a sun amp. We don't know if he'll be hundreds of times more powerful, thousands, millions.
So should we limit him to OWAW levels then, despite the length of the sundip?

Originally posted by darthgoober
So should we limit him to OWAW levels then, despite the length of the sundip?
What else can we do. Unless someone is going to take the time to figure out out much more powerful he was at OWAW and then do the math to figure out how powerful he would be in a week. And We dont' know if he gets a metric rate of increase or a Geo-metric rate.

Originally posted by fangirl101
What else can we do. Unless someone is going to take the time to figure out out much more powerful he was at OWAW and then do the math to figure out how powerful he would be in a week. And We dont' know if he gets a metric rate of increase or a Geo-metric rate.
Ok, your opinion is noted I disagree of course because it constitutes ignoring a characters given abilities(not to mention the fact that it bars any kryptonians who haven't already sundipped from ever being able to do so regardless of the thread conditions), but we're not supposed to debate that here.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Ok, your opinion is noted. I disagree of course because it constitutes ignoring a characters given abilities, but we're not supposed to debate here.
I'm not ignoring his ability to Sun amp. I know it's there. But without knowing the particulars, like how fast, how much, at what rate, how can we accurately engage in a debate about a sun amped superman?

Originally posted by fangirl101
I'm not ignoring his ability to Sun amp. I know it's there. But without knowing the particulars, like how fast, how much, at what rate, how can we accurately engage in a debate about a sun amped superman?
I'd prefer to use logical extrapolation myself, but maybe that's just me.

Meh. IMO, that's not something we need a policy on... large amps should be handled on a case by case basis, and if a thread gives an amp with power that's impossible to gauge, then say so in the thread.

Originally posted by darthgoober
That's my bad Bada. I have difficulty speaking in gerneral without getting lost in the specifics. Greater effort will be put into avoiding it in the future.

And I agree about "infinite strength" as the term is ridiculous(which is why no one uses it seriously), but are talking about putting a cap on Hulk's very ability to increase his strength with anger as the match goes on(like he'll never under any circumstances be angrier/stronger than he was during WWH, regardless of thread stipulations or match length) or saying that he shouldn't be considered to have infinite strength at the start of the match? What good is a character's ability to amp to the Nth power if it's never be shown?

I mean sure, there's potential for certain characters to amp themselves to an unknown and possible infinite degree but how does that translate into the debate? Because Hulk has potentially infinite strength he can't be beat? He's stronger than character X because of the possibility?

That just turns into a mess because it's never been shown. Hulk's strength has a limit, the limit being the highest strength feat he's had so far.

Same with Superman. Theoretically, a sundip could amp Superman to an infinite degree but we can only go by his highest feats via sundip.

Originally posted by Badabing
What good is a character's ability to amp to the Nth power if it's never be shown?

I mean sure, there's potential for certain characters to amp themselves to an unknown and possible infinite degree but how does that translate into the debate? Because Hulk has potentially infinite strength he can't be beat? He's stronger than character X because of the possibility?

That just turns into a mess because it's never been shown. Hulk's strength has a limit, the limit being the highest strength feat he's had so far.

Same with Superman. Theoretically, a sundip could amp Superman to an infinite degree but we can only go by his highest feats via sundip.
In a CBR type match you'd have a point, but luckily enough we've been talking about going off things as they're portrayed in an actual comic and because of that amping will never be the unstoppable force so many fear it will become due to WIS. But it's an integral part of the Hulk's character to eventually surpass his opponent within the realm of physical strength if sufficient time passes, you take that away from him and you're not debating the Hulk as he's portrayed in comics anymore.

Same thing goes for Surfer, he can and does amp to his opponents level whether he's facing Hulk, Thor, or someone with the strength of a unipowered Gladiator. That's a significant and potentially damning ability to his opponents but if you take it away from him then you're not really debating Surfer anymore, you're debating what you think Surfer SHOULD be and unless I'm mistaken that's the kind of thing we're trying to get away from.

Amping isn't necessarily a trump card(though it often is in the Hulk's case) it's being made out to be here, it's an equalizer.

Originally posted by darthgoober
In a CBR type match you'd have a point, but luckily enough we've been talking about going off things as they're portrayed in an actual comic and because of that amping will never be the unstoppable force so many fear it will become due to WIS. But it's an integral part of the Hulk's character to eventually surpass his opponent within the realm of physical strength if sufficient time passes, you take that away from him and you're not debating the Hulk as he's portrayed in comics anymore.

Same thing goes for Surfer, he can and does amp to his opponents level whether he's facing Hulk, Thor, or someone with the strength of a unipowered Gladiator. That's a significant and potentially damning ability to his opponents but if you take it away from him then you're not really debating Surfer anymore, you're debating what you think Surfer SHOULD be and unless I'm mistaken that's the kind of thing we're trying to get away from.

Amping isn't necessarily a trump card(though it often is in the Hulk's case) it's being made out to be here, it's an equalizer.
How does Surfer amp to match Uni-powered Gladiator but not Thanos? I'm curious.

Originally posted by fangirl101
How does Surfer amp to match Uni-powered Gladiator but not Thanos? I'm curious.
We're not supposed to get into vs debates(so I won't continue with this line of discussion), but Thanos has amping abilities of his own and a higher base than Surfer.

Originally posted by darthgoober
We're not supposed to get into vs debates(so I won't continue with this line of discussion), but Thanos has amping abilities of his own and a higher base than Surfer.

I see. But we don't have to get into the versus part. There are things that make me wonder. For instance, How do we know what thanos' standard strength level is? Every time I see him knocking a top tier out, it's with some cosmic gloves on. Basically energy amping his strikes. at any rate, even with new rules or clarification of rules, the debates would more than likely end as they always do. People siding with thier favorite character no matter what.

Originally posted by fangirl101
I see. But we don't have to get into the versus part. There are things that make me wonder. For instance, How do we know what thanos' standard strength level is? Every time I see him knocking a top tier out, it's with some cosmic gloves on. Basically energy amping his strikes. at any rate, even with new rules or clarification of rules, the debates would more than likely end as they always do. People siding with thier favorite character no matter what.
We DON'T know how strong Thanos is except to know that he's stronger than the likes of Thor and the Hulk by a fair share due to his track record against them. Quantified feats are a rarity at herald level and above due to the fact that even the writers can't really comprehend the amount of power the characters they're writing posses, so in the end you just have to look at the evidence available and let logic and common sense be your guide. If things were as clear as you seem to be wanting then there wouldn't be the need for a debate forum because every match would be obvious at first glance and there wouldn't be anything to debate about.

Dudes. Battlezone this or something.

Originally posted by darthgoober
We DON'T know how strong Thanos is except to know that he's stronger than the likes of Thor and the Hulk by a fair share due to his track record against them. Quantified feats are a rarity at herald level and above due to the fact that even the writers can't really comprehend the amount of power the characters they're writing posses, so in the end you just have to look at the evidence available and let logic and common sense be your guide. If things were as clear as you seem to be wanting then there wouldn't be the need for a debate forum because every match would be obvious at first glance and there wouldn't be anything to debate about.
So then you would say the Juggernaut is also stronger Than Thor and Hulk by a fair share due to his track record against them?

Originally posted by fangirl101
So then you would say the Juggernaut is also stronger Than Thor and Hulk by a fair share due to his track record against them?

Juggernaut actually has a losing record against hulk

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Dudes. Battlezone this or something.


Good luck trying to convince anyone of that. I've been repeatedly pitching the idea to settle various things but no one else seems to be willing to put their argument on the line and let others decide who's being more reasonable. But don't worry because I've already decided that I'm not letting this thread get anymore derailed.

Originally posted by fangirl101
So then you would say the Juggernaut is also stronger Than Thor and Hulk by a fair share due to his track record against them?
What didn't you get about this...
Originally posted by darthgoober
We're not supposed to get into vs debates(so I won't continue with this line of discussion), but Thanos has amping abilities of his own and a higher base than Surfer.

Stop trying to derail the thread. If you want to debate this stuff then take Digi's advice.

Originally posted by ultimatethor
Juggernaut actually has a losing record against hulk
When? When Hulk was amped with Celestial tech?

Originally posted by fangirl101
When? When Hulk was amped with Celestial tech?

As goober has been saying, lets not derail this thread with vs matches so i wont go ver dis again

1. Hulk won in their first encounter, Savage hulk vs jugs
2. He won as WWH
3. He won as WH

the only time jugs has ever beaten hulk was against prof hulk.

Originally posted by ultimatethor
As goober has been saying, lets not derail this thread with vs matches so i wont go ver dis again

1. Hulk won in their first encounter, Savage hulk vs jugs
2. He won as WWH
3. He won as WH

the only time jugs has ever beaten hulk was against prof hulk.
never seen him get any victories. are they in his respect thread?

Originally posted by darthgoober
Good luck trying to convince anyone of that. I've been repeatedly pitching the idea to settle various things but no one else seems to be willing to put their argument on the line and let others decide who's being more reasonable. But don't worry because I've already decided that I'm not letting this thread get anymore derailed.


What didn't you get about this...


Stop trying to derail the thread. If you want to debate this stuff then take Digi's advice.
Some nerve saying someone is trying to derail a thread. Check yourself a couple of pages back. Dont' do me any favors telling me something when that isn't my intent. And you couldn't follow your own advice.

Originally posted by darthgoober
In a CBR type match you'd have a point, but luckily enough we've been talking about going off things as they're portrayed in an actual comic and because of that amping will never be the unstoppable force so many fear it will become due to WIS. But it's an integral part of the Hulk's character to eventually surpass his opponent within the realm of physical strength if sufficient time passes, you take that away from him and you're not debating the Hulk as he's portrayed in comics anymore.

Same thing goes for Surfer, he can and does amp to his opponents level whether he's facing Hulk, Thor, or someone with the strength of a unipowered Gladiator. That's a significant and potentially damning ability to his opponents but if you take it away from him then you're not really debating Surfer anymore, you're debating what you think Surfer SHOULD be and unless I'm mistaken that's the kind of thing we're trying to get away from.

Amping isn't necessarily a trump card(though it often is in the Hulk's case) it's being made out to be here, it's an equalizer. Those characters have shown limits in comics, therefor they have limits on KMC.

Full potential blah blah blah means nothing w/o feats to back it. Supposition, hyperbole and hypothesis based on the full capability of a character w/o feats to back those claims is not proof.

Anyway, this thread has been derailed because people either didn't read the opening post, didn't understand the opening post or disregarded the opening post, which seems to happen a lot. It's ironic that this thread was made to make the Vs forum a better place by tweaking debating rules but the guidelines of the opening post couldn't even be followed.

Anyway, this thread is closed as is the discussion about tweaking the rules.