Originally posted by OneDumbG0
^ That's reasonable. And I've argued that very position several times. But I've actually flip-flopped before on this issue of CIS. And the only problem I have with the above is that there will always be two situations where your version of CIS would ALWAYS limit a character's ability to fight at full capacity: 1) if collateral damage would endanger life; or 2) if the character perenially holds back.For instance: 1) Superman fighting near a city would never fly at light speeds since he understands that it would cause catastrophic collateral damage to the city and it's inhabitants; and 2) Superman almost never goes all-out on an opponent at the very outset. He almost always takes their measure first and begins peeling away his limitations just enough to make sure he doesn't kill his opponent. And going with this option #1 of CIS interpretation, CIS can limit characters like Superman severely.
Personally, I think the idea of CIS was originally intended to be more limited to actual stupidity and wasn't meant to be extended to ideas of self-imposed limits. Instead of putting emphasis on what you underline, try reading the rule with this alternative emphasis:
[b]Character Induced Stupidity, or CIS, on the other hand, refers to any natural mental limitations that characters impose upon themselves and reduce their ability to use their own skills and powers effectively . Unlike PIS, CIS does not occur because the plot requires it, but because the character is genuinely that dumb. Examples of the CIS-afflicted include characters such as Rhino or Jar Jar Binks. Events of CIS are not exempt from debates.
If you interpret CIS with this emphasis on stupidity... then CIS would never limit a character's ability to fight at full capacity. Superman holding back is a choice, not a natural result of his stupidity and by default, would not be a factor in any hypothetical fight. The rule of full capacity and rule of CIS can be read in conjunction with each other without any conflict. So is this option #2 better than option #1?
Not always. Because if you accept this interpretation, then sometimes the result is... Superman would fight at light speed in Metropolis, and end up killing a lot of innocent people. You basically take the character out of Superman and argue simple power sets. Neither option #1 or option #2 sounds right in their entirety. Therefore, I think the rules need a bit of fine-tuning. And until then, I'd suggest that new thread starters ought to make clear what elements are free for discussion or not. My two cents. [/B]
Yeah the biggest problem is that the rules themselves are open to a lot of subjective interpretation. Truth be told, since our primary rules were pretty much copied directly from CBR whatever standard is held there should also apply here since it's obviously the way the rules were meant to be interpreted. But the thing I've always liked about KMC is that it's members seem to try to find a balance between comics and realism as compared to the extremes found at Herochat and CBR. We don't buy Thing tagging lightspeed characters just because they "forget" their speed in comics, but we look to what the characters actually DO rather to establish their limits rather than leap to assumptions because they kinda make sense(like attributing Thor with blitzing capabilities). So that's kinda the mindset I try to use in my interpretation of the rules.
But don't fret because the Mods are currently in the process of clarifying the rules a bit, it's just taking them a while to get everything sorted out(they're currently accepting suggestions via PM if you want to throw your two cents their way).