In both cases there were largely "dictionary battles"- over vocabulary definitions of words "soul", "king" etc. instead of actual debate.
The only thing that was solid concern in Id's case is "internalising" the power of Crown which may be interpreted as bringing Crown (in altered form, but still) to the battlefield.
Once again, shut up you people, Delph isn't coming here anytime soon to "babysit" you so stop with that.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
delph was under the impression that Cog didn't have his King powers at all but still was King, giving him access to the tower (with the crown) as a base of operations. This turned out to be false.
I think that whether Cog without his Crown retains the King powers remains a issue of contention and is not at all settled...hence Delph not making a ruling.
Leo has not offered any ACTUAL proof that Cog without the Crown retains his powers.
Originally posted by Charlotte DeBel
In both cases there were largely "dictionary battles"- over vocabulary definitions of words "soul", "king" etc. instead of actual debate.The only thing that was solid concern in Id's case is "internalising" the power of Crown which may be interpreted as bringing Crown (in altered form, but still) to the battlefield.
Once again, shut up you people, Delph isn't coming here anytime soon to "babysit" you so stop with that.
With or with out Delph present, the topic was made to address concerns for one to express themselves.
I along with some of the members here, wish only the best of luck to Delph and his father’s condition.
However, this does not prevent anyone from openly expressing themselves in an open topic, on a public forum.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Charlotte, we can talk about it if we want to. I realize you're just trying to keep bickering to a minimum, which is good, and I agree it should be dropped. But I can't let challenges go unanswered, nor are they obligated to be silent if they disagree.
Sorry, if I'm a little bit overdoing with trying to keep you and Id calm. But in Delph's absence that leads nowhere and you're repeating the same set of arguments over and over.
A couple of pages and it becomes as boring as watching the grass grow.
Originally posted by Charlotte DeBelyou're wrong Charlotte. Id's situation has nothing to do with the dictionary meaning of 'king'. rather, the central issue is whether Cog without the Crown still possesses the Crown powers (as Leo is arguing) or not (as Id is arguing).
In both cases there were largely "dictionary battles"- over vocabulary definitions of words "soul", "king" etc. instead of actual debate.
You're right that in Digi's case, the definition of 'soul' is the central issue of whether it should apply to memories and experiences exception for the carryover rule.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I've read rule 8 too. Which is why I asked delph if souls were a valid part of information retention, and would they be covered under that rule, because I wasn't sure either. He said yes, also knowing that I was using the souls to empower Minion. Others offered the same complaints, and he still approved it. I can't tell you anything different, bud.The Crown isn't information, it's an item.
Ah how peculiar and the empowering your character.
Is that an item or information?
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Charlotte, we can talk about it if we want to. I realize you're just trying to keep bickering to a minimum, which is good, and I agree it should be dropped. But I can't let challenges go unanswered, nor are they obligated to be silent if they disagree.
that doesn't mean we need pages and pages of the same thing said over and over... 😬
can everyone just please state their case, and leave it at that until ill returns?
From the Transactions thread:
Originally posted by illadelph12
I should be available for the next couple hours, possibly the remainder of the day, so I'll look over the debate in the discussion thread.I'll say now, as I told Smurph last night on MSN, I consider a soul to simply be information, as it's a collection of a being's experiences, knowledge, etc, regardless of sentience (as even machines can have sentience). I don't romanticize it.
In my opinion, there is no rule violation on Digi's part.
Now, as far as the logistics of how his plan works, that is a different matter entirely and up to interpretation.
Originally posted by leonidasbut again--he LET others rule for him. and in that panel i mentioned, it seems they still suffer HIS judgements, are subject to HIS authority. clear indications of his POWER. IMO.
power to rule is different from having some tangible powers
Lex Luthor ruled over the Injustice League, but many in the League could easily kill Lex Luthor.
So I don't quite buy the argument that "if Cog rules hell, he must be some superpowerful being"
injustice gang AGREED to follow lex's rule because he was the smartest. you really think a regular guy is gonna be able to control a land filled with the most vile, back-stabbing creatures in the universe without powers? seriously? what's to keep any old guy from walking in and doing the same? without powers of some sort, he'd be dead in moments in hell, or at least replaced. if he IS building a tower to attack heaven (as it has been inferred) you think he would lead his army and the assault without powers?
meh. i've raised my points enough times, and given what evidence i could in the face of a complete lack of appearances by cog as king. it does raise yet one more question--does the appearance rule count as regards the ERA of the character that was chosen?
far as i know, cog has only a couple appearances as KING. so . . . . can KING COG even be considered draftable . . . 😕 (i ask because id NEEDS king cog to have the tower and to have access to the crown . . .)
the question also is still whether a crown should be standard equipment for a king . . .
oi vey . . .
and delph--my prayers are with you and yours.
Originally posted by leonidas
injustice gang AGREED to follow lex's rule because he was the smartest. you really think a regular guy is gonna be able to control a land filled with the most vile, back-stabbing creatures in the universe without powers? seriously? what's to keep any old guy from walking in and doing the same? without powers of some sort, he'd be dead in moments in hell, or at least replaced.
my lex luthor example wasn't a direct analogy...it was just to show an instance of where a powerless being could rule over much more powerful subjects
one way Cog could rule without powers is if he is backed up by a very powerful being. Thus his subjects wouldn't challenge Cog's rule for fear of incurring the wrath of whoever is backing Cog.
btw, I'm not saying you're wrong. You may very well be correct that Cog has powers. I just don't agree with your reasoning for reaching that conclusion ie. "he rules over powerful beings, hence he must be powerful".
Originally posted by leonidashow is standard equipment defined? Is there a certain percentage threshold a character must reach before an item is deemed standard? It seems some are very obvious (webbing for spiderman, shield for captain america, and hammer for thor)...not sure if the crown is so obvious.
the question also is still whether a crown should be standard equipment for a king . . .
I believe Id posted that out of Cog's 3 appearances as king, he was wearing the crown for only 1 of the 3.
Originally posted by Starscream M
how is standard equipment defined? Is there a certain percentage threshold a character must reach before an item is deemed standard? It seems some are very obvious (webbing for spiderman, shield for captain america, and hammer for thor)...not sure if the crown is so obvious.I believe Id posted that out of Cog's 3 appearances as king, he was wearing the crown for only 1 of the 3.
no, no real definition exists. and if he has someone BACKING him, to allow him to retain his lordship/crown, we've not seen it. 😬
the 10-appearance rule for an era-specific character could render all of this moot though. does anyone know? i can't draft sue and give her uni-power, nor does she have enough appearances to be draftable AS uni-lord sue. in that case, it seems the rule WOULD apply . . .
so . . . delph?
Standard equipment is something that is routinely used in a character's history. For example, Captain America's shield, Ironman's armor, Batman's batarangs, smoke pellets and utility belt, Punisher's guns, Deathstroke's staff, etc.
Specialty items wouldn't be considered standard equipment. For an example, if in a particular story Hawkeye was depicted as acquiring and using a special anti-Hulk gamma arrow, but he was not depicted as using that item in any other story before or since, it wouldn't be considered "standard equipment", though he was depicted as having access to it, or if Brainiac had an invention that he created and a storyline was made which depicts him testing said item and going on an adventure with the LoSH because of it's effects, that item would not be considered "standard equipment" simply because of it's use.
As for the era specific version of a character, Id didn't state a specific era for the character, he simply drafted Cogliostro which means current version by default, so the character's entire history is valid, not just his most recent appearances.
Originally posted by illadelph12
Standard equipment is something that is routinely used in a character's history. For example, Captain America's shield, Ironman's armor, Batman's batarangs, smoke pellets and utility belt, Punisher's guns, Deathstroke's staff, etc.
by that definition, the Crown doesn't seem like it would be standard equipment imo.