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 darthgooberThe scans were to demonstrate a given character shown going all out vs what a character is typically shown as in comics. The "Trinity" aspect isn't important. The differences of what's shown is my point. You can substitute any character you'd like. Heck, Thor vs Rulk works. Round 1 Thor basically pulls his punches and ends up on the Moon. Round 2 Rulk states that Thor has him on the ropes and Hulk probably saved his life. I'm trying to reconcile CIS with fighting all out. For this thread, the context isn't the issue.
From what I understand, Supes's mind/personality was altered in that instance from merging with WW and Batmans(or something to that effect) so I'd say no because it's not "in character" for Supes himself. We can speculate all day about what might happen when a character "really goes all out" but in most cases one person's guess is as good as another's because not every hero has enough appearances to warrant a "kill mode" scenario and that puts them at a MASSIVE disadvantage because there's no proof to support their "all out" abilities.I think that the word "Bloodlusted" should be removed from the rules all together unless we're going to take up a CBR style of debating because it's meaning is entirely too subjective. Let the trem "Fighting to the best of their ability" incorporate the fact that for whatever reason the characters ARE enemies and HAVE to take each other down(like in Civil War) but they shouldn't actually be vicious unless that personality type regularly shows through on panel.
Originally posted by ultimatethorI'm thinking that inferring what "you'd" do with a given power set isn't viable. That's what is done in tournies. But we need to get some more opinions.
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 Badabing
The scans were to demonstrate a given character shown going all out vs what a character is typically shown as in comics. The "Trinity" aspect isn't important. The differences of what's shown is my point. You can substitute any character you'd like. Heck, Thor vs Rulk works. Round 1 Thor basically pulls his punches and ends up on the Moon. Round 2 Rulk states that Thor has him on the ropes and Hulk probably saved his life. I'm trying to reconcile CIS with fighting all out. For this thread, the context isn't the issue.
Personally I see enough problems in the forums people usually leave out context when debating sometimes its just people trolling but Bada has been quick to close down threads that have gone sour for whatever reason the rules do need to be looked over and edited so people dont get so frustrated with horrible threads.
2 points:
1) Good rules are rules that are simple and clear. If you make rules that are too complex and convoluted, then people won't understand or follow them.
2) Guys, debating comics isn't a science. We shouldn't reduce it to such. Part of the fun of debating comics is approaching it from different perspectives and reaching different outcomes. We don't have to enforce some kind of group think...that would result in completely mechanical debates with monotonous results.
I agree with Digi that we shouldn't tell people how they should debate. Sure we can set some general guidelines, but everyone should be allowed their freedom to voice their opinions (as long as its not blatant flame or trolling). Nobody is forcing anyone to read other's opinions, if you don't like it, just ignore it.
Originally posted by Starscream M
also, this is a question for Bada:What is the purpose of closing threads?
I mean good threads, not spite threads. For example, if there is a Superman vs Thor thread...it's obviously going to draw a lot of attention. Now some people get out of hand and may flame or bash. So why not warn (or temp ban) those people who are ruining the thread? When you close a thread, it punishes everyone, including those who have done nothing wrong and would've liked to genuinely participate in discussion. It just seems to me lately that a lot of threads have been closed just because a few people get out of hand, and rather then those people getting punished, the thread just gets closed...which ends discussion on some popular topics.
Agreed, but sometimes im glad they get closed.
Originally posted by Starscream M
Why?Is anyone on KMC forced to visit a thread?
If anyone is offended by what's going on in a thread, could they just not ignore it?
Its just a pain to get into certain debates because they don't go anywhere it just degenerates into insults but I just don't like how other people get punished.
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?
^how ironic
anyway, anyone who makes a claim regarding powersets being used in uncommon fashions should prove it with a scan or something.
for instance, the silver surfer stated that he could create point singularities within his opponents on a whim, though he hasn't done so, it is elementary for him thus his casual statement of it. of coarse he refrains from it cause it's an instakill and he tries his best not to take sentient lives but the ability is still there.
Originally posted by Starscream M
but why not warn or temp ban those people who say bs?
You should be careful you could end up getting banned! You might also know some posters try to annoy others posters unpurpose so they get banned.
I don't think mods are always able to distingush who the trouble makers are or always care, sometimes if they get alot of reports it just irritates them.