Rules & debating discussion thread.

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...

Meh... I just have a problem with the term "stupidity" due to the connotation. And that it's not really the writer's stupidity, but simply the nature of comics.

But that's all fine details. Same basic idea.

Hey Smurph(since you're the only person contributing at this point), what would you think about declaring Force Fields "standard equipment"(and therefor already activated at the outset of combat) for characters who use them consistently in battle? I'm not talking about guys like Surfer or Thor who momentarily throw one up every 5 or 6 fights, I'm talking about people like GL, Invisible Woman, or Magneto who pretty much always have one raised when the shit hits the fan.

Originally posted by Cavalier
Meh... I just have a problem with the term "stupidity" due to the connotation. And that it's not really the writer's stupidity, but simply the nature of comics.

although I think PIS is a valid term, CIS is not.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Hey Smurph(since you're the only person contributing at this point), what would you think about declaring Force Fields "standard equipment"(and therefor already activated at the outset of combat) for characters who use them consistently in battle? I'm not talking about guys like Surfer or Thor who momentarily throw one up every 5 or 6 fights, I'm talking about people like GL, Invisible Woman, or Magneto who pretty much always have one raised when the shit hits the fan.

Or just standard battle form... something along those lines. Treat it the same as we would treat Colossus' metal form- auto activated.

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...

I wouldn't say it makes sense for shields to be standard equipment, you can always just say "shields are on" or something of sorts. I get the idea since its stupid to have a battle without stipulations just to end up in speedblitz, because the shield its not raised, but I still think is just better just to assume shields are on, when otherwise the battle is silly, and to say you are using that in the thread.

I don't quite want to see a shielded starting Thanos, threads would just double.

I would like to see tougher rules on fanboys, like they have to be back up their claims or else get a warning, temp ban and than a real ban. Imo fanboys get away with stuff so easily these days.

Originally posted by Endrict Nuul
I would like to see tougher rules on fanboys, like they have to be back up their claims or else get a warning, temp ban and than a real ban. Imo fanboys get away with stuff so easily these days.

I dont think we should permaban anyone except the real trolls imo. I think long temp bans would work. That way if someone is permabanned they dont come back here under another account. If say they did under a new account during a long temp ban they get more time off. Im talking months. That way they will change their ways and wont just change their ip address or find some other way back on here.

Just my opinion is all and I dont want to derail this thread. Again,like I said earlier I think pis and cis should be taken away altogether. If someone wants to say that Spiderman is greater than Firelord tear them apart. But I see too many posters hide from comic book facts and call pis everytime they cant accept something.

On a sidenote, did anyone really care about the storm fanboys? I really thought they were hilarious how they would always find a away to give Storm the win. Most enjoyed it and few ever toom them seriously. Sure,it gets frustrating but it isnt a bannable offense just because someone keeps saying that Storm beats Thor. Its hilarious.

Originally posted by Endrict Nuul
Imo fanboys get away with stuff so easily these days.

Granted I do have less patience than most with trolls, socks and fanboys.

Originally posted by Endrict Nuul
Granted I do have less patience than most with trolls, socks and fanboys.

Originally posted by Endrict Nuul
I would like to see tougher rules on fanboys, like they have to be back up their claims or else get a warning, temp ban and than a real ban. Imo fanboys get away with stuff so easily these days.

Originally posted by Starscream M
umm no. fanboyism was much worse in the past. Most of the biggest fanboys have been banned (xmeat and many of the hulk and storm fanboys). The vs forum is pretty boring these days as it is with so many posters having been banned or leaving, if you ban any more people, there'll be virtually no one interesting left.

Originally posted by Starscream M
I find them to be an amusing source of free entertainment...hence my opposition to banning them. besides, one can just ignore them.

Originally posted by Badabing
We're not talking about that for the last time!

Didnt know it was talk about before, sorry B....

Originally posted by Badabing
We're not talking about that for the last time! I consider the source with regards to these 2 posts. Either add to the topic or leave. You're close to another ban as it stands. Thanks.

Originally posted by Starscream M
you have like some personal vendetta against me or something. I see other people posting offtopic stuff and I don't see you warning them. Quanchi basically posted exactly what I posted, so better issue him a warning as well. Anyways, ban me if you think that's what I deserve, I don't really care anymore as you have a different standard for me than other posters. so whatever. ban every member you don't like and close every thread you don't like, KMC is already a shell of its past, with more and more members leaving and less interesting topics everyday (since any thread that gets any debate gets closed) the only threads that stay open are the ones no one gives a sh1t about.

As you've already been told (broken record), threads get closed for many reasons including bashing, flaming and too many reports.

Now you're warned once again for posting nonsense in this thread after numerous requests to stop. Thanks.

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.

'Poor debating tactits' is what's used in pretty much 85-90% of the discussions on this board.
The burden of proof is quite clear who it lies upon, as long as the posters have a basic amount of logic.

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.