TOONFORCE - Yea or Nay?

Recently it's become a point of contention, so Peach and I have decided to open a poll thread to settle this once and for all.

For those who haven't been paying attention, "Toonforce" is a claim made by some members that particular characters' feats cannot be reasonably used for debate, as they ignore physics for the sake of funny or cool. The reasoning is that these "toonforce" feats are not intended to portray a character's true ability, but are over-exaggerating for that particular scene. By the claim of toonforce, these feats would have to be thrown out for the sake of reasoned debate.

Others think that characters should be presented in the vs. threads precisely as they are portrayed in the games. They argue that the "toonforce" feats are realistic for the game's universe, and so should be preserved as each characters' feats even in vs. threads, so that characters are fairly discussed to their fullest ability as portrayed in their respective games.

So, fair members, I give the decision to you. This poll will remain up for at least a week, unless there is reason to keep it up longer. After that period, the poll will be locked, and the majority decision will be held up as official rule for VG VS.

Members may, if they like, post reasons to support their decision, for others to read. However, trolling will not be tolerated in this thread. Any reports of trolling will, if valid, be dealt with severely. There will be no namecalling, flaming, baiting, etc. at all. Civil discussion is allowed, I want viewpoints to be reasoned as much as possible. But do not allow it to go farther than reasonable debate.

Let's settle this issue once and for all.

EDIT - My current working definition of toonforce, and what will be used as the base if the ruling is in favor, is an event or feat that occurs with no reasonable explanation or precedent, does not occur again (occurring twice causes itself to be precedent), and was clearly used as a storytelling device for the purposes of entertainment.

It may be altered as necessary, if the majority decide toonforce is a legitimate claim.

Are we actually meant to discuss this?

Edit: Toonforce going to follow the Rule of Funny for this as well?

Civil discussion is allowed, I want viewpoints to be reasoned as much as possible. But do not allow it to go farther than reasonable debate.

And I'm going to stress the "no trolling". If discussion in here ever becomes hostile in any way, those who were involved will get their asses handed to them.

I suggest unrealistic, illogical and sometimes ungaugable feats should not be allowed. Simply because debating with such rules game vs game is nigh impossible. I think it makes things a whole lot harder to debate between two characters if something unrealistic/illogical is being argued against something logically possible.

Therefore toonforce should not be allowed, it may be a depiction of the games character but in a debate where logic is easier to use and to comprehend a pair when compared adding something completly illogical counters the point of debate in general imo. A logical conclusion cannot be brought together if illogical means are used to bring about that conclusion.

If toonforce were to be established (as I think it should under certain circumstances.) how would it be determined whether a certain feat is toonforce? Because if there's no way to decide it I could imagine threads to devolve into petty arguments about whether a certain characters feats are toonforce rather than being about a comparison for the characters.

Alternatively the rule could be that one has to explain what one considers toonforce and what they think the fight would be like under those circumstances, or a thread starter should specify it in their opening post.

When I say toonforce I mean anything physically unviable. Something unrealistic physically. I guess all arguments, including toonforce devolve into "petty arguments" unfortunatly. Even if toonforce was agreed on, or not there will still be arguments on what actually is toonforce.

I like the "thread starter specify" idea.

Originally posted by Burning thought
When I say toonforce I mean anything physically unviable. Something unrealistic physically. I guess all arguments, including toonforce devolve into "petty arguments" unfortunatly. Even if toonforce was agreed on, or not there will still be arguments on what actually is toonforce.

I like the "thread starter specify" idea.

I know what you mean, what you mean is unrealistic and pointless imo, as most superhuman characters feats are unrealistic physically.

However extraordinary feats out of character for plot or humour's sake should not be involved in a debate.

And I agree with you, without further rules and oversight allowing something called "toonforce" will not be for the good of civil and fluid debate.

Though I agree with BT that this can't be an unbiased way of determining it, as obviously a large amount of users hate him (whether for valid or not valid reasons) and would likely rather vote against him than consider the pros and cons.

I dont think this a good way to determine anything. For your reason, and for the fact anyone can get a friend or someone who does not even visit this area of the forum to simply tick "no". Without explaining or making any view or argument.

Not that this is any way "against" or "for" me, I think if anyone presses "no" because of me rather than their own views then they completly misunderstand what this threads decision means.

I suggest that unreal actions are not seen as discardable. We are talking about fictions in video games.

Illogical I do have a problem with. But the things that we've been discussing as toonforce are not illogical. We can clearly see Link lift and balance his pillar on his own strength. The only way it is illogical is that it breaks physics by allowing a non-massive character to produce more force than possible by the laws of physics. And pretty much every character in fiction with super strength breaks physics in the same way.

The real problem here is that toonforce is being used to say that math can't be used on that pillar in order to calculate it's weight. But whether or not Link lifting it is toonforce cannot take away from the clear composition and size of it. With the claim of toonforce, all that would be reasoned is that the character does not really have the ability and the action was performed for the sake of being funny. But that also presents a problem, this action isn't funny.

The other serious point of discussion is Dangoro. BT argues that because Dangoro bounces on the lava when tossed (The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess), the entire fight is tossed out as toonforce. I've before suggested that only Dangoro bouncing qualifies as toonforce, because it's funny. Link stopping and tossing him, does not, because that's the part that isn't funny.

Toonforce doesn't actually have any bearing on Zelda.

Well even if you have a "toonforce" what counts as toonforce? The only instances of toonforce I can think of from any game I've played to date (and it's a lot of them) are from Wind Waker, and those toonforce "feats" are not even feats because later on he's involved in serious feats that put the "toonforce" ones to shame.

I don't think it should be implemented, there hasn't been a single legitimate accusation of toonforce on this forum since I registered.

So your not argueing what this thread is outling, your argueing a point thats part of your game. Most of your post is directed towards Link. This is not what this thread is for, the Razie lvs Link thread is for that.

This is a "Zelda is not toonforce" argument imo rather than "toonforce feats should or should not be allowed in a debate"

The things being called "toonforce" by BT are not actually "toonforce", which is an exception from the rest of their feats for the rule of funny, as opposed to an impressive and non-humourous crowning moment of awesome when Link tosses a pillar.

Whther they are or not toonforce, their still illogical but as I said, this is not what this thread is for... 😬

Yeah. But it does actually have bearing on this thread. Because anything else that would receive an accusation of toonforce would end up having to follow the same rules.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
I suggest that unreal actions are not seen as discardable. We are talking about fictions in video games.

Illogical I do have a problem with. But the things that we've been discussing as toonforce are not illogical. We can clearly see Link lift and balance his pillar on his own strength. The only way it is illogical is that it breaks physics by allowing a non-massive character to produce more force than possible by the laws of physics. And pretty much every character in fiction with super strength breaks physics in the same way.

The real problem here is that toonforce is being used to say that math can't be used on that pillar in order to calculate it's weight. But whether or not Link lifting it is toonforce cannot take away from the clear composition and size of it. With the claim of toonforce, all that would be reasoned is that the character does not really have the ability and the action was performed for the sake of being funny. But that also presents a problem, this action isn't funny.

The other serious point of discussion is Dangoro. BT argues that because Dangoro bounces on the lava when tossed (The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess), the entire fight is tossed out as toonforce. I've before suggested that only Dangoro bouncing qualifies as toonforce, because it's funny. Link stopping and tossing him, does not, because that's the part that isn't funny.

Toonforce doesn't actually have any bearing on Zelda.

I do agree with that, meaning no offense to BT, it seems to me that he uses "toonforce" at times to discard feats of characters he would not want to win.

Personally I don't see a problem with it, I'd just concede that if we discard those feats Link may lose, and if we don't he wins, which may be something BT would agree with (this is hypothetical of course, I never played Zelda beyond the first one and I don't even know that opponent he's fighting so I can't, in good conscience, cast a vote myself ...)

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Yeah. But it does actually have bearing on this thread. Because anything else that would receive an accusation of toonforce would end up having to follow the same rules.

No it doesnt, because whether Toonforce is accepted here or not, the arguments will still excist around what is actually toonforce or not. This thread is just to argue whether "toonforce" should even excist. If you think this means you can claim my arguments against you as false automatically then you would be wrong, thats not what this thread is for.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do agree with that, meaning no offense to BT, it seems to me that he uses "toonforce" at times to discard feats of characters he would not want to win.

This is not actually true, rarely if ever do I use strength for a reason for characters to lose in a thread. Strength/durability are certainly for the characters I debate quite irrelevant. I just argue for truth over something illogical.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Whther they are or not toonforce, their still illogical but as I said, this is not what this thread is for... 😬

I can understand their problem though, if "toonforce" was validated here the first thing you'd do is use that as an argument in one of the threads it's used, wouldn't you?

Like I said I think the word "toonforce" is too little, it should be explained in a specific manner so that objective review of a claim can be made against it.