TOONFORCE - Yea or Nay?

Oi... I've edited the question itself to hopefully clarify.

Yes means you support labeling feats as toonforce and disallowing them.

No means you do not support the toonforce argument and wish for feats to be acknowledged as feats.

This is what I said earlier, I think that was the right interpretation:

Yes is "Yes, toonforce is a valid argument, therefore feats that are toonforce can not be used in threads"

No is "No, toonforce is not a valid argument, therefore any feat that a character has in the game can be used in threads"

Originally posted by Bardock42
This is what I said earlier, I think that was the right interpretation:

Yes is "Yes, toonforce is a valid argument, therefore feats that are toonforce can not be used in threads"

No is "No, toonforce is not a valid argument, therefore any feat that a character has in the game can be used in threads"

Once again, what do you define as toonforce GK?

My current working definition 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.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
My current working definition 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.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
My current working definition 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.

Ah okay, you should put that in the initial post, I think the first couple votes (who came in like the second the thread was made) may have been influenced by what people thought BT's definition was.

With this definition clear I can now definitely cast my vote anyways, I'll vote yes, for reasons outlined before, especially eloquently by Blax (mah main man)

It's been edited into the original post.

Keep in mind that if the majority are in favor, there will be further discussion to clearly define what does and does not fall under toonforce, before it becomes an official ruling.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
It's been edited into the original post.

Keep in mind that if the majority are in favor, there will be further discussion to clearly define what does and does not fall under toonforce, before it becomes an official ruling.

Yup.

This is just the first step of what may well be a multi-step process. We'd like to settle on something that will keep the most people happy.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
My current working definition 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.

Which is already not allowed?

Originally posted by NemeBro
So... PIS? 😐

Which is already not allowed?

It is PIS in some way (I hate that term, stupidly phrased if anything ever was), but as far as I can tell the Game Versus Forum actually doesn't have a PIS rule stated anywhere.

Originally posted by NemeBro
So... PIS? 😐

Which is already not allowed?

There actually is not a written rule against PIS here, but virtually all members have agreed that using PIS events is not valid.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Actually, it's closer to the inverse of PIS. PIS is when a character conveniently forgets or lacks an ability for the sake of the story, "toonforce" is when a character conveniently comes up with an ability for the sake of entertaining the player.

There actually is not a written rule against PIS here, but virtually all members have agreed that using PIS events is not valid.

It can fall under the broad definiton of PIS, like I said (a couple of times) it is what the comic book vs. forum called SvFL referencing the time Spider-Man (off panel) somehow mentioned to knock out a herald of Galactus a feat way beyond anything he's known to do.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It can fall under the broad definiton of PIS, like I said (a couple of times) it is what the comic book vs. forum called SvFL referencing the time Spider-Man (off panel) somehow mentioned to knock out a herald of Galactus a feat way beyond anything he's known to do.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
I like to keep my tropes clearly defined. Plot-Induced Stupidity is a failing on a character's part, not a strength.

So do I, that's what I dislike about it, that it is often used very broadly, while I only think it should be this.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
I like to keep my tropes clearly defined. Plot-Induced Stupidity is a failing on a character's part, not a strength.

Originally posted by NemeBro
That's CIS. Which is a kind of PIS.

I think CIS is when a character is actually stupid or acts stupid for personal reasons. Batman not killing would be CIS, for example.

And what, praytell, is CIS?

Character Induced Stupidity.

Honestly... it's just PIS.

Like, if a character was running across a bridge that was collapsing right on his heels and he forgets that he has the power to fly. Actually wait I don't think that's CIS.

CIS is a character not acting in character. Like a villain who is a mastermind and tactical genius throughout the entire movie, making some obvious and critical error at the very end due to arrogance, or a hero holding back his punches to not kill someone due to being "the hero".

Character Induced Stupidity.