CHARACTER RULING THREAD - Suggestions

Originally posted by dmills
I have a question about debate thresholds. Let's say we're arguing two characters. One has massive TP, the other doesn't but has demonstrable tp resistance. So then it becomes a 40 page argument about quality/quantity of tp resistance i.e. "yeah he has shown some resistance, but not against this level of tp".

I've seen many otherwise good threads become bogged down in that manner. So how much evidence does one have to present in order to produce enough reasonable doubt as to rather or not a specific character would be able to resist said power?

Roughly, here's what I think:

The idea of needing to resist a force implies that if the force were increased, you would need to put up greater resistance.

If Character Y needs to actively resist say, Psylocke's telepathy, it would take greater resistance to shut out a telepath of greater skill and power like, say, Xavier. Therefore it's reasonable in a debate to say that simply because Character Y shut out Psylocke, they wouldn't necessarily be able to do the same to Xavier.

Immunity doesn't work the same way. Fantomex has proved entirely immune to Psylocke and Shadow King's telepathy, without any resistance whatsoever. Immunity implies that he would still be immune even against a greater psi force (such as Xavier), unless we see otherwise.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Okay: Are you talking about the "getting armbarred by Panther" type of low showing, or the "got knocked down by a 100 tonner when you should be better than that" type of feat?

hmm, i guess i'm not really following your line of thought. both can and have been used, but i'm talking about the edges of the spectrum on BOTH sides--high and low. my original question dealt with the use of high end feats, specifically one-time powers or power-outputs and why they are considered fine in debates but low end ones are labelled pis. imo, both should be treated as being equally outside the norm of what is depicted, but more-often-than-not high end feats seem to be considered what the character does 'cutting loose' or going all out or something like that. the dichotomy as regards treatment of these feats just never made much sense to me.

Originally posted by leonidas
hmm, i guess i'm not really following your line of thought. both can and have been used, but i'm talking about the edges of the spectrum on BOTH sides--high and low. my original question dealt with the use of high end feats, specifically one-time powers or power-outputs and why they are considered fine in debates but low end ones are labelled pis. imo, both should be treated as being equally outside the norm of what is depicted, but more-often-than-not high end feats seem to be considered what the character does 'cutting loose' or going all out or something like that. the dichotomy as regards treatment of these feats just never made much sense to me.

Who treats them that way?

Also, armbarring isn't valid. Under any circumstances. the kind of "having an off day" kind of feats, are what we use when determining averages.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Who treats them that way?

Also, armbarring isn't valid. Under any circumstances. the kind of "having an off day" kind of feats, are what we use when determining averages.

i'll not be naming names i don't think. just something i've noticed. guess it gets dealt with though, as do most things in a debate.

Originally posted by leonidas
i'll not be naming names i don't think. just something i've noticed. guess it gets dealt with though, as do most things in a debate.

To be honest, Bada and I don't consider once off "high" feats as being valid either. People using them are generally not taken seriously and or warned by us. Even after the backlash over guys like Thor and Hulk.

Now, as regards the "not holding back" stuff, in general, most of it is valid, so we don't have too many problems.

fair enuff. like i said, most stuff gets ironed out/called out anyway. just something i've seen recently a couple times and i've heard it said that said character was just being shown going all out. i've always been wary of outlier-esque feats in both directions.

Originally posted by leonidas
fair enuff. like i said, most stuff gets ironed out/called out anyway. just something i've seen recently a couple times and i've heard it said that said character was just being shown going all out. i've always been wary of outlier-esque feats in both directions.

Best thing you can do is report them. If it's the case that someone is doing that, then we'll deal with it.

If not, well... You shouldn't be wasting my time. sneer

😮

Originally posted by Existere
Roughly, here's what I think:

The idea of needing to resist a force implies that if the force were increased, you would need to put up greater resistance.

If Character Y needs to actively resist say, Psylocke's telepathy, it would take greater resistance to shut out a telepath of greater skill and power like, say, Xavier. Therefore it's reasonable in a debate to say that simply because Character Y shut out Psylocke, they wouldn't necessarily be able to do the same to Xavier.

Immunity doesn't work the same way. Fantomex has proved entirely immune to Psylocke and Shadow King's telepathy, without any resistance whatsoever. Immunity implies that he would still be immune even against a greater psi force (such as Xavier), unless we see otherwise.

I have a question about something said in the Thanos-Superman thread. 'Superman's feats are superior but that doesn't mean he's superior' I hear that a lot, actually about a ton of characters. If we don't in by feats, what exactly are we measuring power by?

Originally posted by long pig
I have a question about something said in the Thanos-Superman thread. 'Superman's feats are superior but that doesn't mean he's superior' I hear that a lot, actually about a ton of characters. If we don't in by feats, what exactly are we measuring power by?

I mean superman has done some things that galactus can't. Does this mean superman is superior to galactus?

No, I get that if Superman does something that Thanos can't, that doesn't de facto mean Superman is superior. But, if there are hundreds of feats that Thanos can't do that superman can and zero feats Thanos has which Superman can't either match or surpass. That seems the definition of superiority to me. Do we go by X(Thanos) can beat Y(Supes), because X(Thanos) has beaten a character equal(Surfer) to Y(Supes), so that means he can beat Y(Supes). That argument is in nearly every single Thanos thread(And I admit I've used it myself when it suits me). It's almost like feats and powersets are less important than combat feats and dialogue. Speaking of Dialogue, Does what characters say mean anything? Especially when what he or she said contradicts everything he or she's done in the past. i.e Strange has way better feats and beaten more powerful opponents than Thanos, but since Doc says he can't beat Thanos, that means he can't beat Thanos. a ruling on how much a feat should shape the judging of a winner. Thanx.

And you asked if Superman is superior to Galactus. Well, in some ways, yes. So is Strange.

Originally posted by leonidas
😮

Originally posted by long pig
No, I get that if Superman does something that Thanos can't, that doesn't de facto mean Superman is superior. But, if there are hundreds of feats that Thanos can't do that superman can and zero feats Thanos has which Superman can't either match or surpass. That seems the definition of superiority to me. Do we go by X(Thanos) can beat Y(Supes), because X(Thanos) has beaten a character equal(Surfer) to Y(Supes), so that means he can beat Y(Supes). That argument is in nearly every single Thanos thread(And I admit I've used it myself when it suits me). It's almost like feats and powersets are less important than combat feats and dialogue. Speaking of Dialogue, Does what characters say mean anything? Especially when what he or she said contradicts everything he or she's done in the past. i.e Strange has way better feats and beaten more powerful opponents than Thanos, but since Doc says he can't beat Thanos, that means he can't beat Thanos. a ruling on how much a feat should shape the judging of a winner. Thanx.

wanking > facts. 313

Originally posted by long pig
😂 owned.

I was actually being serious.... So, no thoughts on how much influence a feat has over you personally when determining the victor? In the past I believe I've put WAY TOO much emphasis on feats being the biggest deciding factor. Especially with Strange. Just asking for a little help.

Originally posted by marwash22
the answer is simple...

wanking > facts. 313

Originally posted by long pig
I was actually being serious.... So, no thoughts on how much influence a feat has over you personally when determining the victor? In the past I believe I've put WAY TOO much emphasis on feats being the biggest deciding factor. Especially with Strange. Just asking for a little help.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Yea, the feat skewing here is pretty bad. They are one part of the picture. There is characterization, logic, and other things to be taken into account other than feat-wars with established characters.