Originally posted by psycho gundam
lets pretend this is real...from what i see, both "sides" attack quan and carver while the dc side let's the H1 epidemic run rampant, sometimes cheering him on
Ok quan is attacked because Carver uses him as cannon fodder (Palpatine did the same with Dooku). Everyone likes Carver though, he seems so naive that you can't really be mad at him or put him on ignore. Till the day he becomes the only Mod on KMC.
As for h1a8, he isn't running rampant. He is like Yoda, no one understands what he says or tries to tell us...
As for me, you didn't bother giving me some credit... uhuh
Originally posted by Batman-Prime
Ok quan is attacked because Carver uses him as cannon fodder (Palpatine did the same with Dooku). Everyone likes Carver though, he seems so naive that you can't really be mad at him or put him on ignore. Till the day he becomes the only Mod on KMC.As for h1a8, he isn't running rampant. He is like Yoda, no one understands what he says or tries to tell us...
As for me, you didn't bother giving me some credit... uhuh
It's funny how you more or less condemned Carver and Quan - even lightheartedly - and in the same breath just let h1 off with "well, no one gets him so he's not running rampant".
I have no issues with people being pro-DC or pro-Marvel, but don't let people who say obviously outlandish and ridiculous statements get away with saying that kind of crap just because they're "on your side".
If I catch Carv saying crazy crap like how Thor is beyond all Herald Class people, I let him know just how ridiculous he is. After all:
Originally posted by JakeTheBank
Carv's support only damns Thor.
Originally posted by JakeTheBank
It's funny how you more or less condemned Carver and Quan - even lightheartedly - and in the same breath just let h1 off with "well, no one gets him so he's not running rampant".I have no issues with people being pro-DC or pro-Marvel, but don't let people who say obviously outlandish and ridiculous statements get away with saying that kind of crap just because they're "on your side".
If I catch Carv saying crazy crap like how Thor is beyond all Herald Class people, I let him know just how ridiculous he is. After all:
I would never condemn Carver, you get me wrong. ^^
He is a good guy and the Forum would miss something should he ever get banned. Even Quan is needed. 😉
Originally posted by h1a8
The force of unbias debating, objectiveness, and the fact that this forum is stronger towards the Marvel side.
I think that the method with which you debate is the cause of most of the backlash at you. Not which company one person favors over another. You tend to debate power set first, followed by "letter of the law" interpretations of feats, i.e. Thor has more lifting feats then Odin, therefore Thor is the stronger of the two. Zeus (powerset, portrayal) vs Hulk (feats/showings) should've ended that fallacious line of reasoning, yet here we are again.
But I digress. The issues that come into play in these types of forums are often times much more nuanced then any one debate approach would allow for. Which is why its best to combine several approaches. Power set, feats/showings and overall portrayal.
As an example, using feats/showings as the one and only standard tends to favor popular characters with long established books and histories. Power set is very often used as the cheapest debate method imo (Silver Surfer/Superman red sun exploitation), but is also often used to explain away low showings or sometimes used as a kind of "credit" for characters whose relative feats/showings don't always jib with various powers they have displayed on panel. If you go strictly by power sets, a guy like Apocalypse -who has just about every power under the sun- would be all but undefeatable in a forum match. But that's not the case as poor Apoc fans have found out.
Portrayal often is used (but certainly not limited to) to aid characters with brief appearances, flash showings and short histories. Take "The Blue Marvel" for example. Adam has very few appearances, but in the few that he has we can safely say that in terms of strength, durability etc that he is peers with the likes of Thor, Hulk etc. He'd lose in most debates against Thor because it'll often turn into a feat war, but his portrayal makes it so that such a thread is taken seriously in the first place.
So you see, each particular method of debate is flawed by itself. But when used in conjunction they all provide a balance. Perhaps maybe you should try a more balanced approach instead of strictly going with one or another 🙂
Originally posted by dmills
I think that the method with which you debate is the cause of most of the backlash at you. Not which company one person favors over another. You tend to debate power set first, followed by "letter of the law" interpretations of feats, i.e. Thor has more lifting feats then Odin, therefore Thor is the stronger of the two. Zeus (powerset, portrayal) vs Hulk (feats/showings) should've ended that fallacious line of reasoning, yet here we are again.But I digress. The issues that come into play in these types of forums are often times much more nuanced then any one debate approach would allow for. Which is why its best to combine several approaches. Power set, feats/showings and overall portrayal.
As an example, using feats/showings as the one and only standard tends to favor popular characters with long established books and histories. Power set is very often used as the cheapest debate method imo (Silver Surfer/Superman red sun exploitation), but is also often used to explain away low showings or sometimes used as a kind of "credit" for characters whose relative feats/showings don't always jib with various powers they have displayed on panel. If you go strictly by power sets, a guy like Apocalypse -who has just about every power under the sun- would be all but undefeatable in a forum match. But that's not the case as poor Apoc fans have found out.
Portrayal often is used (but certainly not limited to) to aid characters with brief appearances, flash showings and short histories. Take "The Blue Marvel" for example. Adam has very few appearances, but in the few that he has we can safely say that in terms of strength, durability etc that he is peers with the likes of Thor, Hulk etc. He'd lose in most debates against Thor because it'll often turn into a feat war, but his portrayal makes it so that such a thread is taken seriously in the first place.
So you see, each particular method of debate is flawed by itself. But when used in conjunction they all provide a balance. Perhaps maybe you should try a more balanced approach instead of strictly going with one or another 🙂
I understand what you are saying but I'm not on the extreme as power sets only. I'm somewhere in the middle (maybe closer to power sets though). In fact, I only use things that a character has SHOWN in a comic. I know Thor is a warrior, Superman doesn't kill and needs to gauge how powerful his opponent is, etc. Thus characters are limited to the things they will do and when they will do them. I know this.
I also know when a character is performing inefficient because of his character vs. because the writer needs him to in order to job to another in order to have a story.
Portrayal is mostly subjective. I don't argue who is stronger based off who has more feats. I argue who is stronger based off who has the BEST feats. Now feats could be anything. They could be obvious portrayals, lifting feats, grappling feats, striking feats, etc. Everyone keep mentioning lifting feats but I'm way past that.
If Odin was ever portrayed to be physically stronger than Thor then I wouldn't argue. But since portrayal is mostly subjective (some are objective and clear) then it's up for debate whether Odin is physically stronger than Thor. I won't confuse being more powerful as being physically stronger.
But know this, many many posters on here very slickly use a characters best feats to debate with. Odin is a prime example, some posters either mention him busting galaxies or are thinking it when they are debating him in a thread.
Also, there is no way to connect a Marvel character with a D.C. character other than NATURAL FEATS. For example, how do we know Superman is stronger than Colossus when they never faced each other? We need feats against nature (lifting, breaking, pulling, etc.) to decide. Marvel on marvel we can use feats as well as portrayals and D.C. on D.C. we can do the same. I then use calculations of the quantifiable feats to determine which character has the greatest feats.
I'm not really D.C. bias. When I started here on KMC I was a Spider-man fan #1. I even argued that he would beat WW. I know, that was stupid. But, I'm really a fan of speed and skill more than anything. I could care less about strength. If any Marvel character had the necessary speed and skill to win then I would pick them without hesistation. I only argue for Superman because I love his speed. Take that away and I would hate his guts (guaranteed fact).
The reason I'm into speed and skill so much is that I've studied Martial arts for many years, played baseball, watched Matrix movies with bullet time, studied both real life and fictional combos that actually support my combo to ko theory. I'm a firm believer that with sufficient speed and skill that one is nigh unbeatable due to the statue principle or slow motion priniciple.
I appreciated your post and you are right for the most part. But a lot of people misunderstand me, mostly due to their own blindness caused by bias or incorrect reasoning.
Lastly, this is how you know a poster is bias towards a certain company. Statistics never lie. If a poster sides with a company over another (besides spite threads) over 90% of the time then clearly they are bias and not objective. For example, The only way Quan or Carv would side with D.C. is if it is Spite, even then Quan is going to argue against D.C. sometimes.
Heh, carver and quan do have there issues ( low balling, overestimation, misinterpretation etc) but it can still be said that they read comics for the most part and in some cases do have vast knowledge on particular characters (quanchi for thanos and Carver for..gladiator?)H1a8 on the other hand seems to lack knowledge of any comic character whether in marvel or DC. Period. A lot of the times he is even willing to contradict the comic itself outrightly asserting that it doesn't matter
Originally posted by h1a8
I understand what you are saying but I'm not on the extreme as power sets only. I'm somewhere in the middle (maybe closer to power sets though). In fact, I only use things that a character has SHOWN in a comic. I know Thor is a warrior, Superman doesn't kill and needs to gauge how powerful his opponent is, etc. Thus characters are limited to the things they will do and when they will do them. I know this.I also know when a character is performing inefficient because of his character vs. because the writer needs him to in order to job to another in order to have a story.
Portrayal is mostly subjective. I don't argue who is stronger based off who has more feats. I argue who is stronger based off who has the BEST feats. Now feats could be anything. They could be obvious portrayals, lifting feats, grappling feats, striking feats, etc. Everyone keep mentioning lifting feats but I'm way past that.
If Odin was ever portrayed to be physically stronger than Thor then I wouldn't argue. But since portrayal is mostly subjective (some are objective and clear) then it's up for debate whether Odin is physically stronger than Thor. I won't confuse being more powerful as being physically stronger.
But know this, many many posters on here very slickly use a characters best feats to debate with. Odin is a prime example, some posters either mention him busting galaxies or are thinking it when they are debating him in a thread.
Also, there is no way to connect a Marvel character with a D.C. character other than NATURAL FEATS. For example, how do we know Superman is stronger than Colossus when they never faced each other? We need feats against nature (lifting, breaking, pulling, etc.) to decide. Marvel on marvel we can use feats as well as portrayals and D.C. on D.C. we can do the same. I then use calculations of the quantifiable feats to determine which character has the greatest feats.
I'm not really D.C. bias. When I started here on KMC I was a Spider-man fan #1. I even argued that he would beat WW. I know, that was stupid. But, I'm really a fan of speed and skill more than anything. I could care less about strength. If any Marvel character had the necessary speed and skill to win then I would pick them without hesistation. I only argue for Superman because I love his speed. Take that away and I would hate his guts (guaranteed fact).
The reason I'm into speed and skill so much is that I've
Lol you suffer from over studied Martial arts for many years, played baseball, watched Matrix movies with bullet time, studied both real life and fictional combos that actually support my combo to ko theory. I'm a firm believer that with sufficient speed and skill that one is nigh unbeatable due to the statue principle or slow motion priniciple.
I appreciated your post and you are right for the most part. But a lot of people misunderstand me, mostly due to their own blindness caused by bias or incorrect reasoning.
Lastly, this is how you know a poster is bias towards a certain company. Statistics never lie. If a poster sides with a company over another (besides spite threads) over 90% of the time then clearly they are bias and not objective. For example, The only way Quan or Carv would side with D.C. is if it is Spite, even then Quan is going to argue against D.C. sometimes.
I specifically want to address the Odin/skyfather strength point that you raised. If I'm not mistaken you differentiated between strength and power. I would argue that once you're playing at that level, that the two are no longer mutually exclusive. Odin, Zeus et al can channel their respective energies anyway they see fit, not the least of which is brute strength.
Now I will concede that they are often shown as blasting things, but as someone pointed out in another thread, when they decide to engage in h2h its usually very impressive. So knowing that this is within the powerset of Trans levelers, Skyfathers etc, I'm never surprised when they amp up and whoop butt in a physical confrontation, and I likewise wasn't shocked when Zeus casually beat the Hulk to near death. Banner was swinging well above his weight class in that particular confrontation and if they fought in the next issue with Banner doing the Worldbreaker routine I'd expect the results would remain pretty much the same.
As for the rest, I've no interest in who leans towards what company. What matters to me is that when people debate a topic that they at least have a working knowledge of the characters involved. Quan, for all his tomfoolery, has a pretty good grasp of the goings on in the dcu. Carver too for that matter. Carvers problem is that he has a tendency to embellish i.e.
Originally posted by carver9
None fight.Bi beast and Wendigo was amped to skyfather levels and they couldn't even budge Hulk with their punches.
That aside, I couldn't care less about who reps whatever company so long as they know what the hell they're talking about.
Originally posted by Naija boy
Heh, carver and quan do have there issues ( low balling, overestimation, misinterpretation etc) but it can still be said that they read comics for the most part and in some cases do have vast knowledge on particular characters (quanchi for thanos and Carver for..gladiator?)H1a8 on the other hand seems to lack knowledge of any comic character whether in marvel or DC. Period. A lot of the times he is even willing to contradict the comic itself outrightly asserting that it doesn't matter
He seems to favor debating powersets, so its not surprising that he comes off that way.
Originally posted by dmills
I think that the method with which you debate is the cause of most of the backlash at you. Not which company one person favors over another. You tend to debate power set first, followed by "letter of the law" interpretations of feats, i.e. Thor has more lifting feats then Odin, therefore Thor is the stronger of the two. Zeus (powerset, portrayal) vs Hulk (feats/showings) should've ended that fallacious line of reasoning, yet here we are again.But I digress. The issues that come into play in these types of forums are often times much more nuanced then any one debate approach would allow for. Which is why its best to combine several approaches. Power set, feats/showings and overall portrayal.
As an example, using feats/showings as the one and only standard tends to favor popular characters with long established books and histories. Power set is very often used as the cheapest debate method imo (Silver Surfer/Superman red sun exploitation), but is also often used to explain away low showings or sometimes used as a kind of "credit" for characters whose relative feats/showings don't always jib with various powers they have displayed on panel. If you go strictly by power sets, a guy like Apocalypse -who has just about every power under the sun- would be all but undefeatable in a forum match. But that's not the case as poor Apoc fans have found out.
Portrayal often is used (but certainly not limited to) to aid characters with brief appearances, flash showings and short histories. Take "The Blue Marvel" for example. Adam has very few appearances, but in the few that he has we can safely say that in terms of strength, durability etc that he is peers with the likes of Thor, Hulk etc. He'd lose in most debates against Thor because it'll often turn into a feat war, but his portrayal makes it so that such a thread is taken seriously in the first place.
So you see, each particular method of debate is flawed by itself. But when used in conjunction they all provide a balance. Perhaps maybe you should try a more balanced approach instead of strictly going with one or another 🙂
Perfect way of putting it but with this post, H1 really isn't the only one guilty of it (I'm guilty sometimes as well).
H1 problem is, he apply real world logic to a comic book. Yes, that is ok SOMETIMES but he use it to decide the final factor of a battle. I like H1...he rarely if ever bash anyone and with all of the stuff that comes his way, I can't believe it but he needs to stop calling PIS for everything and he also need to get a better understanding of the CHARACTER instead of their powerset.
By the way dmills... I was just playing about my comment regarding Bi-Beast and Wendigo...lol.
When I get pissed at someone I am debating against, I just type the first thing that comes to my mind. Bad habit.
Originally posted by h1a8
I understand what you are saying but I'm not on the extreme as power sets only. I'm somewhere in the middle (maybe closer to power sets though). In fact, I only use things that a character has SHOWN in a comic. I know Thor is a warrior, Superman doesn't kill and needs to gauge how powerful his opponent is, etc. Thus characters are limited to the things they will do and when they will do them. I know this.I also know when a character is performing inefficient because of his character vs. because the writer needs him to in order to job to another in order to have a story.
Portrayal is mostly subjective. I don't argue who is stronger based off who has more feats. I argue who is stronger based off who has the BEST feats. Now feats could be anything. They could be obvious portrayals, lifting feats, grappling feats, striking feats, etc. Everyone keep mentioning lifting feats but I'm way past that.
If Odin was ever portrayed to be physically stronger than Thor then I wouldn't argue. But since portrayal is mostly subjective (some are objective and clear) then it's up for debate whether Odin is physically stronger than Thor. I won't confuse being more powerful as being physically stronger.
But know this, many many posters on here very slickly use a characters best feats to debate with. Odin is a prime example, some posters either mention him busting galaxies or are thinking it when they are debating him in a thread.
Also, there is no way to connect a Marvel character with a D.C. character other than NATURAL FEATS. For example, how do we know Superman is stronger than Colossus when they never faced each other? We need feats against nature (lifting, breaking, pulling, etc.) to decide. Marvel on marvel we can use feats as well as portrayals and D.C. on D.C. we can do the same. I then use calculations of the quantifiable feats to determine which character has the greatest feats.
I'm not really D.C. bias. When I started here on KMC I was a Spider-man fan #1. I even argued that he would beat WW. I know, that was stupid. But, I'm really a fan of speed and skill more than anything. I could care less about strength. If any Marvel character had the necessary speed and skill to win then I would pick them without hesistation. I only argue for Superman because I love his speed. Take that away and I would hate his guts (guaranteed fact).
The reason I'm into speed and skill so much is that I've studied Martial arts for many years, played baseball, watched Matrix movies with bullet time, studied both real life and fictional combos that actually support my combo to ko theory. I'm a firm believer that with sufficient speed and skill that one is nigh unbeatable due to the statue principle or slow motion priniciple.
I appreciated your post and you are right for the most part. But a lot of people misunderstand me, mostly due to their own blindness caused by bias or incorrect reasoning.
Lastly, this is how you know a poster is bias towards a certain company. Statistics never lie. If a poster sides with a company over another (besides spite threads) over 90% of the time then clearly they are bias and not objective. For example, The only way Quan or Carv would side with D.C. is if it is Spite, even then Quan is going to argue against D.C. sometimes.
So why did you go to the Thor vs Superman thread saying that Superman would beat Thor 10/10 via speed and vibrating? Why did you say that Thor will not land a single lick? That's basing thing off of powerset only?
Originally posted by carver9
So why did you go to the Thor vs Superman thread saying that Superman would beat Thor 10/10 via speed and vibrating? Why did you say that Thor will not land a single lick? That's basing thing off of powerset only?
I see you have a good memory. Supes would definitely take a lick or two from Thor to gauge his dangerousness. But if it gets too serious then Superman turns up the speed and finishes him.
Why do you tend to lowball opposite characters and highball your characters?
I have no clue why people even bother with H1 anymore in normal threads. His hypocritical, biased but worst of all, he sets his own rules and decides when they apply and when they don't. I can handle the first two but it's the third that makes him a real pain.
Originally posted by h1a8
If Odin was ever portrayed to be physically stronger than Thor then I wouldn't argue. But since portrayal is mostly subjective (some are objective and clear) then it's up for debate whether Odin is physically stronger than Thor. I won't confuse being more powerful as being physically stronger.
Battlezone, Odin vs. Thor, who's stronger, you up for it?
Originally posted by h1a8
I see you have a good memory. Supes would definitely take a lick or two from Thor to gauge his dangerousness. But if it gets too serious then Superman turns up the speed and finishes him.Why do you tend to lowball opposite characters and highball your characters?
I use what happens on panel. I don't ignore fts and use PIS as a cop out. In my opinion, if it happened, it happened. When someone bring up a low showing involving Gladiator or Hulk, I explain the showing and come back with either a norm or high showing.
A lot of people can't do this... I guess that is why I have a hard time debating against Quan because he always have a comback, no matter what you bring up (and he also doesn't believe in PIS).
This is how you're supposed to debate on the forum:
Originally posted by -Pr-
[B]Clarification of CISOk people, here are the finalised rules as regards PIS, CIS, and everything related to it.
PIS is, as always, off unless the thread starter says it's ON.
CIS, as was said before, is now a more diverse term, but is not as vague as before.
While CIS still exists in the form of characters like Rhino (who are just too stupid to know better), it also exists in one other form.
This is known as Character Inhibited Power. This applies to characters that have intelligence, like the Silver Surfer, Superman, and so on and so forth.
As Bada said:
"It's a self imposed limitation in certain circumstances which there is concern for civilians and buildings for the most part. It's not stupidity, it's a limitation set until the threat exceeds a certain threshold."
What this means is that people like the Surfer and Superman and so on will not use the full extent of their powers if it will endanger civilians. It doesn't, though, mean they will fight like idiots. The character's personality is an integral part of the match and dictates how they will perform. This is the crux of the rules we've come up with. It doesn't come down to powers, it comes down to the man or woman that weilds them.
In accordance with this, several factors come in to play in debates:
The Opponent, Basic Information, the Arena and the Character's Personality and Experience
Those four are key.
Example:
If Martian Manhunter fights say, Juggernaut.
MM doesn't personally know Juggernaut (Opponent). So he has Basic Information. This is categorised as being what the general public would know about the Juggernaut. It goes by averages. If that average man or woman on the street knows that Juggernaut is super strong, then MM knows. The average man or woman doesn't know, however, that the Juggernaut is weak against psionics. J'onn would approach with caution, not knowing whether Juggernaut was in his weight class, and not knowing the full extent of the man's powers.
However. If Martian Manhunter went up against Amazo, he would know to go for broke right at the start, because he KNOWS Amazo (Personality and Experience). He will use his speed, his strength, his shapeshifting. This is because if he knows what it takes to bring down Amazo, or he believes his standard attacks won't work. If J'onn was fighting Juggernaut, there would come a point when he would realise that normal attacks won't work, and would up his game. Any character that doesn't suffer from Rhino-esque stupidity is capable of this. Even with this, though, the Arena comes in to play. If civilians are in danger, J'onn won't shapeshift in to a fire breathing dragon. Juggernaut on the other hand doesn't care, so wouldn't hesitate to toss cars and trucks full of civilians at the Martian.
Examples:
Thor knows he can't out-brawl Hulk, so uses exotic powers sooner than he would against the likes of Superman, as Superman is an unknown to him.
Superman would go all out against Doomsday or Despero because he knows how powerful they are. Against the Hulk, he's going to take a few punches before realising he'll have to use something rather than slugging it out. He won't bathe the street in heat vision either, because there are civilians nearby.
It ALL comes down to the CHARACTER, not the POWERSET. [/B]
Or at least something close to it.
If h1a8 doesn't like it.. he screams PIS.. even though that is just how a character is portrayed overall. It's like the Patriots... are they a kick ass team every Sunday and crush people by 25 points? No, they have off weeks or just run into a stronger more prepared team that day. The same thing happens for comic book characters as in real life. Sometimes they have high feats.. sometimes low feats... neither count more than the other.. they ALL count as the overall perspective for the character in question. Like Rage says.. H1a8 just dismisses stuff he doesn't like or what fits into his vision of the character... That should be grounds for a ban but some how the mods must like him a lot.
