Elektra deflected and dodged multiple shots here
Unlike Ozy she is an actual bullet timer who doesn’t need to wait and calculate an obvious shot
Because despite his dishonest attempt to misrepresent other people's arguments, no one here is trying to feat share between characters. The point of referencing those feats is to show that the character has fought other people capable of those things and, whether it was via skill or compensating in other physical areas, was still able to compete with them regardless. For example, Matt has kept up with two different characters who have reacted to bullets. We also have Danny being a bit faster than Luke, who was also depicted as keeping up with Bushmaster, who can dodge bullets. So, we establish a feat pattern between characters, or an overall speed tier they frequently get depicted at. That's literally how debating here works. We use various feats as reference points, hence the Golden Rule.
Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Because despite his dishonest attempt to misrepresent other people's arguments, no one here is trying to feat share between characters. The point of referencing those feats is to show that the character has fought other people capable of those things and, whether it was via skill or compensating in other physical areas, was still able to compete with them regardless. For example, Matt has kept up with two different characters who have reacted to bullets. We also have Danny being a bit faster than Luke, who was also depicted as keeping up with Bushmaster, who can dodge bullets. So, we establish a feat pattern between characters, or an overall speed tier they frequently get depicted at. That's literally how debating here works. We use various feats as reference points, hence the Golden Rule.
The problem is that those characters DIDN'T USE THOSE ABILITIES when fighting the character at question. We use visual speed (Baleman remember?). Even Silent is asking for feats where Ozy moves as fast as he did in the bullet catch scene in an onscreen fight. But noooo. You don't correct him because he is representing your character. Double standards at its finest.
You can't reference abilities if that character didn't use it in the fight. That's what Silent would say. Talk to him.
Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
And just to be clear, I have zero problems with someone scaling Ra's off Baleman, for example. But if you are going to do that, you're going to look like an ******* if you then go around and try and shut other people down when they do the same thing.
The problem is Silent and others have argued against Baleman and that he is slow. They ignored the times he was literally fast, they ignore the writer's intent that Baleman is incredibly skilled and fast.
Hell Silent blatantly said Baleman is UNSKILLED and you didn't say anything to him about that.
Originally posted by h1a8
The problem is Silent and others have argued against Baleman and that he is slow. They ignored the times he was literally fast, they ignore the writer's intent that Baleman is incredibly skilled and fast.Hell Silent blatantly said Baleman is UNSKILLED and you didn't say anything to him about that.
Because per feats, baleman is slow and unskilled.
Originally posted by h1a8
The problem is Silent and others have argued against Baleman and that he is slow. They ignored the times he was literally fast, they ignore the writer's intent that Baleman is incredibly skilled and fast.Hell Silent blatantly said Baleman is UNSKILLED and you didn't say anything to him about that.
I have addressed these things in the past. I have defended people like Baleman, Bane, Ozy etc... Just to have you still haphazardly attribute other people's posts bashing them to me in other threads later on (and then pretend like it didn't happen after I correct you). Here is the cold, hard truth. You are biased. Before we even get to the individual characters being discussed. Because you clearly view us all as a bunch of interchangeable idiots, hence why you will attribute, for example, a comment Frothbyte made to KingD or vice versa, or other people, without bothering to check whether it's true. And always take the position that your interpretation is the default that needs to be disproved by others. You will always claim your slip ups are innocent, yet always assume malice if the roles are reversed. And you can claim people are biased against you now. But that's because your own behaviour alienated them. No one starts off getting treated like you do. In fact, many people were very patient with you, and would spend page after page in thread after thread, reposting the same feats, links and arguments. But your own behaviour has soured people to you. Seriously, Occam's Razor, dude. You are the common denominator. Not everyone else. But, of course, this post will just bounce off of you, like all the others.
Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
I have addressed these things in the past. I have defended people like Baleman, Bane, Ozy etc... Just to have you still haphazardly attribute other people's posts bashing them to me in other threads later on (and then pretend like it didn't happen after I correct you). Here is the cold, hard truth. You are biased. Before we even get to the individual characters being discussed. Because you clearly view us all as a bunch of interchangeable idiots, hence why you will attribute, for example, a comment Frothbyte made to KingD or vice versa, or other people, without bothering to check whether it's true. And always take the position that your interpretation is the default that needs to be disproved by others. You will always claim your slip ups are innocent, yet always assume malice if the roles are reversed. And you can claim people are biased against you now. But that's because your own behaviour alienated them. No one starts off getting treated like you do. In fact, many people were very patient with you, and would spend page after page in thread after thread, reposting the same feats, links and arguments. But your own behaviour has soured people to you. Seriously, Occam's Razor, dude. You are the common denominator. Not everyone else. But, of course, this post will just bounce off of you, like all the others.
Thank you for for that. I could be wrong as I do group many of you guys together as a team.
Tbh, we are all bias. None of us are completely objective.
My bias is due mostly to speed. If a character is superfast then, to me, that is the equivalent of slowing or stopping time. Slowing or stopping time is the most unfair hax ability. You are basically unbeatable.
Outside of that, I have made it clear for most characters I support that if speed was equalized the they would lose. For example, Thor would beat Superman, etc. I have argued that Cap will beat Bane, but it won't be easy. Basically what comes to mind is Cap's elevator scene against trained fighters, Bane's feat of busting solid stone and breaking Batman's mask as proving to be superhuman in strength and striking. Bane ability to take Batman's haymakers without effect, etc. Yet Cap still wins (but not in spite fashion).
I like to go by writer's intent when it is clear (which it usually is).
It's funny how the best debaters (on the comic vs forum) is able to engage my arguments, dissect then and effectively rebutt them without resorting to trolling. AFAIK, I have conceded far more times than any member I know. That alone proves I'm willing to be wrong and listen to sound logic.
Again, I apologize for accusing you of something you didn't do.
But the tag team shit has to stop. Several people arguing one angle, then in another thread the opposite angle is argued while Slinet hops on the bandwagon of whoever argument (not knowing it contradicts the argument in the previous thread).
Silent point is that you can't scale off a bullet timing feat when the character hasn't shown bullet timing speed in a fight. Logically, that's ridiculous but he switches stances and hops on the argument that you can when it supports a marvel bases character.
If we all agree to a standard then it should easier to debate and not troll. I will not deny irrefutable logic based off that standard. If I do then please, point it out. I promise I will concede (as I have done so many times) and apologize.
In conclusion, these debates are mostly about different people using different standards and rules. For example, you can't debate when two people are using different definitions of the same word. First, establish the definition (standard of proof) to be agreed upon and then debate.
With that said, Cap, when fighting humans don't hit them with forces that kill them or even ko them on the first shot (trained fighters). So I'm ok with using the standard of using the best feats and ignoring the ones that contradict them (Cap's superhuman feats will have his showing against humans ignored).
Or if we are using the standard of using typical showings of a character against humans (ignoring all superhuman feats that contradict them) the that's an option too.
Each thread we can change the standard, as long as everyone who's debating agree to the standard.
Originally posted by h1a8Using the best feat when it isn't consistent is an outlier.
With that said, Cap, when fighting humans don't hit them with forces that kill them or even ko them on the first shot (trained fighters). So I'm ok with using the standard of using the best feats and ignoring the ones that contradict them (Cap's superhuman feats will have his showing against humans ignored).Or if we are using the standard of using typical showings of a character against humans (ignoring all superhuman feats that contradict them) the that's an option too.
Each thread we can change the standard, as long as everyone who's debating agree to the standard.
Originally posted by Jmanghan
Using the best feat when it isn't consistent is an outlier.
Yeah, honestly, it depends on how many there are and the circumstances they are performed under. If someone performs a single feat that contradicts their normal levels and it is clearly done just to further a point in the story, for example, then, yeah, it's suspect. But if you have a couple of high ends that sit above the norm, I don't see why they shouldn't be included in the thread. But that's also a thing to check for. Whether there is an actual contradiction. If someone only ever lifts a few tons, but never really struggles with it, and then lifts way more, it wouldn't be an issue IMO. But if someone consistently struggles with those kinds of weights and then suddenly lifts way more in one particular instance, it creates an actual inconsistency in their depicted strength level, whereas the first instance could simply be them normally not requiring utilizing their upper limit to do things until that instance of the bigger weight.