Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I've noticed a running theme...

That apparently people need legit feats to be considered even remotely impressive, or risk losing to lower-tier's in versus match-ups.

"Unless we see some feats, might as well consider that hyperbole".

"We can't do a versus thread based off comparisons, that person is an unknown, therefore they lose."

It seems like no matter how big the claim is, or who its by, its never impressive enough.

Have you considered that the combatant pitted against the combatant with accolades and lacking feats is a combatant that has accolades and hype on the same level... but also feats?

Like Amazing hype+Some of the best feats in the mythos>Amazing hype... this should be common sense.

Yeah, but when amazing hype, said by other characters, and witnesses are all we have to go on, we shouldn't just discount them like the claims are fruitless.

The Ancient Sith have all been getting low-balled recently, and it took Stealth Moose and Nai to come back to get them to shut the **** up about it.

We shouldn't put them above characters that have more than word of mouth to justify their status either.

Originally posted by Emperordmb

Like Amazing hype+Some of the best feats in the mythos>Amazing hype... this should be common sense.
This is KMC, there is no common sense.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
I've noticed a running theme...

That apparently people need legit feats to be considered even remotely impressive, or risk losing to lower-tier's in versus match-ups.

"Unless we see some feats, might as well consider that hyperbole".

"We can't do a versus thread based off comparisons, that person is an unknown, therefore they lose."

It seems like no matter how big the claim is, or who its by, its never impressive enough.

Hahahha finaly you begin to question yourelf gud vei gud guyz !
*Smile.*

I do prefer jensaarai way of thinking he is more sceptic and more open to theory at the same time.

He's also an imbecile.

Accolades and feats sort of are the same thing when you peel back the layers.

A feat comes due to an event described by a narrator, .ie, it's an accolade.

An accolade itself is a feat - the feat of impressing a character or narrator.

In either case, there are a few criteria through which we can compare the reliability of feats vs. accolades:

1. Consistency/predictive ability. How neatly can you sort feats together to form a coherent narrative, compared to accolades? Here, accolades clearly win out.

2. Suspension of disbelief/reality. Which model best allows us to construct a universe that feels real and therefore to make such questions seem relevant? Here, we'd go with feats.

3. Authorial intent. Which model would authors pay more attention to or give more thought on? Accolades win out here.

4. Quantification. Which model lets us deduce these Force users' abilities from an absolute framework, rather than just relative to one another? This is particularly important to crossover vs. debates. Here feats have the clear advantage.

5. Enjoyment. Which method of debating is more fun? This sounds like an arbitrary standard, but since there's no objective reality with respect to this imagined universe anyway, it's the ultimate end of these debates. I guess this is a rather subjective question.

Although obviously you want some combination, probably based on the extent to which it affects the probability that X character is more potent than Y, and/or the extent to which it makes the model that X character > Y the most parsimonious one.

A feat and an accolade are sort of the same thing if you're on crack maybe. Accolades help in powerscaling feats. That does not make them feats within themselves.

Originally posted by FreshestSlice
A feat and an accolade are sort of the same thing if you're on crack maybe. Accolades help in powerscaling feats. That does not make them feats within themselves.

This asserts the opposite of what I was saying but doesn't actually address it. Being called one of the greatest of all time by Yoda can be interpreted as a feat - it's the feat of impressing Yoda. Being described taking down a star destroyer is an accolade - it's an accolade by the narrator that you can/did take down a star destroyer. They're related because they rely on the same assumptions about the reliability of the person/entity/whatever framing the story.

No, that is not a feat at all. Impressing someone is not a feat. Just like Windu telling Obi-Wan that he is the only Jedi that can face Grievous is not a feat. Bringing down a Star Destroyer, on the other hand, isn't an accolade. It's an actual event. If you actually use the definition of accolade, and not say your sterling opinion, it boils down to praise. The narrator isn't praising Marek when it conveys the fact that he guided down a Star Destroyer. It's just relaying that this happened and is fact. And while they're obviously related, an accolade by a character is in no way shape or form on the same level as an event conveyed by the omniscient narrator. One relies on trusting one character, the other the entire setting.

Originally posted by FreshestSlice
No, that is not a feat at all. Impressing someone is not a feat.

Lol, how isn't it? If you beat someone in a spar, you'd call that a feat. If Yoda senses your power and is impressed, then it isn't?

The only way you can distinguish the two is if you draw an arbitrary distinction. Maybe, at most, you could say that the accolade is slightly murkier and less direct because it's based on a character opinion - but then that's just a question of the source of the feat/accolade, and if you're looking at, say, accolades from the narrator, then that measure of unreliability goes away.



Yoda having a particular thought about you is an actual event.



If you frame character accolades vs. narrator-conveyed events, sure. But that's not the case if the narrator is doing both.

I suppose that even then, you could say that we don't buy that the narrator is omniscient, and that the bar set in trusting him/her not to lie about an event is lower than that to trust his/her vaguer qualification of one's abilities, which would leave more room for error. But then again, we're trusting the narrator's ability to read into people's minds and recount the exact details of everyone's life, and if it has that level of knowledge of the Star Wars universe, why wouldn't it be able to figure out how many midicholorians everyone has?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Accolades and feats sort of are the same thing when you peel back the layers.

A feat comes due to an event described by a narrator, .ie, it's an accolade.

An accolade itself is a feat - the feat of impressing a character or narrator.

In either case, there are a few criteria through which we can compare the reliability of feats vs. accolades:

1. Consistency/predictive ability. How neatly can you sort feats together to form a coherent narrative, compared to accolades? Here, accolades clearly win out.

2. Suspension of disbelief/reality. Which model best allows us to construct a universe that feels real and therefore to make such questions seem relevant? Here, we'd go with feats.

3. Authorial intent. Which model would authors pay more attention to or give more thought on? Accolades win out here.

4. Quantification. Which model lets us deduce these Force users' abilities from an absolute framework, rather than just relative to one another? This is particularly important to crossover vs. debates. Here feats have the clear advantage.

5. Enjoyment. Which method of debating is more fun? This sounds like an arbitrary standard, but since there's no objective reality with respect to this imagined universe anyway, it's the ultimate end of these debates. I guess this is a rather subjective question.

Although obviously you want some combination, probably based on the extent to which it affects the probability that X character is more potent than Y, and/or the extent to which it makes the model that X character > Y the most parsimonious one.

an ellimist pretty much nailed it

I thought Ellimist had been an hero'd.

Adas sucks.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Lol, how isn't it? If you beat someone in a spar, you'd call that a feat. If Yoda senses your power and is impressed, then it isn't?

No. And sparing matches are hardly what anyone would call an impressive feat anyway.

Or, you could use the actual definition of the words.

Lol, having a thought about someone and them performing an action are not remotely the same.

Unless Yoda is the omniscient narrator, and he isn't, that's a moot point. Which is why an accolade on it's own never amounts to anything.

And then you'd have to provide evidence to show why they aren't.

The narrator isn't a person, but a framing device, so I'm not sure how an aspect of literature itself can lie.

Who says it can't? But that is beside the point. Rarely is the narrator themselves giving out accolades, and rarely do these accolades actually set the recipient apart in the grand scheme.

Originally posted by FreshestSlice
And then you'd have to provide evidence to show why they aren't.


Uh, no, that would be necessary for your position. If the narrator is omniscient, then so are narrator-based accolades, .ie sourcebooks, Stover's flourishing, etc. Those accolades, then, are no more or less reliable than feats. The only distinction comes if you're comparing narrator-derived feats with character-derived accolades, but then the distinction is in the source, not the type.

Some are going to the other extreme, where feats barely matter and the most important evidence is accolades and general standings.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Some are going to the other extreme, where feats barely matter and the most important evidence is accolades and general standings.
Yeah where feats are meaningless and only thematic bullshit matters... what the **** are some of these people? Members of the Forcecast?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Uh, no, that would be necessary for your position. If the narrator is omniscient, then so are narrator-based accolades, .ie sourcebooks,
If it's not a quote, then sure.

Being flowery doesn't make you inaccurate. Context is a thing.

Except feats are showings. You can be as powerful as the day is long, but if literally no one knows how you apply this, than the point is, again, moot.

See the above. Not that this discussion is about narrator accolades anyway. Narrators aren't the ones claiming Tulak Hord can drop cruisers and blitz half the mythos.

Accolades and hype are fine and dandy but it has to be realized that they can only be taken so far before you delve into the realm of speculation and uncertainty.