Clarifying Non Combat Versus Threads

[FinePoint]

Those are a large weak area for me. If you have any grammar suggestions I am open.

I can at least correct the spelling:

"Indirect or non-combat versus threads are allowed to be made if the match-up makes notable use of their powers, abilities, statistics, notable techniques, or talents. The only fictional characters involved in these matches should be the competitors themselves."

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah that looks good to me.

 

[Ebihara]

Yeah that looks good to me.

Would you mind pinging some staff who's input would be helpful?

 

[Agnaa]

Uh, do you have any in mind?

 

[Ebihara]

Uh, do you have any in mind?

Not sure to be honest. the staff I have experince interacing were here already. maybe staff that have commented here before like @Mr. Bambu @DontTalkDT @Antvasima ETC ?

 

[Agnaa]

Any thoughts on this change to the rules?

"Indirect or non-combat versus threads are allowed to be made if the match-up makes notable use of their powers, abilities, statistics, notable techniques, or talents. The only fictional characters involved in these matches should be the competitors themselves."

Aiming to stop these debates from spiraling into utter complexity through use of other characters as judges, targets, etc.

@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Antvasima @Mr. Bambu

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks good to me. The thing Agnaa posted above I mean.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Any thoughts on this change to the rules?

Aiming to stop these debates from spiraling into utter complexity through use of other characters as judges, targets, etc.

@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Antvasima @Mr. Bambu

Not opposed. Seems fine. Hate to give such a basic response so I add this full additional sentence to sort of elevate the response above the "seems fine" benchmark.

 

[Antvasima]

"Indirect or non-combat versus threads are allowed to be made if the match-up makes notable use of their powers, abilities, statistics, notable techniques, or talents. The only fictional characters involved in these matches should be the competitors themselves."

This seems fine to me as well.

 

[Ebihara]

Unless I am missing someone that should be all the staff that provided input in this thread the first time around.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Any thoughts on this change to the rules?

Aiming to stop these debates from spiraling into utter complexity through use of other characters as judges, targets, etc.

@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Antvasima @Mr. Bambu

Well, I believe no imaginable matchup will ever fail the "if the match-up makes notable use of their powers, abilities, statistics, notable techniques, or talents"-requirement, unless maybe a competition that is literally just entirely based on chance. Everything either uses intelligence or physicals.
The possibility of (directly or indirectly) restricting 99% of a characters abilities/stats via the matchup rules for me is against the spirit of existing standards on battles and overall I just don't see these threads as being meaningful to put on character profiles.

But yeah, I'm clearly outvoted on this matter.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't think "One of the characters has no chess-playing feats, so they resoundingly lose to the other character" is a notable use of their intelligence. Nor would I think "Both players have no intelligence feats in general, but one is called smart once, so they'd generally win against the other character in chess" is a notable use of their intelligence.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I don't think "One of the characters has no chess-playing feats, so they resoundingly lose to the other character" is a notable use of their intelligence.

Chess makes notable use of intelligence. Perfectly average person would make notable use their mind in the game. It's a game entirely decided by the intelligence stat.
If what you want to require is that the debate hinges on things written on the page (in the intelligence section in this case) and/or that the character must have feats of being exceptional in the competition at hand, then the rule currently doesn't reflect that well.

Nor would I think "Both players have no intelligence feats in general, but one is called smart once, so they'd generally win against the other character in chess" is a notable use of their intelligence.

If you want to require that the character needs to have feats which are directly related to the competition at hand, then the rule currently doesn't reflect that well.
So does a character need to have played chess before to be part of a chess competition? If not, which feats are sufficiently "chess-related" to qualify someone for a chess match, if just being intelligent in general doesn't?
Is everyone with superhuman physical characteristics qualified for beer pong?

 

[Agnaa]

I want the debate to rely on the particulars of their feats (either in a positive or negative direction), to lead to a discussion (a slightly higher bar than we currently have for ordinary matches), and to have some leeway for feats not listed on profiles (as we already currently do for niche situations, such as the typical colour of a character's shirt against a colour manipulator whose effects rely on that).

 

[DontTalkDT]

I want the debate to rely on the particulars of their feats (either in a positive or negative direction), to lead to a discussion (a slightly higher bar than we currently have for ordinary matches), and to have some leeway for feats not listed on profiles (as we already currently do for niche situations, such as the typical colour of a character's shirt against a colour manipulator whose effects rely on that).

Then that should be written like that in the rule.

 

[Agnaa]

Hm, yeah that might actually be able to condense it.

Indirect or non-combat versus threads are allowed to be made and added to profiles if the match-up relies on the particulars of their feats, and leads to a notable discussion. Those feats, if particularly niche or generally unimportant, don't have to be listed on their profiles. The only fictional characters involved in these matches should be the competitors themselves.

Not really, but also not too much longer.

 

[Ebihara]

Works for me.

 

[FinePoint]

Ditto.

 

[Ebihara]

BUMP

 

[Ebihara]

any other feedback from any staff here? before we vote again.

 

[Ebihara]

Rigby and Mordecai vs Satou Kazuma

I'm pretty sure in an actual fight, Rigby and Mordecai would stomp, but this is doable still. I pitted Yor Forger against Plankton in a cooking contest and pitted the games of The Frontman and Jigsaw against each other, so..! For this match, let's pit the contestants' luck against each other...

vsbattles.com

this was recently posted, do we feel this would fit? its basically discussing how lucky they are.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah.

 

[Ebihara]

bump

 

[Ebihara]

Bump! I dont really have anythign to add to this? I guess vote again on the new wording, unless any staff has anymore input we have kind of come to a halt on this.

 

[Ebihara]

Then that should be written like that in the rule.

how do you feel about the rule after the latest update?

 

[DontTalkDT]

how do you feel about the rule after the latest update?

It's better than before, but I'm still against the system in general for priorly named reasons.

 

[Antvasima]

Hm, yeah that might actually be able to condense it.

"Indirect or non-combat versus threads are allowed to be made and added to profiles if the match-up relies on the particulars of their feats, and leads to a notable discussion. Those feats, if particularly niche or generally unimportant, don't have to be listed on their profiles. The only fictional characters involved in these matches should be the competitors themselves."

Not really, but also not too much longer.

This seems good to me at least.

 

[Agnaa]

Alright, well that's three full agrees, and one begrudging agree. Although two of those were on the old wording, I don't think it's substantially changed to where their views would be different.

I'll go apply it now.

EDIT: Done.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out. Should we close this thread then?

 

[Agnaa]

Probably.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.

 

[Agnaa]

Unlocking this thread to discuss another facet.

My attention has been drawn to this thread which was recently added to profiles, where Gojo and Piccolo competed in "aura-farming".

I personally think this sort of match is too vague and vibes-based to be added to profiles, or done outside of the fun and games subforum. In line with that, I'd suggest the following addition to the rules (in bold):

Indirect or non-combat versus threads, such as racing, are allowed to be made and added to profiles if the match-up relies on the particulars of their feats, has a concrete and objectively measurable goal (for example, aura-farming matches and beauty contests aren't allowed; while chess matches or aiming to kill the most civilians are allowed), and leads to a notable discussion. Those feats, if particularly niche or generally unimportant, don't have to be listed on their profiles. The only fictional characters involved in these matches should be the competitors themselves.

 

[Ebihara]

I agree. I feel aura farming would already not be allowed under current rules but these changes are good.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Unlocking this thread to discuss another facet.

My attention has been drawn to this thread which was recently added to profiles, where Gojo and Piccolo competed in "aura-farming".

I personally think this sort of match is too vague and vibes-based to be added to profiles, or done outside of the fun and games subforum. In line with that, I'd suggest the following addition to the rules (in bold):

Agreed. Something something rules are written in blood (or in this case, silly matches).

 

[FinePoint]

Unlocking this thread to discuss another facet.

My attention has been drawn to this thread which was recently added to profiles, where Gojo and Piccolo competed in "aura-farming".

I personally think this sort of match is too vague and vibes-based to be added to profiles, or done outside of the fun and games subforum. In line with that, I'd suggest the following addition to the rules (in bold):

That's incredibly funny, but yes the criteria shouldn't be subjective.

And as funny as it would be to have "aura-farming" and "killing as many civilians as possible" in our rules, I think it can just be shortened to "For example, beauty contests aren't allowed."

 

[DontTalkDT]

Funny enough, between social influencing users beauty contest might actually fall into the category of measurable goals.

 

[FinePoint]

Funny enough, between social influencing users beauty contest might actually fall into the category of measurable goals.

Convincing a judge to vote for them, perhaps, but not actually being more beautiful.

In the thread someone asked if it would be okay if they clearly defined what counted as gaining or losing aura, and I think that might be a reasonable compromise (though I think it's probably better if we just don't allow it).

 

[Ebihara]

Convincing a judge to vote for them, perhaps, but not actually being more beautiful.

Ya but then we would need to change the rules of not allowing other people besides the charcters in the matchup. And I think that part of the rules is surely preventing more BS.

 

[Agnaa]

Ya but then we would need to change the rules of not allowing other people besides the charcters in the matchup. And I think that part of the rules is surely preventing more BS.

The wording is intended to allow some real/generic people in those sorts of positions. Just not other fictional characters.

Convincing a judge to vote for them, perhaps, but not actually being more beautiful.

There are characters that would get you a decent amount of the way there. Series do drop statements like "the most beautiful person in the world/history", "so beautiful anyone who looks at them faints". Or hell, some characters do canonically win beauty contests, I'd imagine.

I could see us writing rules to require explicit textual evidence of subjective claims for both characters, for a match to be allowed. But I think it's simpler to just not allow these sorts of matchups.

 

[Ebihara]

The wording is intended to allow some real/generic people in those sorts of positions. Just not other fictional characters.

Hmmm can we clarify that then? To me it reads they should be the only the only people involed. No refs, nothing.

I could see us writing rules to require explicit textual evidence of subjective claims for both characters, for a match to be allowed. But I think it's simpler to just not allow these sorts of matchups.

Agree.