Clarifying Non Combat Versus Threads

[FinePoint]

I'm also fine with the new wording, for the record.

 

[Ebihara]

Awesome! so looks like it can be applied if it gets unlocked?

I'm also fine with the new wording, for the record.

 

[FinePoint]

Awesome! so looks like it can be applied if it gets unlocked?

Well, @DontTalkDT, @Mr. Bambu, and @DarkDragonMedeus were also part of this, maybe we should see if they have input too.

 

[Ebihara]

Well, @DontTalkDT, @Mr. Bambu and @DarkDragonMedeus were also part of this, maybe we should see if they have input too.

sounds good.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It's fine.

 

[Agnaa]

Ant only approved the "making notable use of...." change, not the removal of the thematic portion. He hasn't commented on that part.

 

[Ebihara]

Snip

How do you feel about the new wording?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Personally I'm against removing the thematic portion (I know, shocker). It just leads to shenanigans. Things like stacking matches in favour of your character by designing a very specific competition with special rules, making your character beat Goku in a competition that requires being smart so that they have a win against Goku on the profile (with your character being stupid enough to make this not a stomp), having competitions between characters where we have barely any relevant information for evaluating the outcome etc.
Needless to say, I think the whole thing already goes beyond what should be considered "notable" for our profiles, but adding matches for our combat-centred profiles which aren't even relevant to the actual characters involved? That's really pushing it.
As usual, I'm fine with anything being debated, but I see zero reason to list "Light Yagami vs Poison Ivy in a competition of Beer Pong" on the profiles as a "Notable Matchup".


That aside, I'm mostly fine with the specification regarding P&A Agnaa suggested, provided we're clear that not basically every activity passes for that with reasoning of "Needs to use intelligence for this activity, therefore it passes by using the statistic of intelligence" or something equivalent.

 

[FinePoint]

As usual, I'm fine with anything being debated, but I see zero reason to list "Light Yagami vs Poison Ivy in a competition of Beer Pong" on the profiles as a "Notable Matchup".

Well, I think most sports are probably fine, even if they're table sports- and that match up would also include some interesting aspects like stamina and tolerance related to drinking alcohol in addition to skill.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well, I think most sports are probably fine, even if they're table sports- and that match up would also include some interesting aspects like stamina and tolerance related to drinking alcohol in addition to skill.

It's also

1. immensely silly
2. virtually entirely non-reflective of the character's performance in virtually any scenario they would realistically encounter or that we primarily care about
3. has an outcome that stands on very indirect reasoning and assumptions, as we obviously have no direct feats for this competition

Furthermore, let me add that a formulation like this would allow for competitions like "Pit vs Son Goku in a Death Race, with the stipulation that they need to hold back enough to not harm the opponent" which basically amounts to exactly the kind of selective elimination of statistics we wanted to avoid when only allowing speed equal fights and nothing else.

 

[Ebihara]

as we obviously have no direct feats for this competition

I think this is really important. Even if it is thematically appropriate. Do we index relevant feats for the matchup. Like we could have 2 charcters known for cooking as a part of there charcter. But do we directly index relevant cooking feats. Probaly not.. and at that point it comes down to just sending scans at each other. So i guess, my concern now. Is being thematic + uses PA enough. I feel like at the end of the day this sadly might require some discretion on the side of the matchup creator. I agree that maybe these shouldn't be notable matchups generally (but I take issue that every matchup is "notable")

 

[Ebihara]

Well, I think most sports are probably fine, even if they're table sports- and that match up would also include some interesting aspects like stamina and tolerance related to drinking alcohol in addition to skill.

do you have any objection to the inculsion of "themeatic" in the rule?

I don't think we need the requirement for them to be thematic

as the person who wanted to reopen the thread cause of this, how do you feel about @DontTalkDT thoughts on why it is needed?

 

[FinePoint]

It's also

1. immensely silly
2. virtually entirely non-reflective of the character's performance in virtually any scenario they would realistically encounter or that we primarily care about
3. has an outcome that stands on very indirect reasoning and assumptions, as we obviously have no direct feats for this competition

Furthermore, let me add that a formulation like this would allow for competitions like "Pit vs Son Goku in a Death Race, with the stipulation that they need to hold back enough to not harm the opponent" which basically amounts to exactly the kind of selective elimination of statistics we wanted to avoid when only allowing speed equal fights and nothing else.

I'm not sure I agree in the sense that regular versus matches also require a lot of assumptions and almost always involve them dealing with things they have no "direct feats" for. I don't really think it's that much of a further stretch to speculate how accurately they could throw a ball, for example, compared to whether or not they can dodge some attack that's nothing like something they've seen before. Also I like silly things.

What's a "Death Race"?

do you have any objection to the inculsion of "themeatic" in the rule?

I'm fine with it either way, though I'm not entirely sure what we're defining as 'thematic' here.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

What's a "Death Race"?

Meet my friend, Dick Dastardly...

For actual thoughts, I do think a match being silly doesn't make it invalid. The whole hobby is rather silly. Beer pong may be a bit more ridiculous than one would like but I don't really think that's what we're talking about here, anyways- we have precedent for matches like playing chess against one another or solving some criminal case, these hypotheticals don't seem to be what we'd be seeing, anyways.

If this becomes something we can't move past, I don't feel super strongly about the thematic portion or not: I'm in favor of letting people have fun but I recognize that we should probably draw a line somewhere. Reckon I'll wait and see how people stack up but my vote is currently tenuous.

 

[Agnaa]

Personally I'm against removing the thematic portion (I know, shocker). It just leads to shenanigans. Things like stacking matches in favour of your character by designing a very specific competition with special rules, making your character beat Goku in a competition that requires being smart so that they have a win against Goku on the profile (with your character being stupid enough to make this not a stomp), having competitions between characters where we have barely any relevant information for evaluating the outcome etc.
Needless to say, I think the whole thing already goes beyond what should be considered "notable" for our profiles, but adding matches for our combat-centred profiles which aren't even relevant to the actual characters involved? That's really pushing it.
As usual, I'm fine with anything being debated, but I see zero reason to list "Light Yagami vs Poison Ivy in a competition of Beer Pong" on the profiles as a "Notable Matchup".


That aside, I'm mostly fine with the specification regarding P&A Agnaa suggested, provided we're clear that not basically every activity passes for that with reasoning of "Needs to use intelligence for this activity, therefore it passes by using the statistic of intelligence" or something equivalent.

I didn't include this in my original post, but my True Belief is actually something along those lines.

However, our profiles aren't exclusively combat-centered. We allow profiles simply for skilled fictional gamblers, without any combat applicability or superhuman qualities.

In that world, I think allowing matches like these on profiles makes sense. Especially since anything non-standard like that would need a long description accompanying that match listing.

 

[Ebihara]

However, our profiles aren't exclusively combat-centered. We allow profiles simply for skilled fictional gamblers, without any combat applicability or superhuman qualities.

Tigger (Kingdom Hearts)

Tigger loves to bounce more than anything. Sometimes his bouncing gets out of hand, but he doesn't mean any harm. Beneath that happy-go-lucky exterior beats a sensitive, gentle heart. Tier: 9-B Name: Tigger Origin: Kingdom Hearts, Disney Gender: Male Classification: Tigger Age: Unknown Powers...

vsbattles.fandom.com

how do we feel about this matchup, tigger's matchups are both him and someone else playing his mini game. Now Tigger doesnt fight and there is a note on his page about it. I think him playing his mini game is the closest we are going to get to a matchup. But does it make sense that luffy and zeno have it as matchups on there page? I am not sure...

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'm in favor of letting people have fun but I recognize that we should probably draw a line somewhere.

My take is that the fun part is having the debate, not the listing of the result on profiles.

However, our profiles aren't exclusively combat-centered. We allow profiles simply for skilled fictional gamblers, without any combat applicability or superhuman qualities.

Our profiles aren't exclusively combatants, but they are centered on combat. Fine difference. If we have a profile for a cook, it will feature explanations related to how they fight, not the quality of their soufflé.
I believe in the past we have also used whether a character has any information that would be suitable to decide the outcome of a battle as a measure of whether their profile is allowed.

Especially since anything non-standard like that would need a long description accompanying that match listing.

People don't always list all match assumptions even currently, which is a problem in itself. On the other hand, nothing stops people from listing a whole paragraph of rules either.
The rules of competitions being properly clarified is another problem in itself, actually, as for other competitions there are no SBA to take. So we probably get lots of half-baked scenarios, if the history of battles prior to the SBA is any indication.

 

[Agnaa]

I believe in the past we have also used whether a character has any information that would be suitable to decide the outcome of a battle as a measure of whether their profile is allowed.

iirc we don't enforce that requirement on certain profiles, unless you'd argue that any demonstration of intelligence helps in a fight. I was opposed to this, but was overruled by those who considered gambling to have enough of an adversarial nature to work. And so I think we should extend versus threads to other adversarial confrontations.

Even if the structure of our profiles is primarily set-up to deliver combat information, I think it's open-ended enough to make the inclusion of other things fine.

 

[Ebihara]

adversarial confrontations.

I like this term a good way to describe these "fights"

 

[Ebihara]

Bump

 

[Ebihara]

unless you'd argue that any demonstration of intelligence

I think that matchups that arent combat should have to use some sort of PA from the charcters not just comparing stats.

My take is that the fun part is having the debate, not the listing of the result on profiles.

I agree, do matchups have to be added unless they want to be fun and games? Always tripped me up that every matchup is "noteable"

People don't always list all match assumptions even currently, which is a problem in itself.

could enforcing strict guidelines for these non combat matchups work/help?

 

[DontTalkDT]

iirc we don't enforce that requirement on certain profiles, unless you'd argue that any demonstration of intelligence helps in a fight. I was opposed to this, but was overruled by those who considered gambling to have enough of an adversarial nature to work. And so I think we should extend versus threads to other adversarial confrontations.

Even if the structure of our profiles is primarily set-up to deliver combat information, I think it's open-ended enough to make the inclusion of other things fine.

Being a genius has indeed been considered to be a sufficiently big factor to make a fighting difference. Like, we allow pretty much anything that in a fight can be reasonably be argued about differently than a random human. But it is about fighting. Don't think we would allow someone that is just a good artist for example.

And yes, our profiles give space to include many things. But the ability to include many things doesn't mean it's the purpose, nor that many profiles are actually suited for that in their current state.

Ultimately, it would for most characters be debates that don't focus on things explained on the profiles, leading to results which are not relevant to what is on the profiles. A thematic match at least has that to a somewhat lesser extent, as that means it uses some attribute central to the character, which hence has at least some prominence on the profile.

I agree, do matchups have to be added unless they want to be fun and games? Always tripped me up that every matchup is "noteable"

Generally, there is no rules that any matchup needs to be added. The question is entirely what can be added. For fights we have some limits, like stomps. I would be inclined to be more strict on what is notable there was well, but unambiguous rules are hard to make and ambiguous rules cause too much work.

could enforcing strict guidelines for these non combat matchups work/help?

Who would put in the work of checking and enforcing the strict guidelines?

 

[Ebihara]

Who would put in the work of checking and enforcing the strict guidelines?

"cause the nature of non combat matchups to deterime if they are noteable or not you are required to ask in the Versus Match-up Addition Requests Thread" i am not sure if i even think this is the best solution but we dont get too many non combat matchups at the moment. So I dont see this becoming a workload issue as most of these threads dont even get close to grace.

The question is entirely what can be added.

would help solve this, could still do non combat matchups but not all of them are going to be noteable enough to warrant being added. (if we feel this aspect is worth tackling or rather just better define how non combat threads can be made)

to me i just like reading versus threads and debating. if no matchup was ever added to a page i couldnt care less.

 

[Agnaa]

Being a genius has indeed been considered to be a sufficiently big factor to make a fighting difference. Like, we allow pretty much anything that in a fight can be reasonably be argued about differently than a random human. But it is about fighting. Don't think we would allow someone that is just a good artist for example.

And yes, our profiles give space to include many things. But the ability to include many things doesn't mean it's the purpose, nor that many profiles are actually suited for that in their current state.

Ultimately, it would for most characters be debates that don't focus on things explained on the profiles, leading to results which are not relevant to what is on the profiles. A thematic match at least has that to a somewhat lesser extent, as that means it uses some attribute central to the character, which hence has at least some prominence on the profile.

Do you not think that the requirement to use something from their P&A/stats/NA&T/etc. would stop the issue of debates relating to things not in their profile?

After pondering the idea for a bit, I think that requirement serves both to halt both stomps and the unexplained concern.

Also, thinking about it a bit more I wonder, should we allow or prevent disabling P&A as part of these confrontations? If we don't, quite a few characters would have hax to make the opponent engage less skillfully, which I can imagine people would often want to avoid.

 

[FinePoint]

Also, thinking about it a bit more I wonder, should we allow or prevent disabling P&A as part of these confrontations? If we don't, quite a few characters would have hax to make the opponent engage less skillfully, which I can imagine people would often want to avoid.

Restricting abilities is probably a very bad idea for all the same reasons it would be for normal matches.

I think if it's in-character for them to cheat and they have the means to that's just fair unfair game.

The match-up could perhaps instead specify that unfair play would disqualify them if caught or something like that.

 

[Ebihara]

think if it's in-character for them to cheat

Alot of gambling threads come down to who is a beter cheater. pretty easily can setup the matchup if they get caught they lose.

 

[Agnaa]

Eh, I can imagine things get funky if the cheater-spotter can be arbitrary. An ordinary human would be far worse at spotting than an omniscient character, for example.

Should we limit the involvement of fictional characters to those actively participating in the match?

 

[FinePoint]

Should we limit the involvement of fictional characters to those actively participating in the match?

Indeed. It should probably be up to the opponent to detect cheating, since that further pits their intellect against each other and fits with our existing standards barring outside help.

 

[Ebihara]

Indeed. It should probably be up to the opponent to detect cheating, since that further pits their intellect against each other and fits with our existing standards barring outside help.

is it worth getting this into some sort of formal writing and adding it to the rule? these niche cases should be listed somewhere instead of someone having to go through this thread.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah, I think "The only fictional characters involved in these matches should be the competitors themselves." or smth should be added.

 

[Ebihara]

"Indirect or non-combat versus threads are allowed to be made if the matchup makes notable use of their powers, abilities, statistics, notable techniques, or talents. The only ficitonal charcters involved in these matches should be the comptitors themselves."

would be what the current proposal would look like.

 

[Ebihara]

I think if we have anymore guidelines for this formatting wise it might want to be another bulletpoint under it.

 

[Ebihara]

Bump

 

[Ebihara]

bump

does anyone have more to discuss for the wording? or are ready to vote on it?

 

[Agnaa]

I have some grammar nitpicks but I can fix those when it's applied.

I'm fine to vote on that, and don't have other ideas yet.

 

[Ebihara]

Bump

 

[Ebihara]

bump.

So ideally we should ideally get input or a vote from all staff who voted the first time around?

 

[Agnaa]

Just a decent amount of input, imo.

 

[FinePoint]

"Indirect or non-combat versus threads are allowed to be made if the matchup makes notable use of their powers, abilities, statistics, notable techniques, or talents. The only ficitonal charcters involved in these matches should be the comptitors themselves."

Once the spelling and grammar is fixed up this proposal seems generally fine to me.

 

[Ebihara]

spelling and grammar

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