Establishing rules for Varies ratings

[LordGriffin1000]

Agnaa's suggestion here seems mostly fine to me.

@Maverick_Zero_X @DontTalkDT @LordTracer @DarkDragonMedeus @LordGriffin1000 @Emirp sumitpo @Armorchompy @ImmortalDread @Lonkitt

What do you think?

I think it's ok.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

Why do you disagree with Agnaa's suggestion, @DarkDragonMedeus ?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I never voiced any disagreements to Agnaa's suggestion specifically, I just still have disagreements with some things Eficiente mentioned, but I will discuss them later as I need to get some sleep soon.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I never voiced any disagreements to Agnaa's suggestion specifically, I just still have disagreements with some things Eficiente mentioned, but I will discuss them later as I need to get some sleep soon.

So is it fine to interpret it as "yes to the note"?

 

[Antvasima]

I never voiced any disagreements to Agnaa's suggestion specifically, I just still have disagreements with some things Eficiente mentioned, but I will discuss them later as I need to get some sleep soon.

Okay. No problem.

 

[Eficiente]

Bump @DarkDragonMedeus

 

[Antvasima]

I never voiced any disagreements to Agnaa's suggestion specifically, I just still have disagreements with some things Eficiente mentioned, but I will discuss them later as I need to get some sleep soon.

@DarkDragonMedeus

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

His Toon Force making him do crazy feats is consistent, it's just often lower than 8-B & hard to see due to magic being the main thing of the show. At best it goes this high for his durability, for example.

I do not deny there are quite a few superhuman feats, but if 8-B was only one time, it may be an outlier. 9-B for instance has more than enough to be painted as consistent, and almost every cartoon character ever has at least Wall level durability since they get crazy stuff dropped on them and they don't die. But I still do not see how that justifies a variable tier to the point of simply using it as a scapegoat against the existence of outliers. As for Mid tiers stuff, Crimson Chin is a superhero, so I got nothing against him being Superhuman outright or scaling from various DCAU level feats. He also appears to be a static tier and has some 8-B feats listed including his own, so no issues for me there. And cosmic stuff coming from fairy magic, I also have no issues with.

I am also pretty positive the ladder exaggerated how high it was in canon. And more over, even if it was high, falling so fast you catch fire doesn't actually take that much velocity once you're really that high up where the air is much thinner. And given our freefalling feats rule, a feat like the one you shown would really only be wall level realistically speaking. So instead of making a variable tier for Timmy Turner, I still would maybe consider throwing a water balloon from USA to France an outlier while the fairly consistent 9-B stuff is fine.

I don't think you have been keeping up with my comments, I believe I got from where you're coming from & replied to it in my first one. So, it's not "every single Toon Force user", nor "randomly", and I once more don't think we mean the same when talking about something being "inconsistent". If it makes it easier to conceptualize, replace the term "Toon Force" with "Reality Warping"; Can users of it be inconsistent and not deserve a Varies? Yes. Can users of it use it to amp their stats in a way that they would deserve a Varies? Yes. Do we need to have it be explicitly stated in a verse every time that happens? No.

I need you to explain properly why it is that you disagree, not just that you feel that way, and preferably show an understanding of what I pointed out before as to not strawman the matter.

I also need to point out, that some high end feats are literally nothing more than visual gags that has an excessive cause by little to no actual effect. Take this for example. We see a mushroom cloud visible in space with the naked eye but no collateral damage. Calculating that and then using that on the Up to "X tier" via toon force when they're 10-C without it doesn't seem valid from that. Now there have been explosions where it does work as I have seen cases where pouring water into an electrical outlet caused and entire city to be destroyed. And characters getting solid ratings via numerous durability feats on that level. I still do not think a verse being cartoony combined with having inconsistencies is enough to give variable tiers without in verse lore explanations.

 

[Eficiente]

I do not deny there are quite a few superhuman feats, but if 8-B was only one time, it may be an outlier.

I already see an issue here; What do you define as an outlier in this context? This "8-B" stat isn't based on a feat that show what his stats always are, it is a single feat that shows his stats being that high for a short bit, done due to Toon Force, ie lack of logic. From where are you coming from saying that we should ignore the character did this? How do you reach the conclusion to say that it's an outlier? Do you believe Toon Force-based feats should be consistent or else they should be ignored? It doesn't make any sense.

I am also pretty positive the ladder exaggerated how high it was in canon. And more over, even if it was high, falling so fast you catch fire doesn't actually take that much velocity once you're really that high up where the air is much thinner. And given our freefalling feats rule, a feat like the one you shown would really only be wall level realistically speaking.

It caused a small country-sized slash of water at the end though.

But I still do not see how that justifies a variable tier to the point of simply using it as a scapegoat against the existence of outliers.

So instead of making a variable tier for Timmy Turner, I still would maybe consider throwing a water balloon from USA to France an outlier while the fairly consistent 9-B stuff is fine.

Now there have been explosions where it does work as I have seen cases where pouring water into an electrical outlet caused and entire city to be destroyed. And characters getting solid ratings via numerous durability feats on that level. I still do not think a verse being cartoony combined with having inconsistencies is enough to give variable tiers without in verse lore explanations.

You're not going up to what the arguments were, you just tackled my reply on Timmy being just an average kid. See here:

• 1, 2, 3, 4

What you say is disconnected from what I argue, hence you force me to reply back to what you say by writing the same arguments I already made, rather than having me reply to a reply to them. Timmy Turner was just an example that you put too much attention into, you focus on the consistency of his stats whereas I'm talking about the logic behind giving a Varias to Toon Force users. No wonder you approach Timmy Turner & cartoon characters in a way that I'm saying is outdated & wrong w/o taking into account how I'm saying that that's outdated & wrong. I'm yet to know why you say what you say, when you say "I still do not think a verse being cartoony combined with having inconsistencies is enough to give variable tiers without in verse lore explanations" you are essentially talking to yourself, what about Agnaa saying that "If they have genuine Toon Force, then it'd fall under them having a canon explanation." in a comment that you liked? How does that fit into that?

I also need to point out, that some high end feats are literally nothing more than visual gags that has an excessive cause by little to no actual effect. Take this for example. We see a mushroom cloud visible in space with the naked eye but no collateral damage. Calculating that and then using that on the Up to "X tier" via toon force when they're 10-C without it doesn't seem valid from that.

The environment not fitting the feats done in them is a whole other topic that I agree needs better rules. It can make Toon Force-based feats worthless, yes, but as I said before; "The scenarios I hypothetically point out are when things are legit, not when lazy or wanked things are done." Meaning that there is no point in non-valid things in this conversation.

 

[Psychomaster35]

How do you reach the conclusion to say that it's an outlier? Do you believe Toon Force-based feats should be consistent or else they should be ignored? It doesn't make any sense.

It would usually be an outlier if it is something that happens once unless it's an important event and/or something that could be explained for the sudden jump in power. For a verse heavily using toon force, so long as around 2-3 or more feats happen at that level and there are hardly anti-feats, I'd say they deserve to solidly be that tier; no variable tier.

 

[Eficiente]

Well, those are clearly made up rules. Toon Force is a lack of logic on doing things, whatever happening even if it doesn't fit to reality. Why question if what happened did happen if it only happened once or wasn't too important? Why "around 3 or more feats happen at that level" need to happen if the Toon Force-based feats aren't even meant to be the consistent power levels of the characters but something that happens due to a lack of logic? Likewise why do anti-feats matter in that sense if again this were not the consistent power levels of the characters? This are all rhetorical questions.

To give this example again, if someone stretches out their arm once to a superhuman degree via Toon Foce, that's Elasticity for them. Meaning that we recognize the fact that they did that once via Toon Force. Any logical reason as to why this doesn't get the same treatment?

"Around 3 or more" is also super random, it doesn't count the amount of feats in which the characters weren't holding back and were going all out to build a percentage, it just throws in a random number. But that's talking about consistent power levels, which we are not.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I already see an issue here; What do you define as an outlier in this context? This "8-B" stat isn't based on a feat that show what his stats always are, it is a single feat that shows his stats being that high for a short bit, done due to Toon Force, ie lack of logic. From where are you coming from saying that we should ignore the character did this? How do you reach the conclusion to say that it's an outlier? Do you believe Toon Force-based feats should be consistent or else they should be ignored? It doesn't make any sense.

Outlier isn't really a topic with a consistent policy in general, it's always been case by case. But here, it's more like a one time high end that is significantly higher than what we regularly see combined with it mainly being played for laughs and the effect isn't consistent with the cause. And it's not like it did anything it did anything long lasting from a continuity perspective.

This comes off very excusatory. I hope we are on the same page & when you say "inconsistent" you actually mean "the character canonically had this inconsistent, higher stats. They were not outliers", at which point is misleading to call it inconsistent. If not, "At least X, likely Y, possibly Z works" makes sense if they are using "at least", "likely" & "possibly" properly. If we are on the same page, "At least X, likely Y, possibly Z works" is nonsense as it means any character scales to all that sh*t at once rather than the consistent one stat only. Imagine that;

This was more so a proposal out of process of elimination and more so something I would only apply as a last resort if they're the type of character the writers can't decide if they just want to portray them as some everyman or the ultimate hero. Of course, a lot of characters are clearly meant to be one or the other. Likewise, proposals like that can be used if some parts are sort of vague but has some degree of likelihood.

• A character is always Wall level, minus 3 times Toon Force made them be City level, only in those specific occasions tho ->
• Any character scaling at any point in time is "At least Wall level, likely City level"

It's stupid. Sadly it's how many cartoon characters are normalized to be used due to a huge lack of common sense, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

This is rather rude and condescending. And not every character would be like that; my protagonist types examples have still been overlooked and I did mention them earlier in the thread. It could work for Type 2 protagonists for example, but Type 1 might lean toward low ends with Type 4 leaning towards high ends. And Type 3's typically have keys based on eras. And even Type 2, never said it had to, especially if a mid end can be decided.

"Varies between 10-C via getting bisected by a paper clip to 3-A via pulling a string that untangled the whole universe" isn't much better, I don't believe for a second that "getting bisected by a paper clip" comes in good faith. What the characters can do consistently w/o Toon Force making them do crazy feats isn't the same as "their lowest feats possible", but what they do consistently, with consistent anti-feats against anything higher. Making a huge effort to suspend my disbelief of where that comes from, yes, "Varies from 10-C to 3-A" could be correct if the character is genuinely 10-C most of the time while being able to genuinely be 3-A via Toon Force.

In short, you ridiculed something correct in bad faith, please don't do that.

Calling my opinion "Bad Faith" is a fairly bold accusation. And in my point of view, I feel like I am the one being strawmanned here. And no offense, but a lot of users complain whenever you accuse people of "Arguing without common sense" and have voiced it's something your do regularly. Also, Armorchompy was the one who brought up that almost every toon force user has something that ridiculous of an anti-feat if we did a variable that has absolute lowest portrayal and absolute highest portrayal.

That's ok, but you are falling to those inconsistencies I pointed out that don't mean anything, not the real deal. What about Toon Force being used to amp stats? Surely you recognize this is not always going to be stated, right? It follows that other clues point out what are or are not the consistent stats the characters have, and what are jokes not meant to mean much, if also not meaning that they never happened. Everything ok so far?

Well, what verses actually have "Toon Force" explained as something that amps stats much like Hulk's Anger or Shounen's Ki/Chakra shenanigans? I know Pinkie Pie actually has some Toon Force explanation, but most cartoons don't have that. It's mostly just gags left in right that vary greatly with no explanation.

I feel like I don't really need to requote part 3 as that's the one where I am being accused of trying to be verse specific. But I used it because that's what you brought up as your main example. And what a lot of users onsite and offsite complain about that being "The only toon force verse done right" whenever we're debating any other verse such as Mario, Sonic, Simpsons, Spongebob, Gumball, ect. But Timmy Turner is an example of a Type 1 protagonist in which he is consistently one of the weakest characters in his own universe and not particularly portrayed as being outlandishly superhuman within the context of his verse. Does he have superhuman feats? Yes. Is he portrayed as leagues above everyone else? No. What ever he scales from is pretty much what almost everyone else should be comparable if not superior to whether that be 10-C, 9-B, or 8-B. Since the Type 1 is essentially the Everyman or Underdog types of characters. But the way we treat him shouldn't dictate what we do for other protagonists who are more consistently portrayed as much stronger heroes or top dogs.

Also, I have plans to write blueprints for how to make outliers more extinguishable that looks at feats from multiple angles, not just one or two. Toon Force is a common example where they may be prone to outliers, albeit they don't equal outliers by default. Master Roshi blowing up the moon for example has an aftermath that maintained until Kami restored the moon and thus more consistent with the narrative. But Clam from Camp Lazlo burping and causing the moon to move was played off as just a joke. And unless there are more feats to back up consistency or if Clam is intended to be leagues above everyone else, I may question if it's an outlier. Though not going to force it. But I said it's not the only point, but difference between Type 1 (Underdogs and Everymen), 2 (Most Toon Force users and various fluctuative characters), 3 (Progression and Power Evolution based characters), and 4 (The Top Dog/God Tier protagonists like Saitama) protagonists (On my scale) can also indicate the likelihood of outliers. As would the difference between direct feats (Their own destruction feats are less likely to be outliers though not immune to) and indirect feats (The Character A overpowered character B who has this feat and/or durability feats are more likely to be outliers than destruction feats but again not always)

Another thing you brought up in point 4 mentioned replacing Toon Force with Reality Warping. But characters regularly capable of Reality Warping are inherently considered quite powerful normally. Not sure if I can compare that entirely to Toon Force and if anything that has less of a variable and more assumed that high ends are within power even if they don't always use it.

I have work again soon, but that's all I really want to say for now on the topic. I am honestly tired of arguing in circles.

 

[ImmortalDread]

It seems fine in my opinion. Agnaa's note is simplified to say "Toon users" may have “varies” rating, but it is case-by-case.

OP's staff tally: (my draft without Agnaa's note)

• Agreements: @Agnaa, @DarkDragonMedeus, @Armorchompy @Maverick_Zero_X, @LordTracer, @LordGriffin1000, and @Emirp sumitpo
• Disagreements: @DontTalkDT

Agnaa's note:

Unless I am mistaken, but this is simply a compromise that toon forces may get “varies” rating under the aforementioned circumstances and requirements:

• Agreements: @Eficiente, @Agnaa @Antvasima @Propellus (no evaulation rights)
• Disagreements: @DarkDragonMedeus

Altho; looking from DT's argument, one can imply that he also agrees with the concept of Agnaa's note. So overall (unless I misinterpreted him), he seems to agree with the draft (I assumed; since this is his whole point)

@DarkDragonMedeus

Users of [[Toon Force]] may have that ability increase their regular stats, which can happen on numerous occasions without necessarily showing stats that the characters could hold on a regular basis. While this can be a valid justification for a "Varies" rating (If many statistics are indexed within that variation, or if they're able to maintain the increased stat for long periods of time), the use of "up to", depicting only their highest achieved stat, should be considered. The feats of these increased stats should also be clarified, particularly how long they last, as it should not be assumed that the characters can always sustain having those stats indefinitely, which could make them useless in a prolonged battle. Likewise, [[Powerscaling|scaling]] to this characters simply means scaling to their regular stats, not their increased ones (unless those are literally happening at the time the scaling takes place)."

Do you agree or disagree or being neutral?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Agnaa's wording at least sounds okay but kinda neutral.

 

[ImmortalDread]

OP's staff tally: (my draft without Agnaa's note)
The current draft is in this section https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Attack_Potency#Varies

• Agreements: @Agnaa, @DarkDragonMedeus, @Armorchompy, @Maverick_Zero_X, @LordTracer, @LordGriffin1000, @Emirp sumitpo
• Disagreements: @DontTalkDT

Agnaa's note:

Users of [[Toon Force]] may have that ability increase their regular stats, which can happen on numerous occasions without necessarily showing stats that the characters could hold on a regular basis. While this can be a valid justification for a "Varies" rating (If many statistics are indexed within that variation, or if they're able to maintain the increased stat for long periods of time), the use of "up to", depicting only their highest achieved stat, should be considered. The feats of these increased stats should also be clarified, particularly how long they last, as it should not be assumed that the characters can always sustain having those stats indefinitely, which could make them useless in a prolonged battle. Likewise, [[Powerscaling|scaling]] to this characters simply means scaling to their regular stats, not their increased ones (unless those are literally happening at the time the scaling takes place)."

Unless I am mistaken, but this is simply a compromise that toon forces may get “varies” rating under the aforementioned circumstances and requirements:

• Agreements: @Eficiente, @Agnaa @Antvasima, @Propellus (no evaluation rights), possibly @DontTalkDT
• Neutral: @DarkDragonMedeus
• Disagreements: @Armorchompy, @Lonkitt, @LordTracer, @Maverick_Zero_X

Altho; looking from DT's argument, one can connote that he also agrees with the concept of Agnaa's note. So overall (unless I misinterpreted him), he seems to agree with the draft (I assumed; since this is his whole point)

If someone can ping @DontTalkDT to clarify his position in the thread, it will be appreciated. Will be adding him as “possibly” due to unclear stance.

More staff input is also appreciated to conclude this thread.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@DontTalkDT

 

[Armorchompy]

I still disagree with Toon Force people getting a Varies unless it's a canonical ability (and even then only in very select few cases). My opinion remains

 

[Lonkitt]

I still disagree with Toon Force people getting a Varies unless it's a canonical ability (and even then only in very select few cases). My opinion remains

I’m in the same train of thought

 

[LordTracer]

I still disagree with Toon Force people getting a Varies unless it's a canonical ability (and even then only in very select few cases). My opinion remains

I agree with this.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Alright, I will officially announce that the draft from Agnaa is rejected (3,5:1:3), unless we adjust it to

unless it's a canonical ability (and even then only in very select few cases). My opinion remains

As a compromise solution for everyone.

 

[Propellus]

Alright, I will officially announce that the draft from Agnaa is rejected (3:1:3), unless we adjust it to

As a compromise solution for everyone.

The agreements equals (If not slightly more if you were to validate my vote on this as well) the disagreements, I wouldn't just jump the gun and just claim it's rejected already

 

[ImmortalDread]

And it won't be applied either, unless with a compromise or more votes in favor of keeping it.

 

[Propellus]

And it won't be applied either, unless with a compromise or more votes in favor of keeping it.

It depends on how more mods see that (especially how DT hasn't even returned to see Agnaa's analysis based on what Efi suggested earlier) and even then, the votes still rival each other. You can't just decide what's rejected or accepted

 

[ImmortalDread]

In general speaking, a tie vote means that the proposal or decision being voted on does not pass or get approved.

But I am not limiting anything. As I said previously, either compromise or more in favor to be approved.

But perhaps, you are right, I should be wise in using my words.

 

[Eficiente]

Outlier isn't really a topic with a consistent policy in general, it's always been case by case. But here, it's more like a one time high end that is significantly higher than what we regularly see combined with it mainly being played for laughs and the effect isn't consistent with the cause. And it's not like it did anything it did anything long lasting from a continuity perspective.

You say that w/o taking into consideration the other points I bring as to why that line of thinking doesn't make sense. Look:

• "it's more like a one time high end that is significantly higher than what we regularly see" This fails to explain;
  • why wouldn't Toon Force, a lack of logic/oddity in reality, justify it.
  • why other abilities that come from Toon Force that we don't regularly see are allowed when this higher stats aren't.
  • So these are not points that make sense, there are only points that "feel right".
• "combined with it mainly being played for laughs": Likewise, it "feel right" to say that, but there is no logic behind it, Toon Force is almost always played for laughs, and Toon Force is a power and a thing that happens, therefore it doesn't matter at all to bring as a point that it's played for laughs, it's old and outdated.
• "the effect isn't consistent with the cause": Could be a valid reason, not always, and the effect sometimes is consistent with the cause. There is nuance to it, look over the parts that aren't valid because they don't matter.
• "it's not like it did anything it did anything long lasting from a continuity perspective." Same with the first bit; This fails to explain why wouldn't Toon Force, a lack of logic/oddity in reality, justify it. And why other abilities that come from Toon Force that we don't regularly see are allowed when this higher stats aren't.

This was more so a proposal out of process of elimination and more so something I would only apply as a last resort if they're the type of character the writers can't decide if they just want to portray them as some everyman or the ultimate hero. Of course, a lot of characters are clearly meant to be one or the other. Likewise, proposals like that can be used if some parts are sort of vague but has some degree of likelihood.

You reply but that doesn't advance the conversation from what I said, you don't tackle the idea of ""inconsistent"" feats being possible via Toon Force in a way that At least X, likely Y, possibly Z doesn't work, the only picture you give me is that you did what you did & that's that, but you don't explain why next to what I said. Idk how do you defy "inconsistent" in this context when I pointed out wanting to know that.

This is rather rude and condescending. And not every character would be like that;

So it's rather rude and condescending but it's correct? Ok then. I view it as "a bit rude, but not inappropriately rude", btw, so I respect how you view it but don't think the same.

my protagonist types examples have still been overlooked and I did mention them earlier in the thread. It could work for Type 2 protagonists for example, but Type 1 might lean toward low ends with Type 4 leaning towards high ends. And Type 3's typically have keys based on eras. And even Type 2, never said it had to, especially if a mid end can be decided.

Well, if you keep making scenarios where how you want things to be fits well or what I said was flawed all along due to things in it being invalid, then yes you're never going to see issues on how you want things to be. Please look at what challenges that notion w/o altering the scenarios proposed.

For example, let me change what you quoted a bit;

• A character is always Wall level, has many anti-feats to go higher than that, minus 3 times Toon Force made them be City level, only in those specific occasions tho ->
• Any character scaling at any point in time is "At least Wall level, likely City level"

In this case, "At least Wall level, likely City level" for the character themselves and those who scale to them is wrong. Do you accept this? If so we can move on from that.

Calling my opinion "Bad Faith" is a fairly bold accusation.

I will explain how I double down on it then: First of all, for clarification, you say "my opinion" but it actually just refers to the "getting bisected by a paper clip" bit, not your whole opinion, as it should be needless to say. We are talking about a Varies due to Toon Force making nonsensical stats possible, it was assumed that the low end would be the standard, every-day stat the characters would show, so we run from that starting point in good faith. However, if you portray the lowest stat as "getting bisected by a paper clip" then I 100% believe it's in bad faith because I see it as the lowest possible stat a character would show, rather than the standard, every-day stats they would show, that is to say, it's a ridiculisation of the idea I want to apply by recklessly portraying it in an impossible manner, as you have an easier time proving wrong an argument that does not exist. I am not saying you did it on purpose, it could be seen that I somewhat implied that your lack of attention & care to my arguments caused this by calling it bad faith, and I thus implied that you should please do better, idk exactly what was in my mind at the time.

It it a thing to "call something Bad Faith when that's not the case", yes, but so it is to "call out being called out to argue in bad faith when that was very much the case".

And in my point of view, I feel like I am the one being strawmanned here.

What would be the first case of it, for example?

And no offense, but a lot of users complain whenever you accuse people of "Arguing without common sense" and have voiced it's something your do regularly.

No offense taken, but the majority isn't correct simply due to being the majority. There are cases where I do wrong and there are cases where I don't, I'm not gonna say what the percentage of that I believe is, but I will say that in the percentage of cases where I don't do something wrong, hearing complains that I can point out are unfounded, with the manner not being civilly elaborated beyond the minimum, I'm not gonna say "I should change because these people complained about me even tho I could disagree with them and they didn't put their complains up to official scrutiny or talking it out with me where I can better talk them back".

Also, Armorchompy was the one who brought up that almost every toon force user has something that ridiculous of an anti-feat if we did a variable that has absolute lowest portrayal and absolute highest portrayal.

This proves (in actions, not intent, if I need to say that) that you were complaining for the sake of complaining when you said that "Calling my opinion "Bad Faith" is a fairly bold accusation." It had no understanding on the topic based on how you are not aware of what I meant when I said "bad faith" nor would be able to define what "good faith" would be in contrast, essentially you wanted to be correct and it annoyed you that "bad connotation" I gave. I define what I meant right after saying it:

I don't believe for a second that "getting bisected by a paper clip" comes in good faith. What the characters can do consistently w/o Toon Force making them do crazy feats isn't the same as "their lowest feats possible", but what they do consistently, with consistent anti-feats against anything higher.

And that's in the comment you quoted to reply, yet you contradict having an understanding of that by saying the same irrelevant thing, it's terrible.

• I am going to say it yet again: anti-feats like that don't matter -> therefore there is no point in bringing them up -> meaning that they do not help your point.
• As an example: Timmy Turner once couldn't unplug his computer in time to prevent his parents from using it, as hard as he tried -> The low end of his Varies tier is 10-C as in, an average kid, not the strength of an insect based on that anti-feat.

Well, what verses actually have "Toon Force" explained as something that amps stats much like Hulk's Anger or Shounen's Ki/Chakra shenanigans? I know Pinkie Pie actually has some Toon Force explanation, but most cartoons don't have that. It's mostly just gags left in right that vary greatly with no explanation.

That's non sequitur, I said

"What about Toon Force being used to amp stats? Surely you recognize this is not always going to be stated, right? It follows that other clues point out what are or are not the consistent stats the characters have, and what are jokes not meant to mean much, if also not meaning that they never happened. Everything ok so far?"

Meaning that this doesn't need to be stated, but then you ask for verses in which it is stated...why? It doesn't reply to what I said, it doesn't say why you don't agree with what I say (if you do), you raise your own question & portray it as an issue that defends your position as if the fact that most verses with Toon Force don't do what you ask of them proves that.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

I still disagree with Toon Force people getting a Varies unless it's a canonical ability (and even then only in very select few cases). My opinion remains

I’m in this boat.

 

[Eficiente]

It would be great if they could reply to the arguments made.

 

[Propellus]

My point still stands as Efi here, you don't necessarily need to have overcomplicated statements like 24/7 for why these people perform these kinds of feats via Toon Force. It's clearly on-screen and self-evident enough, and in the end they're performing toon Force because they're in a cartoon to begin with. I don't see why some kind of flexibility is so impossible for toon Force characters

 

[Agnaa]

fwiw I would generally want characters to actually have Toon Force explained, to get Varies off of that.

It happens on-screen, but all we actually have is the information on-screen. Most things attributed to toon force aren't things actually shown on-screen, they're headcanon based on guesses of the genre as a whole. Such as:

• Those abilities being done via a lack of logic/oddity in reality.
• It's an amp of stats that actually happened and can be consistently pulled out.

Flexibility is possible, but it should only extend as far as it does with other verses. That means not assuming that characters have inexplicable stat amps despite zero explanation as a way to get around a feat being an outlier.

As said before, I may be okay with a few examples where it can be inferred without a direct statement (a stat increase being directly bookended by lower stats in the exact same scene, a character growing muscles for a feat) but not many.

 

[Eficiente]

In the sense that we would all like all abilities explained in a series rather than not explained, I agree, but then it doesn't matter to bring that up here. In the sense of what's needed for us to work stats out of it, well, when qualifying if Toon Force did made the characters stronger, I would like to see anyone straight up say that this is in fact a factor when determining that, rather than a minor annoyance along the way.

Putting what I said before in other words;

• To claim that it is an actual factor would be like claiming any other use of Toon Force needs to have a similar treatment, it would be excusatory and overly simplistic. See this example in which those rules are the norm;
• If a character stretches their arm from one building to another to grab something and they didn't need to do that in context and it comes off as weird & unexplained, then that's Elasticity via Toon Force.
• But then if far into the future a plot has it that a bridge is cut in front of them and they need to work their way out of grabbing something on the other side, when they could totally get it with if they were to use that Elasticity, then this would go to show the double standards;
• Nobody would bat an eye on calling that Elasticity an outlier, or acknowledging out loud the unwritten rule that Toon Force can allow for things that one may not be able to repeat at will.
• There is a wrong need to have anything & everything be things that sticks to the characters completely regularly, hence wanting Toon Force to explain when this is not the case comes up, which almost never happens in fiction. Most people watching cartoons understand this, they know when it would be wrong to expect an ability or superhuman stat to stick from "what's proven before" if that was just a joke.
• We need to recognize that it's more complex than that; Wanting things explained, as a rule, is nonsense. Toon Force can allow for things that one may not be able to repeat at will all the time, even if they show it more than once. What they do via Toon Force may last a very limited amount of time, and that's ok, or the joke may be that what they do may last days, years, for all of time, but they don't have it like that in other eps. Consistency is what matters, be it in what they do, say, and how things are portrayed.

 

[Armorchompy]

I don't see how that counters literally anything I've said.

 

[Eficiente]

I believe my comments adapt well to yours, too bad I had to say just parts of it many times. I can reply to your comments but I'm in an uncomfortable position since you don't show to recognize what I argue and what your position is in regards to certain things I say, so it's the same song & dance for me.
---

[...] but I know the same issue always rears its ugly head so I'm just here to say do not give cartoon characters varies just because le quirky toon force, you're literally just making up a headcanon mechanic to justify inconsistency in a medium that's just not meant to be battleboarded. Find the closest thing to a reasonable end you can (and in a lot of cases it's going to be low, deal with it) and stick with that, or just don't make profiles for something that's one step away from absurdism.

I share the view on how things were done in that wrong way, I'm saying that the rules you imply are extremist on trying to fix that and don't actually make sense. You dismiss the use of toon force as something that can make character have stats higher than normal as a headcanon mechanic but you don't recognize when or if you agree that toon force can make character have stats higher than normal in the first place. After everything said so far, I will assume that you already know that can be the case, and you just disagree when that's done in a wrong sort of way.

On the way you portray it as a mechanic and how those verses aren't meant for battle, I don't think that would hold any issue on what's being proposed, which is fully acknowledging that the higher feats don't last unless proven otherwise, and that any stat higher than what's normal doesn't scale to other characters. If you have an issue with toon force as a "mechanic" for Varies then how would this be any different than toon force as reason to have any ability? They both rely on the same.

Also with the way Varies work every cartoon profile would just be "Varies from 10-C via the absolute weakest antifeat in a series full of them to 4-A via this random gag in exactly one episode out of 100000" and you'd just be indexing the bottom and top 1% of the show.

• "the absolute weakest antifeat" part is not true, there is no interest in listing that just like, say, there is no interest in listing random trivia about characters that would determine how specific techniques from other characters would affect them. See what the proposal is.
• "4-A via this random gag in exactly one episode out of 100000": As the proposal says, it can also simply be an ", up to 4-A". Assuming it's a real feat and being in 1 ep out of 1000000 doesn't also mean it hides how wrong it is in its obscurity.

You also just should not be capable of doing scaling if you're assuming a character's strength varies all the time in a way that they cannot control

Again, no one is proposing that. There is standard/normal/every-day stat the character would have based on consistent feats and anti-feats, all the characters would have that in their profiles and scale off that when they scale to each other.

so that would just end up making your workload hundreds of times bigger because every character has their own ratings

If that needs to be the case, let that be the case. No one said it would be easier. Look at this portrayal of FOP human characters for example;

• Timmy Turner: Regularly pretty weak, at best due to being the main character with the most screentime all his stats have been shown to be superhuman at random
• Timmy's friends: Regularly pretty weak, at best they have a similar thing like Timmy going on, but to a far lesser degree.
• Timmy's dad: Regularly superhuman, almost never at a human level
• Francis: Similar to Timmy's dad but less powerful and less consistent
• Vicky: Similar to the 2 cases above; as inconsistent as Francis but even more powerful than Timmy's dad when written that way
• Crocker: Regularly pretty weak, at best his joke is getting harmed by things and so has some pretty crazy durability feats
• Dark Laser: Regularly like human level, at best has 3 Planet level durability feats

It's a mess, their best in AP and durability mostly isn't shared because they all have their own feats. Sometimes someone there beats up someone else there, doesn't mean they scale to their best. Imagine for a second that their best is as I portray it, with essentially different numbers for each character; the fact that it's a mess and hard to work around doesn't make it any less valid, because that's not a valid point.

and it would even end with a protagonist being rated way higher than a side character who's consistently stronger than they are, given that they'd likely never get to match them in the second in which they actually pull off the feat.

If they're consistently stronger then our profiles would show that. If the protagonist has a valid toon force feat that's higher their profile would show as much, with the rules set as to not wank things up. This is not an issue.

There's ALSO an issue of where you draw the "toon force" line, just look through this category. I feel like you'd have a pretty easy time arguing someone like Mario or Sonic are cartoony enough for the ability to apply to them, and at that point you'd just be able to immediately invalidate their current tiers by saying "oh they're only this strong like 1% of the time, here, add a 10-C end for the time they got hurt by something trivial, btw you literally cannot use them in vs matches anymore".

So maybe you can more easily see what I meant with extremist with an argument like this. Same as before with the anti-feats, no one is arguing that. We can definitely determine what is or isn't toon force in terms of feats, just like we can with abilities. If there is push back then so be it, let there be debate about it, that doesn't magically mean it's wrong.

Back to the first paragraph, the "you literally cannot use them in vs matches anymore" bit wasn't hyperbole. There's no factor determining how a toon force character's power level behaves in any given circumstance, outside of the headcanon, vague ass "they're strong when it's funny for them to be that" idea, which is very subjective. Is it funny for Bugs Bunny to beat Darkseid in a fight? Maybe, but maybe I have a darker sense of humor and I think that Darkseid grabbing a beloved cartoon character and absolutely beating the shit out of him is hilarious. Maybe I don't think either situation would be any funny at all. You can't determine this sort of stuff, so characters who have toon-force based power variation would, by necessity, have to be thread-banned.

Again with an extremist argument, thre is so much wrong here

There's no factor determining how a toon force character's power level behaves in any given circumstance, outside of the headcanon

We go by feats, similar to as if they didn't have toon force.

vague ass "they're strong when it's funny for them to be that" idea, which is very subjective.

You can't determine this sort of stuff

We don't say what makes them strong, aside from toon force, so far we only made the error to assume the strength they showed stays for longer than proven. A vsthread sets them already that strong, but doesn't cause them to grow from weaker to that strong as if we knew that causes that while we create a story for it. It's a hypothetical, like taking away a character from their documented, short life time with an amp from their verse to now fight a random character.

Is it funny for Bugs Bunny to beat Darkseid in a fight? Maybe, but maybe I have a darker sense of humor and I think that Darkseid grabbing a beloved cartoon character and absolutely beating the shit out of him is hilarious. Maybe I don't think either situation would be any funny at all.

If there was a character who said "I'm a toon force user that can beat characters stronger than me if it's funny", they would have empowerment, and that empowerment would be legit regardless of we have no idea what is funny at all. Their highest feats most likely wouldn't match Darkseid anyway and anything higher than the feats shown would be wank/a NLF.

, so characters who have toon-force based power variation would, by necessity, have to be thread-banned.

I don't believe I even need to say this but you haven't proved that at all.

You can't even lock them in any specific tier, because "An exception would be if the restricted ability/technique has a separate tier from the main one, and is one the character can consciously restrict themselves from using. In this case, the match can be added." Toon force is basically always involuntary, so you can't lock it.

That's on abilities, it also says this on tiers:

• Even if a character has the potential to reach a certain tier, the use of any tier between that tier and the one it scales to is not allowed. For example, Avatar of Calamity cannot be used in a vs thread with a tier between High 7-A and 2-A or Unknown and 2-A depending on the used key.

I should specify, when Toon Force is an actual, canon characteristic of a character, in something like Who Framed Roger Rabbit or Slapstick, the Deadpool villain, then I do think that a "varies" tier can absolutely be discussed, this is just for when it's just something that characters abide by for comedy's sake rather than an actual canonical verse mechanic.

Why do both characters like that and every other toon force user can get abilities fine via toon force but with stats there is a difference?

 

[Armorchompy]

I believe my comments adapt well to yours, too bad I had to say just parts of it many times. I can reply to your comments but I'm in an uncomfortable position since you don't show to recognize what I argue and what your position is in regards to certain things I say, so it's the same song & dance for me.

Look, I'm going to make an effort but recognize that it's genuinely really difficult to parse through your walls of text, especially when your English isn't great. I get that the second half isn't your fault but I would really appreciate brevity in the future.

I share the view on how things were done in that wrong way, I'm saying that the rules you imply are extremist on trying to fix that and don't actually make sense. You dismiss the use of toon force as something that can make character have stats higher than normal as a headcanon mechanic but you don't recognize when or if you agree that toon force can make character have stats higher than normal in the first place. After everything said so far, I will assume that you already know that can be the case, and you just disagree when that's done in a wrong sort of way.

I disagree that just because a character is inconsistent as a joke we should let them be Varies.

On the way you portray it as a mechanic and how those verses aren't meant for battle, I don't think that would hold any issue on what's being proposed, which is fully acknowledging that the higher feats don't last unless proven otherwise, and that any stat higher than what's normal doesn't scale to other characters. If you have an issue with toon force as a "mechanic" for Varies then how would this be any different than toon force as reason to have any ability? They both rely on the same.

• "the absolute weakest antifeat" part is not true, there is no interest in listing that just like, say, there is no interest in listing random trivia about characters that would determine how specific techniques from other characters would affect them. See what the proposal is.
• "4-A via this random gag in exactly one episode out of 100000": As the proposal says, it can also simply be an ", up to 4-A". Assuming it's a real feat and being in 1 ep out of 1000000 doesn't also mean it hides how wrong it is in its obscurity

What is "normal"? How are you going to determine that? When a character's stats constantly fluctuate without rhyme or reason, there is no baseline, you can't list them as the most "consistent" tier because you're acknowledging that their stats vary always, and you can't do any scaling with them because it'd be dishonest to just assume their stats are that high without evidence.

Again, no one is proposing that. There is standard/normal/every-day stat the character would have based on consistent feats and anti-feats, all the characters would have that in their profiles and scale off that when they scale to each other.

We go by feats, similar to as if they didn't have toon force.

No there aren't, that's the whole issue. You can't say "oh this character is so inconsistent, we HAVE to give them a Varies tier" and then turn around and say "but here's a consistent tier to scale people to!". That's having your cake and eating it too. If they have a consistent tier then rate them off that consistent tier.

If that needs to be the case, let that be the case. No one said it would be easier. Look at this portrayal of FOP human characters for example;

• Timmy Turner: Regularly pretty weak, at best due to being the main character with the most screentime all his stats have been shown to be superhuman at random
• Timmy's friends: Regularly pretty weak, at best they have a similar thing like Timmy going on, but to a far lesser degree.
• Timmy's dad: Regularly superhuman, almost never at a human level
• Francis: Similar to Timmy's dad but less powerful and less consistent
• Vicky: Similar to the 2 cases above; as inconsistent as Francis but even more powerful than Timmy's dad when written that way
• Crocker: Regularly pretty weak, at best his joke is getting harmed by things and so has some pretty crazy durability feats
• Dark Laser: Regularly like human level, at best has 3 Planet level durability feats

I... can't contest that, I don't know the series at all, I don't know what you want me to say.

If they're consistently stronger then our profiles would show that. If the protagonist has a valid toon force feat that's higher their profile would show as much, with the rules set as to not wank things up. This is not an issue.

No they wouldn't. If a character varies in power against their will then there's no reason to assume that an overall stronger character arbitrarily scales to their highest end.

So maybe you can more easily see what I meant with extremist with an argument like this. Same as before with the anti-feats, no one is arguing that. We can definitely determine what is or isn't toon force in terms of feats, just like we can with abilities. If there is push back then so be it, let there be debate about it, that doesn't magically mean it's wrong.

No you can't. You absolutely can't, how would you even go about determining whether something is cartoony enough or not? You're saying that without even suggesting a method.

I don't believe I even need to say this but you haven't proved that at all.

My reasoning was extremely basic, if their stats vary without any predictable pattern or method, then you can't predict how high they'll be at any point of a fight.

That's on abilities, it also says this on tiers:

• Even if a character has the potential to reach a certain tier, the use of any tier between that tier and the one it scales to is not allowed. For example, Avatar of Calamity cannot be used in a vs thread with a tier between High 7-A and 2-A or Unknown and 2-A depending on the used key.

You should probably read the actual context of what I posted though, given that it is about tiers. Tiers that come from abilities that a character cannot control cannot be restricted, and Toon Force is definitely an example of that. You just can't make a character start at any specific tier, that's completely unrelated.

Why do both characters like that and every other toon force user can get abilities fine via toon force but with stats there is a difference?

"Why can characters with a canon Varies mechanic get a Varies rating while ones that don't have one can't?"

 

[Agnaa]

In the sense that we would all like all abilities explained in a series rather than not explained, I agree, but then it doesn't matter to bring that up here. In the sense of what's needed for us to work stats out of it, well, when qualifying if Toon Force did made the characters stronger, I would like to see anyone straight up say that this is in fact a factor when determining that, rather than a minor annoyance along the way.

Putting what I said before in other words;

• To claim that it is an actual factor would be like claiming any other use of Toon Force needs to have a similar treatment, it would be excusatory and overly simplistic. See this example in which those rules are the norm;
• If a character stretches their arm from one building to another to grab something and they didn't need to do that in context and it comes off as weird & unexplained, then that's Elasticity via Toon Force.
• But then if far into the future a plot has it that a bridge is cut in front of them and they need to work their way out of grabbing something on the other side, when they could totally get it with if they were to use that Elasticity, then this would go to show the double standards;
• Nobody would bat an eye on calling that Elasticity an outlier, or acknowledging out loud the unwritten rule that Toon Force can allow for things that one may not be able to repeat at will.
• There is a wrong need to have anything & everything be things that sticks to the characters completely regularly, hence wanting Toon Force to explain when this is not the case comes up, which almost never happens in fiction. Most people watching cartoons understand this, they know when it would be wrong to expect an ability or superhuman stat to stick from "what's proven before" if that was just a joke.
• We need to recognize that it's more complex than that; Wanting things explained, as a rule, is nonsense. Toon Force can allow for things that one may not be able to repeat at will all the time, even if they show it more than once. What they do via Toon Force may last a very limited amount of time, and that's ok, or the joke may be that what they do may last days, years, for all of time, but they don't have it like that in other eps. Consistency is what matters, be it in what they do, say, and how things are portrayed.

The difference I see between random high AP feats, and random abilities, is that random abilities usually can't really be outliers. And in cases where they can be (i.e. many potent defensive abilities like regeneration and nonexistent physiology), we do actually require more explicit evidence. Sometimes there are cases where these high AP feats aren't considered an outlier, and for those we don't require further elaboration.

As such, I don't think there are actually double standards at play.

(Note: I haven't read your response to Armor, and his response back, due to their length, so apologies if anything I say was already covered.)

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

We need your help here:

https://vsbattles.com/threads/establishing-rules-for-varies-ratings.154266/post-5946671

 

[Eficiente]

I disagree that just because a character is inconsistent as a joke we should let them be Varies.

You're doing the same as before, I have no idea what your position is next to what I argue and why you disagree, only that you disagree. As far as I know, "Varies" to you holds some weird, special definition custom-made to exclude toon force. As I said, "you don't recognize when or if you agree that toon force can make character have stats higher than normal in the first place", so do you recognize this yes or no? This is an important start.

What is "normal"? How are you going to determine that? When a character's stats constantly fluctuate without rhyme or reason, there is no baseline, you can't list them as the most "consistent" tier because you're acknowledging that their stats vary always, and you can't do any scaling with them because it'd be dishonest to just assume their stats are that high without evidence.

Horrible logic, those are excuses. Since I do recognize that toon force can make characters stronger than normal, this isn't any harder than asking myself "what abilities aren't toon force-based?" There are a number of way to determine what is normal:

• Feats that aren't played for laughs.
• Anti-feats if they aren't played for laughs.
  • The latter 2 include portrayals / expectations of what the characters can do.

It's super easy. You can't just jump from thinking ""the absolute weakest antifeat" is the baseline" to "there is no baseline", you're not even trying to be reasonable.

No there aren't, that's the whole issue. You can't say "oh this character is so inconsistent, we HAVE to give them a Varies tier" and then turn around and say "but here's a consistent tier to scale people to!". That's having your cake and eating it too. If they have a consistent tier then rate them off that consistent tier.

Again, you don't even try to be reasonable as you keep portraying what you oppose in this ridiculous way that has nothing to do to what the arguments and proposals are.

You recognize before that "a character's stats constantly fluctuate without rhyme or reason", but now you want them to have a "consistent tier". Why can't that consistent tier be the baseline, since you said that "there is no baseline"?

Why don't you recognize on a more clear way that toon force can make stats go up and down? You do say that they fluctuate so you're close. It would then follow to recognize that not all feats are valid for scaling and for one's "consistent tier", meaning that you're wrong in saying "If they have a consistent tier then rate them off that consistent tier.", meaning it's correct to give them a Varies tier.

"oh this character is so inconsistent, we HAVE to give them a Varies tier" and then turn around and say "but here's a consistent tier to scale people to!". That's having your cake and eating it too.

The first bit would be accurate if the best feats were just outliers. Imagine this made up toon force user:

• Always shown to be 10-C with anti-feats to be anything higher in serious situations. There are over 20 cases proving this to be the case.
• There are 2 anti-feats in which they have the strength of an insect, which is played for laughs.
• Every so often they have wacky feats played for laughs that go up to 9-A, even a few feats in between 10-B to 9-C.

It wouldn't be having my cake & eat it too to list this character at "10-C, up to 9-A" because of toon force, with no one scaling to that 9-A stat.

No they wouldn't. If a character varies in power against their will then there's no reason to assume that an overall stronger character arbitrarily scales to their highest end.

Then you show that you didn't listen, idk what do you think you are arguing against.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/establishing-rules-for-varies-ratings.154266/page-2#post-5891007

Users of [[Toon Force]] may have that ability increase their regular stats, which can happen on numerous occasions without necessarily showing stats that the characters could hold on a regular basis. While this can be a valid justification for a "Varies" rating (If many statistics are indexed within that variation, or if they're able to maintain the increased stat for long periods of time), the use of "up to", depicting only their highest achieved stat, should be considered. The feats of these increased stats should also be clarified, particularly how long they last, as it should not be assumed that the characters can always sustain having those stats indefinitely, which could make them useless in a prolonged battle. Likewise, [[Powerscaling|scaling]] to this characters simply means scaling to their regular stats, not their increased ones (unless those are literally happening at the time the scaling takes place)."

No one is saying that an overall stronger character arbitrarily scales to a weaker character's highest end, only to their regular/standard/every-day stats.

No you can't. You absolutely can't, how would you even go about determining whether something is cartoony enough or not? You're saying that without even suggesting a method.

This is easy AF, everyone can know when that happens. Look a the tone next to when more serious things happen, be it audio, reactions of characters, if it is too inconsistent next to what regularly happens, if there is a degree of lack of logic along the way. By your logic we may as well not know when something is a gag or played for laughs.

You don't even address the topic by saying that, you only hypothetically have an issue when there is a gray area to have debate about it while ignoring all the cases that are clearly toon force causing stats to go wild.

My reasoning was extremely basic, if their stats vary without any predictable pattern or method, then you can't predict how high they'll be at any point of a fight.

No one is saying that they would go around jumping from one stat to another mid-fight.

You should probably read the actual context of what I posted though, given that it is about tiers. Tiers that come from abilities that a character cannot control cannot be restricted, and Toon Force is definitely an example of that. You just can't make a character start at any specific tier, that's completely unrelated.

I see the confusion I got there, I admit it.

Still, I say that making a character start at a specific tier is related, because from there we just have to set the stage so that "they can't switch to other tiers" to do have a logical match up honest on what we do. As you said, we don't know what causes them to switch tiers most of the time because it's never explained, and even if it is, it can be super vague with toon force. Therefore I see it as a perfectly sensical thing to do, as we would be removing this unknown factor that we can't measure.

"Why can characters with a canon Varies mechanic get a Varies rating while ones that don't have one can't?"

You dodged the question.

 

[Eficiente]

The difference I see between random high AP feats, and random abilities, is that random abilities usually can't really be outliers. And in cases where they can be (i.e. many potent defensive abilities like regeneration and nonexistent physiology), we do actually require more explicit evidence. Sometimes there are cases where these high AP feats aren't considered an outlier, and for those we don't require further elaboration.

As such, I don't think there are actually double standards at play.

Please go over the example you just quoted. A character shows one of those random abilities but the portrayal later on is as if they didn't have it, how is this not the equivalent of an anti-feat for a feat of strength previously shown? How are this not double standards?

It would be absurd to consider all those random abilities part of the characters' arsenal of things they can do & are always aware of. That's the stereotypical Vs Debater need to have more and more to presume, viewing any specific one of this abilities as something the characters can always choose to do if they're in a pickle where they need to, whereas most other people watching this things when they happen understand that they might not be meant to stick in and would not expect the characters to remember them later on.

The implied point being, toon force can make spread-of-the-moment events happen, be it abilities or feats. There is no reason to recognize the former always yet have the latter measured with consistent powerscaling to see if they're an outlier or not, because that's saying if they make sense or not. When we're talking about "manipulating reality or bypassing physical laws of nature in order to achieve impossible feats". If we recognize the feats as toon force, then we are recognizing they make sense.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that Eficiente seems to make sense here.

 

[Agnaa]

Please go over the example you just quoted. A character shows one of those random abilities but the portrayal later on is as if they didn't have it, how is this not the equivalent of an anti-feat for a feat of strength previously shown? How are this not double standards?

It would be equivalent, but it'd be a pretty weak anti-feat. It just seems like plot-induced stupidity.

It'd be on the same level as an anti-feat where a character who has demonstrated incredible running speed doesn't chase after a car, or chooses to ride a car, or something like that.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, that's another thing. If "Toon Physics" was a justification for variable tiers, then it kind of feels a bit double standardish for physical stats to be variable but "Insert giant wall of hax" to not have the same variable. Agnaa has listed the reason being that it's hard to call elasticity feats or shapeshifting feats outliers; though I could hear arguments for certain extents of regeneration being outliers such as characters demonstrating Mid-High to Low-Godly regeneration despite consistently being incapable of much lower levels of regeneration. Though that's also elaborated by the difference between flexible/casual regeneration or situational regeneration. And the fact that it's still a Vs thread standard to give them all powers and abilities that cannot be restricted but their variable stats for AP, Speed, and Range are a different story.

I know speed equalization could fix the speed issue, but for variable tiers? Character who are At least Planet level, likely Star level have a policy where one or the other could be picked, but we're not allowed to just pick a random mid end in VS threads against someone who has a solid tier in between. Would AP equalization where the variable tier character is allowed to equal a character with a solid rating be an exception? That's another issue I have with variable tiers via "Style over substance" reasoning is that it appears to dodge the bullet on our strict Tier equalization rules on Vs threads. That, or a lot of inconsistent characters weren't really meant to be featured in Vs Threads.