Establishing rules for Varies ratings

[Eficiente]

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.

While I agree that it could be plot-induced stupidity, not only that can very well not be the case, that should also be the standard take. After all, why would what happens over a regular plot need to not apply as it's portrayed whereas what happened via toon force, ie a lack of logic, needs to become part of the arsenal of things the character can do & is always self-aware of. There is logically a reason as to why Elasticity wasn't used, and it's pretty easy to accept, so to go as far as to dismiss that plot as plot-induced stupidity and imply that Elasticity would have been used w/o plot-induced stupidity is clearly wrong.

More to it, imagine there is a second instance even later on where yet another plot would be resolved with that Elasticity but is instead worked around not accounting for it, is Elasticity now an "outlier" and not something the character should have listed? No, that's silly, no one would do that, they would still have it listed even if the character can't or won't use it at will.

Do we all agree as a premise that toon force can allow for "things" that the users wouldn't be able to repeat at will or at all times, and that wouldn't be recognized as things they can do outside of gags? If the answer is yes, then no need to go over the Elasticity example.

 

[Agnaa]

While I agree that it could be plot-induced stupidity, not only that can very well not be the case, that should also be the standard take. After all, why would what happens over a regular plot need to not apply as it's portrayed whereas what happened via toon force, ie a lack of logic, needs to become part of the arsenal of things the character can do & is always self-aware of. There is logically a reason as to why Elasticity wasn't used, and it's pretty easy to accept, so to go as far as to dismiss that plot as plot-induced stupidity and imply that Elasticity would have been used w/o plot-induced stupidity is clearly wrong.

There isn't "logically a reason". Unless toon force was stated to work that way in the show, it's just headcanoning in a reason.

More to it, imagine there is a second instance even later on where yet another plot would be resolved with that Elasticity but is instead worked around not accounting for it, is Elasticity now an "outlier" and not something the character should have listed? No, that's silly, no one would do that, they would still have it listed even if the character can't or won't use it at will.

As I said before, for most verses, we'd just treat that sort of thing as PIS.

For cases where it isn't, we'd just treat that sort of thing as implying that usage of that ability is out of character.

For cases where it isn't, then we can treat it as an actual anti-feat, and get the ability removed if it isn't used with any consistency.

Do we all agree as a premise that toon force can allow for "things" that the users wouldn't be able to repeat at will or at all times, and that wouldn't be recognized as things they can do outside of gags? If the answer is yes, then no need to go over the Elasticity example.

Not unless it's established within the series. I don't like making up mechanics to apply to 500 verses to ignore outliers just because 1 verse said it worked that way.

 

[Eficiente]

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.

There is a lot to unpack here.

• It could be seen as a "that might be the case, but it wouldn't be consistent with this other thing we do". Is there some of that here? 1 thing I said to Armorchompy before was "As far as I know, "Varies" to you holds some weird, special definition custom-made to exclude toon force", and I fear that might be the case here too; how do you define "Varies"? You do realize toon force should count for it under a regular definition but excluding it is a made up thing you're deciding it's for the best?
• Is "Insert giant wall of hax" something you portray as their users always having and being are aware of? If so, is this something you believe happens in-universe or something you apply here via standard battle assumptions?

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.

Well, I'm trying to Socrates this out, so cases where everything is fine & good don't really do anything, we may as well be talking about cases where toon force is explained in perfect detail & we always know what's going on. I care for any scenario that may reasonably happen and how that reflects on everything.

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.

So you are aware that random abilities may not be ever-present in a character's arsenal? If so, there is no point in having plot-induced stupidity as a reason as to why one doesn't use an ability shown before, simply because it can happen that this is not the case.

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.

No tier listed in between one end and another would be picked, no one is saying that. Even certain stats would be useless if they only last as long as the short feats that caused them happen. Only existing tiers would be picked if they're usable.

There isn't "logically a reason". Unless toon force was stated to work that way in the show, it's just headcanoning in a reason.

That's nonsense, explain to me why toon force, which we define as "manipulating reality or bypassing physical laws of nature in order to achieve impossible feats for comedic effects. The users bend reality in such a way to make situations "Comedic" and "Funny."", can't be logically inferred in this context as opposed to any other in which it can be logically inferred w/o needing to be stated.

Not unless it's established within the series. I don't like making up mechanics to apply to 500 verses to ignore outliers just because 1 verse said it worked that way.

Skipping into this one due to being similar, it comes off as "This is how we should ideally operate" regardless of if it makes sense, and it doesn't make sense, which means it's not how we should do things. What makes any use of toon force not established a made up mechanics that applies to ~500 verses too? As in, we can see the abilities, what makes us see that we need to write "[[Toon Force]]" too as the thing that causes those abilitities if that isn't established? The point is that it can be done per common sense, it's not wrong.

Speaking of common sense, this bit; "in order to achieve impossible feats for comedic effects" means that, in whatever way it's applied, this impossible feats won't be achieved when not done for comidic effect, and with this in mind I ask you again:

"Do we all agree as a premise that toon force can allow for "things" that the users wouldn't be able to repeat at will or at all times, and that wouldn't be recognized as things they can do outside of gags?

Because I just proved how "Not unless it's established within the series." is a wrong answer.

As I said before, for most verses, we'd just treat that sort of thing as PIS.

For cases where it isn't, we'd just treat that sort of thing as implying that usage of that ability is out of character.

For cases where it isn't, then we can treat it as an actual anti-feat, and get the ability removed if it isn't used with any consistency.

This again comes off as "This is how we should ideally operate" regardless of if it makes sense; I easily see that treating it as PIS, as if the character would use Elasticity in both of those cases if there wasn't any PIS, is illogical and completely excusatory. For most verses.

I am open to the idea that if this example I gave happens to 100 verses, in some of them it could be PIS, and that the characters wouldn't use it in-character is valid too.

When the real reason is that it was an anti-feat, it makes no sense to outright remove it since the premise of the example had it that the Elasticity was due to toon force, it was an impossible feat made possible because of it. It would be accurate to explain its context and how little it matters but not pretend that it contradicts the character's set of abilities.

 

[Agnaa]

That's nonsense, explain to me why toon force, which we define as "manipulating reality or bypassing physical laws of nature in order to achieve impossible feats for comedic effects. The users bend reality in such a way to make situations "Comedic" and "Funny."", can't be logically inferred in this context as opposed to any other in which it can be logically inferred w/o needing to be stated.

That's a general explanation which isn't necessarily one-to-one with what every verse does. And verses generally need to establish how abilities work on their own.

Skipping into this one due to being similar, it comes off as "This is how we should ideally operate" regardless of if it makes sense, and it doesn't make sense, which means it's not how we should do things. What makes any use of toon force not established a made up mechanics that applies to ~500 verses too? As in, we can see the abilities, what makes us see that we need to write "[[Toon Force]]" too as the thing that causes those abilitities if that isn't established? The point is that it can be done per common sense, it's not wrong.

Because people decided they wanted a unique page for "Reality Warping that follows a few cartoony tropes".

I'm fine with giving it if the tropes line up, but not with assuming half a dozen things about the particulars of how it operates based on a few verses.

Speaking of common sense, this bit; "in order to achieve impossible feats for comedic effects" means that, in whatever way it's applied, this impossible feats won't be achieved when not done for comidic effect, and with this in mind I ask you again:

This isn't necessarily true, and needs to be established within the verse.

Similarly, a character who has Water Manipulation, won't necessarily be able to manipulate ice, despite the page saying "The user can create, shape and manipulate water, an inorganic compound with liquid, gas (steam, water vapour), and solid (ice) states, including changing them from one state to other."

When the real reason is that it was an anti-feat, it makes no sense to outright remove it since the premise of the example had it that the Elasticity was due to toon force, it was an impossible feat made possible because of it. It would be accurate to explain its context and how little it matters but not pretend that it contradicts the character's set of abilities.

If their ability's explained to work that way, then yeah, it wouldn't be a contradiction.

If you're just assuming that it works that way because it's reality warping in a cartoon, that ain't good enough.

 

[Eficiente]

That's a general explanation which isn't necessarily one-to-one with what every verse does. And verses generally need to establish how abilities work on their own.

What would a more precise explanation be then?

Because people decided they wanted a unique page for "Reality Warping that follows a few cartoony tropes".

I'm fine with giving it if the tropes line up, but not with assuming half a dozen things about the particulars of how it operates based on a few verses.

We actually had a thread putting this into question, I remember saying that we needed to specify that it wasn't an ability but a term, but we ended up doubling down on it being an ability. It doesn't change much it is is or if the cartoonish things that happen follows the description set w/o being that, I would need to see your description of it to see the issue.

Likewise I wouldn't know what you mean with "if the tropes line up". But I'm very sure that "assuming half a dozen things" isn't accurate, the assumptions are pretty simple and as close to logical as they can be given the lack of in-universe elaborations, what would all the assumptions be along with their issues?

This isn't necessarily true, and needs to be established within the verse.

Similarly, a character who has Water Manipulation, won't necessarily be able to manipulate ice, despite the page saying "The user can create, shape and manipulate water, an inorganic compound with liquid, gas (steam, water vapour), and solid (ice) states, including changing them from one state to other."

Sometimes that's not the case, what about all the cases where that's not the case? How would this not mean that abilities and stats vary?

So there are cases where that is necessarily true just like there are cases where Water Manip Users can control ice. Why does it need to be established that the toon force feats were done "for comedic effects" for we to know that? How is that different from we knowing it was Toon Force in the first place if this too isn't established?

If their ability's explained to work that way, then yeah, it wouldn't be a contradiction.

If you're just assuming that it works that way because it's reality warping in a cartoon, that ain't good enough.

Yes, the latter. It's a flawed standard, the feat could have been the Elasticity happening as a flute sounds, everyone around looking surprised, and laughter playing after it, and it's not good enough because it wasn't explained to be toon force and we are assuming that's the case. It's completely wrong.

 

[Agnaa]

What would a more precise explanation be then?

Anything that you could point to in the verse to justify whatever claim you're making. The sorts of things other verses use to exclude outliers. Do you actually want me to provide examples of these?

Likewise I wouldn't know what you mean with "if the tropes line up". But I'm very sure that "assuming half a dozen things" isn't accurate, the assumptions are pretty simple and as close to logical as they can be given the lack of in-universe elaborations, what would all the assumptions be along with their issues?

Everything that you're using to justify Toon Force feats not being an outlier that isn't sourced from the verse itself.

Sometimes that's not the case, what about all the cases where that's not the case? How would this not mean that abilities and stats vary?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

So there are cases where that is necessarily true just like there are cases where Water Manip Users can control ice.

Yeah, and in those cases it'd obviously qualify. The thing under contention is the default assumption when there's zero elaboration.

Why does it need to be established that the toon force feats were done "for comedic effects" for we to know that? How is that different from we knowing it was Toon Force in the first place if this too isn't established?

Your claim seems to go further than just "it's for comedic effect". A whole bunch of non-cartoon verses do things for comedic reasons. Shinobu Oshino created another copy of herself for what is, metafictionally, a joke. That doesn't mean that, were we to later get multiple statements that she can't create copies of herself, that we would ignore that anti-feat.

 

[Antvasima]

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.

I think that a variable tier would simply note that a character has a clearly displayed lower minimum and upper maximum, not that any tier in-between can be used for versus threads.

 

[Eficiente]

Yes.

Anything that you could point to in the verse to justify whatever claim you're making. The sorts of things other verses use to exclude outliers. Do you actually want me to provide examples of these?

Look, I used what we have stated as proof, you disagreed with that text being "necessarily one-to-one with what every verse does". So I have no idea why it isn't valid in the cases when it is necessarily one-to-one with how the verses that do it like that have things. You say that "verses generally need to establish" these things, but as I see it "it's cool if they have it established, but we can still know if it's toon force otherwise".

SO, you based this in the text not being correct, I want you give what you think is a correct text, but I find clear that we would disagree on toon force being as you portrayed it to be, and we would only see that if we see what that is clearly. Otherwise when someone adds a toon force ability that isn't explained maybe you disagree with that being correct as you see it, idk the rules on this.

Everything that you're using to justify Toon Force feats not being an outlier that isn't sourced from the verse itself.

That's the same way we have been using toon force so far; Something being played for laughs, too ridiculous or not fitting to the standard norms of the reality where it takes place, if a super feat comes out of it, almost everyone out of 100 people would know it doesn't showcare the characters' consistent powerlevels if asked, or if they need to think about their powerlevels later on (Unless they're into Vs Debates, which may have influenced them to think it is their consistent powerlevels, which they would have never concluded otherwise). I can argue in favor of this any day.

However, idk how you think the matter should be handled, so again, idk what "if the tropes line up" means to make it valid and what tropes don't line up to not make it valid. You seem to agree with the idea that not eveything needs to be stated but only "if the tropes line up", what does this mean?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Yeah, and in those cases it'd obviously qualify. The thing under contention is the default assumption when there's zero elaboration.

Obviously, the way the page it's written has it so anyone can interpret when those cases happen and when not on their own, regardless of if this is elaborated. It does nothing to me being told that it turns out it needs to be elaborated because it comes out of nowhere, what would the page need to say so that there are no surprises?

I imagine you can say that, then we would disagree with it as it's not correct, and therefore that would mean I'm correct. Hypothetically, let's see we end up disagreeing on the middle of it; the Toon Force page would be changed in a way that it negatively affects almost every user of it, then we would eventually rethink what we did there and conclude it was wrong.

Your claim seems to go further than just "it's for comedic effect". A whole bunch of non-cartoon verses do things for comedic reasons. Shinobu Oshino created another copy of herself for what is, metafictionally, a joke. That doesn't mean that, were we to later get multiple statements that she can't create copies of herself, that we would ignore that anti-feat.

I would most likely agree that that occurrence isn't anything if I knew the context (likewise I think nothing of Jotaro suddenly appearing under a manhole during his fight with DIO, with no time to position himself there, and I disagee with the 4º wall awareness his profile currently has due to being an outlier).

If I could, I would clean the Toon Force page a bit in that regard by writing how there needs to be a level of consistency on how a character or verse needs to be able to pull this off, and that brief, completely inconsistent instances (Be it because the same capabilities aren't shown again or similar capabilities to bend reality aren't shown again) should be dismissed as gags. Next to that I would write that there is a difference between "a nonsensical occurrence not meant to mean anything", and "a display of Toon Force that may not be explained", since being aware that both things exist in fiction helps one be understand that not all displays of nonsense are inhereditary Toon Force, which is true, maybe someone into Vs Debates falls for that.

I think that would be a reasonable change we would all end up agreeing with.

 

[Agnaa]

Look, I used what we have stated as proof, you disagreed with that text being "necessarily one-to-one with what every verse does". So I have no idea why it isn't valid in the cases when it is necessarily one-to-one with how the verses that do it like that have things. You say that "verses generally need to establish" these things, but as I see it "it's cool if they have it established, but we can still know if it's toon force otherwise".

SO, you based this in the text not being correct, I want you give what you think is a correct text, but I find clear that we would disagree on toon force being as you portrayed it to be, and we would only see that if we see what that is clearly. Otherwise when someone adds a toon force ability that isn't explained maybe you disagree with that being correct as you see it, idk the rules on this.

I don't really understand what you're saying.

If you're saying "The Toon Force page says this, so every single character that we give Toon Force to has to operate this way", then my response is the water manip/ice manip issue.

If you're saying "But some verses do actually establish what the Toon Force page says", then great! But this dispute is only over the cases where the relevant information isn't established in the verse itself.

If you're saying "How can you know that it's Toon Force if it doesn't do exactly what the Toon Force page says", then my response is that we know the same way we know that water manip without ice manip is still water manip; because it fits other features of the ability.

If you're asking me to rewrite the Toon Force page, I have no clue why I'd need to do that.

That's the same way we have been using toon force so far; Something being played for laughs, too ridiculous or not fitting to the standard norms of the reality where it takes place, if a super feat comes out of it, almost everyone out of 100 people would know it doesn't showcare the characters' consistent powerlevels if asked, or if they need to think about their powerlevels later on (Unless they're into Vs Debates, which may have influenced them to think it is their consistent powerlevels, which they would have never concluded otherwise). I can argue in favor of this any day.

However, idk how you think the matter should be handled, so again, idk what "if the tropes line up" means to make it valid and what tropes don't line up to not make it valid. You seem to agree with the idea that not eveything needs to be stated but only "if the tropes line up", what does this mean?

The "tropes line up" stuff was about how something qualifies for Toon Force in the first place, as opposed to other abilities like Reality Warping.

All the stuff you're saying about "played for laughs", "ridiculous", "not fitting the standard norms of reality" doesn't mean that we get to ignore the possibility of them being outliers.

Obviously, the way the page it's written has it so anyone can interpret when those cases happen and when not on their own, regardless of if this is elaborated. It does nothing to me being told that it turns out it needs to be elaborated because it comes out of nowhere, what would the page need to say so that there are no surprises?

I imagine you can say that, then we would disagree with it as it's not correct, and therefore that would mean I'm correct. Hypothetically, let's see we end up disagreeing on the middle of it; the Toon Force page would be changed in a way that it negatively affects almost every user of it, then we would eventually rethink what we did there and conclude it was wrong.

I don't understand what you're saying.

I would most likely agree that that occurrence isn't anything if I knew the context (likewise I think nothing of Jotaro suddenly appearing under a manhole during his fight with DIO, with no time to position himself there, and I disagee with the 4º wall awareness his profile currently has due to being an outlier).

If I could, I would clean the Toon Force page a bit in that regard by writing how there needs to be a level of consistency on how a character or verse needs to be able to pull this off, and that brief, completely inconsistent instances (Be it because the same capabilities aren't shown again or similar capabilities to bend reality aren't shown again) should be dismissed as gags. Next to that I would write that there is a difference between "a nonsensical occurrence not meant to mean anything", and "a display of Toon Force that may not be explained", since being aware that both things exist in fiction helps one be understand that not all displays of nonsense are inhereditary Toon Force, which is true, maybe someone into Vs Debates falls for that.

I think that would be a reasonable change we would all end up agreeing with.

I think such a change would be outside the scope of this thread.

 

[Eficiente]

I don't really understand what you're saying.

If you're saying "The Toon Force page says this, so every single character that we give Toon Force to has to operate this way", then my response is the water manip/ice manip issue.

If you're saying "But some verses do actually establish what the Toon Force page says", then great! But this dispute is only over the cases where the relevant information isn't established in the verse itself.

If you're saying "How can you know that it's Toon Force if it doesn't do exactly what the Toon Force page says", then my response is that we know the same way we know that water manip without ice manip is still water manip; because it fits other features of the ability.

If you're asking me to rewrite the Toon Force page, I have no clue why I'd need to do that.

If you're saying "The Toon Force page says this, so every single character that we give Toon Force to has to operate this way", then my response is the water manip/ice manip issue.

If you're saying "How can you know that it's Toon Force if it doesn't do exactly what the Toon Force page says", then my response is that we know the same way we know that water manip without ice manip is still water manip; because it fits other features of the ability.

If you're asking me to rewrite the Toon Force page, I have no clue why I'd need to do that.

There is no proof that your water manip/ice manip example is valid, we know what to do in that case, but with toon force I can go off what the page says to believe what I said about how achieving impossible feats are for comedic effect thus means that feats not for comedic effect wouldn't be the same. We can understand when water isn't ice without needing to be told how that works, if you want to use that as an equivalent then explain how that works in the case of toon force. I don't believe the rules you would give are something we would agree as a wiki, yet you have no clue why you would need to do that, that's saying that you have no clue why you can't say that X works in Y way when I source how X works in X way.

If you're saying "But some verses do actually establish what the Toon Force page says", then great! But this dispute is only over the cases where the relevant information isn't established in the verse itself.

I don't care about the verses that do establish what the Toon Force page says when the page explicitly allows to add toon force in cases like this where it isn't established. That's the equivalent of debating "what does it mean to be 5-B" and constantly looking back at a character whose every attack & feat are said by narration to yield enough Joules to be 5-B, despite this being told to be irrelevant since we all know it's valid.

The "tropes line up" stuff was about how something qualifies for Toon Force in the first place, as opposed to other abilities like Reality Warping.

All the stuff you're saying about "played for laughs", "ridiculous", "not fitting the standard norms of reality" doesn't mean that we get to ignore the possibility of them being outliers.

I know that, but I don't know what those tropes are to you.

Sure, it's a shortened version of how it should be described, outliers exist, but if we agree it's a displayed of toon force then we are agreeing that it's a manipulation of reality/logic, which can explain logically how the display happened when it would otherwise be an outlier.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Redone:

Obviously, the way the page it's written means that anyone can interpret when those cases happen() and when not on their own, regardless of if this is elaborated by the story. It comes off out of nowhere being told that that these cases() need to be elaborated by the story, because it's contradictory to what the Toon Force page says & one can infer from it. As such, what would the page need to say so that there are no surprises in this regard?

*: Judging & making profiles for Toon Force users knowing that displays of it "for comedic effect" are irrelevant in serious situations, knowing they couldn't use Toon Force in those cases.

I think such a change would be outside the scope of this thread.

I believe I have proven that this is not the case. I sourced how X works in X way, you said that X works in Y way, and we are talking about X not being valid for something else. It's related. If toon force can make one have higher stats than normal w/o this having been said, then that means toon force can make one's stats vary into higher stats.

 

[Agnaa]

There is no proof that your water manip/ice manip example is valid, we know what to do in that case, but with toon force I can go off what the page says to believe what I said about how achieving impossible feats are for comedic effect thus means that feats not for comedic effect wouldn't be the same. We can understand when water isn't ice without needing to be told how that works, if you want to use that as an equivalent then explain how that works in the case of toon force. I don't believe the rules you would give are something we would agree as a wiki, yet you have no clue why you would need to do that, that's saying that you have no clue why you can't say that X works in Y way when I source how X works in X way.

I don't know how to cross this bridge then.

You accept that not everything on a power page applies to every character who has that power in other situations, but not with Toon Force, and I don't know what reason you have for treating Toon Force differently.

For how it works, it works the same as every other ability. Characters can only do what their feats demonstrate that they can do. And it functions the way the verse explains that it does.

I don't care about the verses that do establish what the Toon Force page says when the page explicitly allows to add toon force in cases like this where it isn't established. That's the equivalent of debating "what does it mean to be 5-B" and constantly looking back at a character whose every attack & feat are said by narration to yield enough Joules to be 5-B, despite this being told to be irrelevant since we all know it's valid.

"Giving an ability qualities that it is never stated or shown to have" is not the same as "Checking for the 1000th time if a character whose every statement/feat is 5-B is 5-B".

There's just no comparison to be made there.

I know that, but I don't know what those tropes are to you.

Does it matter?

Sure, it's a shortened version of how it should be described, outliers exist, but if we agree it's a displayed of toon force then we are agreeing that it's a manipulation of reality/logic, which can explain logically how the display happened when it would otherwise be an outlier.

No.

Even if I accepted that every single instance of Toon Force was manipulating reality and logic (which I wouldn't), the fact that a character manipulates reality and logic does not make their failure to do so later not an anti-feat. That just does not follow.

Redone:

Obviously, the way the page it's written means that anyone can interpret when those cases happen() and when not on their own, regardless of if this is elaborated by the story. It comes off out of nowhere being told that that these cases() need to be elaborated by the story, because it's contradictory to what the Toon Force page says & one can infer from it. As such, what would the page need to say so that there are no surprises in this regard?

*: Judging & making profiles for Toon Force users knowing that displays of it "for comedic effect" are irrelevant in serious situations, knowing they couldn't use Toon Force in those cases.

I still don't really understand.

I think you might be saying "The way the page is written is ambivalent on the requirements for when Toon Force can happen. Therefore, you saying that such requirements should be established by the verse itself is a contradiction. So, how would you reword the page to fix it?"

If that's what you're saying, then I disagree with there being a contradiction. The page itself gives a few examples of restrictions in the "Limitations" section, and says that these might apply. Implying that they don't necessarily apply to all characters. Implying that the verse itself would need to establish whether or not they apply.

I believe I have proven that this is not the case. I sourced how X works in X way, you said that X works in Y way, and we are talking about X not being valid for something else. It's related. If toon force can make one have higher stats than normal w/o this having been said, then that means toon force can make one's stats vary into higher stats.

It can, but I'd only accept it doing such in a few particular clear cases, and wouldn't assume that that's how it functions by default.

Toon Force is not a monolith that works the same way in every verse. Verses need to establish how it works by themselves.

 

[Eficiente]

I don't know how to cross this bridge then.

You accept that not everything on a power page applies to every character who has that power in other situations, but not with Toon Force, and I don't know what reason you have for treating Toon Force differently.

There is clearly a difference between "knowing when water is not ice", and "knowing when a toon force display is for comedic effect, in a way that a lack of comedy or the same kind of comedy would undermine it", I'm not treating Toon Force differently because it's a reasonable way to interpret the page. Pointing out "being able to accept that not everything on a power page applies to every character who has that power" is as sensical as calling out someone who knows how to cook for not being able to prepare a gourmet recipe on the basis that they knew how to cook, to give another silly example.

"Giving an ability qualities that it is never stated or shown to have" is not the same as "Checking for the 1000th time if a character whose every statement/feat is 5-B is 5-B".

There's just no comparison to be made there.

The topic & issue is what to infer from what's said & shown and what rules to put so that others can work around any & all cases, I meant that it's useless to look back at cases where there is no work or complications in what to infer from what's said & shown due to everything being crystal clear.
--

For how it works, it works the same as every other ability. Characters can only do what their feats demonstrate that they can do. And it functions the way the verse explains that it does.

Does it matter?

See the following part on the importance of honestly/vulnerably communicating what one believes and what rules on it one would give.

No.

Even if I accepted that every single instance of Toon Force was manipulating reality and logic (which I wouldn't), the fact that a character manipulates reality and logic does not make their failure to do so later not an anti-feat. That just does not follow.

I consider that an extreme view on the matter, well-intended, but wrong. What you would consider an instance of Toon Force is its own issue. But when you do accept it, there are issues with what you said;

• You act as if a user of toon force like this would inhereditary be aware of their powers as opposed to those instances just happening from time to time, with the user only being aware in those times. When you see the instance of Toon Force happen the first time, what then? Would you be willing to have as a standard rule that the user is now always aware that they can do that unless stated that they're not aware? Because they're not necessarily, which is why they may not do later on w/o it being an anti-feat. That's what I think when I watch a cartoon like that, that's how everyone I know would think things are, and how I would assume most people see it; "The characters can pull some BS at random, when they don't, that's standard, it shouldn't be expected that they can use BS & are aware of their BS to deal with plots".
• You act as if a user of toon force like this would inhereditary be capable of the same uses of toon force at will. When you see the instance of Toon Force happen the first time, again, does this mean you would be willing to have as a rule that the user is now always able to repeat it at will unless stated that they can't? Because they can't necessarily.

If we were honest enough to write down things like this it wouldn't take much time for someone to call out how it's not accurate at all. Nor do I think that rules like this would go over scrutiny in the first place.

I still don't really understand.

I think you might be saying "The way the page is written is ambivalent on the requirements for when Toon Force can happen. Therefore, you saying that such requirements should be established by the verse itself is a contradiction. So, how would you reword the page to fix it?"

If that's what you're saying, then I disagree with there being a contradiction. The page itself gives a few examples of restrictions in the "Limitations" section, and says that these might apply. Implying that they don't necessarily apply to all characters. Implying that the verse itself would need to establish whether or not they apply.

There are levels of clarity, if it was ambiguous (or ambivalent) then yes, it wouldn't be a contradiction. I don't believe it's ambiguous.

I easily don't believe that it implies that the verse "needs to establish if that's the case", and instead I believe one chooses this to be the case or not on their own even if the verse didn't establish anything. It's not something ambiguous, because it's not stated that it needs to be established and it's not implied beyond how everything would be great if it was established too. Likewise that's what most people take from it and work with it.

I think it's ambiguous if the initial "for comedic effects" and "limited to what counts as "funny"" refer to the same, as a character may try to pull off a feat of toon force, therefore do something comedic, yet fail because the untold in-universe rules did't consider that funny. So they're synonyms, yet they're 2 levels on what they may refer to. I have seen a fair share of "characters trying to follow nonsensical tropes in cartoons expecting the same to happen only for things to work like they do in reality, to their surprise".

It can, but I'd only accept it doing such in a few particular clear cases, and wouldn't assume that that's how it functions by default.

Toon Force is not a monolith that works the same way in every verse. Verses need to establish how it works by themselves.

Well, maybe we should do 1 thing at a time and arrange this rules on Varies and Toon Force first. And later see what to do with Toon Force in regards to this and on its own. Do you still agree with this?

 

[Agnaa]

There is clearly a difference between "knowing when water is not ice", and "knowing when a toon force display is for comedic effect, in a way that a lack of comedy or the same kind of comedy would undermine it", I'm not treating Toon Force differently because it's a reasonable way to interpret the page. Pointing out "being able to accept that not everything on a power page applies to every character who has that power" is as sensical as calling out someone who knows how to cook for not being able to prepare a gourmet recipe on the basis that they knew how to cook, to give another silly example.

It's not about whether Toon Force feats are "comedic". A bunch of verses have comedy, but that's not otherwise taken as an excuse to treat comedic feats as legitimate, and serious anti-feats as not anti-feats just because the comedic feats were comedic. You seem to attach more qualifications to Toon Force feats than just the metafictional fact that they're funny.

I don't understand this paragraph beyond the first two sentence fragments.

I consider that an extreme view on the matter, well-intended, but wrong. What you would consider an instance of Toon Force is its own issue. But when you do accept it, there are issues with what you said;

• You act as if a user of toon force like this would inhereditary be aware of their powers as opposed to those instances just happening from time to time, with the user only being aware in those times. When you see the instance of Toon Force happen the first time, what then? Would you be willing to have as a standard rule that the user is now always aware that they can do that unless stated that they're not aware? Because they're not necessarily, which is why they may not do later on w/o it being an anti-feat. That's what I think when I watch a cartoon like that, that's how everyone I know would think things are, and how I would assume most people see it; "The characters can pull some BS at random, when they don't, that's standard, it shouldn't be expected that they can use BS & are aware of their BS to deal with plots".

I don't think their knowledge of their abilities would inherently be true, but I think it's a reasonable default if the series doesn't indicate otherwise. I think treating all characters with Toon Force as if they don't know their abilities occur would be very strange, and a stark departure from how such characters are treated now regardless.

The ability would be practically nonexistent in threads, since they'd have to luck into wins, with no knowledge of how to get there.

• You act as if a user of toon force like this would inhereditary be capable of the same uses of toon force at will. When you see the instance of Toon Force happen the first time, again, does this mean you would be willing to have as a rule that the user is now always able to repeat it at will unless stated that they can't? Because they can't necessarily.

I don't think repeatability would inherently be true, but I think it's a reasonable default if the series doesn't indicate otherwise. I think treating all characters with Toon Force as if their abilities can never repeat would be very strange, and a stark departure from how such characters are treated now.

The ability would be practically nonexistent in threads, since we'd assume that they wouldn't be able to pull out anything they've demonstrated.

Do you still agree with this?

I agree with it; at least, with my interpretation based on how it's written.

 

[Eficiente]

I agree with it; at least, with my interpretation based on how it's written.

I want to answer the rest but I think it's for the best if we focus on that as a start. I agree with it too.

 

[Agnaa]

If we both agree with it, I don't know how focusing on it will help us.

 

[Eficiente]

We as in every staff here, in case someone disagrees.

 

[Antvasima]

What are the conclusions here so far?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I still agree more with what Agnaa is saying, but it seems more deadlocked and now it seems the only way to move on is to have more staff input.

 

[ImmortalDread]

What are the conclusions here so far?

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.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

What do you think about the post above?

 

[Agnaa]

That doesn't really seem to address people's concerns.

It seems like the people who disagree with that revised note worry that it'd let characters with unexplained Toon Force that doesn't clearly indicate that strength varies, to still get a Varies rating simply due to inconsistencies.

And while some people who agree with the revised note support those characters getting a Varies rating, others disagree with that.

So it seems like just adding that note, or reverting to the one in the OP, wouldn't actually solve the issue that people are divided over.

 

[Eficiente]

I'm certain that I could explain to them why I believe those concerns are invalid, but it would take some time and willingness to debate the manner from their part. I can't do anything beyond that.

 

[Antvasima]

I will remind @DontTalkDT again.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I will remind @DontTalkDT again.

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with @DontTalkDT here regarding both of the issues that @ImmortalDread mentioned in her post above, but @Agnaa's note seems like the compromise solution that we will likely have to make do with, in lack of better options.

Establishing rules for Varies ratings

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. While I...

vsbattles.com

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I do not think he has commented yet.

But anyway, my thoughts are still the same as I have been saying.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. So you are still neutral then?

 

[Antvasima]

@Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler

I would appreciate your input here:

Establishing rules for Varies ratings

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. While I...

vsbattles.com

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

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:

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.

My agreements were listed in this.

 

[ImmortalDread]

So it seems like just adding that note, or reverting to the one in the OP, wouldn't actually solve the issue that people are divided over.

It really should not. We can move on with the most agreed one.

My draft got only one disagreement, with seven agreements, which is now in the Attack Potency Page. | Done

Your note (compromise) is not accepted because it is currently 4:1:4. You suggested something, but there are people who disagree with it, and therefore it can't be applied. Mines, on the other hand, received a substantial amount of support.

I am not certain why we are trying to pause the thread because of a compromise that is not even being able to be passed.

The underlying issue of the thread is this:

I'm certain that I could explain to them why I believe those concerns are invalid, but it would take some time and willingness to debate the manner from their part. I can't do anything beyond that.

Those who dissented with the note are not willing to state their reasoning.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

@Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler

I would appreciate your input here:

Establishing rules for Varies ratings

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. While I...

vsbattles.com

I'm fine with Agnaa's note. My agreement with the draft is already logged though.

 

[Eficiente]

But anyway, my thoughts are still the same as I have been saying.

Have you been reading the comments with time?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Have you been reading the comments with time?

Yes, I have read through them multiple times and the arguments have been mostly circular. However I do not need to repeat what others have said or what I have said and prefer not to engage in circular debates. So I am still not convinced by your arguments given the points Agnaa and to an extent ArmorChompy laid out.

 

[Eficiente]

It doesn't leave me with the best confidence that you call it circular debates and prefer not to debate, that can be viewed as preferring to minimize the manner into something more simplistic. There were some repetitive aspects to it, yes, but it can also be seen how many points made weren't as definitive as they seemed due to how easily they could be replied to with things they didn't account for. I would value a lot more the take of someone who was willing to debate, and by extension I would value less the take of someone who's not willing to debate.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It doesn't leave me with the best confidence that you call it circular debates and prefer not to debate, that can be viewed as preferring to minimize the manner into something more simplistic. There were some repetitive aspects to it, yes, but it can also be seen how many points made weren't as definitive as they seemed due to how easily they could be replied to with things they didn't account for. I would value a lot more the take of someone who was willing to debate, and by extension I would value less the take of someone who's not willing to debate.

It's more or less that I was debating a lot more earlier in the thread, but later Agnaa and ArmorChompy did. But at the moment, it looks more deadlocked and that it's more so up to staff tally.

 

[Eficiente]

I would like you to regain your energy to debate, even if in the future. Your opinion has a lot of weight, yet easier in the thread you were making terrible arguments regardless of how I called you out on it, you didn't seem to understand and now you can grab onto others' opinions. It's understandably disappointing, a staff tally is a thing we can do, but it would show a good deal of care if the debate could continue to deconstruct things up.

 

[Eficiente]

Bump.

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:

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

For those who disagree with Agnaa's note, here's a case that doesn't need knowledge on the series:

In Phineas and Ferb, Doctor Doofenshmirtz and Perry the Platypus are listed as City Block level in AP and durability, if Doof is only "possibly City Block level" in AP. They can harm each other, their gimmick is that Doof often gets harmed by stuff in a funny way, which can be by regular humans or surviving superhuman stuff.

Doof has only 1 feat calc'd at City Block level, and this other feat is calc'd at Large Building level, but there is something about it: There is an ep where the timeline is changed and Perry is hit by the latter feat instead of Doof, putting him in a full body cast for eighteen months and ruining his life.

So naturally, I find wrong that they would have this stats, if I agree with Doof having this durability at his best. I find clear that this are gags Doof has that make him momentarily have higher durability than what's normal for him. Can anyone explain their thought process if they feel like approaching this scenario in another way?

 

[ImmortalDread]

You need to ping them, so they can get notified. After the forum migration, all notifications of the threads are reset, and this is most likely the case.

 

[Armorchompy]

Bump.

For those who disagree with Agnaa's note, here's a case that doesn't need knowledge on the series:

In Phineas and Ferb, Doctor Doofenshmirtz and Perry the Platypus are listed as City Block level in AP and durability, if Doof is only "possibly City Block level" in AP. They can harm each other, their gimmick is that Doof often gets harmed by stuff in a funny way, which can be by regular humans or surviving superhuman stuff.

Doof has only 1 feat calc'd at City Block level, and this other feat is calc'd at Large Building level, but there is something about it: There is an ep where the timeline is changed and Perry is hit by the latter feat instead of Doof, putting him in a full body cast for eighteen months and ruining his life.

So naturally, I find wrong that they would have this stats, if I agree with Doof having this durability at his best. I find clear that this are gags Doof has that make him momentarily have higher durability than what's normal for him. Can anyone explain their thought process if they feel like approaching this scenario in another way?

My initial reaction would be to check if there's a difference in the way the two people got hit. Otherwise, I dunno, if the High 8-C feat is inconsistent with itself then I would just not use it, but given that it's mixed in its own presentation I would prioritize whatever the 8-B feat is.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Eficiente @Armorchompy @Lonkitt @LordTracer @Maverick_Zero_X Can we wrap this up?