Removing match bans for Barney and Friends

[Bobsican]

Barney & Friends characters have been banned from versus threads for years, but I think that the reasonings are rather outdated and at best could use a rewrite.

Citing the note currently in Barney's profile:

• Given that Barney is not a combat-oriented character and has never fought in any canon source, it is impossible to say that his abilities have offensive usages that he has never displayed within his own series or to even say how he fights. As such, one should not create Versus Threads involving this character.

The thing is that this hasn't stopped versus threads for other peaceful characters that never get in violent conflicts like Peppa Pig and Thomas the Tank Engine. That said, Agnaa did elaborate on this before:

That was already considered, the problem is that the issue also applies to his physical capabilities.

The issue with Barney's physical capabilities is that his AP seemingly needs a recalc, and that its from jumping on the ground, making it hard to imagine how it would actually be applied to an opponent.

Clifford's AP is from leaning on something, so we can reasonably see how he'd use that energy on an opponent. Barney jumps a few cm off the ground and lands, with the AP only really applying if he lands on someone.

But really, the main problem was that the abilities are combat inapplicable but were treated as combat applicable. That's the issue I came to Crabwhale about. Sometimes characters get matchbanned because people aren't mature enough to debate them responsibly, even if their issues could exist in other profiles too. Barney had a dozen threads pop up instantly filled with FRAs with obviously flawed reasoning.

As making very localized earthquakes isn't a valid feat, the cast nowadays scales to BJ shaking and bisecting a tree in the process, which can be more directly related to an opponent.

In terms of hax, nowadays we do accept that the upper bound of their capabilities with Subjective Reality ("imagination") is High 4-C per a prior thread, so from there the only glaring issue would be on whether he'd use his hax abilities on people, and evidently this is not an issue either if bloodlust is enabled a factor, which was something conceded previously.

So because of this, I advocate for a slight rewrite of the note, using Barney's as a base (the changes are in bold):

• Given that Barney is not a combat-oriented character and has never fought in any canon source, it is impossible to say that his abilities have offensive usages that he has never displayed within his own series or to even say how he fights unless bloodlust is set. As such, one should not account for his abilities reliant on Subjective Reality when used in Versus Threads in-character.

Further changes or other concerns are welcome.

 

[Mbpoops]

I would also like to see barney solo my favorite verses. Agree

 

[Da3ggman]

 

[Monkey_Dunno]

Do not listen to this guy, we cannot unleash this beast into the arena.

Agree. No need for bloodlust. Just remove the note and let's see if he can solo all of Jurassic Park.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Mr._Propeller_Hat]

I guess this is fine. I do find it quite mysterious that this specific character was banned just for being a "non-combat" character but yet other characters were still used in matches even if haven't gotten into any actual fights.

 

[Monkey_Dunno]

Ig Barney’s profile is around a decade old and dates from a time when this sort of things wasn’t really as standardized. Nowadays we can just do The Backyardigans vs Swiper Fox just fine.

 

[Crabwhale]

My stance is the same as it was on that previous thread. No, I do not agree.

Now stop messaging me about this.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

To be honest, I'd be more in favor of applying the rule more widely than to rescind it for Barney. Our rules are broadly against the inclusion of non-combat characters to begin with. I'd be fine with blocking, for example, Peppa Pig. Fun police or not.

 

[Tllmbrg]

To be honest, I'd be more in favor of applying the rule more widely than to rescind it for Barney. Our rules are broadly against the inclusion of non-combat characters to begin with. I'd be fine with blocking, for example, Peppa Pig. Fun police or not.

Don't we allow alternative match-up types to be indexed? (Stuff like characters doing a Chess game).
We can alternatively say that these guys are only allowed for that type of stuff.

 

[Mr._Propeller_Hat]

To be honest, I'd be more in favor of applying the rule more widely than to rescind it for Barney. Our rules are broadly against the inclusion of non-combat characters to begin with. I'd be fine with blocking, for example, Peppa Pig. Fun police or not.

Yet we allow characters in matches with even less abilities

 

[Agnaa]

As making very localized earthquakes isn't a valid feat, the cast nowadays scales to BJ shaking and bisecting a tree in the process, which can be more directly related to an opponent.

This feat is significantly wanked.

Look at the video it's based on and compare it to the calculation it references:

Sometimes fictional characters uses a punch or even a hammer to "horizontally cut" a tree. As a result, the tree is cut at a "thickness" equal to its diameter.

This isn't what happened, it was shaken, and then it fell over a few seconds later. Shaking a telephone pole, resulting in it falling over, does not require AP equal to hammering a cut through it. Random IRL neighbourhood teens are not 9-B.

Ah this is for cutting a FULLY GROWN tree. So adjust the size ratio when you cut a tree of different size say a tree of only 7.5 m tall in height and 31.75 cm thick in diameter.

The tree here is about 1.5x the size of a child, so maybe 1.5m tall. It is absolutely not 7.5m tall.

In terms of hax, nowadays we do accept that the upper bound of their capabilities with Subjective Reality ("imagination") is High 4-C per a prior thread, so from there the only glaring issue would be on whether he'd use his hax abilities on people, and evidently this is not an issue either if bloodlust is enabled a factor, which was something conceded previously.

That wasn't the issue at hand at all. Read what I said:

But really, the main problem was that the abilities are combat inapplicable but were treated as combat applicable.

If your response to that is "Well he can make a constellation and be bloodlusted", that does not interface with that idea at all, and makes me think that you would, in fact, continue treating abilities that are combat inapplicable as if they were combat applicable.

For those who weren't there at the time, an example of that was treating Barney's Transmutation:

Transmutation (Turned a toy rocket into an actual one and vice-versa. Turned kids into robots. Changed clothing's colors)

As if it could be used for incapacitation or weakening an opponent, despite none of these showings indicating that.

People seem to read Barney's abilities, imagine other characters that can do broken things with them, and assume that Barney can do those things too.

 

[Armorchompy]

It's also worth noting that "Bloodlust refers to a state where a character is fighting without any inhibitions, and cares about nothing other than defeating the enemy." It doesn't suddenly grant characters fighting knowledge they lacked before. Do the characters even know their hax is usable in combat, even assuming it is? This isn't an assumption you can make. I think this character should be fully threadbanned.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yet we allow characters in matches with even less abilities

Yeah, I voted in favor of that. If you wanted to debate how Barney might fare in a chessatch against Dora, reckon I'd be less opposed. But we're not, we're trying to invent a means by which he'd fight that's just completely fanfic.

 

[Cropfist]

I think profiles from media aimed at toddlers should be completely banned

 

[Random-Helper323]

This discussion seems to range from allowing Barney in vs threads all the way to presenting a possible case for removing Barney from the Wiki entirely.

 

[Bobsican]

Talks about removing the profile altogether are derailing and would need their own thread, especially as that goes against what was agreed on long ago, not everything that's on the wiki is going to be liked by everyone, and it'd be rather inappropiate to force removals based on arbitrary tastes to say the least, ultimately as long as the content is indexed seriously (compared to stuff in Joke Battles Wiki) and properly (aka, there's stuff to index, the minimal benchmark historically has been either being combat oriented (case in point we have ability-less tier 10s from ASoIaF indexed just because they fight) or having some superhuman trait / capability (Barney and the myriad of abilities, Peppa Pig being 9-C, etc)) there is no issue, it's not like we bend backwards whenever VSBW is meme'd on off-site either way.

That said...

This feat is significantly wanked.

Look at the video it's based on and compare it to the calculation it references:

This isn't what happened, it was shaken, and then it fell over a few seconds later. Shaking a telephone pole, resulting in it falling over, does not require AP equal to hammering a cut through it. Random IRL neighbourhood teens are not 9-B.

The tree here is about 1.5x the size of a child, so maybe 1.5m tall. It is absolutely not 7.5m tall.

Scaling the pages like that in lack of better options was acceptable at the time, I could quickly make a more context-specific calculation by adjusting the calculation values accordingly for the feat if that's your concern, and either way telephone pole shaking would be a false equivalence, as those just fall over from the bottom no longer holding its weight straight, rather than being bisected in the middle, especially given the low timeframe of the shake.

That wasn't the issue at hand at all. Read what I said:

If your response to that is "Well he can make a constellation and be bloodlusted", that does not interface with that idea at all, and makes me think that you would, in fact, continue treating abilities that are combat inapplicable as if they were combat applicable.

For those who weren't there at the time, an example of that was treating Barney's Transmutation:

As if it could be used for incapacitation or weakening an opponent, despite none of these showings indicating that.

People seem to read Barney's abilities, imagine other characters that can do broken things with them, and assume that Barney can do those things too.

I mean, at the same time it'd be assumptive to claim that the ability wouldn't work with people when one of the feats in question does involve Barney using it on humans, if the concern is on the ambiguity of Barney's character using that in a versus thread, that concern is removed with bloodlust enabled, speaking of which...

It's also worth noting that "Bloodlust refers to a state where a character is fighting without any inhibitions, and cares about nothing other than defeating the enemy." It doesn't suddenly grant characters fighting knowledge they lacked before. Do the characters even know their hax is usable in combat, even assuming it is? This isn't an assumption you can make. I think this character should be fully threadbanned.

Actually, the Bloodlust page then says as much:

A bloodlusted character will not be victim to Character-Induced Stupidity, and will be much more likely to speed blitz opponents (if doing so is within their powerset).

If there's still concerns on that, it'd still be allowed for versus threads to specify that the prior knowledge in question is granted to Barney, as much that sort of matches are still fine for indexing and are in fact a common deviation (the act of granting arbitrary prior knowledge) from SBA.

 

[Agnaa]

Scaling the pages like that in lack of better options was acceptable at the time, I could quickly make a more context-specific calculation by adjusting the calculation values accordingly for the feat if that's your concern, and either way telephone pole shaking would be a false equivalence, as those just fall over from the bottom no longer holding its weight straight, rather than being bisected in the middle, especially given the low timeframe of the shake.

This one wasn't bisected in the middle, what are you talking about?

It was uprooted, falling over from the bottom.

it'd be assumptive to claim that the ability wouldn't work with people

That's not what I said.

if the concern is on the ambiguity of Barney's character using that in a versus thread

THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID

 

[Bobsican]

This one wasn't bisected in the middle, what are you talking about?

It was uprooted, falling over from the bottom.

Oh sorry, I must have misremembered in that case. Then I wonder if the GPE of this could be used as an alternative to physically tier the characters.

That's not what I said.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID

Well, I'm trying to understand your concerns / points, it'd be appreciated if you could go with examples on other series or precedents for this sort of limitations and why (for starters, is this related to NLFs? Burden of proof for certain capabilities? Barney's character being unknown when it comes to using hax?).

 

[Agnaa]

Oh sorry, I must have misremembered in that case. Then I wonder if the GPE of this could be used as an alternative to physically tier the characters.

That video's not available in my country.

Well, I'm trying to understand your concerns / points, it'd be appreciated if you could go with examples on other series or precedents for this sort of limitations and why (for starters, is this related to NLFs? Burden of proof for certain capabilities? Barney's character being unknown when it comes to using hax?).

I said exactly what it was two separate times:

But really, the main problem was that the abilities are combat inapplicable but were treated as combat applicable.

makes me think that you would, in fact, continue treating abilities that are combat inapplicable as if they were combat applicable.

And gave an example:

an example of that was treating Barney's Transmutation:

As if it could be used for incapacitation or weakening an opponent, despite none of these showings indicating that.

I'm not sure how to communicate it more clearly than that. Someone else might be able to, tho.

 

[Saqphire]

Agree with Bambu

 

[Armorchompy]

Actually, the Bloodlust page then says as much:

Removing CIS doesn't mean completely rewriting the character's personality. If Barney doesn't know how to fight in the slightest, this won't change.

If there's still concerns on that, it'd still be allowed for versus threads to specify that the prior knowledge in question is granted to Barney, as much that sort of matches are still fine for indexing and are in fact a common deviation (the act of granting arbitrary prior knowledge) from SBA.

Outside knowledge is solely granted regarding the opponent. Saying a character is just given combat expertise that they lack in canon is not something we do.

Needless to say I am also voting for a full thread ban.

 

[Bobsican]

That video's not available in my country.

How about this then? There's also this as another link if the previous one isn't usable for you.

I said exactly what it was two separate times:

And gave an example:

I'm not sure how to communicate it more clearly than that. Someone else might be able to, tho.

So the issue is more so on the overall effects on living targets not being sufficiently elaborated on to determine their combat usability, as well as Barney's character (namely never being involved in combat scenarios) rendering the whole usability of that in-character as an inherent assumption?

 

[Agnaa]

How about this then? There's also this as another link if the previous one isn't usable for you.

First one works, I can have a look at it later.

So the issue is more so on the overall effects on living targets not being sufficiently elaborated on to determine their combat usability

Getting there, but not quite right.

as well as Barney's character (namely never being involved in combat scenarios) rendering the whole usability of that in-character as an inherent assumption?

No, that is not what I said.

After three posts, I can't get you to understand. There's no point in me trying.

I'll pop back in if you respond to the point I'm actually making.

Until then, I disagree with these match bans being removed.

 

[Bobsican]

Hm, I think I understand the concerns now, namely in regards of how certain abilities such as Transmutation do not inherently include effects like incapacitating or weakening an opponent, even if they just so happen to be showcased in 99% of uses (regarding the average verse, with this being the exception as there's no confrontations and thus is never used "offensively"). I don't think I have a counterargument for this concern if so, and I was merely wanting to check the details of this reasoning as to corroborate on if a match ban should also be done for the upcoming pages for the reboot Barney continuity.

All of that said, this thread can be closed, and by the way it'd be appreciated if all of these threads were closed while at it. This match still seems kinda arguable peer the semantics of the opponent and could use some more internal discussion over there however.

 

[Nonynho]

To be honest, I'd be more in favor of applying the rule more widely than to rescind it for Barney. Our rules are broadly against the inclusion of non-combat characters to begin with. I'd be fine with blocking, for example, Peppa Pig. Fun police or not.

Speaking of this, just to be sure: In not-combat-matches, thing should be fine, right?

 

[Armorchompy]

Speaking of this, just to be sure: In not-combat-matches, thing should be fine, right?

Should be.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Speaking of this, just to be sure: In not-combat-matches, thing should be fine, right?

As the rule is now, no.

If we were to go with my opinion on this matter, yes.

I'm on the fence about Cropfist's point about just disallowing non-combatant profiles altogether, but that would obviously disqualify it.

 

[Bobsican]

I mean, a character being banned from matches is not a disqualifier from having a profile, citing the Editing Rules:

• Low-powered characters are allowed to be featured here as long as the characters come from popular/notable verses that are overall worthy of indexing, they are important to their stories, and the profiles are reliable and well-made, although sitcom characters, ones from more realistic romantic comedies, and similar should be avoided. This wiki's main purpose is to index characters, not to feature fights between them.

 

[Nonynho]

Should be.

As the rule is now, no.

If we were to go with my opinion on this matter, yes.

I'm on the fence about Cropfist's point about just disallowing non-combatant profiles altogether, but that would obviously disqualify it.

If any of you start a thread in this topic, i insist that you call me to argument there, because this is definetely not cool

 

[Mr. Bambu]

If any of you start a thread in this topic, i insist that you call me to argument there, because this is definetely not cool

I offer you a solid "maybe". Because it's a rule change, it would almost certainly be a staff discussion thread.

That said, I do wonder if this thread also ought to be a staff discussion thread, given it pertains to a change in (very specific) rules, though so far it has been civil.

 

[Agnaa]

Hm, I think I understand the concerns now, namely in regards of how certain abilities such as Transmutation do not inherently include effects like incapacitating or weakening an opponent, even if they just so happen to be showcased in 99% of uses (regarding the average verse, with this being the exception as there's no confrontations and thus is never used "offensively"). I don't think I have a counterargument for this concern if so

Yeah that's it. Other verses do have this sort of thing crop up occasionally, but it's usually on a few abilities that end up having that clarified on the profile, while the character has other ways of winning fights, so they don't cause issues for matches.

When entering this thread I was willing to believe that people could grasp this, and engage reasonably in matches in light of that now that seven years have passed, but since it's seeming to still be a bit of a tricky concept, I don't think it's safe to remove the match ban.

 

[Bobsican]

TBH keeping the match ban would be best in that case, even if argued responsibly with this in mind, Barney matches just become a "this character can punch Barney, and while Barney technically can do a lot of stuff thus not making this a stomp, as far we know he won't, so the other character FRA", and thus not really leaving much room for an argument of note normally either way.

 

[Thunderman101]

yall are just scared barney will solo youre faves smh

 

[Galactidot]

This thread makes complete sense but in concept it's so f*cking funny

Like WHAT DO YOU MEAN we're fighting for Barney to have equal rights to fight in matches like his friends Peppa Pig and Thomas the Tank Engine

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Humorous or not, the peanut gallery should keep side discussion off to a general discussion thread or some similar place. This thread is about silly, but formal, business, and it remains an offense to disrupt that.

 

[Thunderman101]

my bad

Humorous or not, the peanut gallery should keep side discussion off to a general discussion thread or some similar place. This thread is about silly, but formal, business, and it remains an offense to disrupt that.

 

[Galactidot]

Humorous or not, the peanut gallery should keep side discussion off to a general discussion thread or some similar place. This thread is about silly, but formal, business, and it remains an offense to disrupt that.

Oh, yes. I'm aware of this. I find it interesting that Barney has some random 4-C feat, btw. What's up with that? Also, is this just OG Barney, or including the cocomelon animated reboot?

 

[Agnaa]

Oh sorry, I must have misremembered in that case. Then I wonder if the GPE of this could be used as an alternative to physically tier the characters.

How about this then? There's also this as another link if the previous one isn't usable for you.

If that's meant to be a real sequence, and not some idyllic vision of hers.

And if we can make a good determination at what units that "500" is meant to be.

And if it's scalable to other characters in the series.

Then sure.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

As far as I can tell, they aren't actually doing those things? The sequences there with the filter around the edge seem to be an accompaniment to their theme song. They're presenting themselves as superheroes, that isn't something they're physically doing. As Agnaa put it, an "idyllic vision".