Vs. Matches P&A restriction issue

[The_Impress]

So during a vs. match I was made aware we listed this thing:

It is not fine to restrict abilities in a versus matchup, implicitly or expressly. Matches that are arranged this way should not be added to the character profiles, as they don't involve their full potential, and are only intended for casual entertainment. An exception would be if the restricted ability/technique has a separate tier from the main one. In this case, the match can be added. The match can also be added if Optional Equipments such as optional power-ups and items are restricted, or if the ability being restricted is indexed after a "Likely" or "Possibly" conditional.

Now the big issue with this is, with the current wording this makes Passive Abilities restrictable, which, doesn't make sense in the slightest.

Like for context this was tried to make applicable during a match for Lucy (2014), who has a packet of drugs within her stomach which when broken, transforms her into the next, higher tier key. Now she can't magically hold back this power, hell she isn't even aware it IS a power, so why are we presuming the drugs are randomly inert in this one scenario, or that she can somehow restrict it, when everything in the ******* verse says no.

Proposal is to make this rule exclude passive abilities, the opponent cannot control them and by proxy there is no feasible way for OP to restrict them, unless we just, grossly misrepresent the character's core mechanics, which is something we shouldn't DO, as a debate wiki.

This thread is subjective and wiki-wide, so as to ensure coherence, this is a STAFF ONLY thread, and you should contact a staff member to represent your opinion on it.

 

[The_Impress]

@Antvasima can you help gather input for this?

 

[Starter_Pack]

No, yeah, this is a good point. This is literally like restricting "Reiatsu Crush GG" for Bleach characters. This does need a rewrite.

 

[Confluctor]

Yeah definitely needs a rewrite

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @Promestein @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou

Your input would be appreciated here.

 

[Ogbunabali]

I mean, I would personally go as far as to say that any restriction (besides "likely/possibly" and optional equipment) should make a match not viable to be added, since it's not really "notable" at all at that point.

So yeah, I agree with the OP.

 

[Planck69]

Yeah, Impress is making sense here. I agree.

 

[The_Impress]

For the record the rewrite will be:

It is not fine to restrict abilities in a versus matchup, implicitly or expressly. Matches that are arranged this way should not be added to the character profiles, as they don't involve their full potential, and are only intended for casual entertainment. 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. The match can also be added if Optional Equipment such as optional power-ups and items are restricted, or if the ability being restricted is indexed after a "Likely" or "Possibly" conditional.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Personally, I always thought our policy on instructing things should be that restricting natural abilities and especially passive ones should be taboo. But things such as restricting weapons and equipment is fair game. Abilities are literally their own powers where as tools are just the tools powers and abilities rather than the characters using them. Though of course characters being in character that it's against their character to use it in battle is also another thing.

But what Zark is proposing seems reasonable to me regardless.

 

[Antvasima]

It seems fine to me as well.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

The Impress proposal is fine with me.

 

[Elizhaa]

The proposal is fine.

 

[Abstractions]

No problems here.

 

[Promestein]

Sure.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the replies. The suggested change can probably be applied then.

 

[The_Impress]

Applied

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. Should we close this thread then?

 

[The_Impress]

Yep, closing

I'll also make an announcement regarding this as well