If we can add games to profiles, then we can add fights with restricted standard equipment, too

[DontTalkDT]

We currently have the following rules:

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.

This implies that matches with restricted Standard Equipment aren't really allowed to be added.
However, I think the spirit of those rules really clashes with these rules:

Indirect or non-combat versus threads, such as racing, are allowed to be made and added to profiles if the match-up relies on the particulars of their feats, and leads to a notable discussion. Those feats, if particularly niche or generally unimportant, don't have to be listed on their profiles. The only fictional characters involved in these matches should be the competitors themselves.

We argue that a match "Flash vs Superman, but Flash doesn't get his Speedsuit" wouldn't be allowed to be added because Flash isn't at full potential.
But then we turn around and Goku vs Naruto in Chess, without superpowers, is a legitimate match that can be added... that makes no sense.

Matches with restricted standard equipment use more of a character's stats and abilities than the non-combat matches and are more relevant to our site's main focus, while simultaneously featuring an equally realistic canonical version of the character. By all arguments brought up when the non-combat threads were allowed, threads without standard equipment should be allowed under the same conditions.


So, in short, matches with Standard Equipment should be addable as long as we add non-combat versus threads.
My suggested rewrite would 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. The following exceptions apply to this rule:

• 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.
• If an ability being restricted is indexed after a "Likely" or "Possibly" conditional, then the match can still be added.
• If standard or optional equipment is being restricted, the match can still be added. In the case of restricted standard equipment, an additional requirement for it to be able to be added to profiles is that the scenario leads to a notable discussion based on applicable feats.

Of course, it is implicitly clear that any of the rules regarding stomp and spite threads would still apply.

What do you think, everyone?

 

[Armorchompy]

I kind of disagree with the reasoning here. A "game" match is completely unbound from the actual debate of a fight, whereas restricting abilities seems like a much more exploitable ruling. Nothing stops me from putting some character against Satoru Gojo and saying "Gojo is unwilling to use Infinity, Hollow Purple, the Six Eyes, Blue, Red, Domain Expansion or Black Flash", thus basically taking away all his P&A and turning it into a fistfight the other character can win even if they'd stand no chance against the character's full kit. This wouldn't be a spite or a stomp, but it feels like something people would do to add fancy-looking wins on their faves' profiles (or losses on the other character)

 

[Lloydblitzed]

Permission granted by @Armorchompy

Armor already said most of what I wanted to say already but...I think this change is just useless. The rule just wouldn't be fitting for characters who heavily relies on Standard Equipements as the entire meta of fighting styles inside their show (like Ben Tennyson or Hal Jordan) and they would be straight up exploited for win farms in favor of certain members of this forum.

 

[Armorchompy]

Permission granted by @Armorchompy

Armor already said most of what I wanted to say already but...I think this change is just useless. The rule just wouldn't be fitting for characters who heavily relies on Standard Equipements as the entire meta of fighting styles inside their show (like Ben Tennyson or Hal Jordan) and they would be straight up exploited for win farms in favor of certain members of this forum.

Actually you can just do that with either character already, out of tier abilities can be restricted as is. But bad examples aside, yeah

 

[Random-Helper323]

The issue with the restriction of equipment and abilities is that it's easy to use to sway a fight by deliberately disadvantaging one character. The non combat matchups are at least fair.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I kind of disagree with the reasoning here. A "game" match is completely unbound from the actual debate of a fight, whereas restricting abilities seems like a much more exploitable ruling. Nothing stops me from putting some character against Satoru Gojo and saying "Gojo is unwilling to use Infinity, Hollow Purple, the Six Eyes, Blue, Red, Domain Expansion or Black Flash", thus basically taking away all his P&A and turning it into a fistfight the other character can win even if they'd stand no chance against the character's full kit. This wouldn't be a spite or a stomp, but it feels like something people would do to add fancy-looking wins on their faves' profiles (or losses on the other character)

This is about restricting Standard Equipment, not about restricting abilities, so your example doesn't apply. (I would also argue that sounds like a spite thread. If not by literal definition then in spirit and I would be fine with extending the definition... we probably should anyway, given the same problems with games)

I don't see how your points don't apply for games. If someone just wants a win on the record for the funny they can just as easily find a game that gives the character they favor the win. Sure, the clarification of the page will say that it was just a victory in the game then, but in the same vein the clarification on the page in this case would mention that it was without equipment.
Heck, the game rules allow for a battle in an SAO style video game using virtual avatars with identical abilities to the people playing them, so in principle you can set up something for all purposes equivalent by current rules.

It's weird that a UFC fight is considered not notable, but chess is.

The issue with the restriction of equipment and abilities is that it's easy to use to sway a fight by deliberately disadvantaging one character. The non combat matchups are at least fair.

We have absolutely no fair play ruling for games. By current rules, you can set up a game which's rules exclusively benefit one character.
You can make a race between two characters, where one is superior to the other in every way but speed, and if it's somehow not a stomp you can add it.
You can make a race between a character who can fly and a character who can't and have it take place in a swamp.

But "two characters fight by UFC rules" would be the unfair competition?

A fight without weapons still involves 90% of the character's stats and abilities. Most games use like 10% of the character's abilities. I don't see how they misrepresent characters less.
It's usually the more realistic scenario at that...

 

[DontTalkDT]

Actually, thinking about it, it seems like your concerns are mainly about how our definition of spite threads is kinda bad?
Like, we define it as doing a stomp on purpose. But it should also include setting up matches in an unfair way, for the sole purpose of letting one character win.
Yeah, boxer vs gunman without weapons might be unfair.
But, as said, so is flying character vs running character in a race taking place in a swamp.
Or a strategic genius vs a scientific genius in a battle of building a mech and then fighting with it.

One can even set up such things in our rules for regular combat scenarios: Nothing prevents me from doing Goku vs Superman in deep space, to put a handicap on Goku as he eventually passes out from lack of air.
Or I could have Zuko fight Katara in a desert. Not a stomp, but clearly choosing assumptions to favor someone.


So yeah, maybe we should treat that particular problem at its root and fix the spite page, instead of just hiding the symptom.

 

[Random-Helper323]

It's not so bad to pick an environment that benefits only one side, especially if it's what allows them to use their key abilities, such as a battle involving Rambo taking place in the forest, although in that scenario his opponent needs to have something to fight back with, obviously.

An environment that hinders one character is more of an issue, if for example we have Dio vs Alucard take place on an open field in broad daylight, or Naruto vs Luffy take place floating in the ocean.

 

[DontTalkDT]

It's not so bad to pick an environment that benefits only one side, especially if it's what allows them to use their key abilities, such as a battle involving Rambo taking place in the forest, although in that scenario his opponent needs to have something to fight back with, obviously.

An environment that hinders one character is more of an issue, if for example we have Dio vs Alucard take place on an open field in broad daylight, or Naruto vs Luffy take place floating in the ocean.

Yeah, kinda my point.

So if we fix the spite page to include that kind of thing, allowing standard equipment restrictions should be fine.
(Thinking of it, we strangely enough already allow giving additional equipment...)

 

[Qawsedf234]

So yeah, maybe we should treat that particular problem at its root and fix the spite page, instead of just hiding the symptom.

Sounds good to me.