Clarifying Non Combat Versus Threads

[Ebihara]

I have recvied permisson to post this from @FinePoint in DM's.

Hello everyone the point of this thread is to put into writing, rules regarding non combat based versus threads.
IE: chess cooking racing

The way I currently understand it the reason we can do this is:

"Assumptions alternative to these ones can be freely used, are equally legitimate, and threads using different assumptions can be added to profiles just like these ones can. Generally, it is preferable that the thread creator specify the assumptions he wants to use in the thread and adjust them in such a way that as fair a fight as possible can take place."

And applying this to the Victory Conditions cause that is an assumption under SBA
Death of the opponent, removing the opponent from the battlefield for at least one week (BFR), knocking the opponent out for at least one hour, or incapacitating the opponent by putting him in a state in which he can not harm the other fighter(s) for over a day, are to be assumed as victory conditions."
(credit to @FinePoint for pointing out this info)

My personal thoughts aside on if these should be added in the first place. Every single time there a thread that has a non combat victory condtion the first page is always aguring this and linking previous matchups that have been done and added. So Id like to propose adding in somthing to point to to clarify yes this is allowed. Id suggsest a note on versus thread page or SBA page.

"Indirect or non-combat versus threads are allowed to be made if the match-up makes notable use of their powers, abilities, statistics, notable techniques, or talents. The only fictional characters involved in these matches should be the competitors themselves."

I am really not sure how the wording of this should be done. Id like to think the bolded part could be enough if people use common sense but then people are going to create matchups that done make any sense for the charcters. If we are going to allow non combat matchups to be added as noteable matchups I think they should fit the charcters theme like spongebob cooking or lightining mcqueen racing etc. I am open to suggestions for the wording and how this should be implented but I do feel we should have some sort of note to point to.

 

[FinePoint]

As I explained in our initial discussion, I believe non-combat versus threads are acceptable so long as they're fair, interesting, and otherwise follow our guidelines (like no stomps, restricting abilities, etc.)

And there's not a ton of examples, but there is some precedent to it.

So I think it's reasonable to add a little note of this just so it's clear.

Of course, if the rest of the staff thinks we shouldn't allow them, that should be made clear as well.

Either way, I think it's a good idea to say it explicitly.

 

[Ebihara]

Of course, if the rest of the staff thinks we shouldn't allow them, that should be made clear as well.

I agree. There needs to be some official statement on the matter. I personally belive they shouldn't be on pages as we dont index these non combat feats like cooking (generally). But these threads are generally popular and people enjoy them so I've come around to being netural.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I don't think chess should be added to profiles.
There is a bit of a difference between "there is a wincon for the fight that isn't death" and "there isn't a fight to begin with".
Like, we list "Notable Matchups". A matchup that isn't a fight, and doesn't use most of the combat-centred profile, isn't notable for a wiki about fights that features combat-centred profiles.
As a reminder, we have this rule:

Match-ups with equalized statistics (with the exception of speed) are not allowed, as they turn the entire tiering system unnecessary.

Conidering how a chess match pretty much does the same (the whole tiering system, except for a small bit of the intelligence section, is irrelevant), it seems in the spirit of our existing rules to not allow such matchups.

I'm all for being able to make and debate these fights, but they don't belong listed.

 

[FinePoint]

Conidering how a chess match pretty much does the same (the whole tiering system, except for a small bit of the intelligence section, is irrelevant), it seems in the spirit of our existing rules to not allow such matchups.

I'm all for being able to make and debate these fights, but they don't belong listed.

To be fair, there is tons of combat-related threads where only a single statistic ultimately ends up mattering as well.

I don't think it's against the spirit of the wiki necessarily to have a particular match-up focus on intelligence and relevant abilities like info analysis.

Either way we're analyzing their abilities and skills and arguing who would "win", and "battle" can and very commonly is a word used for plenty of non-violent competitions too.

Plus, while we're mentioning Chess in this instance, there is plenty of activities where almost every statistic would still apply- like sports.

 

[DontTalkDT]

To be fair, there is tons of combat-related threads where only a single statistic ultimately ends up mattering as well.

That's not really true. That the other statistics aren't high enough to matter, is them mattering.
As in, in a fight where only speed seems to matter, because one character is 1000 times faster than the other, the durability actually still matters, because if that other character had so high durability that they can't be harmed the fight would happen differently.

I don't think it's against the spirit of the wiki necessarily to have a particular match-up focus on intelligence and relevant abilities like info analysis.

Our wiki is about character fighting each other. As in, physically fighting. Killing each other. That's all our profiles are focused on.
Chess and cooking are tangentially related to the subject matter at best.

Either way we're analyzing their abilities and skills and arguing who would "win", and "battle" can and very commonly is a word used for plenty of non-violent competitions too.

Those are things those words can mean indeed. But that is not what those words are used to mean in the context of what the wiki is about, as can be seen by the fact that our wiki profiles don't feature a section to list the characters chess ELO, but instead have a long section to list all the different ways they can kill someone.

Plus, while we're mentioning Chess in this instance, there is plenty of activities where almost every statistic would still apply- like sports.

Sure... but those are still super not the subject matter of the wiki. They are not notable in the context of what our wiki is about.

 

[FinePoint]

That's not really true. That the other statistics aren't high enough to matter, is them mattering.
As in, in a fight where only speed seems to matter, because one character is 1000 times faster than the other, the durability actually still matters, because if that other character had so high durability that they can't be harmed the fight would happen differently.

It's usually more about having one specific hax or not.

Our wiki is about character fighting each other. As in, physically fighting. Killing each other. That's all our profiles are focused on.
Chess and cooking are tangentially related to the subject matter at best.

Those are things those words can mean indeed. But that is not what those words are used to mean in the context of what the wiki is about, as can be seen by the fact that our wiki profiles don't feature a section to list the characters chess ELO, but instead have a long section to list all the different ways they can kill someone.

It used to be, but it is my understanding that we specifically made changes to the SBA because we thought it was too murder-focused before.

Regardless, we already allow a lot of freedom in deciding the criteria for matches, since they're ultimately just for fun. I don't see any harm in having a fun match that revolves around Chess, for example, and listing it on the profile, so long as our other standards are followed.

In addition, that's explicitly not ALL our profiles focus on. We list tons of stuff which isn't even combat-applicable just because it's relevant to understanding their general abilities- which as I understand it- is actually the core purpose of our wiki: to index what they're capable of.

I know @Antvasima had some strong feelings in the past about the "we only focus on how characters can kill each other" angle. So I'd love to hear from him about this too.

 

[Ebihara]

I think in some cases it fits very well and likely the only way we could have reasonable matchups for the charcters. Like the racing matchup listed in the OP. But for the most part I think there is a big issue is that we just arent consistently indexing feats for some of these types of matchups. Sure have some stuff mentioning cooking on profiles for charcters like sanji or spongebob, they are only a fraction of the stuff aviable to "properly debate" these matchups. We for the most part are just basically debating using stuff that isnt on the profiles cause our purpose isnt to comprehensively index cooking, chess etc.

 

[CastoriceTheFifth]

Got permission from @FinePoint
First off, that Shigaraki Vs Regulus league of legends matchup was a joke matchup listed in fun and games lol. We can't even quantify Shigaraki's league of legends skills in the first place for this to be a legit matchup and we are only told that he broke his computer multiple times because of that game.

Anyways, I agree that non combat threads should be acceptable and listed as a notable matchup as long as they are at least known for it and or creates a fair and interesting match. It is genuinely boring if the matchups are constantly murder focused with it ending with either a yap feast matchup, a who one shots who matchup, an agenda war matchup, etc like the Gojo Vs Makima/Sukuna matchups (Unironically fits all 3 descriptions). It's nice to have casual fun matchups where it isn't murder focused and where people aren't going at it seriously. @AThe1412 said it the best in my racing matchup. "Peeps are more interested in a friendly competition than a battle to the death. It's refreshing and generally has less toxicity between fans of the competitors."

Like imagine if we're not allowed to make a matchup between Lightning McQueen the racing car Vs Turbo the racing snail and instead they can only battle to the death. That's really boring and pointless now is it. Another example of this is the L Vs Impostor Among Us Matchup

Among Us Featuring L Lawliet

L VS Impostor, but it's an Among Us match. L would mysteriously find himself in Among Us among the astronaut crew, and then would need to win one match in order to be teleported back to Japan. Among Us Settings Game Type: Classic. Player Count: 12. Location: The Airship. Number of Impostors...

vsbattles.com

L is 99% known for being a super genius world class detective and isn't even really known for fighting. Imagine if he isn't allowed to have a detective-based matchup against the Impostor where the entire point of Among us is to figure out who the impostors are and vote them out. Imagine instead that he is only allowed to just fight and murder the impostor. That's really boring too. Kiyotaka Ayanokoji had similar matchups to L as well and they even had a match together solely based on their IQ and deduction skills. Overall, non-combat threads should be accepted and listed as a notable matchup.

 

[Ebihara]

First off, that Shigaraki Vs Regulus league of legends matchup was a joke matchup listed in fun and games lol.

my bad forget it was. Ill take it out of op.

for the record I am just netural on this. I think some matchups fit like racing but I do think the chess one is a little far. So overall I think that we need to have clear boundarys on it.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think racing examples are fine, but I'm unsure about cookoff or Chess. DontTalkDT listed my concerns for Chess. Also, we allow things like gambling themed verses as well as court room themed verses, so I also would not mind debates in those fashions either. But I'd ultimately call a Squid Game type of debate also within the ballpark of versus threads allowed without doing a traditional fist fight. And escape room oriented debates such as ones typically seen in the Saw franchise or the Zero Escape franchise (The latter being a verse genre that inspired Squid Game) are also looking good in my eyes.

 

[Ebihara]

I think racing examples are fine, but I'm unsure about cookoff or Chess. DontTalkDT listed my concerns for Chess. Also, we allow things like gambling themed verses as well as court room themed verses, so I also would not mind debates in those fashions either. But I'd ultimately call a Squid Game type of debate also within the ballpark of versus threads allowed without doing a traditional fist fight. And escape room oriented debates such as ones typically seen in the Saw franchise or the Zero Escape franchise (The latter being a verse genre that inspired Squid Game) are also looking good in my eyes.

So what should be the boundaries or guidelines for it? I was thinking as long as its thematic but that wouldnt work as that would allow cooking matchups so I think maybe a little more specific.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

So what should be the boundaries or guidelines for it? I was thinking as long as its thematic but that wouldnt work as that would allow cooking matchups so I think maybe a little more specific.

Not sure how to describe it, but I'd call gambling debates as a form of indirect combat. And while racing isn't combat, it's still more of an action based debate that involves physical fitness, obstacle handling, and debating. Not entirely sure how I'd reword it but, perhaps my proposal is "Indirect combat" instead of "Non combat." And perhaps "As long as it fits the characters thematically while simultaneously requires making use of any potential powers and abilities."

 

[Ebihara]

Not sure how to describe it, but I'd call gambling debates as a form of indirect combat. And while racing isn't combat, it's still more of an action based debate that involves physical fitness, obstacle handling, and debating. Not entirely sure how I'd reword it but, perhaps my proposal is "Indirect combat" instead of "Non combat." And perhaps "As long as it fits the characters thematically while simultaneously requires making use of any potential powers and abilities."

Thoughts on this, I can expand on it if needed.

"Indirect combat versus threads are allowed to be made such racing if the matchup thematically fits the charcters and requires making use of there power and abilities."

 

[Antvasima]

As I explained in our initial discussion, I believe non-combat versus threads are acceptable so long as they're fair, interesting, and otherwise follow our guidelines (like no stomps, restricting abilities, etc.)

And there's not a ton of examples, but there is some precedent to it.

So I think it's reasonable to add a little note of this just so it's clear.

Of course, if the rest of the staff thinks we shouldn't allow them, that should be made clear as well.

Either way, I think it's a good idea to say it explicitly.

I mostly agree with FinePoint about this. We obviously should try to figure out some sensible restrictions, but I do not mind if our members focus on a greater and more fun variety of hypothetical competitions than just bloody violence.

 

[Ebihara]

We obviously should try to figure out some sensible restrictions

"Indirect combat versus threads are allowed to be made such racing if the matchup thematically fits the charcters and requires making use of there power and abilities."

What do you think of this? do you feel this is too vauge? I think if its themeatic and the matchup can use the PA and other things indexed on the charcters page. Though I guess we need to know what the exact boundary is before we can put it into writing.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, I don't mind this idea in theory overall, but the boundaries need to be sensibly defined, and speed feats usually differ to extremes in magnitude, so it will be very hard to find suitable matchups for speed races between characters.

 

[Ebihara]

speed feats usually differ to extremes in magnitude, so it will be very hard to find suitable matchups for speed races between characters.

I think this would fall under the same logic and already established rules for not creating stomp matchups or matchups with large tier differences that dont have other mitigating factors like hax.

 

[SatellaTheWoE]

I'd also like to add that matchups should have a reasonable gap in skill level. For example, a matchup like Ayanokouji vs. Subaru in chess would be a stomp

 

[Ebihara]

I'd also like to add that matchups should have a reasonable gap in skill level. For example, a matchup like Ayanokouji vs. Subaru in chess would be a stomp

Again I think that would logically fall under what we currently describe as a stomp. But I think for somthing more abstract like this. My solid guidelines would be needed. Though we first need to deterime whats allowed.

Conidering how a chess match pretty much does the same (the whole tiering system, except for a small bit of the intelligence section, is irrelevant), it seems in the spirit of our existing rules to not allow such matchups.

do you have any thoughts on the other types of matchups disscussed and current idea for the note/rule?


another type of matchup I found I am not sure how to describe is both the matchups on tiggers page 1 2 which are zeno and luffy playing tigger's mini game from KH. I am not sure if these should stay or go. I dont think they really fit the critea of using stats and or PA really. But we have 2 of them added so. I know it says on his page you shouldnt do versus threads cause he just doesnt fight and we wouldnt know how he does so. But these are just non combat matchups and is him doing one of the few things he see him on screen.

 

[Ebihara]

bump

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I have recvied permisson to post this from @FinePoint in DM's.

Hello everyone the point of this thread is to put into writing, rules regarding non combat based versus threads.
IE: chess cooking racing

The way I currently understand it the reason we can do this is:

"Assumptions alternative to these ones can be freely used, are equally legitimate, and threads using different assumptions can be added to profiles just like these ones can. Generally, it is preferable that the thread creator specify the assumptions he wants to use in the thread and adjust them in such a way that as fair a fight as possible can take place."

And applying this to the Victory Conditions cause that is an assumption under SBA
Death of the opponent, removing the opponent from the battlefield for at least one week (BFR), knocking the opponent out for at least one hour, or incapacitating the opponent by putting him in a state in which he can not harm the other fighter(s) for over a day, are to be assumed as victory conditions."
(credit to @FinePoint for pointing out this info)

My personal thoughts aside on if these should be added in the first place. Every single time there a thread that has a non combat victory condtion the first page is always aguring this and linking previous matchups that have been done and added. So Id like to propose adding in somthing to point to to clarify yes this is allowed. Id suggsest a note on versus thread page or SBA page.

"Non combat win condtion matchups are allowed to be added to profiles if they fit the charcters themetically."

I am really not sure how the wording of this should be done. Id like to think the bolded part could be enough if people use common sense but then people are going to create matchups that done make any sense for the charcters. If we are going to allow non combat matchups to be added as noteable matchups I think they should fit the charcters theme like spongebob cooking or lightining mcqueen racing etc. I am open to suggestions for the wording and how this should be implented but I do feel we should have some sort of note to point to.

I am generally in favor of allowing matches to be added so long as they otherwise abide by our rules. I do not like to limit fun and given that the versus threads are a silly little side facet of the wiki that many enjoy partaking in, I do not see a good reason under which we should disallow matches like a chess game. I think determining thematic relation to a character will be difficult (for example, if a character likes board games, does that include Chess, if it is never shown?), and I suspect that such a rule will cause unwanted bickering.

I don't know how to fix that, though, and it seems we as humans have a propensity for bickering no matter what. So, I suppose I'm fine with the rule, barring some better wording proposed later? I'm borderline, but I'll sign off on it.

I don't think chess should be added to profiles.
There is a bit of a difference between "there is a wincon for the fight that isn't death" and "there isn't a fight to begin with".
Like, we list "Notable Matchups". A matchup that isn't a fight, and doesn't use most of the combat-centred profile, isn't notable for a wiki about fights that features combat-centred profiles.
As a reminder, we have this rule:

Conidering how a chess match pretty much does the same (the whole tiering system, except for a small bit of the intelligence section, is irrelevant), it seems in the spirit of our existing rules to not allow such matchups.

I'm all for being able to make and debate these fights, but they don't belong listed.

...that said, this is also a decent point, I think, in that it makes the accurate argument that any match can be made and debated, we would just restrict what can actually go on a profile.

I think my end opinion would still be in favor of allowing more non-combat matches, however, as I value the concept of fun over staying true to a self-imposed limitation. So long as they are agreed to be thematically relevant, and it doesn't get out of hand, I dig it.

 

[Ebihara]

I'm borderline, but I'll sign off on it.

So it looks like we have enough approval with thst and other staff for

Indirect combat versus threads are allowed to be made such racing if the matchup thematically fits the charcters and requires making use of there power and abilities."

To be the wording. To be changed of needed. What page should thid be applied to?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Off the cuff, probably the "Creating Versus Threads" bit of this page.

 

[Ebihara]

Off the cuff, probably the "Creating Versus Threads" bit of this page.

That makes sense. Would you mind unlocking it and I can apply it.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Done so, apologies for the delay, I was having my soul torn asunder and cast into the Inferno.

 

[Ebihara]

I was having my soul torn asunder and cast into the Inferno.

Somtimes it be like that, I understand.

I have applied the change, it can be locked again.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you to everybody who helped out here.

 

[Agnaa]

I meant to post here 8 days ago, but got caught up at work and forgot.

I don't think we need the requirement for them to be thematic, I'd just want them to not be stomps. Although I realise some people could abuse that, to make unconventional matches out of spite that would cause a character that would typically win to lose.

I think the requirement of "characters making use of their powers and abilities" is a bit too specific, since that makes it sound like it's referring to their P&A section alone. I'd prefer something more general, like "making notable use of their powers, abilities, statistics, notable techniques, or talents".

Would it be okay to re-open this thread to briefly discuss that, or would y'all want me making a new thread?

 

[Antvasima]

I think that we can reopen this thread in order to discuss those issues.

 

[Agnaa]

I've done so.

 

[Ebihara]

Although I realise some people could abuse that, to make unconventional matches out of spite that would cause a character that would typically win to lose.

This was a concern but I think should be fine as this would be caught under dont make spite matches or stomps.

I'd prefer something more general, like "making notable use of their powers, abilities, statistics, notable techniques, or talents".

This wording works for me.

 

[Antvasima]

I think the requirement of "characters making use of their powers and abilities" is a bit too specific, since that makes it sound like it's referring to their P&A section alone. I'd prefer something more general, like "making notable use of their powers, abilities, statistics, notable techniques, or talents".

I also think that this seems very reasonable.

 

[Ebihara]

Is there any addtional context or constraints we should add? The more I think about it a good amount of the concerns are already addressed by other rules, like not making matchups that just triliavze the need for the tiering system, dont make stomps.

 

[Ebihara]

I also think that this seems very reasonable.

I've done so.

"Indirect or non-combat versus threads are allowed to be made if the matchup makes notable use of their powers, abilities, statistics, notable techniques, or talents."

Does this wording work for yall as the full wording?

 

[Agnaa]

I think "indirect combat" is a bit weird, "indirect or non-combat versus threads" seems a bit better.

 

[Ebihara]

I think "indirect combat" is a bit weird, "indirect or non-combat versus threads" seems a bit better.

Edited it

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah, that's what I'd personally go for. But we can stick with the requirement that it's thematic if others wish.

 

[Ebihara]

Yeah, that's what I'd personally go for. But we can stick with the requirement that it's thematic if others wish.

I think it works eitherway. Felt could help prevent some of the more nonsense matchups though.

 

[Ebihara]

alright looks like we have enough support for the new wording @Agnaa has suggested between himself and @Antvasima . Is this could to apply? could someone unlock this and I can apply it?