r/CharacterRant • u/CobaltMonkey • Apr 06 '19
Rant An Airing of Battleboard Grievances.
I've got a lot of problems with you people, and now you're going to hear about it. /s
Okay, not really you people specifically. But there are a lot of things we all do at one point or another that are just awful for everyone's enjoyment of our shared hobby.
Let's start with this question: What is the purpose of battleboarding?
The answer is twofold:
1.) Have fun.
2.) Use the board's rules to arrive as close as reasonably possible to a right answer to the question of who would win in a given competition.
What do you not see in there?
"Be right."
You are absolutely not here to personally be right about who is or isn't the victor.
You are here to find what is right, not who. To find the right answer, not simply to be the one who has it.
You are not the appointed champion of a character or franchise. Not even if you were their actual author. But even if you were both of those things, it would still not be your goal to make your characters win. It would be to find out if they could according to our rules.
Your favored character(s) absolutely will lose sometimes. No, this is not a sin. No, the board is not biased against them. No, the rules are not stupid just because you don't like them or can't exploit them to fanwank your character. Either voice your problems with them in the State of the Sub (where you can expect to be rightly shouted down if the latter was your goal), or hit the bricks. If all you do is whine about them, you won't be missed.
Another aspect of this perceived need to be right is choosing to engage with only the highest powered characters you can find. Yes, I'm looking at you, people who won't touch anyone below universal tier.
Let's not get confused here. It's perfectly fine to like and enjoy those characters and the media they are from. Your taste in characters is your own and is entirely above ridicule. You like what you like and there is never anything wrong with that.
However, that doesn't make those characters particularly suitable for enjoyable battleboarding.
If the description of your character or any of their abilities includes any of the following terms, then pretty much no one is going to enjoy engaging with you:
Universal
Multiversal
Omniversal
Conceptual
Abstract
Omnipotent
Omniscient
Ki Control/s
Why? For starters, in choosing these, it looks an awful lot like you're wanting "victory" for as little effort as possible. If this is your goal, you're no better than anyone who tries to NLF Hulk's anger or Batman's prep time. Yes, it's wrong to wank someone up to having no limits, but it's almost as wrong to simply pick characters whose limits are either unknowable or arbitrarily high. You're not looking for debate when you do that, you're looking to "win."
Well, that might not be the case 100% of the time, in fairness. You could genuinely be interested in trying to find a match for a really high powered character. But that's moot since you can't really arrive at a reasonable conclusion because too much of what the characters to whom the above terms apply is vague, undefinable nonsense or a complete mess (see any one of the many omnipotence rants here). It's a "safe" character to back because pretty much nothing can be conclusively proven about it. It will invariably get bogged down into a mess of "does my abstract defense beat your ontological weapon" or something. Nobody can know that sort of thing, not the least reason for which is that such terms were never meant to be applied in a battleboard setting and authors that threw them around to sound cool were never concerned with it anyway (barring Suggs, of course). In short, for everyone around you it's a violation of answer 1 up there, Have fun.
I could go on, but it's actually kind of late. I'm sure I'll have more opportunity to vent/be crucified in the comments in the morning. See you then. I'll even bring the nails. I'm just helpful like that.
5
u/Gray_Walker Apr 08 '19
I'll disagree on the subject of discussing high powered characters. There are absolutely situations where a discussion would be worth having and would be pretty interesting to see, it's just that a disproportionate number of people involved in those discussions have no direct familiarity with the source material and interpret the debate as a "who can punch harder" sort of thing and treat all reality-warping as if it's functionally identical. The issue with them is that they usually involve a self-appointed expert on the character (who often knows everything about them from second-hand knowledge reading vs threads and respect threads) arguing with someone else who's the exact same way. It's either that or it's someone who basically wants to gush about how awesome this crazy thing that happened in that work of fiction that they like and their way of doing that is to talk about how they can beat everyone in a fight.
Despite that, though, some of the most thought-provoking discussions I've seen on cosmic Marvel's lore and worldbuilding in particular have come from these types of communities. Because the generally-accepted interpretation is that the nature of cosmic entities is intrinsic to their power, how everything fits together and what everyone's power level is are things that are generally discussed together. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with discussing the abilities of very powerful characters, especially considering how prone people are to disagreeing on them and the fact that some things are much more open to interpretation and warrant those discussions than straightforward feats of physical strength. If those types of discussions don't appeal to you, that's fine, but that's just how you feel about the subject and it doesn't apply to everyone. I think it's clear that a lot of people do like debating that, and a huge part of the appeal is that because it can't be quantified (despite VS Battle Wiki's best attempts), it leaves more room for discussion and interpretation. Clear-cut "[character] can bench press x lbs" feats tend to make it a lot easier to determine who would win or lose, and I think that contributes to the popularity of discussing things like cosmic entities.
2
u/CobaltMonkey Apr 08 '19
I still don't agree, but you do make your argument well.
Discussion on unquantifiable powers can be be enjoyable, I'm sure. It satisfies answer 1, Have fun, for some people. But because it is completely unquantifiable, it will always fail to satisfy answer 2, finding a reasonable answer. If your feat/power/whatever is widely open to interpretation with nothing truly concrete to be said about it, then you're not going to get anywhere near a reasonable answer. It will devolve into just showing your thinking for who you would want to win, not who actually would, since nothing you propose can be backed up by any kind of proof.
I think it's clear that a lot of people do like debating that
I don't think it is. Or rather, for the reasons you stated, the vast majority of the time you'll see these characters is in the hands of people not actually wanting debate and instead wanting an easy win or to fanboy/girl out about them. In those cases, they are effectively just yelling "Hulk strongest there is!" and not looking to be confronted about it. Or they're interested in discussing it, but not debating it. Now, that discussion might be fine to explore on /r/AskScienceFiction or maybe even right here on r/CharacterRant, if you have some complaint about it. But that is not the purpose of r/whowouldwin. It's got to answer 1 and 2.
2
u/Gray_Walker Apr 09 '19
A majority of these debates being that way certainly doesn't mean that they're all that way. I've seen perfectly healthy discussions on the subject matter before, and people not being able to discuss things civilly isn't anything specific to those sorts of discussions. A lack of concrete evidence also doesn't mean that a discussion can't be had -- rather, the discussion involves what the "correct" interpretation of the events was, and how it pertains to good ol' power levels. It doesn't always result in no reasonable conclusions being drawn. In the other post, I mentioned offhand that it wasn't always common knowledge that Galactus's powers go beyond just planet-eating and that waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back when, that wasn't common knowledge and sometimes even a point of contention. Evaluating where he stands is largely the end result of debate after debate about his strength. Were some people just participating because they want to talk about a really strong guy in a purple hat? Probably, but that doesn't mean that the discussions didn't make accurate information more widespread, which seems to be what you think the ultimate goal of discussing the age old question of "who would win?" is. For that matter, a lot of the way he's debated now has changed over time, and a lot of posts I've seen more recently even take his disposition into account when evaluating things.
If people didn't like debating this sort of subject matter, I don't think that we'd ever see discussions on it in the first place -- or at least, I don't think we'd see people replying to any posts made about certain characters. People seem a lot more engaged when dealing with subject matter where the feats are muddy and a point of contention. I think that's part of the reason you don't see a lot of emphasis on street level characters, especially given that quite a few debates can be settled pretty simply by a clear-cut strength/ability gap. There definitely are unbiased threads about cosmic stuff, especially cross-universe between and DC with someone who just learned about [cosmic entity] and wants to understand more about the concept. People yell "Hulk strongest there is!" in all sorts of debates anyway. Ulterior motives and fan gushing are just an inherent disease that plagues vs threads. The discussion aspect is, as I mentioned, effectively inseparable from trying to get a gauge on how strong a character is supposed to be in certain cases, since interpreting their nature is an element of determining their strength. I don't see what the issue with things being a discussion rather than a debate is either, seeing as your other comments seem to indicate that you think vs battles should be a collaboration rather than people trying to fight each other. The line between debate and discussion becomes muddy at that point.
You are, of course, free to disagree. These debates are usually a trainwreck, but I think that just because most of them are bad doesn't mean that all of them are bad or that no good can come of them.
2
u/CobaltMonkey Apr 09 '19
I don't see what the issue with things being a discussion rather than a debate is either, seeing as your other comments seem to indicate that you think vs battles should be a collaboration rather than people trying to fight each other.
This issue is that debate furthers the goal of finding a specific answer to the question of who would win, whereas a discussion may go that way or it may not. Debating the points back and forth is what will ultimately get us an answer (or as near as possible to it); discussion is less focused and thus generally less useful to the goal. It's the difference between people who actually want to answer the question and people who just want to talk about it. The latter isn't at all wrong or anything. It's just not what the sub is for. It's in the name.
2
u/Gray_Walker Apr 09 '19
As a counterpoint to this, it actually says "discussion" in the sidebar of Who Would Win, but not debate. Debate is nowhere in the name. In fact, the word "discussion" comes up substantially more than "debate" in the sub's documentation. If the sub is, as you say, not a place for discussion, then why does the staff so clearly say it's for discussion?
2
u/CobaltMonkey Apr 09 '19
Point. But what kind of discussion is most conducive to achieving the titular goal? That would be a debate, as previously stated.
2
u/Gray_Walker Apr 09 '19
I would say it depends on the context. Sometimes debate is more productive, sometimes it isn't. When you're dealing with characters that are very powerful and their strength can be interpreted in different ways by different people, then usually it's better to be having a discussion about so and so thing that character did so almost everyone is on the same page about things. Debate usually works out better when you're dealing with characters on the lower end of things, where there's not quite as much to discuss in the first place.
Again using Galactus as an example, there was a lot of discussion about how Galactus defeating Lord Chaos and Master Order in Al Ewing's Ultimates should be interpreted. Did he only win because of the cosmic hierarchy being in flux, is SSj Galactus stronger than normal Galactus, or is this something he's capable of normally because the fight wasn't a fight as we mere mortals understand it and it was more like he won an argument? That's something that might merit discussion as opposed to debate, and I think things like that need to be addressed that way if the character is going to be used. It seems to be part of the appeal of Accelerator and Contessa threads as well, so it's nothing unique to cosmic entities and the like either, just characters with powers that leave room for interpretation. If we don't discuss a character's capabilities, then how can we hope to vouch for those abilities in a debate?
Again, just my two cents on the subject and I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree. If these types of discussions/debates aren't your cup of tea, that's perfectly understandable, but that doesn't mean everyone shares your sentiments.
2
u/CobaltMonkey Apr 09 '19
just characters with powers that leave room for interpretation. If we don't discuss a character's capabilities, then how can we hope to vouch for those abilities in a debate?
Simply put, we can't, with or without discussion. This was one point of my initial post.
You could genuinely be interested in trying to find a match for a really high powered character. But that's moot since you can't really arrive at a reasonable conclusion because too much of what the characters to whom the above terms apply is vague, undefinable nonsense or a complete mess (see any one of the many omnipotence rants here). It's a "safe" character to back because pretty much nothing can be conclusively proven about it. It will invariably get bogged down into a mess of "does my abstract defense beat your ontological weapon" or something. Nobody can know that sort of thing
So, when the goal is to find who would win and all you can bring to the table is undefinable guesswork about either character involved, how can you hope to accomplish that goal? You can certainly enjoy talking about them, and that honestly doesn't hurt anything. (When the wild theories presented are not picked up by others and spread around as the gospel, of course.) But when your character's abilities can't be defined, then they also can't serve as evidence at all. That's what makes them worthless for battleboarding.
Again, just my two cents on the subject and I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree.
Likewise.
3
5
u/Edgy_Robin Apr 06 '19
The entire point of a debate is to prove your point
32
u/CobaltMonkey Apr 06 '19
No. The point of debate on this sub is to arrive at a correct answer. It's who would win. Not "who I think should win, and I will browbeat you into believing it."
This form of debate is absolutely not a competition. It's a collaboration.
If someone raises a point counter to yours, they are not your "opponent" and your goal is not to defeat them. It's to look at all the evidence with them to find a correct answer. There is no winning or losing an argument on here. There is only failure by not trying to find an honest answer.11
u/TicTacTac0 Apr 08 '19
The point of debate on this sub is to arrive at a correct answer
I feel like a lot of people don't get this. You'll see so many people make disingenuous arguments that have been repeatedly debunked (often to that user) and yet, the very next thread, they're back using those same arguments.
2
u/Edgy_Robin Apr 06 '19
You can't arrive at a correct answer however because constant variables (Unless you're talking top tier reality warper vs street leveler or things in that vain.). You can not definitively prove that character A beats character B unless one character drastically outclasses the other. Right off the bat your entire premise for how these debates happen contradict the definition and is flawed unless it's a matter where a debate can't happen. Just like how you can't have a debate over something like Do humans need water to survive. It's an objective fact just like how it's an objective fact that someone like Lucifer Morningstar would take out Batman with little effort.
Two people on opposing sides of an argument are opponents, and that isn't a bad thing like you're presenting it as. By definition an opponent would be someone on the other side of an argument you're opposing. There is no honest answer unless it's a subject that can't be debated.
20
u/CobaltMonkey Apr 06 '19
Go back up to my original post.
2.) Use the board's rules to arrive as close as reasonably possible to a right answer to the question of who would win in a given competition.
To debate fictional characters is to accept that no answer we give--no, not even the really obvious seeming ones--is completely provable. You cannot definitively prove a single thing at all where fiction is concerned, regardless of the apparent power gap between two combatants. We use as much evidence as possible to make the strongest case we can. And that is all we can do. The only dishonest answer is a biased one.
Two people on opposing sides of an argument are opponents,
You are not on opposing sides of an argument here. You are on the same side, both of you trying to sort through possible arguments to do your best to find the correct answer, and absolutely not just the one you've decided to champion. This isn't politics or a team sport. The goal isn't to win over or convince other people so you can rake in the upvotes. It's to find the right answer, or as close as can be found with the evidence you have.
3
u/Edgy_Robin Apr 06 '19
So what? Unless the power gap as I've said before is massive there can be incredibly reasonable answers as to why character a would win and why character b would win which is up to the interpretation of the people in the argument. You can prove things. I can prove in five seconds that a character that can erase things from existence can solo a universe based on reality where superpowers aren't a thing and the strongest characters are peak human at best. It's an objective fact. Reality warper beats street leveler 10/10 in a random encounter.
You are not on opposing sides of an argument here. You are on the same side, both of you trying to sort through possible arguments to do your best to find the correct answer, and absolutely not just the one you've decided to champion. This isn't politics or a team sport. The goal isn't to win over or convince other people so you can rake in the upvotes. It's to find the right answer, or as close as can be found with the evidence you have.
You're not on the same side. If one person thinks character a wins and another person thinks character b wins they are on separate sides of the argument. Your argument only applies to the idealized battle forum, which does not exist. When I see someone say 'X' character would win and disagree then present my argument as to why I believe character 'Y' I am doing that because I believe that character wins over the other one, just like how if the person in favor of character 'X' replies it's because they disagree. The 'right' answer is up for interpretation of both people just like the feats used to try and find that answer.
16
u/CobaltMonkey Apr 06 '19
If one person thinks character a wins and another person thinks character b wins they are on separate sides of the argument. Your argument only applies to the idealized battle forum, which does not exist.
It does exist when you aren't tyring so hard to fight against it. It's not an ideal if you stop trying to treat it like one and actually work towards it. Finding the right answer instead of just your own.
9
u/4m77 Apr 06 '19
People like you are the reason the world is fucked.
10
u/Edgy_Robin Apr 06 '19
People like you are an example of why people need to learn what certain words mean.
5
u/galvanicmechamorph Apr 09 '19
The point is to argue your point. The distinction is small but important. To argue is to make a case but understand you can't convince everyone and may be wrong. To prove is to come to the table believing what you're arguing is fact and to convince someone of it makes your point more true somehow.
27
u/CoolandAverageGuy Apr 06 '19
I feel like there's two types of battleboarders: people that want to read highly detailed and interesting fights and people that want to find out who the most powerful entity in all of fiction is. The latter is why the Suggsverse novels exist and why their are so many cosmic entity characters that are known more of their appearances in battleboarding then in their original canon stories.