I want to bring up 2 rulings for everyone and Azure to consider:

- Aside from attempting to blatantly break the rules, you should add anyone who tries to "test the limits" of the rules to count as breaking them. I can imagine people might try to say that they had Omnipotent origins that are now dormant...but could wake up anytime. Or if they were composed of 1 Million hiveminds who can each act independently of each other despite individually having the strength of a single flea. Both these examples are pushing the line and should be instantly rejected to save grief.

- Since every character prior to this did not know of the Standards ever being made, there should be a mandate that these rules will apply starting now Ergo, any approved character made prior to 10/14/16 can be immune to these regulations.

***This is of course because I believe that Handyman is not OP. Which of course some of you still think that is the case.

Also, even if he's not. To everyone else who has 1 or 2 violations, would it be safe to say that you all have had the maturity to use them properly? Remember, these regulations are so noobs don't exploit the system. But if you're already in and you've been established so far with little disagreements, then you are serving the true nature of these rules.

Quote from 969_DoomsDruid_969

"Making progress". I will be snarky whenever I want. I would appreciate it if people weren't like "Oh hey, it's Doom. SHIT UPON THEM BECAUSE OF ONE MISTAKE (which DID take a while to fix, i'll give you that)." Can I be treated like a normal person now (normal people would not be told they are "making progress". I am not a needy ten-year-old)?
EDIT: Sorry for the RAEG, i'm just a bit salty as to the "making progress" theme everyone labels me with. ITS NOT JUST A PHASE MODS!
Anyways, almost done with Al.ice. Probably OP in some respect I haven't noticed.

People only treat you like shit if you treat them like shit first.

I don't need to remind you, of your firsthand experience regarding this.

Quote from Hewitt

I want to bring up 2 rulings for everyone and Azure to consider:

- Aside from attempting to blatantly break the rules, you should add anyone who tries to "test the limits" of the rules to count as breaking them. I can imagine people might try to say that they had Omnipotent origins that are now dormant...but could wake up anytime. Or if they were composed of 1 Million hiveminds who can each act independently of each other despite individually having the strength of a single flea. Both these examples are pushing the line and should be instantly rejected to save grief.

- Since every character prior to this did not know of the Standards ever being made, there should be a mandate that these rules will apply starting now Ergo, any approved character made prior to 10/14/16 can be immune to these regulations.

***This is of course because I believe that Handyman is not OP. Which of course some of you still think that is the case.

Also, even if he's not. To everyone else who has 1 or 2 violations, would it be safe to say that you all have had the maturity to use them properly? Remember, these regulations are so noobs don't exploit the system. But if you're already in and you've been established so far with little disagreements, then you are serving the true nature of these rules.





People only treat you like shit if you treat them like shit first.

I don't need to remind you, of your firsthand experience regarding this.

I do hope you realize my point isn't that he's OP but that there are exceptions. And if Azure insists on keeping these regulations, it would be a good idea to have some way of allowing exceptions because no rule is perfect for every situation. Other than that, I agree completely with your "as of now" rule but I still disagree with this list for reasons I posted at the top of page three.

Then let's address it:

Quote from Urako

I'm not sure if I count as a forumer anymore, but I feel compelled to respectfully disagree. Particularly with rule number 3 for the same reason as Crank. NPCs can drive the plot, provide hazards (in fact they're fundamental to one of my character's weaknesses), cause complications, and in general, can make the fight seem more alive and complex. For example, gladiators may in fact get hit by a car or vehicle sometimes. If you take away part of the environment you are taking away options and possibilities.

I'm pretty neutral with this. I had no problems when Loboto had that mage hang out with Kalena all the time. I even worked out how to beat him in my battle against him and I saw no handicap for it. But even if I didn't plan on including him, I wouldn't have thought that it was unfair that Kalena got to have a companion.

Other side of the coin though, I can see the immediate fence Loboto has set up. One look at Kalena and his mage from newbies, and it might turn them off a little. And if they pursue, they'll obviously lose for not being able to work him in. But Loboto would be able to. Is that fair?

Although I can see how it can be truly exploited. But it would be very hard to because noobs generally do not write about secondary characters unless they are 2nd characters, which will hit the "no duos" rule instead of NPC. Loboto makes his NPC work because he writes well.

Quote from Urako

I also have to disagree with this list in general. We already have guidelines to creating a character and rules to follow.

Guidelines yes. But what rules? Please, point them out here. Tell me where exactly does it disallow OP characters. Oh that's right, we have none. We only have "the users decide what is OP". Handyman got a pass for being so charming, but what if someone decidedly tried to push for a nigh-OP character outright.

Quote from Urako

Is there really such a schism

Yes. And if you weren't here a few days up to 2 months ago, then I don't know what to say. A user, basically tried to push for omnipotency. And because our current regulation is "the users decide what's OP", he was able to hold out in character creation limbo for TWO MONTHS.

These regs exist not for people like us who already know enough something that shouldn't be already said. They're for new guys who aren't fed this information and think they can exploit the community feedback to their own ends.

Ok, I've finally got some time to come and set some clarifications. Firstly, NPCs. Here's what I mean when I refer to them in Regulation #3:

An NPC is any character, be they highly or rarely recurring, who is named and bears some significance to either character. If a cop appears in a story, they do not qualify: if a cat falls from a window, they do not apply. For a character such as Kizu for Manny, she is an NPC, and if any actions she takes radically affects the outcome of a fight between two gladiators, then yes, there is an issue. If your character is about to die and they come in to keep them alive, this is fine; if your character is about to lose and they come in and pull the win for them, this is not as fine. I am not saying the only characters allowed in a story are the gladiators, as that is entirely ridiculous. Please do not read more into it than need be.


Next, these regulations ARE NOT SET IN STONE REQUIREMENTS. I make sure to state very blatantly that not only are they subject to change based on majority opinion, but that they're highly subjective: it is entirely possible to argue that your character, while from a technical standpoint goes against a regulation, is still reasonable. The ones to decide are neither Luna nor I, they're the majority of the lounge. This simply sets some initial standards for new writers to get an idea of how to design their characters in a way that will be accepted quickly, as well as provides a time frame for mod intervention. To make a comparison, this sets things like a court: You all are the Jury, and Luna and I are the Judge. The jury sets the verdict, and we'll either hammer it or, if we find that there's undue bias or such, we can make an opposing ruling.

And just because I'm not sure if everyone knows or not, I did not simply make these regulations: I did discuss with and show them to Luna, and she gave the approval for them. This is her section, her word is law. I'm simply helping out.

You should probably add the whole majority thing as a golden rule 0 or something.

I guess this is debate time. Don't take this personally.

Quote from Hewitt

I'm pretty neutral with this. I had no problems when Loboto had that mage hang out with Kalena all the time. I even worked out how to beat him in my battle against him and I saw no handicap for it. But even if I didn't plan on including him, I wouldn't have thought that it was unfair that Kalena got to have a companion.

Other side of the coin though, I can see the immediate fence Loboto has set up. One look at Kalena and his mage from newbies, and it might turn them off a little. And if they pursue, they'll obviously lose for not being able to work him in. But Loboto would be able to. Is that fair?

Although I can see how it can be truly exploited. But it would be very hard to because noobs generally do not write about secondary characters unless they are 2nd characters, which will hit the "no duos" rule instead of NPC. Loboto makes his NPC work because he writes well.

With all due respect. Loboto is a top contender. He can exploit things because he is good. "Noobs" are probably going to lose to him anyways and this is why people can choose who they fight. What you describe seems more like an unofficial secondary character in disguise though and seems more like an exploit that needs to be dealt with on an individual basis rather than a sweeping all-encompassing rule if he is indeed exploiting something and there is a problem.

*Exactly how is this going to work out for characters that regularly interact with people during battles? (I am prepared to give examples if you want proof). I refer to my previous argument the dynamics of a fight. No is shouldn't be one sided, but in theory (and usually practice), a huge one-sided fight means the writer will lose.

**Even if the rule needs to stay, its scope needs to be narrowed to just include obvious one-sided overpowered allies. In it's current form. It allows almost no interaction or dynamics. I think Cranks raised some very good points against the rule.

Quote from Hewitt

Guidelines yes. But what rules? Please, point them out here. Tell me where exactly does it disallow OP characters. Oh that's right, we have none. We only have "the users decide what is OP". Handyman got a pass for being so charming, but what if someone decidedly tried to push for a nigh-OP character outright.

Probably the same thing that has always happened. Nobody will want to fight him and they will be rejected. It's worked for years and it would presumably continue to work it was given a chance.

Quote from Hewitt

Yes. And if you weren't here a few days up to 2 months ago, then I don't know what to say. A user, basically tried to push for omnipotency. And because our current regulation is "the users decide what's OP", he was able to hold out in character creation limbo for TWO MONTHS.

First of all, I quit because a combination of work and you guys weren't exactly nice on my last fight and I didn't think I could match your "precious expectations". But i'll have you know, have seen some of the upcoming gladiators. I admit that some of them need work, but tell me what happened to them? Were they accepted? Judging by the battles list, i'd say either they are inactive or the answer is no. And if I recall, the person who pushed for omnipotence fixed the problem. Honestly if they want their character in limbo, it is their choice to keep in there, but why punish everyone else?

Quote from Hewitt

These regs exist not for people like us who already know enough something that shouldn't be already said. They're for new guys who aren't fed this information and think they can exploit the community feedback to their own ends.

That is true, but what is going to happen to our battles moving forward? And our new characters moving forward? It limits everyone the same.

*Suppose exceptions were made and people had "immunity". At what point is someone no longer a noob. The disputes would skyrocket.

I think I've made my point.

Edit: I started this before Azure posted.

Azure, i'm not upset with anyone for making this or anything, its just that rules need to scrutinized and fine-tuned if they are expected to work.

I mean, I get where you're coming from, but I think there's a difference between story and character. Like, if I want the Devil to come to earth and change the dynamic of my battle for a Halloween special, that should be between me and who I'm up against. Most of the jury commenting isn't keen on that one, I've personally had a new character introduced on me that changed the tide of a battle, and that personally didn't bother me. Just give me a heads up, all I ask for.

EDIT: Good to see you again, Urako, and I'm sorry you felt chased off.

Quote from Urako

Azure, i'm not upset with anyone for making this or anything, its just that rules need to scrutinized and fine-tuned if they are expected to work.

Again, these are not rules, and not meant to be viewed as something to be strictly followed. I cannot stress this enough, they are subjective. The majority decides if there is an issue, this just provides something for them to actually agree on.

Quote from Crank

I mean, I get where you're coming from, but I think there's a difference between story and character. Like, if I want the Devil to come to earth and change the dynamic of my battle for a Halloween special, that should be between me and who I'm up against. Most of the jury commenting isn't keen on that one, I've personally had a new character introduced on me that changed the tide of a battle, and that personally didn't bother me. Just give me a heads up, all I ask for.

That scenario is perfectly reasonable, and if both parties agree, there shouldn't be an issue in the slightest. As it stands, this rule is to prevent NPCs from becoming as much a focus of the story as the gladiators. If you battle against, say, Dante, you're expecting to focus on your gladiator and Dante. If (using your example) the Devil becomes one of the main focuses, the dynamics of the battle stop being a competition between your character and Dante; it stops being a real battle, so to speak.


If everyone wants to adjust Regulation #3, then simply come to a consensus on how you want it to be, and I'll gladly change it. The Majority controls this thread. My opinion is just that: my opinion.

Quote from Urako

I guess this is debate time. Don't take this personally.

I won't if you wont :D

Quote from Urako

With all due respect. Loboto is a top contender. He can exploit things because he is good. "Noobs" are probably going to lose to him anyways and this is why people can choose who they fight. What you describe seems more like an unofficial secondary character in disguise though and seems more like an exploit that needs to be dealt with on an individual basis rather than a sweeping all-encompassing rule if he is indeed exploiting something and there is a problem.

Hey I'm not the one pushing for the ban on NPCs. I'm just offering both sides of the story. And Loboto is a good writer. I'm not saying noobs won't lose to him if he ditches his NPC. I'm saying the chances of losing to him could decrease if he didn't have it. Even if just a little.

I'm honestly just using Loboto as an example because he's all I know. If I knew a noob with NPCs I would gladly say so.

Quote from Urako

*Exactly how is this going to work out for characters that regularly interact with people during battles? (I am prepared to give examples if you want proof). I refer to my previous argument the dynamics of a fight. No is shouldn't be one sided, but in theory (and usually practice), a huge one-sided fight means the writer will lose.

**Even if the rule needs to stay, its scope needs to be narrowed to just include obvious one-sided overpowered allies. In it's current form. It allows almost no interaction or dynamics. I think Cranks raised some very good points against the rule.

Yes I agree. The rule is too vague but judging from Azure's quick 2 line summary, it appears he just added this on the last minute as a corollary. This should be expounded on.

Quote from Urako

Probably the same thing that has always happened. Nobody will want to fight him and they will be rejected. It's worked for years and it would presumably continue to work it was given a chance.

Actually I was being rhetorical. This has already happened with Doom. So...

Quote from Urako

And if I recall, the person who pushed for omnipotence fixed the problem. Honestly if they want their character in limbo, it is their choice to keep in there, but why punish everyone else?

Lol. By "fix" you mean, he just gave up? You say that like there's no harm done. But he didn't just waste 2 months of HIS time, he wasted everyone else's time as well. All those moments when good users would suggest that OP is not the way that were swatted, don't you think they deserve to be protected by some regulation as well? First off, Doom only decided to rescind his character after this whole hoopla discussion that prompted Azure to make regs in the first place. If nothing had been said, it could have gone for alot longer. Secondly, he is once again making yet another potentially OP character via the Duo path. So if this never happened then nothing will have changed.

Also, I don't like how you're just twisting this one way. The Regs weren't made to "punish everyone else". You're saying it like you guys are being persecuted for being creative, when it's not like that at all. I don't even know what is making you come to this conclusion other than it's personally touching you on some level.

Quote from Urako

First of all, I quit because a combination of work and you guys weren't exactly nice on my last fight and I didn't think I could match your "precious expectations".

Lol. Precious Expectations. Okay let's see what this is all about:
Battle 1 - Crank gave some nice CNC. You were very gracious. No precious expectations here.
Battle 2 - Crank also saves the day with some CNC. You didn't say anything this time but I assume you also mean well since the time frame isn't that far apart. No precious expectations here.
Battle 3 - Okay now we're getting somewhere. A few people call you out on your sloppiness, and your reasoning is that you were harried by IRL stuff. Okay. I still don't see how the community has built a precious wall around your expectations unless you took Vern's post way too seriously and just gave up.

So, where is this seriously coming from?

Quote from Urako

But i'll have you know, have seen some of the upcoming gladiators. I admit that some of them need work, but tell me what happened to them? Were they accepted? Judging by the battles list, i'd say either they are inactive or the answer is no.

The Regs don't exist to increase viable noobs. We're over this already. I even explained the reason that prompted this to happen.

And previous I already told Doom but he wouldnt listen: Anyone can write battle stories with each other accepted or not, but the wRHG is like a league. You can't just pass off one sometimes-steroid user just because you're friends with one of the players. You enter the wRHG to be viable for everyone else. Regardless of whether or not they have no battles or are inactive. That's their problem, not yours.

Quote from Urako

That is true, but what is going to happen to our battles moving forward? And our new characters moving forward? It limits everyone the same.

Uhm, characters will move forward and develop. They won't turn into level four Goku and blow up the Earth. I really don't see your point here. It's like there's only 3 levels of character creation: Stupid > Adequate > OP AS FUCK. That's really not the case and the endgame of any character is to not be OP anyway.

Alright, you have a lot of good points I am willing to relent on and I think we've come to an agreement on the technicalities of rule three (elaboration like a summary of what he just posted would be useful) and azure has in fact elaborated. I am much more okay with the list especially after Azure elaborated. Most of all, the "Precious expectations" comment was out of line and my fault, not theirs.

Yeah, personally I'm fine with the NPC rule as it stands.

When I had my duo active, as I see it only an outrageously OP char could have had a chance to win against me (not including using one's writing skills, in which case there are probably a whole lot of people here who could have beaten me. Just talking about power vs power).

As an NPC, I'm obviously going to keep my secondary char (Altaer) active, but without him actually "fighting" the battles will be much more balanced.

Overall, I like these rules the way they stand. Obviously we will need to make exceptions, but these should also be dolled out sparingly so that everyone's not just like "ooooo gimme an exception." Even if we give them out to people who deserve them (like some of the long-time writers here), we need to be careful the example we set for noobs so that they don't think we're hypocrites.

So, long story short, big thumbs up on this.

Also never knew Hew was actually watching these forums that much. Wow. :P

I am wary of exceptions. I feel like it shouldnt be mentioned so people wouldnt actively seek them out

Quote from Hewitt

I am wary of exceptions. I feel like it shouldnt be mentioned so people wouldnt actively seek them out

I second that. Exceptions don't need to be announced, but they can be given as needed.

Doom should take notes. This is how you argue with someone

The next time you insult me when I haven't FUCKING DONE ANYTHING, I'm done with this. Maybe that is what you want, but if so you could just say so. If you continue on about Alex, you are beating a dead horse (is that how you say it? idk). If you continue about me being stubborn and annoying, you are beating an undead horse (people have risen it from the dead for no real reason). What is your continued problem with me?