Interminably long quote that you can just freakin read for yourself.
I do agree with Hew overall. (I've said this a bunch, I think...)
See, here's the thing that I believe is the problem, which Dvor actually hinted at -- character quality is ultimately based upon the
creator not the
character.
I'm going to use my first character as an example. Altaer (esp as he originally existed) was an edgy fucker who was ridiculously OP (I mean, he literally had a state where he was completely invincible. That's OP.) One of the main reasons I've been able to become deeply involved in the WL is because 1) I put in the time and effort to write this character is such a manner that even though he was OP, he was at least functional in a story, and 2) After just one battle I LISTENED to the other members and began the process of replacing him (and later changing him).
So long as these regulations exist, I am perfectly willing to abide by them, and give them my support for the benefit of forum unity.
HOWEVER, that is not to say that I feel they serve the best overall purpose. I agree that the distinct impression is given that each one of these rules was created merely for the purpose of counter-acting Doom's character, not with a long-term over-reaching mindset.
Let us look at each rule:
Rule 1) Well, Zalgo clearly defies this. His Oil has no technical limits on how much of it can exist, and his mental powers (at least in storyline, if not in actual application) can encompass entire hordes of victims at once. Handy, another accepted character, has no technical limits on the generation of hands, which in turn would be on the "massive scale." if you want to boil it down even more, my character Dr. David MacBeth can generate a Reflection (perfect sentient servant replica) of ANY being...meaning I could just duplicate my opponent every battle and be like "fuck you, fight yourself." All of these characters work because the greater WL trusts their creators not to abuse these powers. Not because they abide by these rules. My point here -- OPness is pretty much zero problem in the hands of a good writer, but even a char of moderate power can be OP in the hands of poor writer. Thus, because this is a case-by-case issue to which there are already a number of accepted exceptions, I think it should be reduced to only the "omnis" of powers, since these are really the only ones that would pose HUGE problems.
2) We don't have many characters that violate this rule...still, look at Leelee by Cassandra. That char has been accepted, but the powers list is composed of totally unrelated things, generally. This is the rule with which I have the least problem, though. My point here, however, is that "unrelated" in certain circumstances can still work and be cute, funny, etc. The problem I think this rule should be adjusted to only refer to overly-numerous powers...aka toolboxing. Essentially, reduce this rule to a KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle. Plot-wise relations of powers are up to the free will of the writers, IMO.
3) Multiple characters. Well, we don't have anyone violating this, but I still have a problem with it. This is a WRITER'S lounge, and thus should be dominated by WRITING. In the end, the wRHG is NOT an RP game with playing rules-- it is a writing competition that occurs via a unifying central concept. The concept needs to be preserved and not ripped to shreds, but still...I believe that this rule should be altered to be dependent upon a logical storyline connection primarily. Secondly, I believe there should be considerations for the different types of duos -- a true duo is where the two characters act as ONE gladiator, and therefore must have their overall strengths and powers considered accordingly. A plot/canon duo (like David and Altaer to use my own chars) act as independent gladiators, but because either one is equally likely to fight due to storyline logic, they are each STAND-ALONE chars that WILL NOT fight together unless previously agreed upon by both parties.
4) Ability to be defeated is, I think, the most nebulous and subjective of all of the rules and the one with which I have the most problems. The fact of the matter is that certain chars simply CANNOT be defeated under certain circumstances. Let's take an example -- Black Widow and Captain America would be dumfuks to try to fight The Hulk. It's useless, because they don't have the right powers. Now, Thor or Superman or a souped-up Iron Man are viable contenders, because they do have the right powers. That is my issue with this, because there are a large number of Gladiators already in existence that cannot be killed by certain character types. Look at Handy -- sure, he CAN be defeated (maybe?), but that is totally impossible for many chars. And, quite frankly, that's why we like him. Or how about my Dr. MacBeth -- you can kill him any number of ways, but his Reflection ability acts like a "spare body" system and makes timing, speed, and technique critical if you were to ACTUALLY kill him. Thus, for a pure human on all counts except one he is (in just powers alone) surprisingly difficult to "defeat." The fact of the matter is that there is no character that cannot be defeated. If that char can be CREATED by one writer, then they can be DEFEATED by another -- it would just take some literary agility to do so. I mean, hell, a good enough writer could figure out some way to kill a character that is essentially God even, with enough creativity. So, truthfully, I see this "can be defeated" rule as totally useless because of the subjectivity involved.
See, Hew is right about how this community tends to handle issues. I've OK'd Doom's Alice because I see the huge flaws and just am tired of trying to fix them, and hope that if Dooms has a series of losses to people like Azzy he might recognize them for himself.
These rules, however, are not the way to do it, IMO. Because they are here by Mod decision, again, I will uphold them and respect them. But I will continue to disagree with them.