Interestingly enough, if I put human weaknesses, it wouldn't necessarily be untrue, but it wouldn't be entirely true either, seeing as neither of my characters are "human" but are quite close to human in their physical characteristics and nature, Crevan in particular. In fact, he obviously has human weaknesses, as his body is just an upgraded version of a human body, and genetically speaking, it would even be possible for him to mate with humans, go to a doctor without much issue, etc. So if I put "he has the same weaknesses as a human despite not being a human," that wouldn't really be insulting the reader, so much as informing them that the tactics to be used against actual humans would be effective on him as well.

Don't mean shit against Arma though, because she's only close to human in appearance.

I stand by human weaknesses as fine, mainly as entertainment value. There was a time where practically no one was outright human so it used to be worth mentioning, and addition to the chuckle seeing it gives, poking fun at it is nice too. It might be Comic Sans to you, but I don't have that much of an issue with it.

Quote from Crank

a really stupid idea

I'm in.

Edit:
Wait, is this still on? It only just showed up in my feed for some reason. I guess I should join in on the conversation so that this post isn't rendered completely irrelevant if that's not the case. ]

Anyhow- 'human weaknesses':
This is something that seems to send Waffles here completely out of his mind. So of course I put it in my profile. But when it actually comes down to the question of whether or not it's necessary, to be honest, it's a little redundant.
Only a little redundant, but still redundant. That said, I'd argue that it's necessary to at least mention what can and cannot hurt your gladiator at some point in your piece- though really, the best way to do this is by specifying species along with name, gender, and age. If your gladiator is listed as human, then normal human weaknesses would apply unless you've chosen to discount certain weaknesses under the abilities/strengths section.
So is it redundant? Kind of, yeah.
But that begs the question of what to do when someone's being redundant. When someone's being redundant, such as myself, it's going to annoy people like waffles here. In my case, that's intentional- but what if I were a new writer, scrambling to put together a wRHG, and out of nervousness, I make some silly mistake that wastes a good 2 seconds of your time? Both 'offenses' listed here are trivial at best- but one was done purposefully while the other was not. My question for you is how to handle this situation. Would you hand out infractions to both myself and new writer me? If so, consider the consequences of doing so- good and bad. Waffles would have a much easier time, you'd get to throw a few trolls under the bridge, but you'd be throwing prospective writers under there with them. If you would choose only to infract only one of the two me's, how would you distinguish between people who are being purposefully redundant as opposed to unknowingly or even unconsciously so? If you would choose to do nothing, what about Waffles here? Whatever the reason for this redundancy, is it not slowly wearing away at his time and patience seconds at a time? Is it not slowly wearing away at the time and patience of everyone involved- including the writers themselves? It's a trivial matter, at least from my perspective. But the question is how would you handle it?

"Human" Weakness:
I really think when you write the rules, an example character should be made and you point out as a guide on how to make a good wRHG page. I find myself now repeating the whole thing about characters needing more detail in their powers or needing to condense or how to write good weaknesses in for your character. I say we don't need to infract people for bad wRHGs, but more that we need to finish critiquing common problems of wRHGs before they ever happen.

Wait, have people been getting infracted for bad wRHGs? Because I haven't seen any of that, only that nobody will even attempt a challenge until they're "within set standards."

I'm a little late to the party, but I'll throw in that I don't really care about "being human" as a limitation, especially if there are powers that suggest that someone might not be as stabbable as a human. "Being human", of course, is extremely vague, seeing as humans have a wide range of everything. "Being human" shouldn't be the forefront of your limitations, because on its own it's about as informative as "he has a head on top of a body that had two legs", but it's fine to throw in after you're through with the actually important information. It's not good, but it's inoffensive imo.

I had a few more of my terrible event ideas, so I'm throwing them out here in case anyone's interested:

Bruce Lee was human.
He could kick an 80-pound heavy bag through his ceiling.
So what is "human" when you have a real life man who out does Captain America? :P

I think that stating humanism is a strange thing, but it works in some contexts. Kodi, for example is good with a bow and some close-quarters fighting. She's still just a squishy regular human, though. She can't be punted through a wall and get right back up like some non-human things could.

But the thing I don't get about it is, if I'm not human does that mean I have to specify that for my character as an ability? Really, the "human" weakness should not be listed as human, and I'm glad Jesse brought this up, but "human" is a wide range. Bruce Lee could probably kick most of our character's asses, twice. He kicked a man and that man had to learn how to fly. He doesn't have the being "human" weakness as we perceive it. But then, what is human? The average athlete who exercise could still hold their own in a fight and humans become tougher as they are put under abuse. So, an athlete can take hits that would break a normal human's bone. So, does that mean John Cena is not "human"?
And let's be honest, our characters have to work out if they're putting their lives on the line for this RHG thing. With the exception of a few individuals (like Cavaliere's Mancer) who are more wizard-like, then we probably have muscle. So then you get to those individuals who don't have to work-out. Do we put "human" then? No, we should probably just stick to "He doesn't exercise, and is therefore physically weak in comparison to other RHG's." (Just like Cavaliere did it)
So, "human" really shouldn't exist as a concept where we are putting our lives on the line as our job (and that in of itself should say our characters are cocky or just lack fear). Especially so considering our individuals should be adapting to their environment, and thus working to be more than human.

Pardon the interruption, but if this is not yet known to others, my tournament is still taking writers, likely until the next week or so.

http://forums.stickpage.com/showthread.php?89906-WRHG-Tournament-An-ill-concieved-notion

an interruption is being made for a small announcement by me. I am not yet dead but it may be a while until I get back to writing

Out of curiosity, would anyone be interested if a battle log got set up?

Nothing overly elaborate, just a short little paragraph summarizing the events of the battle and the outcome, and maybe a little color code depicting what true cannon would be, or like, a different color when characters that have been killed off are involved in events.

Just something I thought of, and it felt worth mentioning.

Where exactly would it be? In gladiator profiles, in the voting polls or a new thread by itself?

If there was a summary for everything, nobody will read the actual stories