Gordon Smith's Rulings:
Question on bloodlust (15-11-06)
I have always interpreted blood-lust to mean that characters are prepared to kill to win in a Khazan-arena match, even those characters who would not actually do so in canon. I interpret the CIS" limitation to refer primarily to intellectual limitations which would inhibit a character from making creative or intelligent use of his known powers or skillsets. As always, thread-starters are free to specify that blood-lust is inoperative in a given match.
darth vader v,s the green goblin (15-11-2006)
A ruling on the Darth Vader telekinesis issue is going to be delayed for the time being, pending an opportunity to evaluate the situation more thoroughly.
When that ruling is finally handed down, for good, or for bad, I will expect all parties in these debates to adhere to it without complaint and to adhere to all the relevant rules of debate, especially those of an evidentiary nature, or they may be excused from further participation in the Star Wars-threads.
Finally, the degree of exaggeration being peddled in the thread by some is contrary to the manner in which these debates are supposed to be conducted. A dispute over Darth Vader's use of telekinesis to lift a human being is one thing-there's some room for confusion and scope for honest disagreement there, so I'll make some allowances pending the ruling. However, these claims about Vader's ability to constrain a superhumanly strong opponent, or demonstrating extarordinarily enhanced reflexes, or catching several bomblets and the like, are baseless, in my opinion and should not be seen again, or asserted again, in these debates.
In addition, unsupported (and in my candid opinion, largely unsupportable) claims regarding Green Goblin's supposed speed-blitzing, thirty to one advantage over another character in terms of reaction speed (which I think is outright nonsense), and supposed near-Class 100 brick-level durability ARE NOT GOING TO PLAY IN THIS FORUM. That had better cease to be, or the posters making those claims may find themselves absent from further SW debates.
~~Gordon
vader v,s the green goblin (14-11-2006)
For purposes of Star Wars-related debate in Rumbles and in order to clarify the official stance on this issue, we shall assume the following:
Scenarios referring to Star Wars-related elements (characters, incidents, settings and so on) on in the generic sense shall, by default, be assumed to refer to those seen in primary film canon. Scripts, novelizations of the movies, and audio-book/radio-play versions to the films may be employed as source material provided they do not contradict the movies.
The so-called canon-tree will not be employed here as such at Rumbles. Henceforth, debators will treat the Star Wars EU or Expanded Universe (books) as an entirely distinct continuity; likewise Star Wars videogames and RPGs will be regarded as standalone continuities or Alternate Universes in our discussions. Members are free to specify and discuss scenarios set in these other continuities; it's just that what happens in those settings will not be regarded as valid feats when discussing issues from primary film canon.
~~Gordon
Naruto vs. Agent Smith (11-01-06)
Having reviewed the issues in question, especially including Naruto Episode 48 Part 2, I am of the opinion that we do not have adequate evidentiary grounds to conclude that Rock Lee is literally moving at the real-world speed of sound, or generating actual sonic booms. We could reasonably infer from these sources that Rock Lee moves helluva motion-blur fast, but we cannot readily correlate this speed to a truly hard and fast concrete number (as provided in the link). Exactly how fast he could move (or did in fact move) is a matter of conjecture, not of provable fact. I therefore, for purposes of our Rumbles matches, deem these claims that Rock Lee can move or attack at the speed of sound are to be disallowed under the rule of Narrative hyberbole.
Note: Edited for clarification. The clause or that the sound ninja has an attack (or attacks) which actually correlate to same has been removed. Upon reflection, I think we could let Deviant Juvenile's point stand without doing undue violence to the ruling as a whole.
~~Gordon
Quicksilver vs. Hulk (10-22-06)
For the purposes of our discussions here, Superman (current, post-Crisis version) shall be regarded as a character capable of blitzing at near-lightspeed.
~~Gordon
Avatar State Aang vs. The Hulk (10-21-06)
In my opinion, in the Quicksilver/Hulk incident, Banner being able to backhand the mutant may be reasonably attributed to the demands of the plot (in other words, PIS) rather than a creditable representation of Pietro's typical performance and seems also to demand a level of ability from the Hulk that he does not normally exhibit against other non-speedster opponents such as Spider-Man or Wolverine, both of whom routinely dodge his punches and slaps. Hence, I am ruling that The Hulk striking Quicksilver in this instance is covered by the Spiderman vs. Firelord exemption.
~~Gordon
Lady Shiva vs. Xena (09-27-2006)
I am not yet ready to accord Shiva the official status of a bullet-timer for debate purposes here. I'll grant that the scene certainly shows Lady Shiva at her best and could be read to imply she is fully Cassandra's equal in this regard, but I am not persuaded that this particular sequence provides conclusive evidentiary grounds for such a judgement. I wanna see Shiva do the actual dance with a bullet before I'm ready to make the call in her favour.
Secondly, I'm not too darned happy about some of the infighting I have seen here in these Xena-threads. Chill out already before we have to start giving people the bum's rush outta here for a few days.
Thirdly, I hope to hell I never see the phrase arrow timer (or related variant ) in my lifetime again.
~~Gordon
The Testaments invade Xenogears (09-07-2006)
Point A: I personally do not like the term fanboy (or related derivatives). It generally isn't used in a complimentary fashion around here. I would prefer not to see it used in debates, but I don't regard it as the equivalent of an actual obscenity or other pejorative and using it won't ordinarily get anyone in trouble, (although tossing it out AFTER getting a specific moderator instruction to post in a more civil fashion or coupling it with some other insult is another matter). I will ask the posters to refrain from using it, as it serves no useful purpose.
Point B: Calling another poster a moron, or a retard is way over the line and will not be tolerated. It's grounds for banning. Don't do it, period, or else.
~~Gordon
| 