13 replies to this topic

[Ivan]

http://www.electricf...showtopic=25722

I'm not upset, it's just... when did this become what the CBUB is about? Historical figures? Extant human civilizations?

I very strongly remember one of the only mandates Serge ever gave, which was that characters need to be fictional. I mean, I could dig a Reign the Conqueror vs Brath match, or the Lost Valley Tribe (Turok) vs those scary dudes from Eaters of the Dead. Sure, that works. But a rehash of Deadliest Warrior? When did that become acceptable? I'm not angry, I just want to know what was the reason behind changing one of the only rules this site has ever held? (I'd be less critical if there weren't literally dozens of other options for fictional characters/groups which could be used instead.)

[Djgambrell]

I assume when character moderators accepted those characters. May not be accepted per say but its being done nonetheless.

[Ivan]

Saying "it's being done nonetheless" is equivalent to seeing your house on fire, shrugging, and updating your twitter status. Grab a hose, man!

Heh.

Seriously though, I'm looking for an answer from a mod. WHO LET THIS HAPPEN!? OH NOES!

[DSkillz]

*Is still awaiting promised CBUB debut from a certain challenge*

Seriously though, I'm looking for an answer from a mod. WHO LET THIS HAPPEN!? OH NOES!

Heh, I guess that's me.

Well, I think most of those adds were done by admins, before the current group of CBUB Character Admins were even recruited. I also think the rule was that characters/groups mainly had to be of pop cultural signicance to be accepted, unless they were based on religion, hate, or pro-wrestling.

Though that didn't necessarily stop him from being accepted...

EDIT: Huh, that last "him" didn't originally embed for some reason. Fixed.

[The Seeker of Stuff]

I don't accept any Historical figures or non real characters. I am pretty strict about that stuff.

[Square Pickle]

If people write good setups, and thats what theyre into, I dont see the harm. If you dont like historical figures or non-fictional characters then dont read the match. The guy writing the setup didnt accept the character into the database, so as long as its an entertaining story, I say let them write it. I personally love the "History vs classic monsters" setups that have been show. It keeps thing fresh from the "WWH vs Superman" argument we've had to see everyday for the past 6 years.

[Ivan]

If people write good setups, and thats what theyre into, I dont see the harm. If you dont like historical figures or non-fictional characters then dont read the match. The guy writing the setup didnt accept the character into the database, so as long as its an entertaining story, I say let them write it. I personally love the "History vs classic monsters" setups that have been show. It keeps thing fresh from the "WWH vs Superman" argument we've had to see everyday for the past 6 years.

I agree with the crux of this, but I was wondering when the rules changed. I haven't personally read any of them, but I do think "History vs Classic Monsters" might make some interesting setups. I do think there's some truth to the idea, though, that generally historical figures and forces are not well equipped to take on most of the characters in modern fiction. A single Dalek, Decepticon, or Dreadnought could dominate any pre-WWII human civilzation with relative ease. However, equivalent fictional worlds with their heroes, monsters, and artifacts could provide interesting matches.

[Square Pickle]

I agree with the crux of this, but I was wondering when the rules changed. I haven't personally read any of them, but I do think "History vs Classic Monsters" might make some interesting setups. I do think there's some truth to the idea, though, that generally historical figures and forces are not well equipped to take on most of the characters in modern fiction. A single Dalek, Decepticon, or Dreadnought could dominate any pre-WWII human civilzation with relative ease. However, equivalent fictional worlds with their heroes, monsters, and artifacts could provide interesting matches.

Ah, I see what your sayin now. Ive always seen CBUB as having a weight-class of sorts. Historical figures and weaker fictional characters (Mr.T, Alfred, and Dog Chapman for example) are the lightweights and shoul not venture anywhere near a match with heavyweights like Galactus. As long as Billy the Kid has a classic match against Frankenstein's Monster, historical figues could still play an intresting roll. Im not sure when the rules changed. The Non-fictional characters have been here quite a while though. The fact that most people dont use them, usually makes the (well-writen) matches involving them an interesting treat. Im glad they are now allowed to get into the mix.

[Marvel Man]

I was always under the impression that Historical Characters were acceptable as long as they had some pop culture significance. For example, while no one is interested in making a match with William Henry Harrison (9th President of USA, if I remember correctly) I'm sure there's a creative soul out there who may be interested in having The Red Baron or Alexander the Great in a CBUB Match.

Having said that, I would quickly switch my acceptance criteria if ordered so.

[Mercenaryblade]

It was my understanding if historical figures are significant they can be added, Attila the Hun, sure everyone knows him, there have been movie depictions of him, a match with him vs. a fictional warrior would be interesting, or a deadliest warrior style match with another historical figure since the two warriors would likely never meet the match automatically becomes fiction.

Now I can see some historical figures not being accepted H!tler for example for obvious reaons.

[Mr. Graves]

I'm still not entirely convinced of the necessity of "generic groups of an unspecified number of types of warriors" characters. It's one thing to have a match where The Godfather has a number of mobsters to back him up, it's another when you have to explicitly specify how many people are showing up for any given match because there's no indication of such from the character itself. I get that there are some Deadliest Warrior fans around here, and that some people don't care about story and just want to pit X against Y for the sheer value of seeing who gets voted for, but once you start venturing into the realm of comparing entities that don't even have a unique form it feels like we're getting beyond the scope of the site.

Here's a challenge for you: Create a matchup between two groups of generic characters and have it still be an interesting story to read ~without personalizing or individualizing them in any way whatsoever~. That is to say, you have to create a writeup that somehow makes me care on an empathic/sympathetic level about the ~abstract concept~ of, say, cowboys.

[Z451]

I'm still not entirely convinced of the necessity of "generic groups of an unspecified number of types of warriors" characters. It's one thing to have a match where The Godfather has a number of mobsters to back him up, it's another when you have to explicitly specify how many people are showing up for any given match because there's no indication of such from the character itself. I get that there are some Deadliest Warrior fans around here, and that some people don't care about story and just want to pit X against Y for the sheer value of seeing who gets voted for, but once you start venturing into the realm of comparing entities that don't even have a unique form it feels like we're getting beyond the scope of the site.

Here's a challenge for you: Create a matchup between two groups of generic characters and have it still be an interesting story to read ~without personalizing or individualizing them in any way whatsoever~. That is to say, you have to create a writeup that somehow makes me care on an empathic/sympathetic level about the ~abstract concept~ of, say, cowboys.

Can you define "unique form"?

[Mr. Graves]

Hopalong Cassidy. The Lone Ranger. Pecos Bill. Woody. Okay, so the last one's only a toy, but you get the idea. When I mention those names, based on how familiar you are to them (or how much time you're willing to put into research), you are able to fill in the details on what they look like, what they're capable of, what equipment they have, what their behaviors are, etc. to varying degrees.


"A cowboy" has no such connotation. There are some identifying aspects towards how we think most cowboys act, but a specific cowboy could be anywhere from a lanky teenager riding his horse around herding cattle to a gruff, grizzled gunslinger winning duels at high noon. The range of skills and abilities beyond the basic necessities for competency at a profession is immensely varied because the range of people that can be cowboys is immensely varied. That is to say, cowboys are just people who have taken up a particular profession and, in the eyes of the public, have a few key identifying features, but not uniquely so such that someone else who isn't a cowboy could not suddenly become one by taking on or even just mimicking those features.

Ninjas, Pirates, Cowboys... anyone could be one of these things. Even selections like Native Americans or Mongols are still just people, the only qualification being that you have to be born in a certain place; not everyone can be a Native American, really, but the variance within that group of people is so wide that it almost feels kind of racist to try to lump them into one entry.

... Gunmen? Really? It's just anyone wielding a gun!

[treacherous]

An example is that a cowboy vs. a mongol could look like this:



To reiterate, both these people are real modern day Cowboys (a person that herds cattle) and mongol (Central-East Asian ethnic group). Not what you thought, is it?