LogFAQs > #485679

From: Haguile | #176
[quoted text]

Let me try to put it this way:

If I ask about how The Host would react in a scenario that canonical information of him thus far does not cover, and you say your interpretation says it would make him do X...I can go ahead and say that you are wrong about your own character?

Because let's establish what you said so far:

[quoted text]

Nothing but what he did so far is valid.

This means that anything beyond what canonical text proves is not included in the context. Now, for example, not once did a three eyed monkey with a psp for a head scream at The Host. Therefore, this is not covered by The Host's canonical text and is just an interpretation.

Assuming it is just an interpretation, if I say he would turn around to look at the monkey and you say he would ignore him, then even though we know you are right we could due to the rules of the contest ignore what you are saying because it is just an interpretation, and if it were an actual fact it wouldn't matter for the purposes of the contest.

So basically, the only way to beat a character that someone has author status over is to ignore the purpose of the contest and vote for what they want to happen the most. Oh hey we are the audience, who knew? So meta.

In other words, every time you argue for him, we are free to ignore your arguments and merely say "I disagree with your interpretation" instead of " well you are the author so you gotta be right."

So an author character has only two paths to go down:

-->Author uses canon power to override everyone's arguments making the match pointless.
-->People ignore the author despite knowing he's right, making the match pointless.

So yeah, I maintain author characters are a terrible idea. If you want to maintain characters like that, the author shouldn't be allowed even discuss the match because of those potential problems.