From: Ed Bellis | #189
You are not getting what I'm saying. I said earlier that you need a mixture of powers and personalities to have a good MPFC entrant. When you have characters and we don't know anything about their personalities, the matches are kinda weird. This has happened multiple times in the past, with silent protagonist characters, for instance. The Host has the opposite problem: he is all personality and no powers.
Think of it this way. There are three sets an MPFC character can have when it comes to debating and arguments: only powers, only personality, and a mixture of both. The first two don't lend themselves well to arguing: to complete the picture, you need a mixture of both. When you just have powers you get "GameFAQs ____" because the arguments disregard the personality. When you just have personality (and I'm pretty sure the Host might be the only character in MPFC history that this fits the bill for) you can't base the argument off of anything. And the Host explicitly can't be "just powers" (because then he'd win every match effortlessly, as you've said), nor can he be the combo of both (because how he reacts to each situation and thus the amount of power he uses is so up in the air). So we're left with basically nothing.
And again, comparing the Host to Nemesis Kid does nothing to help, since Nemesis Kid would also be terrible in this.
(As an aside, GANON might be the only character in MPFC history to fit into neither one of the power or personality categories.)
OK, yeah, if this is your argument I'm behind you on it. I'm just frustrated by people saying I am:
A) Lying or misleading them when it comes to The Host's personality, when I have posted excerpts, the whole story, and various examples to substantiate my points if anyone felt like verifying them.
B) Saying there is no argument at all to be made in matches that involve him.
That's all.
From: Haguile | #187
I don't think you get the point.
Power Rangers example:
"I think power rangers would react in way X."
"I think power rangers would react in way Y."
"Let's each vote based on our interpretations."
"Okay."
The Host example:
"I think The Host would react in way X."
"I know The Host would react in way Y."
"I'm going to ignore that because I can. You are right, but I'll ignore it just because I can. It's not a matter of my interpretation of the facts, but I simply don't want that character to win."
"Okay."
This assumes I know how The Host would react. Until I sit down to write him I honestly don't know because such a large part of his character involves mood swings, or changes in the way he approaches mortals. >_>
But being serious, that's the thing. I'm not giving a final say on anything when I argue for the Host. The only thing I do is speculate. My speculation has the advantage of accounting for all the known facts about The Host since I remember them, but that's it. It's not ironclad unless I say 'yeah, this in fact happened and here's how it went down' and post an excerpt. If someone reads through CC and finds my interpretation inconsistent he can (and in fact should) call me out on it.
--
Current Projects: Fool's Overture, CYOA: http://tinyurl.com/4y5ysx8
Sburbopolis, Homestuck RPG: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/8-gamefaqs-contests/60206251