Talk:Activation and deactivation/Archive 2

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive.jpg WARNING: Talk:Activation and deactivation/Archive 2 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Talk:Activation and deactivation. Archive.jpg

The Name Game

Activation, Jumpstarting, Touch and go, Genesis, Tactile activation, Functional genesis, State control, Toggling, System activation, Kinetic distribution, Power, System manipulation, Mechanism manipulation, and Matt's ability.

These are the names people have come up with. Can't we just pick one and get on with our lives? BoomerDay

  • Aren't you impatient? There's an episode on Monday. Hopefully, it'll shed some more light on what he does.--Bob (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
    • I personally like Tactile Activation, but we'll see tonight i guess... TracyStraussFan 18:44, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Oh look! People have added more names: Empathic empowerment, Empathic toggling, System mimicry, Ignition... Really? What does he do? Turns things on and off! --BoomerDay 15:50, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

Name Suggestions

--Dedsmiley 23:20, 6 April 2009 (EDT)what about spontanious activation? it sounds reasonable to me.

    • The only problem I see with that is the Activation part. Matt's ability allows him to deactivate mechanical and biological systems as well. I still stand by my earlier name suggestion of System toggling. We've seen him toggle systems on and off or "activate and deactivate" them, so this name works with the description. Yeah, so this will probably be moved back to that article System/tactile/whatever Toggling to prevent "name spamming", only to be buried and forgotten. I'll give it about a day or so. --Bender 01:56, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Examples

With the latest episode, there are more than 8 examples, which warrants an example page for the ability. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:52, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

  • If we can add only 4 images representative of the demonstrations of the ability in the latest episode, we'd have 12, which can hold off an examples page until more demonstrations. --Radicell 10:30, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Talk with the sypops, policy says that no more than 8 ability images are allowed for selected examples. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:46, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Look at water mimicry. Generally, what we've been doing is something like this:
If there's 8 or less example images, show all of them.
If there's 9 example images, show only 8 of them and hide 1.
If there's 10 example images, show only 8 of them and hide 2.
If there's 11 example images, show only 8 of them and hide 3.
If there's 12 example images, show all of them.
If there's 13 example images, create an examples page.

I'll begin uploading powers images from the latest episode soon, it'll be sorted out. --Radicell 03:51, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Ok

I know X Men and Heroes have nothing to do with each other, but Matt's ability looks a lot like the young mutant in X2 and X3 that could turn on and change the channel on the T.V by blinking. It is probably not the same power considering Matt seems to be able to turn on and off any system he interacts with. I just thought that both powers seem to be similar,and this wouldn't be the first time one of the Heroes exhibited a power similar to one used in comics. I think with Matt meeting his son, it won't be long until we have a canon name to this power:)--Sylar Fan09 15:44, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

Empathetic Empowerment

Matt's emotions change wether or not something has power.. whether it be a vehicle, person, or persons ability. This is an exact definition of his power with only ONE flaw: Does his power allow him to shut a human off, as far as life is concerned? - Cendagg

  • BTE kinda shot this down. Adding a new name is likely not to get a consensus since so many others didn't. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:23, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
    • BTE only said that this will never be shown. But what does it mean: Matt really cannot kill with his ability, or the writers won't make a killer baby? --Altes 03:15, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Matt's power effecting Ando

Ive heard theories on Matt's power giving Ando the ability to use his Supercharging as a weapon. What is everyone's take on this? - Cendagg

  • Ando does that on his own already. Sign your comments with ~~~~ or with the signature button, second from right to left when you make an edit. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:22, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

Empathic Toggling

I think his ability is described best by empathic toggling, though at this point I doubt there will be a name change. his ability concerns emotions (when he is happy he makes systems go, when he is sad he makes them stop.)so there for empathic and toggling describes the way he makes things start and stop. anyone? --Tsmarg 13, april 2009

  • This is not completely correct, since he was seen turning off a television in his first appearance, despite being perfectly happy at the time. It's probably not directly connected to his emotions, but rather is influenced by them somewhat, because of his age.--Laudo 11:39, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
    • I don't remember him turning it OFF, but only ON.--Ikkian 00:39, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Ok Guys How about System Mimicry?

  • I think it sounds right, What do you guys think about it?--Skyeatsout 23:18, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Mimicry is when somone used somones elses ability? So that names doens't fit WaterRatj 23:27, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
  • i thought it meant some thing else lol--Skyeatsout 23:30, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
    • now you know it isn't :pWaterRatj 23:41, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
  • System Control Hows that?--Skyeatsout 23:33, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
  • My suggestion: "Ignition," possibly with a more descriptive adjective in front of it, but that depends on what some of these discussions conclude! --Dfcrux 19:20, 18 April 2009(EDT)
        • In what way does he mimic systems? he can obviously control them in some way but mimic is to say Matt Parkman Jr. somehow copies them. anyway at this point new names are not going to help the consensus. --Tsmarg 19, April 11:12 am (EDT)

New Consensus Check using New Concensus Process

Please sign and give a reason to the name you are opposed to. If no conscenus is reached then this will remain Matt's ability. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/22/2009 13:12 (EST)

  • Since a lot of names have been put forward and many opposed I will strike out the names that will not be used (not including Matt's ability as this is default) so to direct peoples attention to the new names and spark up some discussion. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 07:45, 25 April 2009 (EDT)


Matt's ability

  • Opposed, we have enough details about the ability, to give it a proper descriptive name. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/22/2009 13:12 (EST)
    • Good idea to hold a new consensus check here, since we now have the new info. that Matt Jr. can turn things both on or off (we didn't know that when we started the discussion for this ability).--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, too basic Barbedknives 15:26, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, I agree. We have enough information to give this ability a proper name. --Bender 20:07, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
    • I agree with MiamiVolts, this new consensus check is great idea. It looks like it can actually get things done. --Bender 20:07, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • This is a reminder that one should not be opposing a valid name. "Matt's ability", though not the best choice, is still valid. It worries me that we're opposing valid names. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
    • I agree with you. This name shouldn't be listed as one of the possibilities as it can't be opposed. I think we're just going to have to strike these comments when we decide the consensus check is over.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Yes but I thought in the naming list this comes at the bottom and that commonly used naems comes above, making touch and go better than this? --345tom 08:32, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
        • We generally hold consensus checks for descriptive names (and occasionally for other names on the hierarchy). The reason the possessor's name is at the bottom is because it's pretty much a last resort for an ability name. However, "Matt's ability" is not wrong--it is neither too broad nor too narrow. By definition, this name cannot be wrong, and thus shouldn't be opposed. In fact, it shouldn't even be in the mix here. The possessor's name should only be used if we can't come to consensus on another name. The possessor's name might not be the best name, but it's certainly not wrong, and definitely shouldn't be opposed. It worries me that if we're opposing legitimate names like this one that we're also opposing other legitimate names. Opposition should be based solely on a name's validity, not whether another name is better, or what our personal preferences are...I'll work on Help:Consensus checks later on, probably after the finale. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, for reasons stated by others. --Laudo 00:04, 23 April 2009 (EDT)


Activation

  • Opposed, Matt doesn't just activate things... he can turn them off too.--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
    • That could arguably be implied by the term (and its opposite, "deactivation"), and could be acknowledged on the page itself. In addition, Maya's power, which exudes some form of poison, was intended to do the opposite at the end of Exodus. Perhaps reversal is an extension of some powers? --Ricard Desi (t,c) 21:09, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Hmm? Deactivation isn't implied by activation... What Maya's power was intended to do doesn't count as canon in Heroes, so that's a bad example.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, same Barbedknives 15:26, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, same as above. --Bender 20:07, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, ditto --Crazyaspie 00:43, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Agreed! If you're gonna want to imply deactivation on the name you might as well rename "Enhanced Strength" to "Enhanced Strength when wanted with different amounts of power". Yes because "Puppet master" is such a great name for an ABILITY (which is not a PERSON). -- Meteoritu =D- 27 April, 2009 22:06
  • Opposed - he deactivates things too. - Josh (talk/contribs) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (EDT)


Jump starting

  • Opposed, Matt turned the TV off. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 14:20, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, ability serves dual functions Barbedknives 15:26, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, his ability allows him to do more than just jump start systems --Bender 20:07, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, this name serves the same purpose as the more scientific activation, while carrying the same flaws. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 21:09, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, same as above. --Crazyaspie 00:43, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, he turns things off too. - Josh (talk/contribs) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (EDT)


"Touch and Go"

  • Opposed, while acccurate and sort of canon, there are better names that are also correct. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 14:20, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Other names being better will not be counted as a valid reason for opposing this name.--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, better names than this one, though I do like this one. --Bender 20:07, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed. It's a nickname for the power. We don't call the Haitian's power "making you forget", despite it being referred to that way several times on the show. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 21:09, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, Hiro acknowledges that he also makes things stop. --Crazyaspie 00:43, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed - He stops things too, and no, it's not a canon name for the power. - Josh (talk/contribs) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (EDT)


System toggling

  • Opposed. "Toggling" refers to a physical piece of machinery, which in and of itself does not necessarily involve a system turning on or off. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 21:09, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Power toggling? - Josh (talk/contribs) 00:58, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Incorrect. Toggling means to switch something from one state to another state, generally on or off. It has nothing to do specifically with machinery.--Riddler 03:51, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
        • Riddler's right, "Toggling" doesn't specifically refer to a piece of machinery. --Bender 15:38, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, same as above. --Crazyaspie 00:43, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

I like this name. This is what I call the ability.--ERROR 21:42, 5 June 2009 (EDT)


System mimicry

  • Opposed, Matt doesn't become like the system. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 14:20, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, agreed Barbedknives 15:26, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, agreed, he never mimics the system, but rather turns it on and off. --Bender 20:07, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, for reasons above. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 21:09, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed, agreed --Crazyaspie 00:43, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed - Why was this even carried over to the new consensus check after the person that suggested it realized it doesn't mean this? - Josh (talk/contribs) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

System mimicry? That's like calling Gordon's ability sand mimicry, or shockwave emission telepathy.--ERROR 21:42, 5 June 2009 (EDT)


State inversion

  • Opposed, could mean the states of matter. --345tom 08:36, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Huh. What does it mean to invert a state of matter??? That matter inversion (whatever you mean by that) is a possible implication doesn't make it a bad name.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed - Too vague. - Josh (talk/contribs) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (EDT)


Technopathy

  • Opposed - His ability also affects biological mechanisms. Technopathy is solely technological. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 00:13, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposedm same as EM. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 13:52, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
  • He's not talking to the machines (heck, he can't talk at all), and Technopathy was shown in I Am Sylar to be useless in power outages; Matt turned on the unplugged TV, so this is different. Advic 13:18, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed - Technopathy is the name of a different ability. - Josh (talk/contribs) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (EDT)


Empathic activation

  • Opposed - The only reason his ability had the affects when he was angry or happy was because he's an infant and he wasn't in control of his ability. --Scorvi12 07:15, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed - same as above. - Josh (talk/contribs) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

Ditto. Also because he can deactivate, too.--ERROR 21:42, 5 June 2009 (EDT)


Circumstance inversion


Circumstance manipulation


Situation inversion


Situation manipulation


System activation

  • Opposed - same reason as activation. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 06:58, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed - He deactivates systems. This is getting old. - Josh (talk/contribs) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (EDT)


Power toggling

  • Opposed - power seems to indicate it only works on abilities. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 06:58, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
    • It's "power" like a power button. - Josh (talk/contribs) 20:45, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

...Or like an ability. I like. This and "system toggling" has my vote.--ERROR 21:42, 5 June 2009 (EDT)


Toggling

  • Opposed, vague --345tom 15:43, 27 April 2009 (EDT)


System inversion

  • Opposed vague and could refer to inverting to original for. So yeah, VAGUE --345tom 15:43, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
  • He doesn't invert systems. He inverts whether they are on or off. - Josh (talk/contribs) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (EDT)


Ignition

  • This name doesn't cover all aspects of Matt's ability. He can turn things on, but he can also turn them off. I'm opposed to this name. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Agreed. --Crazylicious 20:49, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Opposed - implies that he creates fire. - Josh (talk/contribs) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (EDT)


Functional intervention (see below)

  • Opposed - Based on speculation. - Josh (talk/contribs) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (EDT)


Activation and deactivation


Logical state inversion

  • Opposed, it doesn't exactly sound like the same ability. --Crazyaspie 20:01, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
    • I striked your comment. What it sounds like doesn't matter. It's what it means that matters.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2009 (EDT)


Binary state inversion

  • Opposed, when I think of binary I think "mathematics" and that doesn't seem to explain what Matt's doing. --Crazyaspie 20:01, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
    • It is a mathematical description of what Matt Jr. does. That doesn't make it wrong.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
      • But that doesn't mean his reason for opposing is wrong. You can't strike out someones response because you think they're wrong. This is why I think this system is flawed. Everyone thinks they're right over someone else. It's not about discussion anymore, it's about I'm right, you're wrong. Unstriking this opposition.--Riddler 02:06, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
  • How do we know its only two states he cna change it into? Binary means composed of two parts or two pieces. --345tom 12:33, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

State inversion

Added 'state inversion'... a power or electrical device is normally either in the state of being "on" or "off"; 'state' means 'the condition or circumstances of a person or thing'. Inverting that state means to switch it from being on to off, or from off to on.--MiamiVolts (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Added 'logical state inversion' and 'binary state inversion' since 'state inversion' by itself was accused of being too vague, possibly meaning a state of matter.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

"Functional Intervention"

Notes to consider:

  • function, as defined: "the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists." [dictionary.com]
    • Matt Jr. changes the ability of an object or person to function according to its design.
  • intervention ("intervene"), as defined: "To involve oneself in a situation so as to alter, or hinder, an action or development." [dictionary.com]
    • Matt Jr.'s actions can best be defined as intervention because he can enable, disable, and manipulate/control the object/person's functional ability.
  • Not simply a matter of "on" or "off"
    • Matt Jr. was able to fly the toy plane and drive the toy cars in circles; this is much more influence on the objects than simply activating them-- he can manipulate/control them, but only within the bounds of their designed function. Matt Jr.'s infancy may simply mask the full spectrum of his ability since he is not in full control of it.

--Dfcrux 20:54, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk 15:47, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

    • DING DING DING we may have a winner! --345tom 16:08, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Are we sure he was manipulating them and he wasn't just turning them on?--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
        • To turn them on is a form of manipulation. --OutbackZack 17:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
          • If that were true, we would be able to group him with Micah as having technopathy. I don't think it's the same ability.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
            • He manipulates both electronics and people. Micha "talks" to electronics. --OutbackZack 17:38, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
              • Is that so? Couldn't it be said that Micah turned on his cousin's ability? Didn't he tell Sylar he could fix him? Both are as speculative as what you are trying to say about Matt's ability. I think you are reaching, and that we have normally accepted that control/manipulation means much more than to just turn on/off. The Haitian's ability of mental manipulation is a good example, cause he alters things in the mind... he doesn't just turn it on/off.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
                • Why are we talking about manipulation? When the ability topic is called Functional Intervention?--posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 18:58, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

                  • Because Dfcrux said that Baby Matt could manipulate things within the bounds of their function, meaning Baby Matt would likely have turned the Ando's and Hiro's rental car around and forced it to go towards his mommy rather than just stopping it. Of course, that didn't happen cause that's not part of Baby Matt's ability.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
  • All very good points--but please remember that while Matt Jr.'s ability is primarily turning something on/off, he could also control where the toy plane flew, and where the toy cars drove. That surely shows some kind of influence other than on or off. I've omitted the word "manipulate" from my previous explaination to avoid confusion; the relevance of the meaning of "functional intervention" still stands, though. --Dfcrux 23:15, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
    • As I was pointing out, I think it's speculative to say that he controlled where the plane flew or how they moved. It could have been programmed to move like they did.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
      • touche... but along those lines, "it could have been programmed" is just as speculative, and falsely omits the possibility that Matt Jr. did influence where the toys went. The rule for speculation needs to apply in both directions. And unfortunately, that may mean leaving the name alone until the character/ability are more developed next season... :/ --Dfcrux 23:50, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
        • I know this is Heroes, a show with superpowers, but I think it should be common practice to always go with natural causation rather than allow for so many possibilities. If next season, the toilet in Janus's home suddenly stops working and the plumber can't find the problem, are we going to assume Matt Jr.'s the cause? Or would it be more likely that there's a broken pipe the plumber can't find?--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Can we get a checkuser to make sure no sock puppetry is going on? Oh and as a side note, I don't think this new consensus system is any more effective than the last one. In fact, I'd say it's probably worse. Very good names can be shot down with a single 'No' with little to no discussion, and any discussion just makes it look like the name has more opposition. -Barbedknives (talk)Barbedknives 23:19, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
    • If you think someone is abusing multiple accounts, you can inform Admin at admin -at- heroeswiki dot com. I don't think either consensus system is perfect; but I think we are having more discussion on the names now than before, which is good. Also, just saying you oppose an ability's name isn't enough. You have to give a valid reason that it can't be used. In this case, saying that Matt Jr. controlled where the toys went is speculative.--23:34, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Not sure what you mean by "checkuser," but if there is anything I need to do let me know. --Dfcrux 00:02, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

WHY ALL THE FUSS?!

JUST PICK A NAME, nothing we find is ever going to be 100% perfect, and appearently finding the next best thing is taking ages. Why the hell is the "Description" level up here on this page if no one ever uses it?! If we're going to wait for a canon source or semi-canon source to shut our mouths, we're going to end up with a crappy name like Eric's ability got "Puppet master"... basically if u have a nice name, rename this, if u don't, just leave it alone!! (btw I vote for "Activation"... it's simple, and don't throw the "he deactivates things too" fact, or else ur gonna call enhanced strength "enhanced starting fisting power and stopping fisting power"...) Meteoritu =D-

  • Knox's power is to enhance his strength. This makes his fist more powerful. His ability does not start or stop fisting. - Josh (talk/contribs) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Let's just call Matt's ability "Fisting" --Action Figure 22:29, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

Honestly, I was on your side there, until I read what was in the parentheses. Reading that made me go "Moron," honestly (Though to be fair, I didn't go "Moron" until the "enhanced strength" part... The "activation" thing just made me go "Huh?"). Why do you think that if we bring up the fact that he deactivates things, too (Which is actually a valid argument against calling this ability "activation," believe it or not), then we're going to call enhanced strength "enhanced starting fisting power and stopping fisting power?" Just imagine... "Enhanced starting fisting power and stopping fisting power is the ability to exert greater-than-normal physical force"... Or something like that. See what I mean? We're not idiots (And I hope you're not one, either.).

Back on topic... You actually have a point, though, as I already spent a paragraph saying, you don't when it comes to what's in the parentheses (Although your point is no longer valid, as this ability already has a name - "activation and deactivation." Happy with that?). Also, what IS "fisting?" And why would we call this ability "fisting?"--ERROR 20:48, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

What else could this power do?

I wonder if he touched someone's chest he could make their heart stop working... O_o --Master Dave 11:03, 30 April 2009 (EDT) If Matt Jr touch Hiro again, would he deactivate time stop and activate another one of his powers? [User:50000JH]

Activation and deactivation

I see my suggestion has gone unopposed for a week. How long do we have to wait? - Josh (talk/contribs) 17:28, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

  • There are still two other unopposed names as well as yours. Be patient. We all want to see the name changed. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 01:49, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Vote on unopposed names

This is a vote people, there are three unopposed names, that have been there for a week now without opposition. The name with the most votes will become the new name. So please add your name under the name you prefer. --posted by Laughingdevilboy Talk 01:58, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Activation and deactivation

  1. Simple, straight to the point, no speculation, not complex. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 02:04, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
  2. My favourite --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 02:06, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

  1. Same as EM said. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 12:06, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
  2. Best One-User:monroej
  3. The other two are obscure. This one's reasonable. Advic 01:57, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
  4. If we can't have 'Touch and Go' this is the next best thing. The others are way too wordy. --Nax 05:31, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
  5. The best name basically, straight forward, makes bliss and horror stand out less. --Tommo 17:07, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
  6. My vote goes here. basic and straight forward. --Tsmarg
  7. Easy to understand. and I don't need a dictionary to know what it means. --OneOfThem 23:27, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Logical state inversion


Binary state inversion

  1. I like this name better --IronyUTC CH 12:12, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Toddler touch and go --Cj31094 13:17, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

Flawed Consensus System.

I'm going to write this here, because this page has the best example of it. This new consensus is, with all due respect and no offense intended, flawed. First and foremost, as you can see above, it's more cluttered and disorganized. But personally, the problem I see is that just anybody thinks they can cross out a name because it has one or two oppositions. Matt's ability has four oppositions, but all of the conversation around it makes it look like it has a dozen. System toggling has two oppositions, one of which had a valid counter-point. State inversion has two oppositions. It goes on like that. In fact, alot of them are crossed out by one opposition by the same person. The way I see it is that people will take advantage of this system by using it in such a way where if they think it's wrong, it IS wrong. And now, in the "new consensus check", we have four names that went unopposed because people gave up on finding a name, not because they were good ideas, similar to Alejandro's ability. Beyond that, it's turned into a "vote on unopposed names." There is no "consensus" in a vote, which is why we switched systems; in reality we're just delaying the inevitable. We need to find a new system or just go back to the original system.--Riddler 13:41, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

  • If there's a valid counterpoint, you can uncross-out the name when you express it, which I've done on a number of occasions. You can't oppose a name just cause you don't like it, it has to be a valid reason. I think the new consensus check worked well here. Activation and deactivation may not be the best name, but it is an acceptable one that encompasses what Matt's ability can do. As far as organization is concerned, I find this method a bit more organized than the method we used previously. When there are a number of valid names that can be used, there doesn't need to be consensus on which is the best one. There just needs to be consensus on which ones are valid.--MiamiVolts (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Well, opposed names don't get used, so it sounds like they can and should be crossed out. It doesn't matter if there are 4 or a dozen oppositions to a name; what matters is whether there 0 or 1+ valid oppositions. What's wrong with state inversion having two oppositions? What's wrong with the same person opposing several names? This system does not allow people to declare a name wrong without explaining why it's wrong. As MiamiVolts said, if an opposition is invalid (which would be the case if someone wrote something such as "Opposed - I think it's wrong."), it gets crossed out, and the name gets uncrossed if there are no valid oppositions. If someone finds a better name than the one that was chosen, a new consensus check can be started. There's no need to find a name that everyone thinks is best before we switch from Matt's ability. I really don't think there's anything wrong with voting to decide how we accomplish something there is a consensus for. (There's a consensus that we should use a name that's better than "Matt's ability", but we need to decide which one to use.) - Josh (talk/contribs) 14:46, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
    • If one person thinks it's wrong and crosses it out, it becomes a "I think this wrong, so it is wrong." situation, because if it IS crossed out, people scroll right past it thinking it's a done deal. With the amount of people on this site, I hardly find two oppositions enough to say that it's an option to be thrown away. As for "Matt's ability" having four, my point was that it looks like it's highly opposed due to the discussion, when it's really not. The three choices above were not chosen because there was a consensus that they were the top choices, but because people gave up on this name around April 27th, if you'll note the signatures in each category. And the reason people are actually voting on names above is because they think it's a legitimate consensus, but I can see through it. If I were to put a random name up for consensus 2 weeks ago, it wouldn't have any oppositions either, because no one cared enough to check in on it. Like I said, this is just like Alejandro's ability. We gave up on that. If we are to use this system, we need to do away with crossing names out. No one should be allowed to take something like that into their own hands.--Riddler 15:44, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
    • On the vote thing Riddler, Ryan has said (see here) that if two or more names go unopposed, there will be a traditional vote, as the community has decided they are both acceptable names. We're not voting because we think it's a legitimate concensus, once you get to the voting stage the concensus is over. We vote on the name we think best suits the page. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 01:35, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
      • And again, the names that were "unopposed" weren't unopposed because they were the best options, but because they were added after everyone put down their oppositions. People gave up and stopped coming to the page. I could have written in "Powerkinesis" or something silly like that at the same time people wrote the above options, and it would be in the poll right now as well.--Riddler 02:02, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
      • I take full responsibility. When the consensus check first started people were continusously opposing names that would not be used. I therefore started governing the consensus checks and crossing out names that would not be used, I therefore realise I should have waited for at least 2 oppositions before striking, but as I was the only one doing it (with Ryan's agreement) I simply crossed out the names which had one opposed signature, however I noticed Miami was going around and checking peoples arguments so I didn't see this as a problem, what needs to be remembered is this is a new system, not everyone will like it, not everyone liked the old one. It is flawed however as you pointed this out I am sure it will be taken into account and possible will not be allowed in the future, by me or anyone. But it should be remembered that it wont matter what system we have in place it will be flawed. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 16:29, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

Ability supercharging

How is it similar to Matt's ability? --Altes 06:21, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

They both affect abilities. He can activate abilities, whereas he can amplify abilities. See the similarity?--ERROR 21:12, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

  • And Arthur could steal abilities, yet his power is hardly related to Matt's. Still, I understand what you mean. -- Altes 05:44, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Not to be rude, but your point is?--ERROR 21:42, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Main Page

On the main page, it still lists this ability as "Matt's ability." This should be changed to "activation and deactivation," or whatever the ability name is when this post is noticed. I'd do it myself, but I don't think I'm allowed to (And I think that because I tried it, but it didn't work... Yell at me if you want, but don't insult me.).--ERROR 21:18, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

Oh... Thanks!--ERROR 21:44, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

By touch

On the list of abilities, it lists Matt's ability as 'The ability to activate and deactivate various objects by touch'. We've seen that he doesn't necessarily have to be in physical contact with the object, so shouldn't this be changed? --Laudo 15:04, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

  • Dealt with. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:51, 3 July 2009 (EDT)
    • I am probably being really dumb by saying this but...... When have we seen him use this without touch? -- Leckie -- Talk16:17, 16 July 2009 (EDT)
      • When Matt sr. first met him, there were toy cars going in circles...i think that was it.--Catalyst · Talk · HL 16:24, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

trip switch to be an = name for activation deactivation

I know that power absorption is a cannon name so the name is set but Deactivation--Mimicry could be a name that the writers could use, because he deactivating the abilities first then he could be mimicring them and Matt Jr is like the trip switch. --50000JH 17:46, 4 October 2009