Proof Levels

[numbuheightbitstar]

I've seen a lot of couple pages with a lot of "proof" listed, and frankly, no offense, but a lot of those proofs aren't very good (to be completely fair, my own Kuki/Nigel page has a lot of weak proofs as well). So in order to help people find stronger proofs (and because I've got too much free time on my hands ^__^) I developed a concept of "Proof Levels."

See what you think.

The Proof Level scale ranges from One to Five.

A Level One proof, is a proof that only proves anything to fans of that particular shipping, or is an outright fabrication. You've probably seen a lot of this, stuff like "Nigel helps Kuki out of a chair" or "Wally wonders when Kuki is gonna get home." These may look signifigant if you WANT them to look signifigant, but the non-fangirls will be saying "Yea, so?"

A Level Two proof, is a proof that indicates a degree of closeness between two characters, but doesn't necessarily mean either have romantic feelings. Numbuh Five launching a rescue mission when she thinks Numbuh One is in danger--this could be love, but more than likely is just her being concerned for a friend, something any true friend would be regardless of whether or not they're in love.

(In fact, is anyone but me annoyed at the "If you care about them, then you must be IN LOVE with them" mentality of most shippers? I mean seriously, you don't have to be in love with someone to want to save their life or comfort them when they're in pain! Geez, how would these people react if, say, their father saved them from having a fatal accident?)

A Level Three proof is something that shows they're closer than "just friends," but may or may not be close enough to have romantic feelings. Hoagie having daydreams where Abby likes his jokes, for example. That proves he wants to be admired by her, which in some people's minds strongly suggests some sort of feelings, but could also be interpreted in ways that aren't as romantic (I've wanted to be noticed by specific people too, and not always people I wanted to get romantically involved with).

A Level Four proof is something that strongly suggests romantic tension to the point that even the most skeptical have to admit that it may be valid. The various times Wally almost confessed to Kuki but didn't are Level Four proofs, for example. Skeptics could argue that Wally was actually about to confess that he ate Kuki's Turkey Sandwich-Flavored Rainbow Monkey, but we all know he really wants to confess his true feelings for her. Right? RIGHT?! ^__^

Finally, there's Level Five proof... which is proof that simply can't be argued, period. Hoagie's crush on Cree, for example, is rather undeniable... I mean, the guy even dreams about being kissed by her. If that's not love, I don't know what is!

Okay, that's my "Proof Levelling" system. Any questions? Comments? Suggestions? Home-baked cookies?

[scone]

On a semi-related note, what is all this ephasis on "proof" anyways? Seriously, why is everyone so obsessed with having their ship canon? It's fandom, peeps, it doesn't HAVE to totally adhere to canon. xDD

I mean, I like certain crackpairings that have NO canon evidence, but like them because I think the characters' personalities would work well together, or whatever. Which I suppose certain proof could help your ideas of these personalities, but still...

I don't know if Two's CreeDream is really ROMANTIC proof, also. It was essentially a nightmare, wherin after he kissed her he lost all self control and ended up "dead" (falling into the hole). So I think it's a bit more complicated (since dreams tend to be all sorts of psychological issues all wrapped up in a pretty series of pictures) than just straight love.

[numbuheightbitstar]

scone said:

On a semi-related note, what is all this ephasis on "proof" anyways? Seriously, why is everyone so obsessed with having their ship canon? It's fandom, peeps, it doesn't HAVE to totally adhere to canon. xDD

I mean, I like certain crackpairings that have NO canon evidence, but like them because I think the characters' personalities would work well together, or whatever. Which I suppose certain proof could help your ideas of these personalities, but still...

In concurrence, I am. Actually, when I became a 1/3 fan, a major reason I did so had nothing to do with proof, personalities, or the price of tea in China. It was simply because it was a pairing I realized no one was supporting, and I just love sticking up for the underdog. That's how I am--if its not overtly popular (at least in my country) then I'm probably going to be all over it. The "proof" came in response to critics of the couple, in all honesty.

I think that's really what the emphasis on "proof" is. People get personal with their couples (Geez, that can be made to sound wrong if you think about it) and subconsciously fear criticism, so they try to justify their liking of a certain couple by attempting to provide "proof" that their chosen couple could indeed exist.

Admittedly the fear of criticism isn't exactly baseless--while I personally never had a huge problem with Couple Nazis, a friend of mine was forced to take down her page because people kept flaming and spamming her guestbook, simply over what couples she chose to support. (Not that her proof totally averted this, but she at least had a stronger position than just "It could happen because I say so!")

I don't know if Two's CreeDream is really ROMANTIC proof, also. It was essentially a nightmare, wherin after he kissed her he lost all self control and ended up "dead" (falling into the hole). So I think it's a bit more complicated (since dreams tend to be all sorts of psychological issues all wrapped up in a pretty series of pictures) than just straight love.

While this is true, I was taking it in context with Hoagie's previous behavior around Cree. Not to mention that, while he essentially DID get tossed down the hole and "died," he was in such a fit of romantic ecstacy that if he noticed, he didn't even care... as evidenced by how he acted when he woke up.

[pinkdenim]

I think the Cree/Hoagie thing belongs in the Level Four proof, 'cause it's only one-sided. And I think Level Five proof should be stuff like Lizzie/Nigel in almost all of their episodes together, since it's obviously mutual.

[bootcamper]

so should level 1 proof also be like messed up couples?

[numbuheightbitstar]

bootcamper said:

so should level 1 proof also be like messed up couples?

Ummm, no.

How exactly does a couple in and of itself count as proof?

[pinkdenim]

numbuheightbitstar said:

bootcamper said:

so should level 1 proof also be like messed up couples?

Ummm, no.

How exactly does a couple in and of itself count as proof?

Yeah. Couples with no proof would be, like, Level Zero couples. Not that Level Zero couples are bad, though. I mean, just look at Kenny/Wally. xP

[numbuheightbitstar]

pinkdenim said:

Yeah. Couples with no proof would be, like, Level Zero couples. Not that Level Zero couples are bad, though. I mean, just look at Kenny/Wally. xP

Hey hey! This is PROOF levels, not COUPLE levels!

Though I guess that you could "Level" a couple by how much proof it has--IE a couple that has mostly Level One proof would be a Level One couple etc.

*Glomples Sammykins*

[bootcamper]

Well I was talking about gay couples. Which is wrong.

[scone]

bootcamper said:

Well I was talking about gay couples. Which is wrong.

Oh, yay, this again. >__<

[hoagiegal1970]

OK, lets' not get into the gay/slash debate again...

...but there IS Level Two proof in FERAL. Wild Nigie sniffs Hoagie (and sniffs his armpits, no less ), recognizes him by his smell, and sloppily kisses him, complete with gobs of spit.

Slash isn't "wrong", it's fun. I don't write slashfics myself, but when I talk about 1/2 slash, I'm talking feelings, not anything else.

[numbuheightbitstar]

iguana said:

And the fact that Mr. Warburton has joined the trend is just... sad. I hope to God that was just due to Numbuh 1 acting like a monkey and all.

I honestly don't think Tom "joined the trend." I mean, he had Nigel kissing Lizzie as well. Obviously his actions just show that he's around someone he likes when he's in Ape mode.

Anyhoo, great topic, this should apply to all couple sites.

Thankee ^__^ *Hopes Proof Levels do spread around*

[tako]

This sounds like an interesting idea, because, yes, there's way too much proof (and I'm using the word "proof" here to mean anything that can be interpreted as support for a couple) and it's also all unclassified.

I have a few points to make here though.

First, proof interpreted from a TV show is tricky. For example, Character A saving Character B from falling off the edge would probably be normal behavior if Character A and Character B are good friends and care about each other like good friends do. However, in the eyes of viewers, if this scene seems stuck in and doesn't advance the plot at all and doesn't develop any character or give new insight into either of the characters, they begin to think, "Why did the maker put this scene in? Are they trying to suggest something, like, say, deeper feelings between these two characters?" I mean, TV shows don't follow the entire lives of their characters. They take the important stuff and cut the rest out.

And even if the maker didn't intend to suggest anything between Character A and Character B, some people, who never even thought of the couple A/B, might suddenly get the idea for it just by watching Character A save Character B.



Also, a beef with this:

numbuheightbitstar said:

(In fact, is anyone but me annoyed at the "If you care about them, then you must be IN LOVE with them" mentality of most shippers? I mean seriously, you don't have to be in love with someone to want to save their life or comfort them when they're in pain! Geez, how would these people react if, say, their father saved them from having a fatal accident?)

iguana said:

There are quite a lot of incest shippers on t'net so it wouldn't surprise me.

This is fallacious logic. You can't compare the feelings between someone and their father to the feelings between someone and their comrade as if they were the exact same. I mean, if your father said to you, "I love you," you might think, "Yeah, whatever, I love you too." But if someone you worked with said, "I love you," you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

Therefore, how would people react to see a father saving their child? "Aww, that's sweet," "How touching," etc. Maybe some people would interpret it incestuously, but there's no reason to. It's normal and extremely common for someone to love a member of their family and want to risk their life for them. It's not so common for someone to feel this attachment to someone else outside of their family unless 1) they think of them as family, or 2) they care about them to a level that can be considered "love". In fact, 1 is a sub-class of 2.

[numbuheightbitstar]

tako said:

First, proof interpreted from a TV show is tricky. For example, Character A saving Character B from falling off the edge would probably be normal behavior if Character A and Character B are good friends and care about each other like good friends do. However, in the eyes of viewers, if this scene seems stuck in and doesn't advance the plot at all and doesn't develop any character or give new insight into either of the characters, they begin to think, "Why did the maker put this scene in? Are they trying to suggest something, like, say, deeper feelings between these two characters?" I mean, TV shows don't follow the entire lives of their characters. They take the important stuff and cut the rest out.

I'm a little confused here. No offense, but that probably wasn't the best example. I mean, the only way Character A would NOT save Character B from falling off a cliff (or at least attempt to) is if the two characters really had something against each other.

And even if the maker didn't intend to suggest anything between Character A and Character B, some people, who never even thought of the couple A/B, might suddenly get the idea for it just by watching Character A save Character B.

Well yea, but then the whole point of this was to try and help people think more objectively about what they deem "Proof," instead of just saying "Omg they looked at each other cross-eyed, IT'S PROOF!" Sure, some people will be subjective anyway, but at least people can't say "OMG they said Hi to each other It'S LEVEL FIVE PROOF!" and expect it to fly.

Therefore, how would people react to see a father saving their child? "Aww, that's sweet," "How touching," etc. Maybe some people would interpret it incestuously, but there's no reason to. It's normal and extremely common for someone to love a member of their family and want to risk their life for them. It's not so common for someone to feel this attachment to someone else outside of their family unless 1) they think of them as family, or 2) they care about them to a level that can be considered "love". In fact, 1 is a sub-class of 2.

The point is though, that saving someone's life does not mean you're in love with them. It can be argued that the KND consider each other to be family, and in any case, in most works of fiction, friends stick their necks out for each other when it comes to matters of life-and-death. Heck, sometimes even enemies stick their necks out for people.

I mean really, if one was to decide that saving a life = romantic attraction, then Operation: AFLOAT has proof for Stickybeard/Everyone in Sector V.

[tako]

numbuheightbitstar said:

I'm a little confused here. No offense, but that probably wasn't the best example. I mean, the only way Character A would NOT save Character B from falling off a cliff (or at least attempt to) is if the two characters really had something against each other.

OOOPS! You're right. I meant to say that Character A saving Character B would be normal behavior between any two characters who cared for each other at least a little bit. The rest of the example is pretty much the same.

numbuheightbitstar said:

Well yea, but then the whole point of this was to try and help people think more objectively about what they deem "Proof," instead of just saying "Omg they looked at each other cross-eyed, IT'S PROOF!" Sure, some people will be subjective anyway, but at least people can't say "OMG they said Hi to each other It'S LEVEL FIVE PROOF!" and expect it to fly.

Do people really do that?

numbuheightbitstar said:

The point is though, that saving someone's life does not mean you're in love with them. It can be argued that the KND consider each other to be family, and in any case, in most works of fiction, friends stick their necks out for each other when it comes to matters of life-and-death. Heck, sometimes even enemies stick their necks out for people.

Well, I interpreted what you said like this:
"Just because you care about someone doesn't mean you like them romantically. A father saving their child wouldn't be viewed this way."

Followed up by Iguana's:
"Well, judging by the amount of incest, some people would."

I'm saying, "Why would they?" Isn't it normal for a father to show concern for his child? Isn't it less normal and more attention-grabbing for two unrelated people to show the same amount of concern?

If you wanted to make your point about concern =/= romantic love, you should have left out the part about the father and his child because it's irrelevant. Two teammates, two best friends, a soldier and their superior, or something like that would be valid examples.


I'm probably being really annoying.