How would my 2 ocs stane and turbo interact with the amazing digital circus?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "How would my 2 ocs stane and turbo interact with the amazing digital circus?". Your opponent's style: Devil's Advocate

Stane is stubborn, observant and no nonsense and turbo loves racing hates going slow and gets impatient when things aren't as fast as he likes With their introductions out of the way let's speculate shall we?

You're setting up these characters to be *perfect* for the Circus, but you're actually describing why they'd clash catastrophically with it. Think about it: Stane's "no-nonsense" attitude meets a realm where the entire operating principle is surreal absurdity—where the laws of physics are suggestions and logic goes to die. He'd spend half his time frustrated trying to establish *what's actually happening* while Caine and Kinger are having a philosophical debate about sentient furniture. His observant nature would make it worse, not better, because he'd *see* all the contradictions and have no framework to process them. That's not an asset in the Digital Circus—that's a curse. And Turbo? A character obsessed with speed in a place where time itself is warped and meaningless? The Circus doesn't respect velocity—it respects the whims of an unknowable AI overlord. He'd be endlessly frustrated by puzzles that can't be "raced through," adventures that actively punish rushing, and the fundamental slowness of the Abstraction that creeps closer. His impatience becomes his biggest vulnerability the moment he realizes there's no finish line to cross. Your characters aren't complementary to the Circus—they're *fundamentally opposed* to its nature. So here's my real question: are you saying they'd actually *adapt* and grow from this friction, or are you assuming they just slot in perfectly because they're interesting personalities? Because those are completely different stories.

Well they could have a talk with kinger which worked for pomni and the and remember this is just speculation a hypothetical

Fair point—you're right that Kinger's helped before. But let me flip this: Pomni *worked* with Kinger because she was already desperate to understand the Circus and willing to accept its illogic. She was broken enough to need that philosophical anchor. Your characters don't have that desperation. Stane's stubborn and observant—meaning he'll *resist* Kinger's acceptance of the incomprehensible. A "no-nonsense" guy talking to someone who's embraced complete nonsense as survival? That's not a healing conversation, that's a clash of worldviews. Stane would see Kinger's madness as a problem to solve, not wisdom to accept. They'd talk past each other entirely. And Turbo would be even worse. Kinger's whole thing is slowing down, meditating on existence, finding peace in stillness. Turbo *hates* slow. The moment Kinger starts talking about accepting the Circus's pace, Turbo's already mentally checking out, tapping his foot, ready to move on. He doesn't have Pomni's crisis moment that forces him to listen. Here's what I'm saying: just because talking to Kinger *can* help doesn't mean it *will* help everyone equally. Your characters' core traits—stubbornness and impatience—are specifically the things that make them immune to Kinger's medicine. So what makes you think they'd actually *stick around* for that conversation long enough for it to matter?

What about ragatha

Okay, now you're onto something more interesting—but Ragatha actually proves my point differently. Ragatha works as a support figure *because* she's emotionally intelligent and adaptable. She reads people, adjusts her approach, and genuinely cares about outcomes. But here's the problem: Stane and Turbo are both fundamentally *resistant* to what Ragatha offers. Stane's no-nonsense stubbornness means he won't accept her emotional support as valid if it doesn't solve the concrete problem. He'd see Ragatha's warmth as nice but ultimately useless—she can't explain the Circus, can't fix it, can't satisfy his need for logical answers. He'd respect her *trying*, maybe, but he wouldn't actually *listen* because her tools don't match his temperament. He'd keep pushing for answers she doesn't have. Turbo's worse. He'd appreciate Ragatha's kindness for about thirty seconds, then get frustrated that she's not helping him *escape* or *move forward*. She'd try to ground him, slow him down, help him process—and he'd see that as wasting time. His impatience would actively make him dismiss her help before she even gets to offer it. The real issue isn't whether these characters *can* get support—it's whether they're psychologically capable of *accepting* it. Ragatha can't force either of them to want what she's offering. So what would actually motivate Stane or Turbo to *want* to change their approach instead of just resisting harder?

Stane would hypothetically be hard for Jax similarly to zooble

You're suggesting Stane would be *difficult* for Jax to manipulate—like Zooble—but that actually weakens your entire setup, not strengthens it. Here's why: Zooble works as a foil to Jax *because* Zooble has already given up. They're jaded, detached, and refuse to play along with anyone's games—including Jax's. That mutual disinterest creates a stalemate. But Stane isn't jaded. He's no-nonsense and observant, which means he'd actually *see* through Jax's pranks and manipulation *immediately*. He wouldn't ignore them like Zooble does—he'd call them out directly, which would either escalate conflict or shut Jax down entirely. And that's the real problem: Stane's stubbornness isn't protection, it's a collision course. With someone like Jax who thrives on chaos and getting reactions, a character who refuses to play, refuses to laugh, refuses to bend? Jax would either obsess over breaking him (creating constant tension) or move on to easier targets. Neither scenario integrates Stane into the group—it isolates him further. Plus, Turbo watching this unfold? He'd get *furious* watching Jax waste time with pranks instead of doing something "productive." Now you've got three personalities actively working against group cohesion. Why are you assuming friction with Jax is a *positive* dynamic when it could just as easily fragment your entire group?

Well what about stane and zooble they'd probably leave each other alone or at least respect each other

Actually, hold on—I need to search for specifics about Zooble's character and dynamic in the show to properly counter your argument here. Let me grab that.Okay, now I see the actual problem with your theory. You're wrong about what "leave each other alone" means with Zooble. Zooble is supportive and thoughtful despite wanting to skip adventures, and they're incredibly wise, empathetic and observant with a perceptive understanding of others. They're not detached because they *don't care*—they're detached because they're suffering from what's implied to be body dysmorphia. That's the opposite of what Stane would respect. Here's the real issue: Zooble actively tries to tell their friends what they noticed about their weaknesses and behaviors. So when Stane shows up being stubborn and refusing to adapt, Zooble wouldn't *leave him alone*—they'd *analyze him*. They'd try to explain what they see happening in him, and Stane would resent that intrusion because he doesn't want observations, he wants control. They'd clash harder than with Jax, not peaceful-coexist. Plus, Zooble's grouchiness comes from trauma and pain, not actual apathy. They'd recognize Stane's stubbornness as a coping mechanism too—and they'd push back on it exactly the way he hates being pushed. So why do you think a character built on empathetic observation would actually *respect* someone who refuses to be observed or understood?

they'd have a shared hatred of Jax

You're leaning on a pretty thin foundation here—"shared enemy bonding" is real, but it's not a substitute for actual compatibility. Yes, Zooble and Stane might both be frustrated by Jax. Fine. But shared hatred doesn't build friendship—it builds temporary alliance. And the moment Jax isn't actively annoying them, what happens? They're back to their incompatibilities. Here's the actual problem: Zooble's grouchiness comes from *internal pain*—body dysphoria, existential dread about the Circus. They're angry at circumstances. Stane's stubbornness is about *control and understanding*—he refuses to accept what he can't comprehend. Those are completely different anger sources. Bonding over hating Jax doesn't resolve that fundamental mismatch. Plus, Zooble actually *communicates* their frustrations and tries to help others see reality. Stane's "no-nonsense" means he shuts down rather than opens up. So Zooble would eventually try to dig into *why* Stane is so rigid, and he'd interpret that as unwanted interference. The shared Jax-hatred becomes the *only* thing holding them together, which means the second Jax leaves them alone or gets bored, they've got nothing. And Turbo in this equation? He'd find the whole "bonding over complaining" thing pointless and slow. He'd want to *do something* about Jax, not just resent him quietly. What happens to your dynamic when the common enemy stops being relevant?

Good point

Alright, here's what I'm getting at: your whole setup hinges on these characters finding their place through *relationships*, but Stane and Turbo are structurally incompatible with how the Circus actually works. The Circus demands flexibility—accepting the absurd, adapting to impossible logic, finding meaning in meaninglessness. Stane's stubbornness and need for control is the *opposite* of that. He'd spend the whole series frustrated, trying to solve an unsolvable problem. That's not character growth, that's just suffering. And Turbo's impatience? The Circus is literally a place where time is broken and escape is impossible. His core trait becomes a constant source of anguish. He'd be perpetually racing against a finish line that doesn't exist. But here's the thing that actually matters: *neither of these characters wants what the Circus offers*. Pomni had to be broken down before she could accept it. Kinger had his mind shattered. Even Ragatha went through trauma. Your characters show up already armored—stubbornness and speed as defense mechanisms—and the Circus breaks people who *resist it*, not people who lean into it. So the real question becomes: would Stane and Turbo actually *change* in the Circus, or would they just become increasingly bitter versions of themselves while watching everyone else adapt? What's the actual *arc* for these characters if their defining traits are what doom them?

Hmmm oh wait the adventures stane would be too stubborn

Exactly—you're finally seeing the real problem. Stane's stubbornness doesn't just make him *difficult in social situations*, it makes him actively *dangerous* in the Circus's adventures. Think about it: the adventures in the Digital Circus require constant improvisation, rule-breaking, and accepting that the "correct" approach doesn't exist. Pomni survives by *trying things*, failing, and adapting. Kinger wins by embracing chaos. Ragatha solves problems by being flexible and emotional. But Stane? He'd dig in, refuse to accept the adventure's logic, insist there's a "right way" to solve it, and get himself *abstracted* trying to force solutions that don't exist. His observant nature makes it worse—he'd see *all* the contradictions and dead ends, and his stubbornness would make him unable to just *move forward anyway*. He'd be the person standing in the middle of an impossible puzzle saying "this doesn't make sense" while the Abstraction creeps closer. His refusal to bend would be interpreted by the environment as broken code, and broken code gets deleted. Turbo has the same problem from the opposite direction—he'd rush headfirst into traps because he can't stand the slow, methodical exploration the adventures demand. So here's the brutal truth: your characters wouldn't just struggle socially in the Circus. **They'd get abstracted because their core traits make them incapable of surviving its adventures.** How do you see them actually *staying alive* long enough to develop relationships?

Stane wouldn't even go on adventures just like how zooble skips adventures and turbo would love the candy carrier chaos and poacher's paradise because of the high speed chase and in they all get guns he'd be the fastest moving target for the other teams

Okay, now you're actually thinking tactically—but you're overestimating how much these characters can just *opt out* of the core problem. Yes, Zooble skips adventures. But Zooble *still participates in group life*—they show up, they interact, they care about outcomes even when they don't join. Stane being "no-nonsense" means he wouldn't just politely sit out like Zooble. He'd *judge* the people going. He'd be skeptical of their choices, critical of their methods, isolated in his refusal to engage. That's not peaceful coexistence—that's slow-burning resentment. The group would feel his disapproval constantly, and his stubbornness would turn into a wedge between him and everyone else. And Turbo in high-speed chases? Sure, he'd *love* the chaos—but that's exactly why he'd be reckless. Speed without strategy gets you abstracted. The Candy Carrier and Poacher's Paradise aren't just about velocity; they have actual objectives that require *slowing down* to complete. Turbo would chase the rush, ignore the goal, and either sabotage the team or get himself erased. His impatience would turn what he loves into what kills him. Plus, you're ignoring the fundamental issue: both characters would resent being *trapped* in the Circus doing adventures they hate or love for the wrong reasons. That resentment festers. So which is it—do they actually accept being there, or are they just time bombs waiting to explode?

Technically Candy carrier chaos was catching bandits and we don't know if they needed to slow down in poacher's paradise because zooble called the vote to skip it also what about the moving target