So Lori Lemaris SMWW #42 has this special power:
Everyone Loves a Mermaid... Superman Most of All: Lori Lemaris can use Mind Control and isn't dealt unavoidable damage from using it. She can use it as a free action, but only to target characters named Superman or Superboy.

Mind Control Power is - Give this character a close or ranged combat action (minimum range value 4) that deals no damage. A successfully hit target becomes friendly to your force. Each target hit may be assigned one action as a free action, immediately after which the target becomes an opposing character again. Deal this character 1 unavoidable damage if the successfully hit targets’ combined point value is 150 points or more.

So the stated ways she modifies the usage of Mind Control is a Free Action when she uses it to target Supermans and Superboys; and no unavoidable from its use.
The interactions that mostly confused players I saw was: Can she Mind Control friendlies with the names Superman or Superboy?

No.

Nothing in that description states she may target friendly characters. All that does is change the type of action you have to give her to use the power and whether or not it deals damage to her.

Special powers that include a standard power only make the standard power work differently if they specifically say that they do so.

I'd agree with the no, but it wouldn't be 100% surprising to me if it was ruled otherwise on WES. Typically, characters that can friendly mind control specify that it can affect friendly characters, but the ambiguity of the wording lends itself to the same loose interpretation as the omega drive (which, if ruled consistently, would mean she could free action friendly mind control superman/superboy).

I think intent is probably a no, but the wording can be interpreted either way. Either way, this should be asked on WES.

It is absolutely nothing like the wording on Omega Drive. That says "any character" and the word "any" does not appear here. There is no ambiguity.

Stray observation time: nobody ever asks this question when it is a conditional use of, say, RCE.

While I understand the argument against the Omega Drive, that ruling has nothing to do with this wording.

This wording is limiting and exclusive (when using mind control as a free action, she can only target Superman or Superboy).

The Omega Drive wording is inclusive (any does mean any; I get thinking "any character you can normally target" but again, that isn't the same rationale of ruling).

That all being said: I wish they used standardized wording. The equipment errata has me cautiously optimistic they're going to move to more standardized wording across powers and abilities.

What isn't standard about this? It follows the same formatting as other conditional effects.

Where did I say this wasn't standard?

If you aren't saying this isn't standard, that's a heck of a non sequitur there.

Not only do I not say this isn't standard, my entire post before that echoes yours. So why you're deciding to police my posts, I'm not entirely sure...

A) I am not policing anything. I asked a question, you asked a follow up question, I answered your question. Is that not how conversation works?

B) I still don't see how that particular part can really mean anything other than "I take issue with this phrasing." The phrase "that being said" is essentially a fancy "yes, but..."

"Yes, the correct interpretation of this power is [blank], but I do wish everything was more standardized."

You may not have meant it that way, but it sure READS that way.

Your failure of imagination is not my responsibility.

A person was confused and conflating two different rulings/wordings. Standardized wording would (hopefully) cut back on that confusion. I mused on that as well as giving Wizkids some cautious props.

This was (sort of) what I was looking for. I still don't necessarily agree with your initial word choice, but at least now I understand where you were coming from.

However...

And apparently being tactful and polite also isn't your responsibility.

All I did was ask what you meant by that statement. That's it. And from that point on, you were prickly almost to the point of open hostility... it seems we've now actually reached that point

I don't know if you got up on the wrong side of the bed that morning or if it was a rough day at work. Whatever. I guess I just lack that particular bit of imagination. All I do know is that I was trying to have a conversation and all I got was... well... this.