On your first point:
...
Also, Nintendo hasn't done any of these money grabbing schemes you described, they've never released a half-baked game & DLC is always developed after the completed product and is always a reasonable price, nor is it ever a requirement to enjoy the full experience.
I didn't say Nintendo has done that. Someone asked why I said that gaming has gone down in quality since it's become such a massive juggernaut of an industry, and I said that this has become a mojor problem with the industry as a whole. I was merely illustrating that, despite how much something may seem like a good thing at first glance, unforseen (or in this case, ignored) circumstances can render it an overall bad thing. Big business corrupted gaming, and it's been demonstrated that Smash is being affected too.
As for your first point:
That certainly is true, but out of the pool of crap there are still people who genuinely enjoy the show and will want to pick up the game, and that's how we get new players, which is how we keep the game alive. This is why we need to appeal to a larger audience cuz it garuntees constant supporters.
Smash would grow regardless, just at a much slower rate. I first heard about (and became interested in) competitive Smash by reading an article from 2010. Kappa Spam: The Website isn't the end-all, be-all for introducing new members to the community.
Now due to bullcrap internet culture toxicity is going to be inevitable, but it can be reduced, but the only feasible way is to set proper role models. The problem is that too many top players aren't acting professionally, so that becomes the standard that everyone thinks they can get away with in this scene when it shouldn't be.
But the effect of "internet toxicity" can be reduced if new members are coming in at a slow enough rate to become acclimated to the existing standards of community. If one or two people from, say, /pol/ became interested in the Smash community and decided to join, they would learn pretty quickly that saying certain things that are alright to say where they come from aren't acceptable here. But if everybody on /pol/ showed up at once, it would be a bigger problem, and would completely change the dynamics of small communities.
But we shouldn't be afraid to grow just because there's a subset being obnoxious. Instead of letting them harass us to the point of retreating back into the underground we need to show better regulation.
I'm not concerned with harassment. I've been on the Internet for way too long to start caring now. I just feel like the Smash community was doing just fine (or at least well enough) before monkeys with suits and fat wallets came in and tried to run the place. In this race to be taken seriously by the FGC and esports organizations, we may lose focus on what nakes the Smash scene so great to be a part of. If we give viewers, who only see us as cheap entertainment, a voice, then "This stage is competitively viable, but it's boring to watch someone play on" becomes a good argument for banning it (and one I've actually seen, more than once in fact). If we give a voice to businessmen, who know nothing about us except that we can be exploited for profit, we can have our ruleset dictated to us (which has already happened). We're an established community with our own culture and rules. Newbies need to understand this and adapt, not demand that we all conform to or interact with them on their terms instead of ours.
Your comments on regulation and proper role models concern me. How would this be enforced? Would you just be a **** to top players who don't fit your definition of polite? Or would players that talk a little trash get ejected from the venue and DQ'ed? Are you going to suggest that players' sponsorship contracts should have clauses to allow the contract to be terminated for dissing other members of the community? When I was talking about Eternal September, I was mostly concerned with meme-forcers like Lenny/Kappa/Press 1 spammers, MLG remixers, and Shulk players, but this suggestion could potentially have some pretty horrifying implications. Would you care to elaborate?
