A URC members thoughts on the Metaknight Ban

[Ripple]

Except that (almost?) everyone would consider it a ridiculous notion for Fox to be banned in Melee because of MK2, Onett, etc.

I think that most smashers would agree that overcentralizing stages should be banned rather than the character(s) who overcentralize those stages. The URC does not accurately reflect that and instead adopts an extreme viewpoint of banning characters over stages.

If you ask most smashers why Bridge of Eldin, Mario Kart, etc are banned, they will tell you it is because King Dedede overcentralizes those stages.

1. THose stages that M2K had problems besides Fox. MK2 has permanent walk offs. which is bannable criteria regardless of character. same for a permanent wall on Onett. permanent walls are bannable criteria ( generally worse, its just that the stage has side camping wall camping)

great bay has circle camping, fox is the best at circle camping but that doesn't mean it was banned because of him. if fox was banned, the next best would be the best and over centralize.

2. most smashers that say bridge/mario kart are banned because of D3 are wrong. go to the stage forum to educate yourself on why.

 

[Player-1]

No, you didn't say the exact opposite. M2K pointed out how Melee always chose to ban overcentralizing stages rather than characters, but you said "we're not the melee community". Implying that if the Brawl community were to make a Melee ruleset, it would ban Fox.

Stop making aging that I'm implying stuff that I'm not implying. All I was saying that the melee community doing anything is not really a good point since we are not the melee community; we have a different game, different metagame, different ideals.


Again, don't make assumptions of things that you don't know what you're talking about

 

[vVv Rapture]

I'd just ban MK so that way we can play on the other stages he makes invalid for everyone else.

Also, on a point made earlier, you can't blame pro-ban if anti-ban doesn't come around, give evidence, make arguments, and overall is less inactive until after the ban itself.

 

[Cassio]

lol, no one blamed pro-ban for that. That doesnt change the fact that you need strong arguments to make informed decisions.

And you don't give a reason as to why it is wrong. Can you elaborate, cause I'm completely agreeing with SFP.

I dont feel enough people would agree, making a real response not worth the effort. I only mentioned it bc he's rewritten the same 5 paragraph post 5 times.

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[Blacknight99923]

lololololol


Get real, stages with walk offs were banned because of D3. You can give all this bs excuses on all these broken tactics as the "real reason" but people banned it because they didn't want get grabbed anywhere on the stage and die because of it.

Blast zone camping was never broken lol just don't pick moves they can shield grab and they litereally can't do anything since they gave up stage control and will die if they get hit, even if they hit you you will almost never die or w.e.



Walk offs were banned entirely because of Dedede, don't give us bull reasons(even if there are legitament reasons for banning those stages, just don't detract from the truth of why they were banned) so you liberal stage people can be defend RC/brinstar.

 

[Player-1]

Why are permanent walk-offs bannable criteria though? I know you'll probably say "walkoff camping" but most Melee players I've talked to have told me that it's because of the fact that Fox's waveshining = death. Even M2K says it and he's obviously an expert on Melee.



How can you say that most smashers are wrong when URC members have repeatedly put forward the idea that the majority opinion is always right? One of the major things that URC members keep saying is that as a group of TOs, the URC chose to appeal to popular opinion in order to increase attendance. If the URC wants to use popular opinion as a justification for their decisions then they need to be consistent in their decision to follow popular opinion.

edit: If you can say that the majority is wrong as to why BoE/Mario Kart are banned, then can't I say that they're also wrong as to why MK should be banned?

No, stop reading between the lines and only reading what YOU want to read. I'd love to see the quotes of the majority of the URC are stating that majority opinion is always right

lololololol


Get real, stages with walk offs were banned because of D3. You can give all this bs excuses on all these broken tactics as the "real reason" but people banned it because they didn't want get grabbed anywhere on the stage and die because of it.

Blast zone camping was never broken lol just don't pick moves they can shield grab and they litereally can't do anything since they gave up stage control and will die if they get hit, even if they hit you you will almost never die or w.e.



Walk offs were banned entirely because of Dedede, don't give us bull reasons(even if there are legitament reasons for banning those stages, just don't detract from the truth of why they were banned) so you liberal stage people can be defend RC/brinstar.

Alright, let me see if I'm following your logic correctly.

Anti-Ban: Walk off stages are banned because of D3
Pro-Ban: No they're not they're also banned because of X, Y, and Z reasons
Anti-Ban: No they're not, that's BS.



I hope you realize how dumb of an argument that sounds. You're telling US, the URC, why we banned a stage? I'm pretty confident that we know our own reasonings for banning something better than you.

 

[Marc]

What we want is all that matters.

We shape our game to the extent that it wasn't designed to be competitive, but (until now?) there were limits. Three smash games in this is the first time people would ban a character over other elements*, which is a result of people thinking everything is up for grabs. The amount of custom rules meddling with character viability and diversity for Brawl is ********, and I'm not just talking about MK's legality here. There is some new ruleset initiative ever other day and because everyone feels entitled to what they want, there is no stability and people just do stuff.

*I'm going to be honest and say that the American Melee scene has considered banning Sheik, but we all know how that went.

Are people missing the concept that while MK is used around less than 1/5th of the time, he's making almost half the money?

First place winnings can be as much as 60/70% in the US and players like M2K and Ally travel far more than any other top player. Even if Ally uses MK once for the ditto the character is credited with 50% of his winnings that day. Furthermore, how much money do you think Marth was making in Melee when Ken/Azen/M2K ***** everything they went to? You can't answer this, because the data doesn't exist, making this point moot without a comparison.

Is it pro-ban's problem that they actually DID something? It's not pro-bans fault anti-ban couldn't/didn't want to properly defend their stance. I guess it's just how democracy works isn't it?

No **** that pro-ban actually did something, they're the ones overturning the status quo. There are plenty of counter-arguments put forward by anti-ban, but the burden really lies with people who want to ban a character. In the end it only happened because a group of TOs agreed on it, not because the collective movement is "right".

you're just meatriding the melee community because their general philosophy agrees with yours ( banning stages over characters) and calling us extreme because we aren't following them

Why reinvent a square wheel when another community has been doing things better and longer? People's inability to learn from history is the source of many of today's problems.

The biggest thing is finding evidence supporting that RC and Brinstar should be banned to start with.

Anyone care to elaborate on how we go about doing that...?

Rainbow Cruise doesn't promote conflict in any way and favours mobility to get around over anything else. It's not random, but it's an outlier stage that doesn't fit the competitive view of most regions in the world. In fact, even the American Melee scene doesn't always have it anymore. You're probably not getting more evidence than stage philosophy and character balance though, this either is a good enough reason for you or it isn't.

Brinstar favours only a few characters in Melee and Brawl (auto-win CP pretty much) and the stage interferes more than other legal stages. It really depends on your own treshold for how much of an auto-strike a CP is allowed to be and how much stage hazards are allowed to influence.

great bay has circle camping, fox is the best at circle camping but that doesn't mean it was banned because of him. if fox was banned, the next best would be the best and over centralize.

Wrong. Fox excels at circle camping because he shoots lasers and runs much faster than most characters in the game. There is no other character who would invalidate so many characters with the same tactic.

Stop making aging that I'm implying stuff that I'm not implying. All I was saying that the melee community doing anything is not really a good point since we are not the melee community; we have a different game, different metagame, different ideals.

What are "our" ideals?

 

[Player-1]

According to M2K being able to ban a stage because of a single character is a different ideal than what a significant portion of the brawl community thinks. That's just one off the top of my head.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I hope you realize how dumb of an argument that sounds. You're telling US, the URC, why we banned a stage? I'm pretty confident that we know our own reasonings for banning something better than you.

Those stage bans, iirc, preceded the lot of you guys. There was a precedent established by the community at large before everything was organized. So, yes, Masky is kind of accurate in saying that 'cause the URC specifically didn't ban those stages for any other reason; you guys weren't the first ones to do it. And, uh, yes, a specific character (DDD) was brought up every time the discussion was had.

Edit: Thanks for the explanation, Marc.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Player-1]

I can't say if they did or not since I wasn't in the URC when it was first established and made their first version of their ruleset, but just because some stages were already established to be banned before the URC was formed doesn't mean that that's the only reason they were banned.

And actually, you just proved my point more. They were saying D3 was the only reason some stages were banned, you just said another reason was because it was already established that some of these stages are banned so they were banned. So D3 existing wasn't the only reason the stages were banned.

 

[Cassio]

According to M2K being able to ban a stage because of a single character is a different ideal than what a significant portion of the brawl community thinks. That's just one off the top of my head.

You shouldnt toss out statements like that. Especially since precedent for forever has been to ban stages before characters. Not just in melee but in brawl as well.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I can't say if they did or not since I wasn't in the URC when it was first established and made their first version of their ruleset, but just because some stages were already established to be banned before the URC was formed doesn't mean that that's the only reason they were banned.

And actually, you just proved my point more. They were saying D3 was the only reason some stages were banned, you just said another reason was because it was already established that some of these stages are banned so they were banned. So D3 existing wasn't the only reason the stages were banned.

...uh.

No?

The two points aren't mutually exclusive. Reading comprehension fail? The URC utilized a precedent that was already in place by the community, and the community's general consensus was that DDD or anybody else with a legit chaingrab would break these stages. <--- That doesn't prove anything except for the fact that you took your example from elsewhere. The URC didn't (or doesn't, really) do anything except regurgitate **** on a macro level.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Player-1]

You shouldnt toss out statements like that. Especially since precedent for forever has been to ban stages before characters.

???? Why not? It's a fact.

"Especially since precedent for forever has been to ban stages before characters"

that's an irrelevant statement that has nothing to do with my comment.

 

[Player-1]

...uh.

No?

The two points aren't mutually exclusive. Reading comprehension fail?

Smooth Criminal

...uh.

No?

The word "only" means that there's a single reason for something to be banned. You brought up another point meaning there's now two reasons =/= "only". Reading comprehension fail?

 

[Cassio]

???? Why not? It's a fact.

A 'fact', with data and everything .

Granted I can see why one might come to this conclusion if they gave too much weight to the online rabble. However precedence in brawl and melee says much more about the communities alignment than simply proclaiming what you believe to be true as 'fact'.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

...uh.

No?

The word "only" means that there's a single reason for something to be banned. You brought up another point meaning there's now two reasons =/= "only". Reading comprehension fail?

In this case, it's not mutually exclusive.

Do you not understand what that means? There was a reason in place already, and ya'll decided to use it. You're asinine to think that "why not do it 'cause everybody else is doing it?" is another reason in this case. It goes together.

Why in the hell can't DeLux or somebody talk on behalf of the URC instead of you? You're clearly missing the point here.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

We shape our game to the extent that it wasn't designed to be competitive, but (until now?) there were limits. Three smash games in this is the first time people would ban a character over other elements*, which is a result of people thinking everything is up for grabs. The amount of custom rules meddling with character viability and diversity for Brawl is ********, and I'm not just talking about MK's legality here. There is some new ruleset initiative ever other day and because everyone feels entitled to what they want, there is no stability and people just do stuff.

*I'm going to be honest and say that the American Melee scene has considered banning Sheik, but we all know how that went.

The only reason we had yet to ban any characters in Smash is because not enough people (especially influential people) wanted to do it. When enough players want the ban, it will eventually come.

 

[Player-1]

In this case, it's not mutually exclusive.

Do you not understand what that means? There was a reason in place already, and ya'll decided to use it. You're asinine to think that "why not do it 'cause everybody else is doing it?" is another reason in this case. It goes together.

Why in the hell can't DeLux or somebody talk on behalf of the URC instead of you? You're clearly missing the point here.

Smooth Criminal

Ohhhhh I get it, so you were involved in the discussion when the ruleset was first created or saw it? Oh, what was that? No, you weren't? Then I'd suggest stop stating something as fact when you don't know what was going on when you're just basing something off pure assumption.

And I'm getting the point here, you clearly aren't.

 

[Juushichi]

We also know that Melee Sheik, much like Melee Fox rarely wins anything of significance. I think Sheik probably wins less actually...

KirbyKaze?

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Ohhhhh I get it, so you were involved in the discussion when the ruleset was first created or saw it? Oh, what was that? No, you weren't? Then I'd suggest stop stating something as fact when you don't know what was going on when you're just basing something off pure assumption.

Were you apart of it?

Oh, right. You weren't. How about that? :D You've even admitted to it. You admit to ignorance on a lot of the **** that comes up, Player 1, and yet you just kinda bobblehead when it comes to the stuff spewed out by the URC.

Do you even have your own opinion?

Edit: It was a public matter at the time, btw. Wayyyyy before the URC. Not something that was in the backroom or anything like that. I've read the arguments. *shrugs.* Ya'll just grafted whatever was already in place from other rulesets for yourselves. There's nothing wrong with this, it just wasn't solely the URC's idea.

Juusuchi Edit: Sheik won quite a bit on EC in Melee's early days, iirc. It tapered off with the rise of Space Animals and Marths, tho'.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Player-1]

Were you apart of it?

Oh, right. You weren't. How about that? :D You've even admitted to it. You admit to ignorance on a lot of the **** that comes up, Player 1, and yet you just kinda bobblehead when it comes to the stuff spewed out by the URC.

Do you even have your own opinion?

Smooth Criminal

No I wasn't, and that's exactly the point that I admitted to it. All I'm saying is that you are stating something as fact when it's just an assumption while I'm not doing it, I'm just saying it's a possibility. People like you are the reason why misconceptions start going around: They make an assumption while stating it as fact.

And yes I have my own opinions, do you want to know them for any specific matter?

 

[Cassio]

I dont understand why any of this matters. People dont want RC/Brinstar banned bc of MK, they just hate the stage. The same was probably true with a lot of other stages in both brawl and melee.

 

[Blacknight99923]

No, stop reading between the lines and only reading what YOU want to read. I'd love to see the quotes of the majority of the URC are stating that majority opinion is always right



Alright, let me see if I'm following your logic correctly.

Anti-Ban: Walk off stages are banned because of D3
Pro-Ban: No they're not they're also banned because of X, Y, and Z reasons
Anti-Ban: No they're not, that's BS.



I hope you realize how dumb of an argument that sounds. You're telling US, the URC, why we banned a stage? I'm pretty confident that we know our own reasonings for banning something better than you.

LOL URC DID NOT BAN STAGES WITH WALK OFFS DON'T TRY THAT, THEY WERE BANNED LONG BEFORE HAND.


The stages were banned at the time entirely becuase of the overwhelming strength the stage gave to d3 at the time.
Melee stages were banned because of the overwhelming strength given to fox.


But you complain when we want to ban a QUESTIONALBE STAGE (I'll use questionable because theres definitely a fair portion of people who want RC/Brinstar banned excluding your opinion or mine) before we ban a CHARACTER?
Like you won't even consider other peoples opions that "the stage isn't competitive to begin" with "and metaknight makes it worse" and then decide "oh no we are right its all metaknight".

Maybe your right right and m2k/dehf / TKD/mikehaze are wrong each side is entitled to their own opinions but you certainly did not CONSIDER someone elses. (an aib poll doesn't count)

Well theres people who disagree with you. Examples like fox exsist in melee where the game turned out even better because they decided to keep a character instead of a stage.


Because you've already banned metaknight, I will agree its somewhat of a dead letter to try to bring him back(I'm also not hypocrtical if 75% of people want him banned he should probably be banned). But I agree with a lot of mikes, marcs, and m2ks arguments.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

No I wasn't, and that's exactly the point that I admitted to it. All I'm saying is that you are stating something as fact when it's just an assumption while I'm not doing it, I'm just saying it's a possibility. People like you are the reason why misconceptions start going around: They make an assumption while stating it as fact.

And yes I have my own opinions, do you want to know them for any specific matter?

Fact: Bridge of Eldin, Mario Circuit, etc. have walk-offs. A grab from DDD is pretty much instant death for any of the characters that he can chaingrab, which is a sizable portion of the cast. (Castle Siege also has walkoffs, but their time is fixed and limited.)

Fact: This was hotly contested for the longest time. The community abroad decided it would be a good idea to ban those kinds of stages to keep anybody with a chaingrab from CPing people to those stages and getting (more or less) free wins.

Fact: Many rulesets adopted these stage bans for the aforementioned reason.

Fact: Later on, the URC saw this and agreed that since it was kind of already standard (it being a precedent and all of that), why not implement it?

How is any of that misinformation? Or baseless, for that matter?

Smooth Criminal

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

i have a feeling that well over 50% of the entire community wants rc banned

urc! Get to it!

 

[Player-1]

LOL URC DID NOT BAN STAGES WITH WALK OFFS DON'T TRY THAT, THEY WERE BANNED LONG BEFORE HAND.


The stages were banned at the time entirely becuase of the overwhelming strength the stage gave to d3 at the time.
Melee stages were banned because of the overwhelming strength given to fox.


But you complain when we want to ban a QUESTIONALBE STAGE (I'll use questionable because theres definitely a fair portion of people who want RC/Brinstar banned excluding your opinion or mine) before we ban a CHARACTER?
Like you won't even consider other peoples opions that "the stage isn't competitive to begin" with "and metaknight makes it worse" and then decide "oh no we are right its all metaknight".

Maybe your right right and m2k/dehf / TKD/mikehaze are wrong each side is entitled to their own opinions but you certainly did not CONSIDER someone elses. (an aib poll doesn't count)

Well theres people who disagree with you. Examples like fox exsist in melee where the game turned out even better because they decided to keep a character instead of a stage.


Because you've already banned metaknight, I will agree its somewhat of a dead letter to try to bring him back(I'm also not hypocrtical if 75% of people want him banned he should probably be banned). But I agree with a lot of mikes, marcs, and m2ks arguments.

Uhhh...what? The URC definitely banned stages with walk offs, go look on their banned list of stages. They're right there. Saying they were banned before the URC made their ruleset is true, but that doesn't mean the URC still didn't ban them.

I don't why you're saying I won't even "consider other people's opinions" when I have. Those are just empty words and I never said there weren't people that disagreed with me.

 

[DeLux]

I am under the impression the banning of walk-offs preceded DDD by a fair amount.

Case in point: The N64 ruleset does not feature Mushroom Kingdom as a legal stage. Onett isn't legal in Melee either.

If we extrapolate, I think we can safely say that DDD's Chain Grab was not the primary motive towards banning walk-offs in Brawl.

The ban appealed more to the status quo which justified the banning of walk-offs due to the centralization of walk-off camping as a high risk - high reward situation that was felt to degenerate Smash away from the skills competition was designed to test.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I am under the impression the banning of walk-offs preceded DDD by a fair amount.

Case in point: The N64 ruleset does not feature Mushroom Kingdom as a legal stage. Onett isn't legal in Melee either.

If we extrapolate, I think we can safely say that DDD's Chain Grab was not the primary motive towards banning walk-offs in Brawl.

Are you saying the community at large is wrong...?

Interesting.

Edit: Mmmm. True. There were a couple of people hooting and hollering about Pit being able to snipe people into the blast zones and whatnot, for example.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Player-1]

Fact: The URC saw this and agreed that since it was kind of already standard (it being a precedent and all of that), why not implement it?

How is any of that misinformation? Or baseless, for that matter?

Smooth Criminal

This is not a fact. Uhhh it's baseless because you're just basing it off an assumption...? Can you give me a quote where someone in the URC at the time said that they just decided to pick it up since it was already a standard...?

And btw, since you keep missing my point. I'm going to reiterate it real quick. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE URC DIDN'T DO THIS, I'M JUST SAYING IT'S NOT AN ESTABLISHED FACT THAT THEY DID THIS.

 

[DeLux]

Has there been a poll recently indicating that DDD's CG is the reason for banning of walk-offs?

I thought it was fairly common knowledge that it was due to the degeneration as I mentioned above since every character had access to it, indicating a non-functional element of the stage rather than a specific character.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I am under the impression the banning of walk-offs preceded DDD by a fair amount.

Case in point: The N64 ruleset does not feature Mushroom Kingdom as a legal stage. Onett isn't legal in Melee either.

If we extrapolate, I think we can safely say that DDD's Chain Grab was not the primary motive towards banning walk-offs in Brawl.

The ban appealed more to the status quo which justified the banning of walk-offs due to the centralization of walk-off camping as a high risk - high reward situation that was felt to degenerate Smash away from the skills competition was designed to test.

Can you really compare 64's throws to any of the other game's throws? Isn't there also a cave of life on that stage (not sure you could tech in that game though)?

 

[Cassio]

hmm, are we certain mushroom kingdom in 64 and onett in melee were banned because of walkoffs? Both those stages had other really janky parts that easily could have been worth banning, and onett was even legal for awhile. Compared to say, bridge of eldin which doesnt really have much else wrong with it.

m2k also made a post about onett not too long ago and didnt mention walk offs.

personally i dont think walk-offs would really be that overpowering, aside from maybe chaingrabbing.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

And btw, since you keep missing my point. I'm going to reiterate it real quick. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE URC DIDN'T DO THIS, I'M JUST SAYING IT'S NOT AN ESTABLISHED FACT THAT THEY DID THIS.

Proof's in the pudding. Or would you like me to quote their whole ruleset again?

I'm not bashing the URC by saying what I said. I have bigger and better things to jump their **** for (stickies, AZ, etc). Don't get your panties in an uproar.

DeLux: You're not going to find a poll for this, recent or otherwise. It was a matter that was contested in some old threads when Brawl was just getting off of the ground. It was somewhat unanimous. It would be an interesting issue to rehash, tho'.

*shrugs.* I'll only say that some characters had a stronger ability to walk-off camp than others. DDD was constantly brought up in those debates, tho'. Sort of a catalyst to assimilate into that reasoning (or the biggest, greatest example).

Smooth Criminal

 

[Marc]

The only reason we had yet to ban any characters in Smash is because not enough people (especially influential people) wanted to do it. When enough players want the ban, it will eventually come.

Nah, it's really up to the TOs and core player base. TOs tend to cater to their regions and the wishes of regulars, but the masses never outright determine anything and probably never should. That wouldn't be proper democracy, that's tyranny of the masses.

We also know that Melee Sheik, much like Melee Fox rarely wins anything of significance. I think Sheik probably wins less actually...

[collapse=Melee stuffz]We're talking a completely different era here. I wasn't as active on the boards back then and don't think the ban movement was as big as the one for MK, considering Smashboards was much more modest in size. The gist of it is that early metagame a Sheik player called Recipherus won a lot (Ken essentially took the throne from him) and that NTSC Sheik by virtue of CGs invalidated a lot of the cast, especially in the metagame at that point in time. We all play the "don't get grabbed" game now, but more importantly than that people ended up realizing Sheik was beatable. I'm oversimplifying it, but in the years after so many people flocked to Fox that Sheik became practically extinct in the US and Marth had a field day at that point of the metagame, until things once again got more balanced. Space animals are still way overrepresented while ironically Marth has limited representation these days, but a skewed metagame is only natural.

As for Sheik in today's metagame... she still wrecks most of the cast, but she rarely gets to play against those characters. There are a few characters who go even or outright beat her and they happen to all be common top tiers, but players like Amsah, KirbyKaze and Mew2King (his Sheik is among the very best) still represent her well.[/collapse]

 

[DeLux]

I mean, obviously DDD would gain a huge advantage because without obstruction he's essentially ALWAYS walk off camping (while avoiding the negative high risk part that degenerates gameplay on the stage). It doesn't change the fact that every character has walk-off camping capability, even against DDD. I would think that the dominant strategy against a DDD on such a level would be to walk off camp since approaching at any other situation skews the risk reward highly in his favor.

But regardless for Onett on Melee or Mushroom Kingdom on n64, I don't know the specific ban rationale the BR's used. What I do know is that our current ban* was more or less justified by the adv/disadv I listed. Those still exist in melee/n64 variants of smash, so I'm sure they would also apply to those stages as well by extension.

*Brawl's Ban on Walk-Off stages, not necessarily the URC's ban

 

[SaveMeJebus]

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13493662&postcount=301

 

[ElDominio]

I still don't get why walk-off camping is that bad.

It's risky as crap and can easily go both ways for both players.

I understand DDDs chaingrab, but walkoff camping usually is a very risky dice game, like one of those "high risk, high reward" situations this community seems to love.
Really, if I ever see someone walk-off camping that would be nail-biting, it would be like "OH CRAP HE MIGHT DIE OMG OMG OMG WHATS HE DOING?????"
It would look something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTWsE4z4JLM&feature=player_embedded

and that would be awesome

 

[Player-1]

Proof's in the pudding. Or would you like me to quote their whole ruleset again?

I'm not bashing the URC by saying what I said. I have bigger and better things to jump their **** for (stickies, AZ, etc). Don't get your panties in an uproar.

DeLux: You're not going to find a poll for this, recent or otherwise. It was a matter that was contested in some old threads when Brawl was just getting off of the ground. It was somewhat unanimous. It would be an interesting issue to rehash, tho'.

*shrugs.* I'll only say that some characters had a stronger ability to walk-off camp than others. DDD was constantly brought up in those debates, tho'. Sort of a catalyst to assimilate into that reasoning (or the biggest, greatest example).

Smooth Criminal

How does quoting the ruleset prove that the URC simply banned stages just because were commonly banned before?

 

[Juushichi]

I see. Thanks for the info. I wasn't as aware of Sheik's historic significance from pre-Ken days. And yeah, M2K's Sheik is pretty inspiring.

We had Tope here for a bit (he had to go back to VA unfortunately...) and I've seen a couple vids of KK.