For the record, im only answering this because its starting to get philosophical and isnt really dealing with the actual rules anymore.
Somebody being in the minority doesnt make their claims inherently correct either.
Its kinda like voting for a president, all the candidates have the good of the people at heart (supposedly) and are trying to make decisions to benefit all parties involved. But each candidate also has their different ways of going about makes the desired improvements. So how do we decide who gets the job of essentially being in charge of the country. Majority. Thats the only fair way to go about it. And its essentially the same concept here. So in order for you to say that the majority is wrong, you have to pretty much make some kind of irrefutable claim about said majority to prove that the minority is correct even though they have less people backing their opinion. And in this situation, theres no way to feasibly do that. because there solid arguments on both sides.
Disclaimer: I'm trying to articulate my thoughts as I form them, so I reserve the right to retract anything I say
I don't think that the analogy really holds here. In the case of a presidential election, the "need" being discussed is the need for good governance, not the need that a particular candidate win. In that regard, there is no many or few - everyone shares the need. People may disagree on which candidates are most able to offer good governance - that is, are most able to fulfill the need. Because we cannot decide on an objective standard for distinguishing the best candidate we vote. But in effect, what people vote on is really the
criteria that should be used to judge a candidate's fitness to serve. And certainly there are some criteria that we dismiss out of hand. If, for instance, a person votes based on physical appearance, or race, or gender, we are inclined to discount their opinion. I'd even go so far as to say that someone who demonstrably votes along these sorts of lines doesn't deserve to vote.
Similarly, in the case of Metaknight we should first look for an objective criteria of ban-worthiness. If such cannot be agreed upon, then (and only then) might a vote be appropriate. But I've seen very little discussion on the general principle of what justifies a ban. People seem to have their own opinions, and no (or little) effort has been made to argue for one over the other. Much like in the case above, certain criteria should be dismissed out of hand. "He's no fun to play against" is not a valid reason for banning a character from a
competitive game. And yet many of the "many" who you cite have, by their own admission, voted to ban MK for exactly this reason.
In summary, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few
only when the many are not claiming a "need" which is in conflict with some objective principle.
