Ban coaching

[Master WGS]

People keep talking about how unfair it is when some people have coaches and others don't.

Have you seen these forums? Everybody loves to tell you how to play this game. I guarantee any player who, during a set, asked "Anybody have any quick tips for me?" everyone in the room would weigh in. Not "having a coach" is simply not using all the tools (i.e. fellow tournament goers) at your disposal. You're failing to adapt, which seems to be the crux of the anti-coachers' argument.

 

[Scamp]

Well I'd say that's a hasty conclusion to jump to, someone jumping in and making the difference between someone winning or losing a set is nothing minor. Especially since the story in question doesn't talk of anything similar happening for the other player.
An unfair advantage is far from minor and most definitely something to make a constrictive rule over.

Actually I'd say your conclusion is the hasty one. I need a lot more evidence and/or testimonials to make a constrictive rule. No one is arguing that a coach isn't an advantage, but exactly how unfair is that advantage? That's really the question. Exactly how useful is a coach and how much does it help to have one? How hard is it to get one?

Quite frankly, I'm not adding in a rule just because someone might get 49th place instead of 65th place. Add to it that even the OP doesn't have any ideas on specifics or enforcement and I don't see the reason why I should even consider this.

 

[Morbi]

Actually I'd say your conclusion is the hasty one. I need a lot more evidence and/or testimonials to make a constrictive rule. No one is arguing that a coach isn't an advantage, but exactly how unfair is that advantage? That's really the question. Exactly how useful is a coach and how much does it help to have one? How hard is it to get one?

Quite frankly, I'm not adding in a rule just because someone might get 49th place instead of 65th place. Add to it that even the OP doesn't have any ideas on specifics or enforcement and I don't see the reason why I should even consider this.

The notion is a subjective. Some players benefit more ideally from a coach than others, therefore negating the relevance of evidence to a significant extent. Which is honestly part of the reason I would advocate for a "ban;" however, I am not entirely interested in such. I believe that if one were to assert that they need a coach, that they be limited to 15-30 seconds of advice. My only concern is time-based.

 

[Thor]

Coaching should be banned for sure!
It's up to the player to make the decisions and adjustments necessary to win. The tournament is the final test and if you can't win on your own you should not win at all.

I don't know how many times I've seen someone (I think it's Leffen) start staying stuff to you after a loss (and occasionally a win).

Is it:
A) Random stuff that's not coaching
or
B) Coaching but it's because coaching is legal?

And you would prefer to never hear anything from another player in between games if it was the same for your opponent? [I'm looking at Apex 2013, about 12:20 in as an example, after game 2 where PPMD is celebrating and you're just sitting there nodding, among other points in the set and other sets out there.]

I'm just curious if this is "I do it because it's legal and it's advantageous, but not because I like it" or if you actually don't receive coaching at all.

Notice how most of this thread can be addressed in this single post? In the first page?
Create this rule that a person can request no coaching on a set, and voilé, all is fine (except for the crowd, but that's impossible to control, and generally not that noticeable).
This lets TOs keep some control, since it's very unlinkely that all players will request banning the coaching.

I already addressed why that's still fundamentally unfair.

Whoawhoawhoa time out, since when has Super Smash Brothers ever been fair? I'm pretty sure M2K/Hbox are stepping up to a rigged game every time they play a Fox (ex: Mango, whomever) with Sheik/Puff - it's more-or-less established that those characters are at a disadvantage against Fox when each side plays properly, but looky there, they do it anyway. If people wish to disadvantage themselves or play on an unfair playing field by doing or allowing something that gives the opponent an advantage, [in this example, they do not play Fox or Falco or maybe Samus (Marth too for Hbox)], let them disadvantage themselves. Not everything has to be fair, it just should be something all sides agree to that will [in a tournament] allow for one side to advance and the other side to go into loser's bracket/out of the tournament - nothing more, nothing less (and no it doesn't have to be a test of skill - pretty sure Mango at some point lost to people he was better than while being the master of poisionous little pests, but that doesn't mean he deserved to advance in the bracket - he had freedom, as do all others, to pick any character, and he lost). That's why we haven't banned everyone but Fox and Falco and Marth, or only characters with even MUs with each other - we're okay letting people handicap themselves or take the best character they can because it makes the game better for the two players who are playing the game. If that's not your first concern, that is, making the game as fun/competitive/enjoyable for the people playing it, then you need to check your priorities.

So if coaching is desired by both players, because they each believe [regardless of truth value] that it will improve the quality of the set for themselves (or even if because they don't care and don't want to potentially hurt the adversary - an honor thing) [or even if they don't object, regardless of why], they should each be allowed to have coaches, or the one who has a coach should be allowed to have a coach if the other doesn't and doesn't object, end of story.

 

[Nihonjin]

Whoawhoawhoa time out, since when has Super Smash Brothers ever been fair? I'm pretty sure M2K/Hbox are stepping up to a rigged game every time they play a Fox (ex: Mango, whomever) with Sheik/Puff - it's more-or-less established that those characters are at a disadvantage against Fox when each side plays properly, but looky there, they do it anyway. If people wish to disadvantage themselves or play on an unfair playing field by doing or allowing something that gives the opponent an advantage, [in this example, they do not play Fox or Falco or maybe Samus (Marth too for Hbox)], let them disadvantage themselves.

Those are all factors within the actual game we're playing. Everyone and their mother can play Fox if they want to. Equal opportunity. We don't all have access to the same quality coaching.

That said, even ingame factors get limited if we agree they devalue skill and create an unfair advantage for a certain character or tactic. Why do you think we banned certain stages or wobbling over a certain percentage?

Your argument makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

Not everything has to be fair, it just should be something all sides agree to that will [in a tournament] allow for one side to advance and the other side to go into loser's bracket/out of the tournament - nothing more, nothing less (and no it doesn't have to be a test of skill - pretty sure Mango at some point lost to people he was better than while being the master of poisionous little pests, but that doesn't mean he deserved to advance in the bracket - he had freedom, as do all others, to pick any character, and he lost). That's why we haven't banned everyone but Fox and Falco and Marth, or only characters with even MUs with each other - we're okay letting people handicap themselves or take the best character they can because it makes the game better for the two players who are playing the game. If that's not your first concern, that is, making the game as fun/competitive/enjoyable for the people playing it, then you need to check your priorities.

Handicapping yourself through ingame methods is fine. Purposely buffing yourself or handicapping your opponent through external methods is not. It's why we don't allow friends to pull out the controllers of your opponent, block their view or purposly scream in their ear as a distraction (not just cheering). If someone did that, the argument "Well, get your own friends to pull out my controller" wouldn't fly.

Now, obviously controller unplugging has a much bigger impact than coaching, but the core principle why I'm against it is the same. I'm guessing we probably even agree on why we shouldn't allow controller unplugging.

 

[EnIgma24]

Those are all factors within the actual game we're playing. Everyone and their mother can play Fox if they want to. Equal opportunity. We don't all have access to the same quality coaching.

That said, even ingame factors get limited if we agree they devalue skill and create an unfair advantage for a certain character or tactic. Why do you think we banned certain stages or wobbling over a certain percentage?

Your argument makes absolutely no sense what so ever.



Handicapping yourself through ingame methods is fine. Purposely buffing yourself or handicapping your opponent through external methods is not. It's why we don't allow friends to pull out the controllers of your opponent, block their view or purposly scream in their ear as a distraction (not just cheering). If someone did that, the argument "Well, get your own friends to pull out my controller" wouldn't fly.

Now, obviously controller unplugging has a much bigger impact than coaching, but the core principle why I'm against it is the same. I'm guessing we probably even agree on why we shouldn't allow controller unplugging.

I think you skip the main idea people are saying from the beginning: let the players decide, if you're against coaching fine your opponent won't have one if you don't want to, but if both players don't mind they fight each other with a coach of their own the problem is solved at the very first page don't you think? :/

 

[TheKmanOfSmash]

@ Overswarm

When I first read the OP, I found myself in complete agreement with nearly everything stated. However, I wanted to wait to see what other people had to say to see if my mind would be changed and after reading the posts, I would now support a way to regulate coaching if possible instead of outright banning it. I also liked Overswarm's summary of both side's arguments as well, but I 100% disagree with the notion that if something is to hard to regulate, there's no point in trying. If I may, let me pose a series of questions to you: Do people not make laws because they may be hard to regulate? Do people not set rules for a company because they may be hard to regulate? No one ever got anywhere until they actually tried to do something. And then when the very thing that everyone doubted from the beginning starts working, the naysayers are never to be heard from again (or they come up with some other excuse). I think it would be an interesting experiment to allow the people who want to try to set up their difficult regulation to do so at their expense (as long as no one else is getting hurt or significantly disadvantaged in the process) and let the results of their efforts speak for themselves. People had the same doubts about applying a universal collusion ban in the FGC, but people went ahead with the idea and it seemed to have had good results. However, the same can be said for the MK ban in Brawl and we all know that failed horribly with the disbandment of the Unity Ruleset Committee. But what the collusion ban and the MK ban had in common was that they at least made an effort to try and enact their respective rules, despite the naysayers. Of course, both situations had different circumstances and it's not a 1:1 scenario, but I think it can be said that they both were the result of trying to enforce something that people claimed was hard to do. (Also, you said that the collusion was "hard to spot but not hard to regulate". What does this mean, if I may ask? If you can't see the crime happening, how does that not affect its regulation?)



But neither my stance on the topic nor my opinion on Overswarm's comment are the main reasons as to why I'm posting in this thread. I'm posting to ask that we have a more detailed discussion on the Smash to sports coaching analogy. I feel as if this topic was either ignored or deemed irrelevent without many detailed explainations as to why.

I think this analogy is a very important one to talk about in terms of explaining the validity of allowing or banning coaches in Smash because it helps us identify variables that may be similar or different across other games. Also, it gives us a different perspective and insight on how a coaching ban/clause would affect the Smash community based on how it works in other gaming/sports communities. I don't see how this could be a strawman at all. Though there are different rules and dynamics in each type of game/sport, the one thing Smash shares with basketball, boxing, chess, tennis, etc. is that they are all competitive environments where the objective is to overcome your opponent(s) and secure a victory. In some of these games/sports, coaching is allowed, yet in others it isn't. Even in other FG and eSports communities, there are different stances on the issue of coaching. Why is this the case? What are the dynamics in each of these games/sports that would warrant the need of allowing or banning coaching between matches/half-time/rounds, w/e? What makes one reason more important than the other? What similarities does competitive Smash share with these sports? If these other games/sports aren't even comparable to coaching in Smash in any respect, then why?

By asking and answering such questions, I feel that we could make more informed decisions when it comes to enacting a coaching ban/clause in our community's rulesets because we'd have data from other competitive communities to compare.

 

[Nihonjin]

I think you skip the main idea people are saying from the beginning: let the players decide, if you're against coaching fine your opponent won't have one if you don't want to, but if both players don't mind they fight each other with a coach of their own the problem is solved at the very first page don't you think? :/

No. And I already explained why. If people play with coaches some matches and without in others, you screw up seeding and skew results.

Either you ban coaching entirely or you require a coach to be present for both players at every match. There is no fair middle ground. It needs to be regulated.

 

[Backgammon]

I finally feel like I can weigh in on this.

I'm lucky in the fact that my Project M main, Charizard, allows me to play in a reasonably flexible playstyle.
Recently, at a tournament I went to, I went against someone with a coach. While I wasn't happy, I decided to step up the mindgames.

During the first game, I played super defensively and hogged platforms and the edge. After the game, I heard his coach telling him about the so-called habits that I had while playing as Charizard. Namely, that I was playing "very strangely for a Charizard, but being predictable." During the second game, I stuck with the defensive game, but deliberately eliminated the "habits" from my game and introduced a "crippling flaw" in my game in the vein of "forgetting" to use FAir to follow up a combo.

His coach picked up on that, and he took the game. So, we're now 1 - 1.

Time to go balls to the wall. I went from being slightly campy and playing a punish game to balls deep offensive. There was not a part of that game where I was NOT rushing him down and as a result, I won. He did not see it coming and because his coach didn't either and assumed that playing defensively was my playstyle, he didn't even factor in the fact that I was going to go rushdown. Why would I? I had played defensively for two games and showed adaptation within a "pre-defined" playstyle. I adapted to the fact that while he had an extra pair of eyes, those eyes can also be mislead.

 

[Nihonjin]

I finally feel like I can weigh in on this.

I'm lucky in the fact that my Project M main, Charizard, allows me to play in a reasonably flexible playstyle.
Recently, at a tournament I went to, I went against someone with a coach. While I wasn't happy, I decided to step up the mindgames.

During the first game, I played super defensively and hogged platforms and the edge. After the game, I heard his coach telling him about the so-called habits that I had while playing as Charizard. Namely, that I was playing "very strangely for a Charizard, but being predictable." During the second game, I stuck with the defensive game, but deliberately eliminated the "habits" from my game and introduced a "crippling flaw" in my game in the vein of "forgetting" to use FAir to follow up a combo.

His coach picked up on that, and he took the game. So, we're now 1 - 1.

Time to go balls to the wall. I went from being slightly campy and playing a punish game to balls deep offensive. There was not a part of that game where I was NOT rushing him down and as a result, I won. He did not see it coming and because his coach didn't either and assumed that playing defensively was my playstyle, he didn't even factor in the fact that I was going to go rushdown. Why would I? I had played defensively for two games and showed adaptation within a "pre-defined" playstyle. I adapted to the fact that while he had an extra pair of eyes, those eyes can also be mislead.

So people with coaches don't win 100% of games. This is not news.

The point ist hat you shouldn't have to mislead an extra brain or pair of eyes because you're only playing one person.

 

[Backgammon]

So people with coaches don't win 100% of games. This is not news.

The point ist hat you shouldn't have to mislead an extra brain or pair of eyes because you're only playing one person.

I shouldn't have to, no. And for the record, I am in support of at LEAST gentleman's rule for coaching.
I feel that, however, coaching does also open up a weakness in a player, in that they can rely on their coach too much. While it may be a minor weakness, it's certainly present.

In short, coaches need to be regulated, or removed. That's my stance.

 

[Nihonjin]

In short, coaches need to be regulated, or removed. That's my stance.

Then we are in agreement..

I misunderstood your position from your earlier post.

 

[Morbi]

@ Overswarm

When I first read the OP, I found myself in complete agreement with nearly everything stated. However, I wanted to wait to see what other people had to say to see if my mind would be changed and after reading the posts, I would now support a way to regulate coaching if possible instead of outright banning it. I also liked Overswarm's summary of both side's arguments as well, but I 100% disagree with the notion that if something is to hard to regulate, there's no point in trying. If I may, let me pose a series of questions to you: Do people not make laws because they may be hard to regulate? Do people not set rules for a company because they may be hard to regulate? No one ever got anywhere until they actually tried to do something. And then when the very thing that everyone doubted from the beginning starts working, the naysayers are never to be heard from again (or they come up with some other excuse). I think it would be an interesting experiment to allow the people who want to try to set up their difficult regulation to do so at their expense (as long as no one else is getting hurt or significantly disadvantaged in the process) and let the results of their efforts speak for themselves. People had the same doubts about applying a universal collusion ban in the FGC, but people went ahead with the idea and it seemed to have had good results. However, the same can be said for the MK ban in Brawl and we all know that failed horribly with the disbandment of the Unity Ruleset Committee. But what the collusion ban and the MK ban had in common was that they at least made an effort to try and enact their respective rules, despite the naysayers. Of course, both situations had different circumstances and it's not a 1:1 scenario, but I think it can be said that they both were the result of trying to enforce something that people claimed was hard to do. (Also, you said that the collusion was "hard to spot but not hard to regulate". What does this mean, if I may ask? If you can't see the crime happening, how does that not affect its regulation?)



But neither my stance on the topic nor my opinion on Overswarm's comment are the main reasons as to why I'm posting in this thread. I'm posting to ask that we have a more detailed discussion on the Smash to sports coaching analogy. I feel as if this topic was either ignored or deemed irrelevent without many detailed explainations as to why.

I think this analogy is a very important one to talk about in terms of explaining the validity of allowing or banning coaches in Smash because it helps us identify variables that may be similar or different across other games. Also, it gives us a different perspective and insight on how a coaching ban/clause would affect the Smash community based on how it works in other gaming/sports communities. I don't see how this could be a strawman at all. Though there are different rules and dynamics in each type of game/sport, the one thing Smash shares with basketball, boxing, chess, tennis, etc. is that they are all competitive environments where the objective is to overcome your opponent(s) and secure a victory. In some of these games/sports, coaching is allowed, yet in others it isn't. Even in other FG and eSports communities, there are different stances on the issue of coaching. Why is this the case? What are the dynamics in each of these games/sports that would warrant the need of allowing or banning coaching between matches/half-time/rounds, w/e? What makes one reason more important than the other? What similarities does competitive Smash share with these sports? If these other games/sports aren't even comparable to coaching in Smash in any respect, then why?

By asking and answering such questions, I feel that we could make more informed decisions when it comes to enacting a coaching ban/clause in our community's rulesets because we'd have data from other competitive communities to compare.

I feel as though most people are blatantly disregarding the sports analogy because the differences between mental sports and physical sports were made overt. For instance, Smash is a game where knowledge is more important than physical activity. Most of that is attributed to muscle memory as is. It is much more relevant for a player to have MU knowledge, player knowledge, adaptability and the ability to accurately discern what the opponents options are and how to counter or anticipate them. If one has a coach, they do this for the player or with the player whereas a coach cannot get on the field and help a player successfully make a pass. So, in the same way that coaching in Chess is utterly irrational, that is more so the case with a video-game. Of course, there are differences and they are not entirely comparable. However, it is undeniable that Smash is much more like Chess than it is, say Football.

 

[TheKmanOfSmash]

I feel as though most people are blatantly disregarding the sports analogy because the differences between mental sports and physical sports were made overt. For instance, Smash is a game where knowledge is more important than physical activity. Most of that is attributed to muscle memory as is. It is much more relevant for a player to have MU knowledge, player knowledge, adaptability and the ability to accurately discern what the opponents options are and how to counter or anticipate them. If one has a coach, they do this for the player or with the player whereas a coach cannot get on the field and help a player successfully make a pass. So, in the same way that coaching in Chess is utterly irrational, that is more so the case with a video-game. Of course, there are differences and they are not entirely comparable. However, it is undeniable that Smash is much more like Chess than it is, say Football.

I don't necessarily agree with this comparison of the mental to physical attributes of the game. Even if what was stated here was true, how does a sport or game being mostly mental or physical influence the validity of having a coach? Maybe I am missing this connection here. A coach also cannot use someone's controller and play a Smash set for them. But I don't see how this translates on why coaching shouldn't be allowed in Smash but allowed in other games/sports. Coaches in physical sports coach for/with the players as well.

Also, there's a looooooooot of mental strategy in a game like Football that a coach could use their expertise on to help his/her team during breaks or halftime. I would argue that there are other significant factors that affect the validity of having a coach (of which I am unsure, hence why I posted in the thread), but I don't see how a game/sport's inherent mental to physical ratio is one of them.

Also, I believe that your Chess example is a bit disingenuous. Yes, you're right in that no one agrees that coaching during a Chess match is ok. But I don't think it's due to it mostly being a mental game. I believe it's because it would have to be coaching during the actual match. No one agrees that coaching someone during a competitive Smash match is ok, either. But what is being argued here is about coaching in between matches. I'm not sure how competitive Chess works, but if I had to guess (and sorry if I'm wrong on this) I would think that you only play one game/round with the opponent and then you either win or lose. In Smash, we have Bo3 or Bo5 sets and the argument being presented here is coaching in between those sets. Unless Chess also has Bo3 sets or Bo5 sets, I don't think your analogy holds in this case.

 

[Overswarm]

This thread is bonkers with too many words.

Banning or not banning coaching both has their advantages. Problem is it is very difficult for most tournaments to enforce, if not impossible.

If you can have a reasonable answer to all of the questions below, you can ban coaching. You lose some things and gain others, it's all personal preference.

• How do you enforce it? Seriously, so-and-so you don't know says whats-his-face was coaching random-guy-you've-never seen during their set. WTF do you do? Do you put a guy at every station to watch for it? Just give them a warning AFTER they broke the rule and say "we're watching you" but not have the manpower to do it?

• What is the punishment? "A warning"? What does that accomplish, as the game will already be altered? Do you DQ that player who gave the advice? What if they're already out? Do you DQ the player who they gave the advice TO? What if they didn't want it and it was just given to them? Do you ban the player who gave the advice? What if it's the grand finals and they're about to leave anyway, and this helps their ride home win? This is super tricky.

• What do you do about questionable situations? When I was working with MLG to write articles on Smash, I got to judge a match between Ken and Azen at MLG New York. Ken's family was there with him and they were not speaking English. I speak only one language and it wasn't that one. Were they coaching? Do you say "Sorry, no foreign languages allowed"? What if someone leans in and whispers in a player's ear to say "good luck buddy, you can do it", but you don't know what they said? Do you punish them for that?

• How do you define coaching? Is "You can do it man" a psychological boost that helps his spirits enough to pull through and win considered 'coaching'? What about the infamous Husband shout of "PLAY HIM LIKE HE'S ZELDA" to Wife when Wife was playing a close match against a Ganon?

• Are you willing to punish top players that are in the top 4? Imagine Mango, PPMD, Armada, and Hungrybox all in the top 4. Not hard! Now imagine Hungrybox goes up to PPMD and coaches him during his game iwth Armada despite the rules being otherwise. Hungrybox is in the Grand Finals of EVO. Do you punish Hungrybox, effectively ruining the tournament, or do you just let it slide because he's in the grand finals and it'd be a hype deflation if he was DQed? If you aren't willing to DQ, ban, or otherwise punish a player for breaking this rule in a situation like the one above, you aren't willing to have the rule in place.

If you're not a TO for a large event with a lot of your own money on the line with matches being streamed to thousands and hyped for months, don't even attempt to answer #4 because you can't.

 

[Comeback Kid]

Why is pot splitting considered cheating and banned even if it doesn't always affect the outcome of a finals match? Because it's heavily frowned upon as unfair and the rule exists to catch the idiots who are dumb enough to be caught doing it.

It seems like the original poster has made his points so well almost nobody disagrees with him that coaching is an unfair advantage, now everyone just wants to argue to what degree is it unfair, if unfairness is more exciting to watch than a true 1 vs. 1 match or if you can fairly apply the rules to unfairness (I love that reasoning!)

If TOs care about the integrity of their events I'm sure they will look at some of this...interesting reasoning and come to their own conclusions.

 

[Morbi]

I don't necessarily agree with this comparison of the mental to physical attributes of the game. Even if what was stated here was true, how does a sport or game being mostly mental or physical influence the validity of having a coach? Maybe I am missing this connection here. A coach also cannot use someone's controller and play a Smash set for them. But I don't see how this translates on why coaching shouldn't be allowed in Smash but allowed in other games/sports. Coaches in physical sports coach for/with the players as well.

Also, there's a looooooooot of mental strategy in a game like Football that a coach could use their expertise on to help his/her team during breaks or halftime. I would argue that there are other significant factors that affect the validity of having a coach (of which I am unsure, hence why I posted in the thread), but I don't see how a game/sport's inherent mental to physical ratio is one of them.

Also, I believe that your Chess example is a bit disingenuous. Yes, you're right in that no one agrees that coaching during a Chess match is ok. But I don't think it's due to it mostly being a mental game. I believe it's because it would have to be coaching during the actual match. No one agrees that coaching someone during a competitive Smash match is ok, either. But what is being argued here is about coaching in between matches. I'm not sure how competitive Chess works, but if I had to guess (and sorry if I'm wrong on this) I would think that you only play one game/round with the opponent and then you either win or lose. In Smash, we have Bo3 or Bo5 sets and the argument being presented here is coaching in between those sets. Unless Chess also has Bo3 sets or Bo5 sets, I don't think your analogy holds in this case.

Again, it has to do with discerning the mental aspects from the physical aspects. In a physical sport, the sport is predominantly physical, therefore a coach cannot aid you in the most important aspect of the sport. However, in a mental sport, the sport is predominantly mental, therefore the coach CAN aid you in the most prominent aspect of the game. The aspect that determines whether you win or lose. That is, of course, my opinion. You can feel free to disagree, but my perspective does explain why coaches are legitimate in certain sports and not others.

It is not necessarily an inherent factor that is necessary to consider. It is something that I consider myself.

It depends. Technically speaking, that is a dependent variable that is associated with the event. For instance, at EVO, they did not seem to allow extensive coaching. But at CEO, they allowed it after each and every set for a couple of minutes. In a Chess match, there could certainly be an intermission at some point, it does not necessarily have to happen during the match. One could interpret the entire set as one event (match) that is interrupted by coaches during the counter-picking process (which is how I interpret such).

 

[<π]

@ Overswarm I honestly don't think is is even worth the time.

 

[TheKmanOfSmash]

Again, it has to do with discerning the mental aspects from the physical aspects. In a physical sport, the sport is predominantly physical, therefore a coach cannot aid you in the most important aspect of the sport. However, in a mental sport, the sport is predominantly mental, therefore the coach CAN aid you in the most prominent aspect of the game. The aspect that determines whether you win or lose. That is, of course, my opinion. You can feel free to disagree, but my perspective does explain why coaches are legitimate in certain sports and not others.

It is not necessarily an inherent factor that is necessary to consider. It is something that I consider myself.

It depends. Technically speaking, that is a dependent variable that is associated with the event. For instance, at EVO, they did not seem to allow extensive coaching. But at CEO, they allowed it after each and every set for a couple of minutes. In a Chess match, there could certainly be an intermission at some point, it does not necessarily have to happen during the match. One could interpret the entire set as one event (match) that is interrupted by coaches during the counter-picking process (which is how I interpret such).

If I may, allow me to ask a question, then: If a coach can't aid someone in the most important aspect of the sport, like you claimed, then what is the point of having a coach in a physical sport? Is there no possible way for a coach to suggest to his/her player(s) to change or improve some aspect of their physical performance or position on the field? Is it impossible for a coach to suggest to his team to be more aggressive in their offensive plays or to suggest to a runner to not expend their energy in the first 3 laps so that he can power through the remaining 3? I see those as legitimate means of coaching on physical aspects of the game, something you claimed could not be done. Could you explain your claim in more detail so I can understand it better?

Also, my goal was to focus on inherent coaching factors in each game/sport that people are willing to compare to Smash. I appreciate other considerations as well, as long as they hold up to scrutiny. But in this case, I don't believe it does.

And one could interpret the entire set as one match, as you said. But I'm almost positive that Smasher's usually support the stance that one set is usually composed of Bo3 or Bo5 matches. I don't think it's fair to change definitions on something that the whole community has already defined unless its warranted for some reason.

 

[Thor]

I'll respond to this other post first, because it's the crux of your argument's opposition to my argument.

If people play with coaches some matches and without in others, you screw up seeding and skew results.

Nope. I said it earlier: it's about each player feeling like the bracket matches were fair within their respective matches - if each player feels that allowing themselves and the foe to have a coach gives them the best chance to show who deserves to advance in bracket, there should definitely be coaches. If either player feels coaches shouldn't occur, there are no coaches for the round, end of story. Either way, each person involved feels that they did what made the rounds as meaningful for themselves and the seeding and results as possible. Everyone wins.

Either you ban coaching entirely or you require a coach to be present for both players at every match. There is no fair middle ground. It needs to be regulated.

Gentleman's rule for coaching is sufficient - see above.

Those are all factors within the actual game we're playing. Everyone and their mother can play Fox if they want to. Equal opportunity. We don't all have access to the same quality coaching.

That said, even ingame factors get limited if we agree they devalue skill and create an unfair advantage for a certain character or tactic. Why do you think we banned certain stages or wobbling over a certain percentage?

Your argument makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

Handicapping yourself through ingame methods is fine. Purposely buffing yourself or handicapping your opponent through external methods is not. It's why we don't allow friends to pull out the controllers of your opponent, block their view or purposly scream in their ear as a distraction (not just cheering). If someone did that, the argument "Well, get your own friends to pull out my controller" wouldn't fly.

I think you missed the point I was making - we allow players to handicap themselves if they make the choice to. Saying to your opponent "You can have a coach, I don't care" is handicapping yourself. You're going to need to do a significantly better job of explaining to me and others who don't agree with banning coaches why handicapping yourself in various ways somehow makes certain handicaps okay and other handicaps unacceptable (I'd be handicapping myself externally if I played with only one eye open and my ears plugged, but no one's going to stop me if I do that - since I don't care that my opponent has an extra set of eyes and ears, why does someone else get to decide that I shouldn't let them have a coach?), because there is no functional difference between an in-game and out-of-game handicap - you've made things harder on yourself than they have to be. EDIT: And yes, I understand why we ban some stages and wobbling - those cause degenerate play. Coaching doesn't cause degenerate play, so I'm not sure how sturdy your analogy actually was to begin with - I may come back to you with more reasons that argument didn't make sense, but I didn't bother analyzing it much when I first posted.

You've also completely ignored the point I'm making, which is that there are people who feel it still shows who the better player is, because the adaption occurs faster which makes it about next-level adaption (you can't just keep rolling in or ledge-jumping or getting free CGs - now what? Similarly your opponent isn't always gimping you for going to the ledge - can they still edgeguard your recovery?). Or do you believe it's your right to force your view of how the game should be played to test certain skills on others who feel it A) tests those skills still and B) promotes better matches? Is the "purity" of results that much more important to you than allowing players to have matches they feel were optimized for themselves [and their opponent, since the opponent has to say yes]?

 

[Morbi]

If I may, allow me to ask a question, then: If a coach can't aid someone in the most important aspect of the sport, like you claimed, then what is the point of having a coach in a physical sport? Is there no possible way for a coach to suggest to his/her player(s) to change or improve some aspect of their physical performance or position on the field? Is it impossible for a coach to suggest to his team to be more aggressive in their offensive plays or to suggest to a runner to not expend their energy in the first 3 laps so that he can power through the remaining 3? I see those as legitimate means of coaching on physical aspects of the game, something you claimed could not be done. Could you explain your claim in more detail so I can understand it better?

Also, my goal was to focus on inherent coaching factors in each game/sport that people are willing to compare to Smash. I appreciate other considerations as well, as long as they hold up to scrutiny. But in this case, I don't believe it does.

And one could interpret the entire set as one match, as you said. But I'm almost positive that Smasher's usually support the stance that one set is usually composed of Bo3 or Bo5 matches. I don't think it's fair to change definitions on something that the whole community has already defined unless its warranted for some reason.

I suppose when you compare the two directly, coaches in both instances are merely present for suggestions based on their empirical knowledge. Neither of them are actually playing the game. I am arguing that the difference is not negligible as the more prominent aspect of Smash is "decision-making." If you have someone to provide you with MU information and discerning what inherent changes need to be established, I feel as though it is not the player making the decisions that are relevant. Notice the "I" that indicates subjective language. I am assuming that you believe that I am making objective assertions which is not the case in the slightest. I asserted on multiple occasions that I believe the "ban" is justified, but I would rather a time-limit (regulation), that is my solution as a spectator. No more than 15-30 seconds of advice, I do not find that unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination as the VAST majority of coaching is already 15-30 seconds. I just believe that someone should be disqualified if they take much longer because; at that point, someone else IS playing the game for you and it is a momentum killer based on the notion that your opponent has someone to "converse" with. It is not the same as going to counter-pick and contemplating which stage would be the most ideal. It is quite literally conspiring against your opponent with friend while he waits for you to finish analyzing his game-play with someone who is solely there to point out his play-style and/or common mistakes. That is certainly not something I would advocate for as there is a correlation between this specific instance and advice giving in chest. That is; however, my opinion. I do not have a burden to support my argument in the slightest as that is not material to the discussion.

Lastly, please indicate where I proclaimed that a coach could not make a suggestion for a team to play more aggressively? I never insinuated ANYTHING to that effect. That is the entire purpose of the coach. It would be counter-intuitive to imply otherwise. My claim was that a coach cannot get on the field and help with the most prominent aspect of any given physical sport.

It is not necessarily "changing" the definition. It is literally a separate interpretation. For instance, one would not expect your opponent to go to the restroom in between sets as it is for the most part, one game. It is not as though "counter-picking" is "intermission time." However, when coaches are introduced to the equation, it effectively becomes such.

 

[Nihonjin]

Nope.

There's nothing to disagree with. It was a fact.

I said it earlier: it's about each player feeling like the bracket matches were fair within their respective matches - if each player feels that allowing themselves and the foe to have a coach gives them the best chance to show who deserves to advance in bracket, there should definitely be coaches. If either player feels coaches shouldn't occur, there are no coaches for the round, end of story. Either way, each person involved feels that they did what made the rounds as meaningful for themselves and the seeding and results as possible. Everyone wins.

This is irrelevant to the point I made.

Since I don't care that my opponent has an extra set of eyes and ears, why does someone else get to decide that I shouldn't let them have a coach?)

Same reason your opponent cannot randomly have a friend plug in a controller and play you 2 v 1, even if you're dumb enough to agree.

because there is no functional difference between an in-game and out-of-game handicap

Even if I granted you this, how exactly does it support your position or affect mine?

you've made things harder on yourself than they have to be. EDIT: And yes, I understand why we ban some stages and wobbling - those cause degenerate play.

Evidently you don't, since degenerating play isn't really the problem.

I'm not sure how sturdy your analogy actually was to begin with

That's what you get for replying to an argument you apparently haven't read.

if I played with only one eye open and my ears plugged, but no one's going to stop me if I do that

Handicapping yourself is fine (ie: playing with 1 hand, closing one eye).
Buffing yourself is not(ie: Coach)
Handicapping your opponent is not. (Ie: Unplugging controller, having someone block his view, etc)

You've also completely ignored the point I'm making, which is that there are people who feel it still shows who the better player is

Those people are demonstrably wrong.

because the adaption occurs faster which makes it about next-level adaption (you can't just keep rolling in or ledge-jumping or getting free CGs - now what? Similarly your opponent isn't always gimping you for going to the ledge - can they still edgeguard your recovery?).

Completely irrelevant.

Or do you believe it's your right to force your view of how the game should be played to test certain skills on others

I explained exactly why I think it should be banned or regulated in order to make it fair and it's kind of inarguable (logically). Most people recognize this, which is why the common argument is that "we can't enforce it".

If that means I'm "forcing my views on others", then yeah, I have that right.

A) tests those skills still and B) promotes better matches?

Then regulate it.

Is the "purity" of results that much more important to you than allowing players to have matches they feel were optimized for themselves

Yes.

 

[-ACE-]

I don't think someone should be allowed to have a coach all the time, during matches, but a few sentences between matches has never bothered me and I feel like anyone should have this ability. If someone in the crowd yells "stop teching in place!" and that person corrects his bad habit and goes on to win, should the person in the crowd be asked to leave the venue? Since little tid-bits of info can't really be blocked, I feel like someone giving advice between matches is ok, but there should be a time limit to make it brief (like with button checks).

 

[Thor]

There's nothing to disagree with. It was a fact.

There was nothing 'factual" about it. You don't screw up seeding or results unless someone is actually offended by the coaching and feels it screwed them over in the first place. "Screwing up" is inherently subjective - if both players agree the match played was fair, then the seeding ended up as it should have, because everyone agrees everything occurred as it should have, i.e. it did not occur in a "screwed up" manner. Or is a situation where everyone is fine with the results and believes they are accurate "screwed up" to you [there's a good example of this at the bottom of this post - I'm curious if you believe the example tournament was screwed up and the results there don't matter within the context of that tournament (though admittedly they may not matter at EVO or APEX because they occurred under different conditions)]?

Same reason your opponent cannot randomly have a friend plug in a controller and play you 2 v 1, even if you're dumb enough to agree.

We've already deconstructed why that argument is suspect, and I disagree with it. Unless you believe that the person pressing buttons on a controller isn't making all the decisions themselves, at which point I could argue but I'm probably just wasting my time (this is between sets coaching, not the whispering in the ear coaching - the latter should be banned, I agree, but the former requires consciously remembering the coaching (it's against habits you have) and following that coaching). But if my opponent is so bad they want someone else to plug in, I'd probably laugh and ask them who, and if it's another no-skill player I'd say "go ahead" and then beat 'em both up. And again, the coach is not doing any damage to me - this analogy is flawed, because a friend could grab-release me to death - the coach can't.

Even if I granted you this, how exactly does it support your position or affect mine?

Here's how it supports my position: in a gentleman's rule situation where you have no coach, you have two options: say no coaching, or handicap yourself by allowing your opponent to have a coach. That's a handicap, and because there is zero difference between an in-game and out-of-game handicap, gentleman's rule coaching is unproblematic - it's just another form of handicap a player can give themselves in a set (that is, not using the rule while not having a coach [or using it when your opponent would not have done so while having a superior coach, if someone can measure those things] is the handicap).

Handicapping yourself is fine (ie: playing with 1 hand, closing one eye).
Buffing yourself is not(ie: Coach)
Handicapping your opponent is not. (Ie: Unplugging controller, having someone block his view, etc)

See above. And I'll say it like this too: handicapping yourself asymmetrically (making it harder on oneself) is necessarily a buff to the opponent (making it easier on another: in a 1v1, anything that hurts a player necessarily helps the other), and vice versa, so my handicap is just your buff. If someone wants to let the opponent buff themselves (make it easier for the opponent, i.e. have a coach without their own coach), they're really just handicapping themselves (making it harder on themselves, i.e. not using a coach when they could request someone help them out or ban coaching), which you've just said is fine. [Also note: my entire premise is not "I get a coach when I want", it is "I'll let my opponent have a coach when I want, either because I have my own coach and they agree or I just don't care" - this is all premised on either player having control over the ability of coaches to be present at all, where an unblockable "no" removes all coaching from the equation.]

Evidently you don't, since degenerating play isn't really the problem.

Degenerate play isn't the problem with Fox on Temple? I thought the degenerate play occurred because people sat around, teched in the Cave of Life, and Fox could blast someone once and circle camp. all of which are degenerate, while wobbling used to be considered degenerate and no longer is by some, hence it is legal. But if degenerate play isn't the problem, what IS the problem with Temple? While I'm admittedly sarcastic, I'm also genuinely curious if you think there is some bigger issue with Temple leading us to ban it... because I don't see it at all.

That's what you get for replying to an argument you apparently haven't read.

I'll admit that was clever. But I looked at your analogy of "certain stages/wobbling are like coaching" and they're weak at best. Certain stages make degenerate play all the rage "Pick Fox laser and run away on Temple" and yet coaching won't cause your opponent to zero-death you with a grab (unless your DI is that terrible, and even then, it's not grab -> ftilts -> smash -> death from 20% with any character as a true combo except ICs) or make your opponent do nothing but circle-camp (not even possible on FD, and not easy on the other stages either).

I explained exactly why I think it should be banned or regulated in order to make it fair and it's kind of inarguable (logically). Most people recognize this, which is why the common argument is that "we can't enforce it".
If that means I'm "forcing my views on others", then yeah, I have that right.

It's not inarguable at all - the fact that I'm having an argument with you in the first place about whether handicapping oneself intentionally is fine proves you're begging the question (and yes you are: you are stating something is inarguable in order to prevent argument about it, i.e. assuming that you are right as proof you are right when I'm disputing that you are right in the first place). Most people are falling bait to your logical fallacy if they just assume you're right because you're asserting it.

Then regulate it.

*facepalm* ... a gentleman's rule (and time limits too I guess, I don't care either way) is the argument I've been making for not outright banning between-games coaching this entire time.

If you agree it should be regulated then I think we're done - I agree it should be regulated via only between matches and with a gentleman's rule (i.e., if a player says no, it's a no) but since you seem vehemently opposed to V115's solution, I'm still here. [I also have zero opposition to capping the coaching time.]

Yes.

Ideological difference means I won't work this out with you, but... if a tournament of 16 with all forms of coaching (Even the during round whispering and 5 minute breaks that I heavily dislike) occurs and everyone agrees it was a good, fair tournament, I may not ever choose to attend that tournament, but I certainly would not try to impose my will on people who are playing Smash, having a good time, and growing the community - at most I would warn them their rules are far more liberal than at other tournaments, but making people change to suit your beliefs (when no one is actually being physically injured or mentally abused, since they all enjoy it) just feels wrong to me.

EDIT: Edited because my rhetoric was pointlessly inflammatory - hopefully more constructive than before.

 

[FirestormNeos]

Ban 'em, don't ban 'em. I don't care. I don't even remember which game we're talking about at this point.

This IS obvious to most players. The majority of the community is of the belief we are fighting in a 1v1 game in singles, not a 1+coach vs 1+coach. This point will be debated unless a poll is done defining what coaching entails and is done at a national to prove one way or the other.

Prove it.

You seem to argue from both sides of the fence. Either you believe coaches have weight and provide insight/value to the player’s in their sets, or you don’t. If you don’t believe they have value, then you should have no issue in them not being allowed during sets. If you believe they do have weight, then it is no longer a 1v1 match and should not be allowed. Sets should be a test of a player’s skill and preparation beforehand, not a test of their coach’s ability to pick up habits and point them out for the player. Coaches can swing sets and it would be unfair for one person to have a great coach while the other is just mediocre.

Assuming he has an opinion other then "this person can't debate," then yes he either believes one or the other. However, what if he doesn't care?

I believe that coaches have big impacts on sets.

Nevermind then.

No, it's not.

prove it.

2) Players can end up facing their coach. Which would mean their Coach has a coach, but they don't, or they'll have a different one, which as I already pointed out, is fundamentally unfair.

This is one giant straw man.. So is the part about confiscating phones.

The straw man has a point.

Let's refer to the oldest sport, wrestling, and look at how coaching works there. Your coach literally sits mat side and talks you through the entire match. As a wrestling coach, saying a command or a move to my wrestler doesn't automatically make them do it, it's just me seeing something they might not necessarily see in the heat of the moment. An extra set of eyes that each player should be entitled to. Maybe I'm a good player who hasn't studied matchups, how stages effect different characters, etc. so a coach can really be of use to me.

In that case, let's wait until SSB games punch you in the face when you lose a stock before we allow couches in again.

"you're johning because someone figured out a single flaw and you can't handle that, when any other player is good enough to where a single flaw is nothing and at worst can be easily covered up" is my argument, if you haven't been paying attention

I'm calling you the scrubbest scrub to ever scrub, get good

^ Why is he strawmanning his own argument?^

Second of all do you have any idea who you're talking to? This guy was the best player in Europe and has beaten Armada,Jman, and other legendary players before. I hate to use ad hominems but if you're gonna use one this ignorantly let me ask you who are you compared to amsah?

I might not be all that smart, but I think what Engo is doing here is making an "Ethos" argument.

Personally, if I were to ban coaching, I'd ban coaching for large events only where you can assign judges and pool captains to where you have observers and I would DQ both players in the grand finals if I have to, but completely allow it in local events to prevent headaches and to allow players to improve faster.

This man has won the thread.

I lost sets I should have won because a friend of my opponent spent 2 minutes explaining the matchup, how to counter my plays, what habits of his I've picked up on, and even what stages to counterpick to. If we went into game 2 without his help, it was most likely guaranteed that he was going to continue his habits and I'd be able to continue capitalizing on them.

iz dis johning?

I disagree with this thread. Coaching has been part of every game and will always be.

Funny, I don't remember having a coach when playing Monopoly or Hide-and-Seek as a kid.

Wait, why would games like Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog need coaching?

Coaching prior and after your Best of 3/5? Yes. In between? Nope. And fact is, this doesn't count for every game either. Straw man.

Hey! you don't get to decide when someone's a straw man! That's racist to Straw People!

But seriously, a straw man is an intentionally poorly made argument. it's up to the person to decide if it was a straw man or not.

I've seen players pause mid-match by accident and not lose a stock because "that'd be dumb, and this guy is my friend."

You know, it'd be easier just to go into settings and switch the pause function to OFF.

The End!

The rules absolutely do not apply to everyone and they never have. If you are a top player in a local tournament, at least outside of the midwest, you get away with murder playing as Meta Knight.

I'm not saying anything. It's just a joke.

Coaching should be banned for sure!
It's up to the player to make the decisions and adjustments necessary to win. The tournament is the final test and if you can't win on your own you should not win at all.

Moooooooooooods! I think there's a double-post glitch happening!

Starcraft 2 players could hear people shouting from within soundproof booths.

If you ban coaching, you should ban the crowd too!

I saw that this was in the color that's used to indicate links, so I hovered my mouse arrow over the text expecting links. I am disappoint.

OMG HE CHANGED HIS MIND! WTF!

There's a difference between changing your mind and discrediting a tool that aided you in getting good at a video game.

No, I used the exact same logic to justify something we all agree is horrible.
Since I can do that, it means the logic is flawed.

It's a quite effective way to expose dumb arguments.

Name one argument that can't be retorted with that trick.

This thread is bonkers with too many words.

Banning or not banning coaching both has their advantages. Problem is it is very difficult for most tournaments to enforce, if not impossible.

If you can have a reasonable answer to all of the questions below, you can ban coaching. You lose some things and gain others, it's all personal preference.

• How do you enforce it? Seriously, so-and-so you don't know says whats-his-face was coaching random-guy-you've-never seen during their set. WTF do you do? Do you put a guy at every station to watch for it? Just give them a warning AFTER they broke the rule and say "we're watching you" but not have the manpower to do it?

• What is the punishment? "A warning"? What does that accomplish, as the game will already be altered? Do you DQ that player who gave the advice? What if they're already out? Do you DQ the player who they gave the advice TO? What if they didn't want it and it was just given to them? Do you ban the player who gave the advice? What if it's the grand finals and they're about to leave anyway, and this helps their ride home win? This is super tricky.

• What do you do about questionable situations? When I was working with MLG to write articles on Smash, I got to judge a match between Ken and Azen at MLG New York. Ken's family was there with him and they were not speaking English. I speak only one language and it wasn't that one. Were they coaching? Do you say "Sorry, no foreign languages allowed"? What if someone leans in and whispers in a player's ear to say "good luck buddy, you can do it", but you don't know what they said? Do you punish them for that?

• How do you define coaching? Is "You can do it man" a psychological boost that helps his spirits enough to pull through and win considered 'coaching'? What about the infamous Husband shout of "PLAY HIM LIKE HE'S ZELDA" to Wife when Wife was playing a close match against a Ganon?

• Are you willing to punish top players that are in the top 4? Imagine Mango, PPMD, Armada, and Hungrybox all in the top 4. Not hard! Now imagine Hungrybox goes up to PPMD and coaches him during his game iwth Armada despite the rules being otherwise. Hungrybox is in the Grand Finals of EVO. Do you punish Hungrybox, effectively ruining the tournament, or do you just let it slide because he's in the grand finals and it'd be a hype deflation if he was DQed? If you aren't willing to DQ, ban, or otherwise punish a player for breaking this rule in a situation like the one above, you aren't willing to have the rule in place.

If you're not a TO for a large event with a lot of your own money on the line with matches being streamed to thousands and hyped for months, don't even attempt to answer #4 because you can't.

Mooooooooooooooooods! The Double-Post Glitch is happening again!

There's nothing to disagree with. It was a fact.

Proooooooooooooooove iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

Moral of the Thread: PRESS X TO JUMP.

 

[KayB]

I want to clarify something. Hypothetically speaking, if we could regulate coaching and/or had the ability to ban it, would we?

 

[Thor]

I want to clarify something. Hypothetically speaking, if we could regulate coaching and/or had the ability to ban it, would we?

Nihonjin would straight-up ban it. I'd regulate it to avoid the 5 minutes of ear-whispering/ear-whispering during rounds, and allow people to say "no coaching" if they don't want themselves and their opponent to have a coach, for any reason (gentleman's rule and probably 20 seconds between each match for coaching, or something like that). But most people here agree that the "whisper-in-their-ear-as-they-play" is not a good idea and would work to avoid allowing that.

 

[<π]

I'm 110% fine with coaching during the match. Its going to happen from the crowd anyway, and it is in my opinion not worth regulating and enforcing the crowd.

If coaching is a punishable offence because iit changes the course of the game. Then what happens when my coach is in the crowd yelling at the top of his lungs? What if I have my whole region yelling out tips for me as I play? (I've had examples of this at every single tournament I've been to) And my opponent is pissed off about it because that IS coaching and he deserves that win. do I lose the match then?

Personally I'm fine with coaching, there is no information being given that is hidden (Like league of legends fog of war, or Call of duty where you have walls and other things impairing your vision) Your coach can't give you access to information you couldn't gain other wise. (And this includes getting on smashboards and searching things) Any information a coach gives you in this game is information you could obtain on your own. Your opponent is making better use of the tools he has available to him than you are.

In my mind it is like arguing these coaching is unfair arguments is like telling a TO "Well I don't have a gamecube at home so I can't practice as much as you... that an unfair advantage" or "I can't train with anyone, no one live near me, so my opponent has an unfair advantage." or "You are using metaknight against me gannondorf? Thats an unfair advantage!" I've had these issues as well and worked my but off to get around them and still became a contender in very strong regions. Instead of making excuses figure out if the solutions are worth the cost for you. Generally people win because they make better use of the their time and tools in preparation than their opponent does. Coaching may be an influence sure I don't doubt that, but coaches are a resource that everyone has access to.

Everything comes at a cost.

Again I want to point out, having coaches (non-staff) within a certain radius of people in a match is MUCH different than "banning coaching" One you can regulate and enforce very easily. the other you can do but I feel like the trade off, the costs are unreasonable especially for regional tournaments and lower.

(In before sound proof booths + no shower thread ban)

 

[MechaWave]

My opinion doesn't matter much but I do agree with the first post. However, I don't see the problem with coaching before and after the set begins.

 

[EnIgma24]

My opinion doesn't matter much but I do agree with the first post. However, I don't see the problem with coaching before and after the set begins.

There is no problem as long as the time is regulated in order to keep the momentum

 

[Deafy]

Ban 'em, don't ban 'em. I don't care. I don't even remember which game we're talking about at this point.



Prove it.



Assuming he has an opinion other then "this person can't debate," then yes he either believes one or the other. However, what if he doesn't care?



Nevermind then.



prove it.

The straw man has a point.



In that case, let's wait until SSB games punch you in the face when you lose a stock before we allow couches in again.



^ Why is he strawmanning his own argument?^



I might not be all that smart, but I think what Engo is doing here is making an "Ethos" argument.



This man has won the thread.



iz dis johning?



Funny, I don't remember having a coach when playing Monopoly or Hide-and-Seek as a kid.

Wait, why would games like Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog need coaching?



Hey! you don't get to decide when someone's a straw man! That's racist to Straw People!

But seriously, a straw man is an intentionally poorly made argument. it's up to the person to decide if it was a straw man or not.



You know, it'd be easier just to go into settings and switch the pause function to OFF.

The End!



I'm not saying anything. It's just a joke.



Moooooooooooods! I think there's a double-post glitch happening!

I saw that this was in the color that's used to indicate links, so I hovered my mouse arrow over the text expecting links. I am disappoint.



There's a difference between changing your mind and discrediting a tool that aided you in getting good at a video game.



Name one argument that can't be retorted with that trick.



Mooooooooooooooooods! The Double-Post Glitch is happening again!



Proooooooooooooooove iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

Moral of the Thread: PRESS X TO JUMP.

You're missing the key word. "Competitive"

 

[FirestormNeos]

You're missing the key word. "Competitive"

Mind specifying in what part of my post is missing the key word?

 

[KinGly]

I generally try to bring a friend who has very little practice in smash to try and get them into the scene. If I don't have a match I usually follow them around and tell whoever they're competing against how new they are and ask them if I can sit and give my friend tips throughout the match. 9 times out of ten they're opponent is cool with it.While I think coaching shouldn't be allowed 100% of the time, I think there are times when it is useful. I've never coached a friend in a match that they went on to win. if I'm confident that my friend can make a close match, I won't help them, but if I think my coaching won't change the outcome of the match, but will help my friend become a better player, I'll ask if I can give them advice mid match.

 

[LydianAlchemist]

One of the main arguments presented throughout the thread had been that coaching is an unfair advantage.

#DatTLDRLyfe

 

[LydianAlchemist]

I finally feel like I can weigh in on this.

I'm lucky in the fact that my Project M main, Charizard, allows me to play in a reasonably flexible playstyle.
Recently, at a tournament I went to, I went against someone with a coach. While I wasn't happy, I decided to step up the mindgames.

During the first game, I played super defensively and hogged platforms and the edge. After the game, I heard his coach telling him about the so-called habits that I had while playing as Charizard. Namely, that I was playing "very strangely for a Charizard, but being predictable." During the second game, I stuck with the defensive game, but deliberately eliminated the "habits" from my game and introduced a "crippling flaw" in my game in the vein of "forgetting" to use FAir to follow up a combo.

His coach picked up on that, and he took the game. So, we're now 1 - 1.

Time to go balls to the wall. I went from being slightly campy and playing a punish game to balls deep offensive. There was not a part of that game where I was NOT rushing him down and as a result, I won. He did not see it coming and because his coach didn't either and assumed that playing defensively was my playstyle, he didn't even factor in the fact that I was going to go rushdown. Why would I? I had played defensively for two games and showed adaptation within a "pre-defined" playstyle. I adapted to the fact that while he had an extra pair of eyes, those eyes can also be mislead.

This brings out a good point I was making to my buddy. If there are coaches. Both combatants should be able to hear what they are saying.
It seems like an exception that the coach was within earshot of you, as at the high level tournies they whisper to avoid situations like this. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

EDIT (adding more so I don't triple post like a scrub)

someone shouting from crowd != in depth analysis being whispered into your ear.
the level of elaboration between the two is quite notable. if you can't see that you're being argumentative imo.

just because something can't be enforced 100% doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
see: traffic laws. any laws. you can stop echoing the argument "can't enforce it, therefore don't implement it" it's weaksauce.
"we can't enforce a seatbelt law, so we shouldn't enact a seatbelt law"
AND
the same goes for TOs not banning mango (sorry mango!) from GF if he breaks the rules.
"we can't expect police officers to enforce the seatbelt law equally on everyone, so even if we did enact it, people would get away with it. especially high profile people. politicians would buy themselves out of it. police officers would let celebrities get away with it"

There are always going to be people who break the rules. But you can't use them to disqualify a proposed rule. http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/exception.htm

As a community, you make rules based on good faith.
10 years ago would we have ever believed that we'd stop saying stuff like "gay" and "****" or cussing?
Cause the high profile streams all follow these rules now. You say "****" and you're kicked off commentary.

Adoption might be slow, enforcement might fail, but none of that should matter in the end. IMO.

the rules we set should be based on fairness, not on the moral integrity of those subject to it.

looking at other sports like boxing is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition as well as false analogy.
in boxing you are getting punched in the head. making mental decisions difficult.
boxers are 3d beings existing in 3d space. they cannot observe all of their opponents behaviours.
smash is on a 2d plane, you can.
boxing is just as, if not more, a test of physical strength and endurance.
steroids can help you with the "tech skill" of boxing. and they're illegal.
there are sports like tennis that don't allow coaching mid match.
so you're cherry picking when you use any sport as proof against or for coaching in smash.
even chess, as much as I like the analogy, chess has no physical or technical demands. the rules are quite simple. its 100% mental and strategy.
the opposite being track and field

an azen dash can take a stock just as easily as several good tech chases based on analyzation of player habits.

we don't let coaches do your tech skill for you. so why let them make decisions for you?

coaching != cheerleading.

saying "you got this man" isn't reason to ban someone.
if coaching is banned. than you are an idiot to push your luck and whisper that in someones ear. have a ref nearby to arbitrate whether or not it was coaching.

don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

BUT on top of all of this.

I think the gentleman rule is the way to go. and inside of that, regulated coaching.

 

[simpleglitch]

someone shouting from crowd != in depth analysis being whispered into your ear.
the level of elaboration between the two is quite notable. if you can't see that you're being argumentative imo.

just because something can't be enforced 100% doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
see: traffic laws. any laws. you can stop echoing the argument "can't enforce it, therefore don't implement it" it's weaksauce.
"we can't enforce a seatbelt law, so we shouldn't enact a seatbelt law"
AND
the same goes for TOs not banning mango (sorry mango!) from GF if he breaks the rules.
"we can't expect police officers to enforce the seatbelt law equally on everyone, so even if we did enact it, people would get away with it. especially high profile people. politicians would buy themselves out of it. police officers would let celebrities get away with it"

There are always going to be people who break the rules. But you can't use them to disqualify a proposed rule. http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/exception.htm

While uneven enforcement was brought up i don't believe that is the biggest problem in implementing the rule (difficult yes but not a show stopper). The bigger issue with enforcement is what are the consequences for breaking the rule. This does have to be determined ahead of time so all refs handle all instances the same way. You can't have a one ref saying "hey no coaching, you need to distance yourself from the player" and another that immediately jumps to "hey no coaching, you need to leave the tournament" or any variation in between.

I've seen some posts by others saying "we will come up with consequences when we have to cross that bridge" but you really can't. For a tournament to be run fairly all refs need to know how all other refs are (supposed) to be handling the situation, this means that consequences (whatever they maybe) have to decided before the rule goes into effect.

And just to clarify, I'm not disagreeing with your assessment on enforcing the rule. I am only pointing out that the "how" it is enforced is just as important as "what" is being enforced and "if" it is being enforced.

 

[LydianAlchemist]

While uneven enforcement was brought up i don't believe that is the biggest problem in implementing the rule (difficult yes but not a show stopper). The bigger issue with enforcement is what are the consequences for breaking the rule. .... And just to clarify, I'm not disagreeing with your assessment on enforcing the rule. I am only pointing out that the "how" it is enforced is just as important as "what" is being enforced and "if" it is being enforced.

I agree. I understand your position.

Before the game
1. Isolating the 2 combatants from the crowd as much as possible and their coaches when possible so that intimate/elaborate interference is not physically possible. (your first scenario)

2. When isolation is not possible (cramped venue for example):
Before the tourney, before each set. hell before each game. the ref makes the consequences for breaking the gentleman's agreement clear so that if a warning is issued, it is more than generous.

If the consequences have been adequately explained, and the coach is registered alongside the player, I do think that removing the registered coach from the venue and possibly even DQing the player are fair things to do.

If you have registered a coach before hand, then it makes it easier to separate the two from each other in the case of a gentleman's disagreement.

During the game:
coaches are on opposite sides of their players, so that any attempt to violate the rules:
1. allows the opposing player insight into the strategies being explained, nullifying any unfair advantage they'd give in the first place. (remember this is for when players have NOT agreed to coaching and the venue is so cramped that coaches are near the players)
2. make it easier for the ref to spot illegal coaching and escort the couch out of the venue.

As a coach, you will build a reputation over time for getting people banned (or not). If you keep getting players banned no one will register with you.

The effect is amplified if job opportunities start manifesting like Zero has said. No one will hire you. No one will 'team' with you for risk of getting DQ'ed.

If the rules and consequences have been clearly explained
"here are the rules, do you understand?"
then breaking them should not be tolerated at all. DQ. ban. escort them out until the set is over. w/e. but it needs to be more than a slap on the wrist. it needs to be severe enough to make infractions, especially repeated infractions, very unappetizing.

"fool me once..."

 

[Eagle Smash]

I wish the OP had gone with a simpler argument of "Coaching should not be allowed during a set because it takes too much time" or something more pointed at a simpler sub-issue than this arguably complicated argument with its many rabbit trails...

 

[Engo]

He wants to ban it for alot more than just time issues. He sees a fundamental problem with the unfair advantage coaching gives players and how it goes against the 1v1 competition that the smash community tries to achieve in singles tournaments. Focusing only on how time consuming coaching could be is ignoring a bigger issue the OP has with coaching.

 

[Nihonjin]

Nihonjin would straight-up ban it.

Not necessarily. I'd just strictly regulate it. Either by banning it entirely or by making it mandetory.

While uneven enforcement was brought up i don't believe that is the biggest problem in implementing the rule (difficult yes but not a show stopper). The bigger issue with enforcement is what are the consequences for breaking the rule. This does have to be determined ahead of time so all refs handle all instances the same way. You can't have a one ref saying "hey no coaching, you need to distance yourself from the player" and another that immediately jumps to "hey no coaching, you need to leave the tournament" or any variation in between.

Everyone here agrees with you.

I've seen some posts by others saying "we will come up with consequences when we have to cross that bridge" but you really can't.

I said that. And what I meant is the consequences are a separate issue entirely. It's not relevant to our current discussion.

When we've agree on actually regulating coaching (either way), then TOs get to argue about what the appropriate consequences are for breaking the rule.

For a tournament to be run fairly all refs need to know how all other refs are (supposed) to be handling the situation, this means that consequences (whatever they maybe) have to decided before the rule goes into effect.

Before it goes into effect, yes. In this discussion, no.

And just to clarify, I'm not disagreeing with your assessment on enforcing the rule. I am only pointing out that the "how" it is enforced is just as important as "what" is being enforced and "if" it is being enforced.

I agree. This is just not the place for it.