Coaching

[Nihonjin]

True..:embarrass

Spoiler

Jesus ****in' Christ I've been posting here non-stop for 17 pages?! Way to waste my weekend..

 

[Purple]

@ roxy
stop.using.horrible.examples.to.prove.your.points

lol dude, using a busted example to prove your point is what we do in smash bros

but seriously, that's been going on in this discussion quite a lot. I still think if you want the most neutral and fair of a battle, both people would have to use the same person, have the same experiences, etc. etc. so that all it is a test of smarts where they both have even ground .

anyways..

Adding coaching is something that alters the game, I'm going to take a step back and say it does. However...

CPs have altered games, techs have altered games, the lists goes on, it's just another step that can be approved or disapproved depending on the strength of the example or how often it's used in the region (ex. wobbling might be banned in a specific area, stages like port drive might be banned). In the end, it really can't be protected EVERYWHERE, however if it's something you know for a fact will be abused and taken advantage of, by all means ban it in your local tournament. My region in particular has people 'coach' often, and it's never really anything game breaking because all they is calm them down. Your example is not how it is in every region so don't act as if your examples should show how the entire world will take advantage of it; that's just not how it is.

Also, your warning/ban rule needs some work. Let's say for some dumb reason ,I decided to coach someone I didn't like, should they get warnings for it, to the point they lose matches? Would that be fair? Not at all, they didn't actually want the coaching, I just gave it to him. It's way too much effort trying to ban something like coaching because it brings too many loopholes, you can discuss it amongst your opponent to not have anyone around them because you feel it's unfair. But yeah, no point in trying to ban it everywhere, because in some places (i know GA in particular) coaching is just calming a friend down in a match, nothing more nothing less. Or cheering them up if they SD.

 

[Nihonjin]

but seriously, that's been going on in this discussion quite a lot. I still think if you want the most neutral and fair of a battle, both people would have to use the same person, have the same experiences, etc. etc.

Only from your side.

I mean, CPs have altered games, techs have altered games, the lists goes on, it's just another step that can be approved or disapproved depending on the strength of the example or how often it's used in the region. In the end, it really can't be protected. Because let's say for some dumb reason ,I decided to coach someone I didn't like, and they got warnings for it, to the point they lost matches. Would that be fair? Not at all.

This would not happen, because:

1) We usually know who's with who, so if you coach someone you normally wouldn't out of spite, TO's would most likely catch on.

2) If they don't, the player your coaching can tell you to stop coaching and even call a TO to get you to stop

Also, like I've said multiple times in this thread, comparing coaching to tactical decision making by the player and technical skills of the player is absolutely ridiculous.

Horrible argument is horrible.

It's way to much effort trying to ban something like coaching because it brings too many loopholes

Great argument.

"Let's not ban **** because it'll take too much effort and it brings too many loopholes"

You can discuss it amongst your opponent to not have anyone around them because you feel it's unfair. But yeah, no point in trying to ban it.

Just concede already, you're out of arguments.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Number 1. shut up Jamaal.

Number 2. The game is completely fair and any unfairness due to stages and characters is controlled by the players, control that is lost when something like hitting a person irl during the game, unplugging their controller, or coaching is introduced into the equation.

Number 3. Try to find the loopholes in the coaching rules at my tourney, and see how well that works for you. You try to coach someone that doesnt want to be coached, and you are not only DQd but Ejected from the venue as well. Nothing happens to somebody that doesnt breaks the rules, and sitting there while somebody attempts to coach you against your will is not breaking the rules.

what you say only makes the faintest semblance of sence, when you COMPLETELY take it out of the context of what would actually happen in a real-life situation.

 

[Purple]

Only from your side of the argument.

lemme go find this quote real quick

So to compare it to characters, imagine my character selection screen has Sheik, Fox, Jiggs, Marth, Falco, Peach, C.Falcon and IC's available.

While your available characters are limited to Pichu and Kirby.

Good luck winning.

....

has nothing to do with the argument though

If changing the game from 1 on 1 to 2 on 2 isn't altering it then nothing is.

I said it was altering, wtf did you not read that?

has nothing to do with the argument though

What's WIFOM?

Wine in Front of Me.

has nothing to do with the argument though



This would not happen, because:

1) We usually know who's with who, so if you coach someone you normally wouldn't out of spite, TO's would most likely catch on.

That's not true, people can have secret connection (for lack of a better term). I've seen my own GA players root against GA because they were friends with FL players.

2) If they don't, the player your coaching can tell you to stop coaching and even call a TO to get you to stop

what if you're giving legitimate advice?

Also, like I've said multiple times in this thread, comparing coaching to tactical decision making by the player and technical skills of the player is absolutely ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous. At certain levels of gameplay, people don't camp ridiculously. People don't camp for grabs then wobble. Etc. Either that, or players are skilled enough to be able to beat it, regardless of how much it's against their favor, it's what they're used to.

You ignored the part of my argument where I said coaching is relevant to the area and level of gameplay.

The worst case scenario of a coach is that the coach will straight up call out what a person is doing with extreme detail and the player perfectly executes what the coach asks for.

This is the argument you give to support pro-ban everytime. However just as much as a coach can look and think he knows what will happen, he can also NOT know what will happen, and screw up his partner. No player is perfect, and just like that, no coach is perfect either. People use CPs and Characters on their own in order to purposely give their opponent a disadv (i know you're saying this doesn't have relevance, but I'm going to continue bashing it in). However because they truly don't have experience with what they are counterpicking, they fail themselves; It's a double-edged sword

"Let's not ban **** because it'll take too much effort and it brings too many loopholes"

Um, wtf type of example is that? What I'm saying is you're going to get people who only want to support their friend from the side. Not even say anything game-breaking, just calm down his friend. Is that something that should be banned?

Just concede already, you're out of arguments.

wtf's a point of a discussion if you're trying to make your opponent just shut up, instead of reaching a middleground.

 

[Nihonjin]

lemme go find this quote real quick

....

has nothing to do with the argument though

It was an analogy I used to explain why not being able to use the same coaches is unfair. It wasn't bad at all.

I said it was altering, wtf did you not read that?

has nothing to do with the argument though

Not in the post I quoted. Don't act like you don't remember what you said before you edited your post.

Wine in Front of Me.

has nothing to do with the argument though

You're the one that brought it up.

That's not true, people can have secret connection (for lack of a better term). I've seen my own GA players root against GA because they were friends with FL players.

Refer to number 2.

what if you're giving legitimate advice?

Then you face the consequences for coaching.

It's not ridiculous. At certain levels of gameplay, people don't camp ridiculously. People don't camp for grabs then wobble. Etc. Either that, or players are skilled enough to be able to beat it, regardless of how much it's against their favor, it's what they're used to.

Relevant how? You always bring up examples, but never make the connection to coaching.

You ignored the part of my argument where I said coaching is relevant to the area and level of gameplay.

Because it's simply not true and I've proven that over and over again.

The worst case scenario of a coach is that the coach will straight up call out what a person is doing with extreme detail and the player perfectly executes what the coach asks for.

Which is something we shouldn't allow.

This is the argument you give to support pro-ban everytime. However just as much as a coach can look and think he knows what will happen, he can also NOT know what will happen, and screw up his partner.

No player is perfect, and just like that, no coach is perfect either. People use CPs and Characters on their own in order to purposely give their opponent a disadv (i know you're saying this doesn't have relevance, but I'm going to continue bashing it in). However because they truly don't have experience with what they are counterpicking, they fail themselves; It's a double-edged sword

Read this again.

I cannot imagine any intelligent player supporting a move like tennis on-court coaching that negates, to any extent whatsoever, a superior ability to out-think an opponent.

Do you understand what this means? I'm not trying to be offensive, but I honestly don't think you do. So please explain to me what you think this means.

Um, wtf type of example is that?

A very good one.

What I'm saying is you're going to get people who only want to support their friend from the side. Not even say anything game-breaking, just calm down his friend. Is that something that should be banned?

Except, that's not what you said at all.

wtf's a point of a discussion if you're trying to make your opponent just shut up, instead of reaching a middleground.

When one side is completely wrong there's no point. The middle ground here is about as sensible as the middle ground in Health Care reform between Progressives and Conservatives Corporatist.

 

[Jessup124]

I think this is just incredible. How can no one understand this? By the time anyone, ANYONE, is in a competition, they should be ready to face their opponent independently from any help.
What is coming across is that some people want assistance in order to level the playing field. Those players or wannabe players who are in favor of assistance during a competition are not ready to compete at a tournament level.

 

[KAOSTAR]

I really think you should just ban coaching. Its not like we have to go through red tape to do it. This aint America.

Coaching clearly gives an unfair advantage, its like cheating on a test. The only way its fair is that both players can choose a coach at the start of that match or somehow register with a set coach. From a TO standpoint thats dumb tho because you then have to wait for 4 players to be done with matches in a 1v1 tournament.

You are better off just asking spectators not to coach and to stick to cheering, there is a difference. One is a reaction to what happens and the other is something preemptive.

DONT SPEAK DIRECTLY TO ANY PLAYERS PLAYING and DONT GIVE "ADVICE"-problem solved

 

[Jessup124]

I am an American; and I don't think it should be allowed in America or anywhere for this type of game. Any "advise" during the game is unacceptable because it is cheating. The player is NOT PLAYING at his or hers best potential by receiving "help" from another.

NO side should have any help/assistance/coaching/ advise. That's why it is called a tournament.

 

[VA]

Amsah, stop posting!

You've made many very very well articulated points (by now). The fact that this Roxy character is unable to grasp what you're saying is not testament to you but of him/her.

At this point either SBR decides to do something or nothing happens and we carry on.

 

[Эикельманн [РУС]]

The middle ground here is about as sensible as the middle ground in Health Care reform between Progressives and Conservatives Corporatist.

bahahaha kk hilarisch

lol i love you amsah, stop verbally ****** americans already.

 

[Purple]

I like how people are going nuts over Amsah when I'm just trying to defend a point.

That's the point of a discussion right? Pointing out two different points of view? Do you guys seriously think I'm not agreeing with what Amsah says?

Anyways.

It gives an unfair advantage if one person has a coach, but the advantage is somewhat fair if they both have coaches.

Coaching isn't entirely bad if it's just a sense of emotional comfort, but if the coaching is something game-breaking then it shouldn't be allowed.

 

[X1-12]

Do you guys seriously think I'm not agreeing with what Amsah says?

good save there..

 

[Purple]

That's not a save. That's truth. But whatever.

 

[Nihonjin]

I like how people are going nuts over Amsah when I'm just trying to defend a point.

That's the point of a discussion right? Pointing out two different points of view? Do you guys seriously think I'm not agreeing with what Amsah says?

Judging by the rest of this very post, I'd have to say no..

It gives an unfair advantage if one person has a coach, but the advantage is somewhat fair if they both have coaches.

This goes directly against what you supposedly agree with me on.

The purpose of a tournament is not to see the collarbortive efforts between the player and his coach. It is a competition between two players, not three, not four, just two.

Coaching isn't entirely bad if it's just a sense of emotional comfort, but if the coaching is something game-breaking then it shouldn't be allowed.

Any emotional comfort can be by the mere presence of the coach playing the role as a cheerleader. Prior to the game, the player is allowed to get all the advise he wants, but once the game starts, the coach is to sit down and let his player display everything that he has learned.

Good job dodging my entire post btw.

 

[Purple]

Agreeing was probably a bad word. Probably more like seeing what your point is.

So a coach can still coach, just not during the match at all, is that right?

 

[Nihonjin]

Not during the set. And I do mean the entire set. From the moment stage striking begins until the players shake hands and unplug their controllers, the coach should not interfere. Not even in between matches.

 

[Purple]

I get what you're saying, I'm saying before the match begins entirely. Would you consider this okay?

 

[KAOSTAR]

Agreeing was probably a bad word. Probably more like seeing what your point is.

So a coach can still coach, just not during the match at all, is that right?

He isnt a coach at that point.

What I think Amsah is saying is that NO COACHING if fair. You cant get answers in between questions on a test.

He is saying that b4 and after the SET you can receive coaching, in which case its just really giving a fellow smasher advice.

Its really unfair for me 2 come up with a strategy thats working and another player to tell the other player and then I have to work twice as hard mentally. I gotta beat him and the coach.

Edit: If its b4 the match entirely its not coaching. Coaching is live action during the event. Its just learning matchup stuff.

How can amsah say you can never get advice from anyone at any time. Cuz his shiek is just that ****.

 

[Nihonjin]

I get what you're saying, I'm saying before the match begins entirely. Would you consider this okay?

You know exactly when stage striking begins, so you should know the answer to this question.

But I'll type it out for you one last time and then I'm done with this thread.

Before the set starts, the coach is allowed to give advise (because then it's not coaching, just advice from a fellow player).
As soon as the set begins (which is when they start stage striking), no advise from coach because he is restricted to cheerleading.
In between matches, still, no advice what so ever because the coach is still being restricted to cheerleading (because the set isn't over yet).
After the set and a winner has been decided, the coach is allowed to talk to the players again.

 

[KAOSTAR]

Doesnt the set begin when they choose characters?

 

[Nihonjin]

Doesnt the set begin when they choose characters?

You officially pick a character when stage striker starts. But if you don't have that in Brawl/64, then yes, as soon as they choose their characters the set has started.

 

[Hax]

coaching should be allowed in smash due to its real-time factor; coaching in such a game is not equivalent to playing the game for the person being coached as they still have to perform the actions by themselves. the entertainment it adds outweighs its faults.

in board games or card games without real-time gameplay, coaching can be absolutely devastating for obvious reasons. it gets to a point where the player isn't even playing for himself anymore, and it should absolutely be banned. coaching in games without a real-time factor is barely even entertaining, and so there are no significant reasons to allow it.

amsah i only read one of your posts (quite a few pages back) but to my understanding you don't believe crowd = coach. for you to support no coaching forces you to support no crowd for numerous reasons. first of all you're opening up an entirely new debate, as pocky pointed out, regarding at what point an amount of people becomes a "crowd" rather than a "coach;" a debate that would never end. not only that, but members of a "crowd" shouting out advice would constitute as coaching which would require members of a crowd being removed/lectured for breaking the rules. this is completely unrealistic and will never happen, sorry.

 

[Strong Badam]

How can anyone think that coaching is okay by any means? That's like a player in chess getting advice in the middle of the game, which is not allowed for obvious reasons.
The idea of "it's always been allowed," isn't true either, because MLG always banned it explicitly when Melee (or any other game) was in its line-up. Just because there isn't a rule against it doesn't mean it's allowed. There isn't a rule against punching your opponent in the face IRL in the middle of the match, but that's obviously not okay. Unfortunately, in this day and age common sense seems to not be very common at all. When I play Super Smash Bros. Melee against Player X, I'm playing against Player X, not Player X & Person Y.

 

[Nihonjin]

@Hax

I'm not going to repeat myself Hax because like I said, I'm done here. And I'm not trying to be rude, but you've only read one of my posts? I suggest you read through the thread a little bit more I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the 27 pages I've been debating I've addressed all of the point's you've just made.

Spoiler

At least twice.

Either that, or read the topic in the MBR, I posted an article there that sums up exactly what I think.

 

[Purple]

You know exactly when stage striking begins, so you should know the answer to this question.

But I'll type it out for you one last time and then I'm done with this thread.

Before the set starts, the coach is allowed to give advise (because then it's not coaching, just advice from a fellow player).
As soon as the set begins (which is when they start stage striking), no advise from coach because he is restricted to cheerleading.
In between matches, still, no advice what so ever because the coach is still being restricted to cheerleading (because the set isn't over yet).
After the set and a winner has been decided, the coach is allowed to talk to the players again.

Alright cool, so Out of game Coaching is allowed. In-Game Coaching is not allowed except for cheerleading (which can be done in the crowds).

Is this a good come to terms for you?


Hax is right though, by the time you say something the attack will have already happened.

 

[Jessup124]

coaching should be allowed in smash due to its real-time factor; coaching in such a game is not equivalent to playing the game for the person being coached as they still have to perform the actions by themselves. the entertainment it adds outweighs its faults.

Then the player has no business entering a tournament match. As I, Kaostar pointed out as well as Amsah, it is cheating and "collarborative effort" and the player is still playing against two. Cheating is still cheating and the benefit of cheating is that the answers (like strategies) are given by another and not coming from the player.

As for the latter part of your statement. Rules still need to be implement against "assisting". We still have laws and rules in society that are enforced, so people who are willing to break the rules run a risk of being fined or in this case, hopefully removed from the game.

Here is a novel idea, why can't the player just play the set by himself and if he is bad or loses, then he must practice harder.

 

[X1-12]

coaching should be allowed in smash due to its real-time factor; coaching in such a game is not equivalent to playing the game for the person being coached as they still have to perform the actions by themselves. the entertainment it adds outweighs its faults.

this one is actually new to me, but tournament matches aren't about being entertaining: see Mango vs HBox A tournament is where you prove your skill versus other players which leads onto my other point. Giving match-up tips counts as coaching, and even if this is the only form of coaching that happens, it still stops matches from being solely player vs player

amsah i only read one of your posts (quite a few pages back) but to my understanding you don't believe crowd = coach. for you to support no coaching forces you to support no crowd for numerous reasons. first of all you're opening up an entirely new debate, as pocky pointed out, regarding at what point an amount of people becomes a "crowd" rather than a "coach;" a debate that would never end. not only that, but members of a "crowd" shouting out advice would constitute as coaching which would require members of a crowd being removed/lectured for breaking the rules. this is completely unrealistic and will never happen, sorry.

Amsah said quite well:

Are you serious? Do you really think a TO can tell 50 people to stop fighting (granted I'm using a huge number but that number is surely possible). The idea is ridiculous. Regardless of how powerful the TO may feel, the TO is still just once person.

Yet, we have rules against fighting.

 

[KAOSTAR]

@Amsah-I would think that as soon as 1 player chooses a character "the test" begins. Coaches could then tell you who to play as or which stage to shoot for. Even tho it would just be info flying around, it would still give you an adv or put you in a better position than you would have been prior to.

coaching should be allowed in smash due to its real-time factor; coaching in such a game is not equivalent to playing the game for the person being coached as they still have to perform the actions by themselves. the entertainment it adds outweighs its faults.

in board games or card games without real-time gameplay, coaching can be absolutely devastating for obvious reasons. it gets to a point where the player isn't even playing for himself anymore, and it should absolutely be banned. coaching in games without a real-time factor is barely even entertaining, and so there are no significant reasons to allow it.

amsah i only read one of your posts (quite a few pages back) but to my understanding you don't believe crowd = coach. for you to support no coaching forces you to support no crowd for numerous reasons. first of all you're opening up an entirely new debate, as pocky pointed out, regarding at what point an amount of people becomes a "crowd" rather than a "coach;" a debate that would never end. not only that, but members of a "crowd" shouting out advice would constitute as coaching which would require members of a crowd being removed/lectured for breaking the rules. this is completely unrealistic and will never happen, sorry.

Just ban giving advice. I think trap cards and such from yu gi oh are close to real time.

Punching ppl in the face is against the law, so there is no reason to put it in melee rule set. Those laws govern all ppl within the US, including smashers.

If they refrain from giving advice they are merely cheerleaders.

Its not unrealistic-I bet if you asked ppl to stop they would. Very few ppl want to be THAT guy.

 

[john!]

You know exactly when stage striking begins, so you should know the answer to this question.

But I'll type it out for you one last time and then I'm done with this thread.

Before the set starts, the coach is allowed to give advise (because then it's not coaching, just advice from a fellow player).
As soon as the set begins (which is when they start stage striking), no advise from coach because he is restricted to cheerleading.
In between matches, still, no advice what so ever because the coach is still being restricted to cheerleading (because the set isn't over yet).
After the set and a winner has been decided, the coach is allowed to talk to the players again.

This contradicts the way you voted in the poll. Have you changed your opinion since then?

And I will ask anyone... which is more unfair: both players having a chance to have a coach and only one person choosing to have one, or only one person having a chance to have a coach because they have found a way around the coaching ban (such as speaking a different language, watching a reflection in a window, secret code words, etc.)? The former will happen if coaching isn't banned; the latter will happen if coaching is banned.

 

[Nihonjin]

@Amsah-I would think that as soon as 1 player chooses a character "the test" begins. Coaches could then tell you who to play as or which stage to shoot for. Even tho it would just be info flying around, it would still give you an adv or put you in a better position than you would have been prior to.

I guess I wans't really clear, but I do agree with you. As soon as players are plugged in and ready to pick their characters, coaches aren't allowed to talk anymore.

[edit]

@John!

I voted the wrong one by accident. I think I actually mentioned that in the very first post I made in this thread (or not, but it was an accident).

 

[Purple]

I didn't notice nihonjin's action. Fighting can be countered with police actions and jail-time. What can mass coaching be countered with?

Still, out of game (before stage striking, etc.) should be allowed. Hell, add five minutes of time for coaching, that's not that bad anyways.

 

[X1-12]

I didn't notice nihonjin's action. Fighting can be countered with police actions and jail-time. What can mass coaching be countered with?

Still, out of game (before stage striking, etc.) should be allowed. Hell, add five minutes of time for coaching, that's not that bad anyways.

Getting DQ'ed/ ejected from the current and/or future Tourneys, even IF people try it, once the TO has punished one person for it, everyone will stop.. to be honest the TO will have a loudspeaker and if he asks everyone to be quiet they will, as they know the TO's word is law

EDIT: Everyone who goes to a tournament will expect to have to play matches, if they wan't pre-match coaching then they can find time to do it, TO's should not schedule in time for coaching

 

[KAOSTAR]

Ppl tend to quiet down if they are asked while watching matches.

 

[Faab]

How about you guys go post a vid where you know that 1 player has been coached and that you can clearly see the coached player getting better during the game. It really doesn't has that big of a impact as you guys think.

There are 2 different kinds of coaching.
Let's take falco as a example.

1: "You never fought a opponent like this before, rely less on lasers cause this guy is to good at avoiding it"

2: "He likes to tech towards the stage, punish him the next time he does it"

Number one is really coaching and it's just wrong killing the growth he goes trough in that match. I think we should aim for the top of the game and have everyone get a coach like in real sports. If you guys really care enough for this game to debate then i hope you all have the sense of trying to make smash as proffesional as possible.

Number two is stupid, coaches can't just predict when and where the opportunity will arise for that certain moment. Not to mention everyone changes patterns and just listening to the coach instead of you're own reaction/mind is just really stupid. If you get hit by that **** more then once you're stupid and don't deserve to win.

 

[Alphicans]

People always have a base reaction, and will only change it when they get punished too often. Knowing a player's base reactions for everything is kind of a big deal.

 

[X1-12]

@Faab: (I moved things in your post around so its easier to understand)

There are 2 different kinds of coaching.
Let's take falco as a example.

1: "You never fought a opponent like this before, rely less on lasers cause this guy is to good at avoiding it"

Number one is really coaching and it's just wrong killing the growth he goes trough in that match. I think we should aim for the top of the game and have everyone get a coach like in real sports. If you guys really care enough for this game to debate then i hope you all have the sense of trying to make smash as proffesional as possible.

Although I can understand why you want smash to be professional and I do as well however, professional sports such as tennis don't allow mid-match coaching. Banning Mid-match coaching also does not stunt the growth of players, as after matches they will be able to look back and see where they went wrong from either vids, or from feedback from spectators.

I understand it seems like I am prioritising fairness over growth but that is because tournaments are about proving who is the best and if the rules are unfair then the tourney has lost most of its validity, as it is no longer a true test of who is the best

2: "He likes to tech towards the stage, punish him the next time he does it"

Number two is stupid, coaches can't just predict when and where the opportunity will arise for that certain moment. Not to mention everyone changes patterns and just listening to the coach instead of you're own reaction/mind is just really stupid. If you get hit by that **** more then once you're stupid and don't deserve to win.

Even though its unlikely that this coaching will benefit the player all the time, the fact that it can unfairly benefit the player, even on some rare occasions, means it should be banned.

 

[Faab]

Banning Mid-match coaching also does not stunt the growth of players, as after matches they will be able to look back and see where they went wrong from either vids, or from feedback from spectators.

You know **** well that you learn more from tournament matches then playing friendlies. That said, i've got plenty of matches that i wanna look back to but didn't get recorded, do you really expect people to ask random spectators about what they did wrong and how they could improve it? Let's say even if they have a coach there who has to shut up the entire match, do you think he honestly remembers the whole match? So realistically speaking, yes it actually is a growth killer.

I understand it seems like I am prioritising fairness over growth but that is because tournaments are about proving who is the best and if the rules are unfair then the tourney has lost most of its validity, as it is no longer a true test of who is the best

I see where you're going here, however i need some more solid information and a possible youtube link before i can accept this "true test of who is the best". Cause the best player will win, with or without a coach.


Even though its unlikely that this coaching will benefit the player all the time, the fact that it can unfairly benefit the player, even on some rare occasions, means it should be banned.

This is the whole big point about the discussion i guess. Yes it is unfair for the person with the coach to have a slight advantage, however untill i get some proof about coaches actually guiding someone to victory i still say you guys overreact way to much. So i'll stick with allowing growth > a little bit of unfairness for now.
(Yes i need practical things im not a debater, and please keep it to melee examples and not some random sport here and there so i can at least understand it.)

Don't mind my horrible quoting skills




Hmmm reading my post it's pretty much that you're all overreacting till you find a good melee youtube vid (maybe brawl aswell i guess) or whatnot where a coached person actually plays better during a match. If you could find something like this i'm 100% everybody will accept the no coaching thing. Cause right now, the "it's unfair" thing is just as weak as the "nerfing growth" thing and you're all just being ******* here wasting time, i'll be back once i hear about someone finding a vid.

 

[KAOSTAR]

How are we even suppose to find a youtube video where ppl get coached. Most matches are direct capture.

LMAO, virusbluemage son lol

 

[Purple]

You have to host a tournament, set up a match where someone 'a coach' knows significant information about an opponent, and allow that person to coach the latter player. Then we see how the latter player plays and if he plays well enough to make coaching look bad.