Creation of BBR Ruleset Committee; Brawl Nationals Agree to Same Stagelist! New TO's!

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It may be difficult for you to understand that more stages doesn't equal more depth to the game but stage limitation is like sorting out the good stuff from the trash. At the end you will be left with less choice but you will only have the best so it's a choice of quality over quantity.

And as I've already stated back in this thread, the stages we choose are the ones that let the players and the characters express their capabilities at their fullest. We promote a dynamic collision of players skill (reads, mindgames, momentum, baits, adaptation, tech skill, creativity) with a lot of potential growth instead of the abuse gimmicky stage hazards, highly safe battle avoiding tactics and randomness.

It's not "difficult for me to understand". Unless you have some argument I'm missing, it's not that I'm "not getting" something. It's that you are flat-out wrong.

 

[Kewkky]

Before all of you who are still arguing here realize what happened, the ruleset these guys are coming up with will be the one you will want to play with all the time, and just like you shun other regions' rulesets, you will shun non-Committee rulesets. It's all about what's the norm when you bring up a point, and when this new ruleset is the norm, you'll know where you stand as a player arguing in SWF - the "I don't want changes" side, or the "We need something to change!" side.

Also, the BBR doesn't really NEED to do rulesets, we're already doing enough in my opinion.

And as a last note, how many times in the past have people said "if you don't agree with what the BBR is doing, make your own social group and do something rather than complain about it"? This is EXACTLY what happened here, it started as a social group, top TOs are working together, and this project is taking its first big step. As a BBR member and as a mod I'm hoping this pulls well, and as a player, it doesn't matter to me as long as I can keep using my mains and playing as if nothing happened (ergo, my fave stage will still be BattleField, and I'm still gonna wreck people there with Kirby regardless). A funny thing about humans is how we can sometimes take illogical routes and arrive at logical conclusions to the same problem, as if we took a logical route all along. You can't argue that this won't work because there's always a chance that things will work out and will be MUCH better than what's the norm right now.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Yeah it tooks 3 years of the community cutting itself before finally someone realized "hey! I have an idea!"

I prefer a logical approach, its less painful and less ********.

 

[Kewkky]

Yeah it tooks 3 years of the community cutting itself before finally someone realized "hey! I have an idea!"

I prefer a logical approach, its less painful and less ********.

Philosophically speaking, humanity is illogical in and of itself. Logically speaking, we have to get used to humanity's illogical philosophies if we want to live with the least frustrations possible. Logic still make me feel all warm and fuzzy though, and as an aspiring researcher, I believe logic should always be used to get to a conclusion.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Man, you all are really getting bent out of shape about this.

Sorry that actual tournament directors are making the rules now.

I honestly have been reading the stage boards more often now because of the noise being created over there. I like to be well informed before making decisions.

If you all want to sit here and be salty about it be my guest, this argument is proving beneficial to no one and not providing any new or unique insight.

No no no, lets correct what you said.

"I don't care cause its the stage list I wanted anyway since we all know the conservative ruleset CONTROLS MK"

Mhm, yeah, hush you.

Philosophically speaking, humanity is illogical in and of itself. Logically speaking, we have to get used to humanity's illogical philosophies if we want to live with the least frustrations possible. Logic still make me feel all warm and fuzzy though, and as an aspiring researcher, I believe logic should always be used to get to a conclusion.

Agreed.

 

[Hylian]

Sorry that actual tournament directors are making the rules now.
.

Funny thing is, tournament directors have always been making the rules lol. Nothings really different in that regard.

 

[SuSa]

Man, you all are really getting bent out of shape about this.

Sorry that actual tournament directors are making the rules now.

I honestly have been reading the stage boards more often now because of the noise being created over there. I like to be well informed before making decisions.

If you all want to sit here and be salty about it be my guest, this argument is proving beneficial to no one and not providing any new or unique insight.

Reposting this entire post on a new page because it must be done.

@Hylian
You took that slightly wrong.... and took my first spot on the new page (15PPP)

 

[Crow!]

@Hylian:

Except that the whole point of this project is to prevent as many TOs from making rules as it can.

 

[SuSa]

It's actually to try and get as many TO's as possible to reach a compromise and agree to use one ruleset that they all took part in creating.

 

[Hylian]

@Hylian:

Except that the whole point of this project is to prevent as many TOs from making rules as it can.

Or..it's the complete opposite?

It's actually to try and get as many TO's as possible to reach a compromise and agree to use one ruleset that they all took part in creating.

^^

 

[Crow!]

The project description does not suggest to me that it seeks to admit as many TOs as possible and run the decisions in a democratic manner. If it does, I may retract some of my complaints.

For instance, I'd expect input from as many TOs as possible to have been used to generate the stage list, which evidently was not the case, seeing as only 5 people are on the committee so far.

 

[SuSa]

Not as many as possible, but those willing to go along. Those that won't refuse to do what the GROUP has decided on doing.

Meaning... they want team players. If you want a change, it's up to you to convince them WHY they should adopt that change. Otherwise be quiet, sit in the corner, and join in on being a member of the community. Or go back to your collective.

Also note that they are also looking for TO's that know their stuff and are willing to reach a middle ground. No "I MUST HAVE THIS OR IM LEAVING" bull****.

If you need me to explain each part piece by piece I'd love to. =| Although the quote is pretty clear.

Here's the quote from the OP:

Finally, the BBR Ruleset Committee will be expanding membership over the next few months to include more Tournament Directors. To be admitted you must pledge that your tournament will run with the rules agreed upon by the group (exceptions for experimental tournaments can be made). The BBR Ruleset Committee will be looking for the best, most experienced Tournament Directors, but also those who are willing to compromise and come together.

 

[Crow!]

That statement simply left me (and still leaves me) with the impression that they intend to hand pick a small batch of people whose decisions will be used to affect everyone else, rather than that they intend to admit almost everyone and run things democratically.

I'd like to be proven wrong there, but I don't have high hopes.

 

[SuSa]

Depends how many TO's are willing to put their childish "if it's not my way exactly **** you all" attitudes in a bag and drown them.

So if it's a small batch, it just shows how unwilling the collective of players (well, specifically the TO's) is to compromise and reach a middle ground.

 

[etecoon]

That statement simply left me (and still leaves me) with the impression that they intend to hand pick a small batch of people whose decisions will be used to affect everyone else, rather than that they intend to admit almost everyone and run things democratically.

I'd like to be proven wrong there, but I don't have high hopes.

didn't they already try the "admit almost everyone" and let 80+ people go at it approach? all that comes from that is endless cognitive dissonance

granted idk that organizing what is essentially the brawl illumaniti and secretly imposing these rules on everything without anyone's knowledge was really good either

but w/e, omni kind of has a point that honestly people care way too much about this, not exactly thrilled about PS2/picto being legal but it's not that big a deal either

 

[Crow!]

@ SuSa:

I meant, almost all applicants who agree to and actually do follow the rules of that group, of course. Again, if being democratic were an objective, I'd expect the stage list to have come out after the rest of the TOs were assembled rather than before, hence my concern.

 

[SuSa]

It did come after.
After the first 5.
Have to start somewhere.

 

[vVv Rapture]

That statement simply left me (and still leaves me) with the impression that they intend to hand pick a small batch of people whose decisions will be used to affect everyone else, rather than that they intend to admit almost everyone and run things democratically.

I'd like to be proven wrong there, but I don't have high hopes.

Isn't that how our democracy works? A small batch of people whose decisions will be used to affect everyone else sounds a lot like Congress.

EDIT: Probably going to make a longer response to this whole thing later, but not in the mood. One of my cats is dieing

 

[Raziek]

Do you people not understand why the admission requirements are flawed?

In order to have my opinion count at ALL, I have to ban 8-9 stages at my tournaments to start out with. I'm one of the most knowledgeable players out there when it comes to stages. Why do I have to abandon my ideals to have my opinion count? That's preposterous.

This group is designed to enable its own opinions, because the people who will join the group will be those who agree with what the ruleset ALREADY IS, and they won't want to see it changed.

Edit:

Here's an idea. Make this a MINIMUM requirements, and then you've got something.

If I can join the group, use all these stages, and still add in the ones my region wants, while having my opinion count, that's a lot more fair.

 

[SuSa]

That's the worst case scenario.

Then there are those willing to sacrifice a few stages, but try to bring it up amongst the group and persuade them otherwise.

You have to realize you're a very far outlier in that you have ever stage legal - and are working on "and then some".

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

That's the worst case scenario.

Then there are those willing to sacrifice a few stages, but try to bring it up amongst the group and persuade them otherwise.

You have to realize you're a very far outlier in that you have ever stage legal - and are working on "and then some".

He's a far outlier, sure, but he's right. His stagelist is probably the best of... well, anywhere. And in order to even have influence here, he has to neuter it?

 

[Jack Kieser]

Think of it this way. Before, raziek would have had to convince 80 people who held wildly differing views and also believed that no one was required to come to compromise.

Now, he would have to convince 5 people who are already predisposed to compromise and debate. I'd say it's an improvement. He just needs to get in, which means hosting a lot of events.

 

[Xyro77]

He's a far outlier, sure, but he's right. His stagelist is probably the best of... well, anywhere.

100% opinion.

 

[ADHD]

Of course they can. In the same way a set between Gnes and Tyrant would probably go very differently if they were playing on the Japanese ruleset than if they were playing on the MLG ruleset. This is not a bad thing. I mean, come on, of course results are going to be different. Different players (and characters!!!) perform better on certain stages and worse on others. Why is this a problem?

EDIT: And, for once, I agree with Yikarur 100%.

The results will be different for the wrong reasons. Stages with random and intrusive obstacles that deal damage are not of the player's doing and therefor should not be encouraged for viable tournament play.

We weeded out the bull**** stages in melee for that reason. They were overly distracting from two players dishing out moves against eachother, and whether we have solid criteria or not, we don't need that criteria to dictate which is better suited for 1v1 to see the objectively better ruleset. I mean objective as in actually used repeatedly in large events with a consistent turn-out and decent results. Our decisions are based off of tournament experiences whether you like it or not. There is no better way to justify something than actually playing on it at middle to higher levels of play--as opposed to merely theory on paper. PS2 should have been tested thoroughly, though. I have a feeling it will pop up some nasty glitches.

 

[etecoon]

He's a far outlier, sure, but he's right. His stagelist is probably the best of... well, anywhere. And in order to even have influence here, he has to neuter it?

100% opinion.

no. he's right. he agrees with me and I'M always objectively correct

 

[Spelt]

this thread is just one huge compilation of every discussion brawl stage discussion/ruleset thread have ever had.

idiotic doesn't even begin to describe it.

 

[fkacyan]

I'd just like to state, for the record, that it's not the list I have an issue with (Well, except for Pictochat), but the methodology.

Please don't group my disagreement with BPC / Raziek / etc.

Domo.

 

[Jack Kieser]

100% opinion.

Ok, here's a question. Assume Raziek hosts a ton of events and even gets a national hosted in nova scotia. So, he fulfills the requirements of joining your group.

If he came in and LOGICALLY argued for a larger stagelist, and PROVED that one would be better for the community, would it be adopted?

 

[ADHD]

Ok, here's a question. Assume Raziek hosts a ton of events and even gets a national hosted in nova scotia. So, he fulfills the requirements of joining your group.

If he came in and LOGICALLY argued for a larger stagelist, and PROVED that one would be better for the community, would it be adopted?

You know that it would be debated then, and it could still be rejected based on the majority's decision.

 

[SuSa]

I'd just like to state, for the record, that it's not the list I have an issue with (Well, except for Pictochat), but the methodology.

Please don't group my disagreement with BPC / Raziek / etc.

Domo.

So in other words you're the opposite to me.

I can care less about the method. I only care for the end result. Because... in the end. That's all that matters.

You know that it would be debated then, and it could still be rejected based on the majority's decision.

I see you fixed it yourself. I quoted you only to fix a typo.... lol.

 

[swordgard]

Ok, here's a question. Assume Raziek hosts a ton of events and even gets a national hosted in nova scotia. So, he fulfills the requirements of joining your group.

If he came in and LOGICALLY argued for a larger stagelist, and PROVED that one would be better for the community, would it be adopted?

He has not hosted said national yet.

Probably won't happen either simply because of how Canada is, not Razieks fault, blame our ****ty population density.

 

[Xyro77]

Ok, here's a question. Assume Raziek hosts a ton of events and even gets a national hosted in nova scotia. So, he fulfills the requirements of joining your group.

If he came in and LOGICALLY argued for a larger stagelist, and PROVED that one would be better for the community, would it be adopted?

Heres the thing, if u try hard enough you could make hyrule temple/big blue seem "logical." Thats the ******** thing raz/budget are trying to suck you guys into. It comes down to "who argues the best." They want to argue with you until you cant refute them anymore(mainly cause you just cant put into words what you are thinking). Ive seen this crap from people like them/swordgard and im way over that.



The requirements are this:


Compromise. We dont want selfish people that MUST get their way.

Put the scene/longevity of the game above your own personal bullshat. We want people to understand that our goals are bigger/more important than we are.

Become a TO and hold lots of events and a national/regional event(at least play a major role in regional/national events). You need ample tournament exp under many different rulesets to truly understand.

Play the game at a decent---high level. We dont want people who play this game casually or not at all. We want well versed players in here.




Its safe to say raz and budget dont fit this. this is my opinion.

 

[SuSa]

if u try hard enough you could make hyrule temple/big blue seem "logical"

No you can't.

/only rebuttal

 

[ADHD]

He's using the ad hominem! NOOOOOO.

 

[Overswarm]

So in other words you're the opposite to me.

I can care less about the method. I only care for the end result. Because... in the end. That's all that matters.



I see you fixed it yourself. I quoted you only to fix a typo.... lol.

 

[Yikarur]

No you can't.

/only rebuttal

big blue can be considered as allowed by logic.
Hyrule temple not!!
:D

Big blue <3

 

[SuSa]

No. Big Blue. Can't.
But this thread isn't the thread for it.

 

[swordgard]

Xyro, you can insult me. You can say I don't compromise. You can say all you want, except one thing. You have crossed the line.


You misspelled my name. Rage!

 

[Xyro77]

xyro, you can insult me. You can say i don't compromise. You can say all you want, except one thing. You have crossed the line.


You misspelled my name. Rage!

i fixed it! Im sorry!

 

[SuSa]

You can say I don't compromise.

I quote your signature:

I may seem like a jerk to you, but it is merely because I do not abide by the rules of the social contract that people follow.


Compromise and self-censorship are never an option.

Compromise and self-censorship are never an option.

Compromise (is) never an option.