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

[Budget Player Cadet_]

100% opinion.

You and the rest of the people in support of this kind of thing wish. It's not opinion. It is, objectively, THE MOST COMPETITIVE RULESET.

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.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11702469&postcount=91
That post destroys this entire mindset by logically demonstrating that all stage elements are equivalent to each other. There is effectively no difference between me beating you on Smashville and me beating you on Luigi's Mansion.

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.

That's not objective. We've established criteria, based on the promotion of competitive depth in gameplay and variety; what's wrong with that criteria? Why is your... hell, we can't even call it a criteria... better?
And furthermore, where was JJ given high-level play and deemed anticompetitive? Luigi's Mansion? Port Town Aero Dive? You can't ****ing have tournament experiences on the stages when they are banned, and this is the source of the paradox here. It's basically like we can't win. If your logic is "go with what has proven to work in tournament play for the rules in tournaments", then there is no way to address mistakes. You just keep looping along on that feedback loop, maybe stopping from time to time to throw out a stage for absolutely no good reason (PS2 says hi). So where have these stages seen play?
I'd like to direct your attention to NOVA ****ING SCOTIA. AGAIN. (And, to a lesser extent, parts of ohio) Where they are running a competitive ruleset with virtually every stage legal you could remotely hope to legalize. And they have no problems with it. This means either the players in nova scotia have not become good enough to abuse the supposedly "one-dimensional" tactics on these stages which keep on getting pointed to, or... the tactics aren't as one-dimensional as you'd think. Which do you think is more likely? That an entire region sucks too hard to abuse strategies that you banned stages for, or that you (and pretty much everyone else) was too hasty in your evaluation of the stages?

EDIT: @Xyro: I'm sorry, but that is the most blatantly ******** straw man of our arguments I have ever heard. Coupled with ad hominem. If people who are willing to act like that (seriously, it's the equivalent of the ******** schoolyard bully rejecting the littler kids for being smaller and smarter than him, and then completely failing to understand what they're talking about when they bring up concepts such as ownership when he wants to have their toys!) have the last word in the brawl tournament scene, in the creation of rulesets, then something has gone horribly wrong.

 

[Xyro77]

You and the rest of the people in support of this kind of thing wish. It's not opinion. It is, objectively, THE MOST COMPETITIVE RULESET.

you can say what u feel but im here to tell you its an opinion. it aint just me and my kind disagree-ing with you. its complete randoms, people who just walk in to see whats up, smart kids, dumb kids, deaf kids, my hamster and nearly all of creation agrees that what you say is opinion.

 

[SuSa]

You and the rest of the people in support of this kind of thing wish. It's not opinion. It is, objectively, THE MOST COMPETITIVE RULESET.

I'm just going to bring up something here.

1) Do we care about competition and being the most competitive group we can be?
2) Or do we care about the longetivity and growth of the smash scene?

More people care about #2. Even MLG cares more about #2 - a huge part of why they wanted us to cap each tournament.

#2 is all that matters.

We define "competitive" not as "competitive" but more as "not casual". For the ease of communication we use the word "competitive".

We are the Smash Community. We may tag the word competitive before it. But that's just saying we're organized. We care for testing who is better than whom. We don't play FFA on Temple with items.

We can either avoid semantics, or you can bring us a word that more accurately describes our objective.

That's how I see it.

 

[Omni]

That's how I see it.

this is a completely different tune you're singing from what i normally see

curious to know what sparked such a dramatic change of opinion

 

[Raziek]

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.

If your ruleset is not logically supported, it is not as competitive as it can be.

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.

I have run every ruleset from Standard East Coast all the way up to everything.

My ability to host national events is limited by my region. I host locals every 2-3 months or so, along with a few other TOs I work with.

I'm one of the best players in my region, and I'm not a bad player.

You don't know me, Xyro. Don't act like you do.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, don't think I'm trying to word-pick you or anything; I'm merely doing this because I genuinely want to understand how this is planning on working out in the future.

Heres the thing, if u try hard enough you could make hyrule temple/big blue seem "logical."

Not really. Remember: what's been argued for the last few weeks (to great success, actually) in the Stage forum is the concept of objectivism, and of being able to prove your beliefs. What you're talking about is "lawyering" Hyrule into legality, but in a well-run and well-moderated group with people who are actually thinking and using the knowledge you purport the group will have, you can't "lawyer" ANYTHING into legality. I'm not talking about Raziek or anyone else using bull**** arguments. I'm talking about actual LEGIT arguments that make logical sense AND CAN BE PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt.

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.

See above.

The requirements are this:

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

Understandable. What I'm asking is that, assuming that a member who is arguing something rationally, reasonably, and logically (with proof!) is in the group, would the group be willing (or forced by the doctrine that created the group) to reverse course and admit a "mistake" (again, assume logical proof for something exists)? Or is acutal opinion more important to the creation of your rulesets?

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.

Well, we know that one of your goals is unity in the community. What are the other goals, specifically? Because the OP, as I understand it, really only lays out the unity thing. What do you consider to be the main goals of this group?

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.

Also understandable. When responding to my above questions, keep in mind that ALL of my hypotheticals adhere to this point; assume that the person in question is a national/regional TO with ample experience under many different rulesets.

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.

The only caveat with this is the point I've brought up before about conflict of interest (about players making the rules of the game to make it easier for them to win; it's usually subconscious and unintended, but it still happens because humans aren't perfect). I can elaborate if you want.

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

Could they (specifically Raz)? And if they do one day, would the group listen to their thoughts, even if the don't change from what they are today?

 

[SuSa]

this is a completely different tune you're singing from what i normally see

curious to know what sparked such a dramatic change of opinion

I've explained it earlier and many times before that. It seems only Jack is on the same wavelength as me, everyone else seems to be unable to grasp how I'm able to argue two sides of a coin.

It's not change. It's my ability to reason and be realistic. Also my desire for advancement from a static state that I find undesirable.

I think I said it on one of the first 5 pages if you care for a better explanation. But here's the smallest TL;DR I can give you, in a step by step process:

1a. Objective side (Logical side)
1b. Subjective side (Personal bias side)
2. Realistic reasoning of which side has a better chance of winning in given scenario.
3. Use winning side.


This may shock you from the fact I've argued for even Green Greens to be legal.

But I prefer a stage list 1 stage smaller than the Japanese stagelist. (I believe they have Halberd legal. I dislike that as it's the only stage they have legal that can deal damage to the players)

Yea. I'm even more conservative than the Japanese.

 

[Jack Kieser]

...It seems only Jack is on the same wavelength as me...

Welcome to my world.

 

[billybeegood]

if your ruleset is not logically supported, it is not as competitive as it can be.


i have run every ruleset from standard east coast all the way up to everything.

My ability to host national events is limited by my region. I host locals every 2-3 months or so, along with a few other tos i work with.

I'm one of the best players in my region, and i'm not a bad player.

You don't know me, xyro. Don't act like you do.

we're good? Waaaaaah????

 

[ADHD]

If your ruleset is not logically supported, it is not as competitive as it can be.


I have run every ruleset from Standard East Coast all the way up to everything.

My ability to host national events is limited by my region. I host locals every 2-3 months or so, along with a few other TOs I work with.

I'm one of the best players in my region, and I'm not a bad player.

You don't know me, Xyro. Don't act like you do.

..Maybe. You did go out of your way to DI into the range of a charging Ike fsmash and then counter immediately, giving him several more time to charge it.

 

[TP]

I've explained it earlier and many times before that. It seems only Jack is on the same wavelength as me

Welcome to my world.

Don't worry, there are other people who consider the size and strength of the community more important than having the most competitive or most democratic ruleset possible. We just don't post because Jack covers everything so well.

 

[Omni]

tl;dr

Yea. I'm even more conservative than the Japanese.

but weren't u advocating like a full stage list strike system with like a kabillion stages on

vv this guys know whats up vv

 

[~ Gheb ~]

It's not opinion. It is, objectively, THE MOST COMPETITIVE RULESET.

Perfect summary of the whole dilemma and why nobody ever listens to you or cares about you. Call it ad-hominem for all I care but you're digging your own grave and it's shocking that you even need somebody else to tell you this. How ironic that somebody like that would claim to understand the concept of what's competitive and what not. Get lost.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Don't worry, there are other people who consider the size and strength of the community more important than having the most competitive or most democratic ruleset possible. We just don't post because Jack covers everything so well.

Seriously? I rarely consider my posts to be that comprehensive. But, maybe that's just modesty talking (I have a bad habit of not giving myself due credit). Either way, thank you; that actually means a lot.

 

[Steam]

Perfect summary of the whole dilemma and why nobody ever listens to you or cares about you. Call it ad-hominem for all I care but you're digging your own grave and it's shocking that you even need somebody else to tell you this. How ironic that somebody like that would claim to understand the concept of what's competitive and what not. Get lost.

This x1000

 

[SuSa]

Don't worry, there are other people who consider the size and strength of the community more important than having the most competitive or most democratic ruleset possible. We just don't post because Jack covers everything so well.

I was referring to how I argue about things. See Omni's confusion below.

but weren't u advocating like a full stage list strike system with like a kabillion stages on

Yea. Do you think I personally believe in all that?
Now do you think I logically believe in all of that?
Now do you think I personally believe in that if the stage list were smaller (every legal stage on a SMALLER stage list)?

Answer Key:

No
Yes
Hell yes




I can tell you still don't get it.

 

[Omni]

i do get it

you're just arguing for the sake of arguing

 

[Xyro77]

If your ruleset is not logically supported, it is not as competitive as it can be.


I have run every ruleset from Standard East Coast all the way up to everything.

My ability to host national events is limited by my region. I host locals every 2-3 months or so, along with a few other TOs I work with.

I'm one of the best players in my region, and I'm not a bad player.

You don't know me, Xyro. Don't act like you do.

You hold regular events, good.
You have not held or had a major role in a regional/national, not good.
You are "good" at the game, sweet.
You also have proven multiple times in this thread that you wont compromise. Case closed.

Our ruleset is "logically" supported. Its just not YOUR kind of "logic" so dont wanna accept it. And dont worry, i dont want to know you, so u can stop assuming that im trying.

Not really. Remember: what's seen argued for the last few weeks (to great success, actually) in the Stage forum is the concept of objectivism, and of being able to prove your beliefs. What you're talking about is "lawyering" Hyrule into legality, but in a well-run and well-moderated group with people who are actually thinking and using the knowledge you purport the group will have, you can't "lawyer" ANYTHING into legality. I'm not talking about Raziek or anyone else using bull**** arguments. I'm talking about actual LEGIT arguments that make logical sense AND CAN BE PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I dont understand what you are asking.

Understandable. What I'm asking is that, assuming that a member who is arguing something rationally, reasonably, and logically (with proof!) is in the group, would the group be willing (or forced by the doctrine that created the group) to reverse course and admit a "mistake" (again, assume logical proof for something exists)? Or is acutal opinion more important to the creation of your rulesets?

We will have no issue admitting we messed up(if we do indeed mess up). We have no issue with changing the rules because we noticed our mess up. I also would have to say that most of these people(swordgard/raz/budget) that argue about whats rational and whats logical and provide "proof" are honestly a bunch of radicals. Their views are not the majority or minority...they are simply radicals/extreme-ists. Those people are a cancer to this type of group because if its not done THEIR way then is not "logical" and if its not done their way then its "wrong." They will not compromise and thus have no use to use or the community.

Well, we know that one of your goals is unity in the community. What are the other goals, specifically? Because the OP, as I understand it, really only lays out the unity thing. What do you consider to be the main goals of this group?

I cant speak for the group as a whole but i do feel that unity is our main goal and once it is accomplished many things will follow:

1. People will finally have a clear understanding of what stages are LEGAL and WHY they are legal. We will provide explainations for our actions.
2. People will not have to worry about WC/EC/Dirty South/MW having different rulesets. They can be well versed on these stages by the time a major event has to come up instead of having to learn picto ONLY for an South event......for example.
3. Once more of our rule set is created(remember, stage list is just ONE part of this) we feel that there may be an increase in character variety at tournies.
4. More events will get the limelight instead of just apex/whobo/pound/mlg/genesis....ect.

There is more but ill save it for another time.

The only caveat with this is the point I've brought up before about conflict of interest (about players making the rules of the game to make it easier for them to win; it's usually subconscious and unintended, but it still happens because humans aren't perfect). I can elaborate if you want.

I understand its hard to accept/trust us after the garbage the BBR created but its something i cant put into words. Most of you know us TOs and trust our judgement so thats all i can really say. Trust us and give this a shot.

Could they (specifically Raz)? And if they do one day, would the group listen to their thoughts, even if the don't change from what they are today?

Again i cant say raz or whoever WONT be in our group but i believe that radicals like him have a slim slim slim chance of getting in.

 

[The Real Inferno]

Eh. I'll run tournaments with this stage list. I kind of like it. I miss Norfair, but I'm not married to it or anything.

 

[SuSa]

i do get it

you're just arguing for the sake of arguing

*sigh* Let me try one more time.

Difference between arguing and debating:

Arguing - I HAVE to be right, you are wrong. I will argue that the Sun revolves around the Earth. I have no logical or scientific backing to it, but damn it. That's my opinion and my opinion must be right!

Debating - A form of arguing in which you are OK with being wrong. You are trying to find a greater truth through the arguing of two points. Often someone can play "Devil's Advocate" and argue against what they personally desire. This allows for advancement - as it allows a person to find a logical fault in something that you may not have been able to see yourself. You can have two people that are both against something - arguing for it. Simply to allow others to find a fault in the logic that they may have missed.

 

[AMKalmar]

Some people in here need to stop insulting others.

 

[Renki]

Some people in here need to stop insulting people who don't agree with their viewpoints.

Fixed. I do question how BPC support's Raz's ruleset...if it has MK banned. So, how is it competitive again? *scratches head*

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

Yeah BPC whassup with that

 

[TheTantalus]

Personal attacks are a fast way to get to absolutely nowhere

I'd also like to point out that Raziek is well informed in his knowledge of stages, we simply just disagree on concepts. What he and I believe to be the most competitive is simply a difference of opinion. I respect his and he respects mine.

What the "most competitive" is is subjective, can't believe this discussion is happening atm

 

[zhao_guang]

Fixed. I do question how BPC support's Raz's ruleset...if it has MK banned. So, how is it competitive again? *scratches head*

just a little side note, Nova Scotia officially unbanned MK after the last tourny. there were only a few who really wanted him banned (i think 3 people from our PR out of 10?) and we also realized he wasn't a major problem to begin with. so yea, MK is legal in NS.

 

[Renki]

just a little side note, Nova Scotia officially unbanned MK after the last tourny. there were only a few who really wanted him banned (i think 3 people from our PR out of 10?) and we also realized he wasn't a major problem to begin with. so yea, MK is legal in NS.

Much appreciated on the heads up. Yeah, it's better for you guys in the long run. =)

Agreed @ TheTantalus

 

[Life]

..Maybe. You did go out of your way to DI into the range of a charging Ike fsmash and then counter immediately, giving him several more time to charge it.

All I have to say. inb4 the ignore

re: Nova Scotian MKs: Oh really?

 

[Raziek]

I should add, that the ban was initially done as a preventative measure, so it being a "problem" was never the issue. The issue was stopping the problem before it started.

Unfortunately, I have to consider our community's well-being on a national level, as our players wish to travel to areas where MK is of course, legal.

So, don't sugar coat it quite so much, Zhao, we had a 66% vote in favor, with 6/10 of the PR players on board AT THE TIME.

Opinions changed for reasons detailed above.

Thanks, Tantalus, for the support.

 

[SuSa]

And that is why I always said the notion of banning him in your region would NEVER ****ING WORK.

+10 for being proven correct a 3rd time.

 

[TP]

I was referring to how I argue about things. See Omni's confusion below.

[Namesearch explosion below]

Oh, well don't worry about him. Omni's on my list of people who never change their opinion on anything, along with BPC, ADHD, Raziek, Orion, Xyro, and a few others. Note that I am not saying I don't agree with these people on various things, nor that they fail to bring up good points in debates, just that all of them are too close-minded to bother debating against in any form.

Then there are the more rational and open people, such as Jack, you, MMM, Crow, Pierce, AZ, Overswarm, and some others. Note that this group has an incredible range in philosophies, but they all share the ability to debate well and remain unbiased (well, nobody is truly unbiased, but these people keep things level).

I call it like I see it.

 

[SuSa]

Thanks for including me in that second list. Means a lot.

I also should start using my forum reactions more often.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

And that is why I always said the notion of banning him in your region would NEVER ****ING WORK.

+10 for being proven correct a 3rd time.

Chill man :/

 

[ADHD]

[Namesearch explosion below]

Oh, well don't worry about him. Omni's on my list of people who never change their opinion on anything, along with BPC, ADHD, Raziek, Orion, Xyro, and a few others. Note that I am not saying I don't agree with these people on various things, nor that they fail to bring up good points in debates, just that all of them are too close-minded to bother debating against in any form.

Then there are the more rational and open people, such as Jack, you, MMM, Crow, Pierce, AZ, Overswarm, and some others. Note that this group has an incredible range in philosophies, but they all share the ability to debate well and remain unbiased (well, nobody is truly unbiased, but these people keep things level).

I call it like I see it.

I'm not a close-minded person, I just know personally that adding stages like Green Greens and encouraging randomness is NOT good for this game competitively.

On anything else, yes. But I have a right to hold my opinion on this.

 

[SuSa]

That came off a bit wrong, and seemed like I was personally addressing him when I said "your region".

I meant that in a more broad sense.

One region simply cannot agree to ban MK - because of the above listed reason of when they decide to travel OoS/out of country - into a region that has MK allowed.

You simply won't have the right experience to compete. It's like people losing to Yoshi - simply because they never ****ing played a Yoshi before.

That inexperience bites you in the ***. So unless the ban is widespread; it's going to fail when your region decides to travel. This is what pisses me off when the higher-ups tell people to "experiment with MK-banned tourneys" or to "hold your own MK-Banned tourneys for your region".

It hurts your region to do so. Therefore nobody really wants to do that.

/explanation was needed

 

[Omni]

Oh, well don't worry about him. Omni's on my list of people who never change their opinion on anything, along with BPC, ADHD, Raziek, Orion, Xyro, and a few others. Note that I am not saying I don't agree with these people on various things, nor that they fail to bring up good points in debates, just that all of them are too close-minded to bother debating against in any form.

i use to be pro-ban

i'm very open-minded. i just think i'm entitled to my opinion just like everyone else's and no one's is more "right" or "wrong". which is probably as open minded as u can get on the issue

 

[zhao_guang]

I should add, that the ban was initially done as a preventative measure, so it being a "problem" was never the issue. The issue was stopping the problem before it started.

And then a post from before MK was banned

Your only reasoning against it is "He's not a problem" and your anecdotal evidence of beating ****ty MKs. Fun fact: MK's like Chaos and Matt Richard aren't the problem. Hell, Parker's MK isn't even that good and it's causing a problem.

ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggggggggg


obviously i understand why the decision was made in the first place and i'm glad it was reversed for the sake of our scene's national credit, but you definitely tried (and succeeded to some points) to convince people that the MK we were seeing at the time was worth banning. just don't try and claim that you only wanted him ban to prevent future problems when it wasn't always the case.

 

[Life]

Problem can be solved by banning MK at every other tournament so people can enjoy a meta-free meta () while not auto-losing to the bat every time they travel.

*is apathetic on MK being banned*

 

[SuSa]

Solution is not realistic. (In the sense that it will happen. Not that it can't happen.)

That's the 2nd problem.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Pointless arguing.

The national stagelist was needed, but the stagelists have never been the problem. Nor have the rulesets.

It's the game mechanics, and that's something you can't change (without hacking).

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

i use to be pro-ban

i'm very open-minded. i just think i'm entitled to my opinion just like everyone else's and no one's is more "right" or "wrong". which is probably as open minded as u can get on the issue

I'm the same way, sort of.

I used to be anti-ban, and I changed to pro-ban, lol.

I try to stay open minded to a degree, maybe not to the level where I accept no one is more right or wrong on an issue.

For this issue I really think Susa has is nailed down that compromise is the way to go. I mean id people want to do stuff at a local level and such, that's fine, but at a national and in some cases regional level we need consistency we can agree on with the stage list.