Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
I know this isn't directed at me, but I'd like to respond to it. For starters, I'm sure a lot of this will be cleared up (more than it is now, at any rate) when you finally DO release your rationale for banning / including the stages that you did. Right now, we're all in an awkward position because your stage list was released, without actually explaining WHY it is the way it is. The fact that you're espousing "compromise" so much is only painting the stage list (fairly or not; we don't know at this point) as a set of arbitrary opinions without backing.
It's not (at least, for me) a matter of you not logically supporting yourself, it's that we don't know what that logic is, so practically, it's the same as not having logic at all.
...if that makes sense.
That part wasn't the question; the question came later. I was setting up the question. I'll restate for clarity, in the FORM of a question (which you seem to already have answered, partially): How will you handle members who are usually willing to compromise, but refuse to in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of their opinions? AN TOs have done this before with their 5-stage starter lists, contrary to a whole slew of facts (objective facts, btw, like MLG) that prove that 5 stage starters are not fair and that FD isn't a neutral stage, etc. So, if someone comes into your group and successfully argues a point, using facts, that proves your collective mentality or opinion to be false, will HE have to compromise to match you, or will the EXISTING MEMBERS have to compromise to match him.
This is an important question, because it addresses concerns of balance of power and seniority in your group, which will affect how members are chosen 6 months from now.
Well, even you have to admit that, although life has a LOT of gray area, and your rulesets will, too, sometimes things CAN be proven objectively and with actual evidence. How will you address those events? How will your group plan on dealing with a member defending a position not dogmatically, but LOGICALLY (not in an extremist way, but with pure evidence supporting his position)? Will a proven position be FORCED to undermine itself because of an imbalance of power in the group? And how do you plan on preventing this scenario?
This is SORELY needed right now.
Of course. This is a given, and very appreciated.
We'll see. If this is your aim, then I'd DEFINITELY direct you to the stage disc. forum; a lot of debate has gone on about that very topic that might add some perspective (I can't speak for you, so I can't say if you already have it
)This would be a good thing, too.
I look forward to it. ^_^
Well, I know you (it's not like we haven't worked together, lol), but remember: your group WILL expand over time, and you WILL add members who might not already have your predisposition to eliminating that conflict of interest. Is there a line that should be drawn in terms of TO participation in tournaments? Because, as I'm sure you're aware, not every human has the capability to fight something like that so effectively.
Don't forget: the objectivist philosophy on the rise on SWF right now is built off of the concept of a definite right and wrong choice. It's not as much a lack of willingness to compromise, as a need to strike a balance between objective truths not important enough to defend, in a bigger picture sense, and objective truths that are worth protecting from subjective influence. It's something I know you will have to deal with in the future, because your group has humans in it. I just want to address the concern now, before its a problem, for our sake AND yours.
