Directly Impacting Results - A new criteria

[Nidtendofreak]

The stage flipping is with it's quickly moving boundaries. However please note that isn't a hazard. Not only does it offer warning - it's not "luck" you died. It's just you suck at this stage. It doesn't deal damage nor does it altar the win results directly.

Unless I can stand in 1 spot and the stage MIGHT kill me like 1/100 times or something... but I don't think you mean it like that.

Also creating criteria for glitches that cannot be easily reproduced (or can actually be avoided if the player is knowledgable) is.. well.. not only impossible, but worthless to look into. The criteria covers the expected and only what is under it's definition. If you want to take into consideration glitches on stages and other things - you'd end up banning every single stage because I've seen a character fall between a stage on every stage. So by taking it this far (which, it shouldn't even apply to glitches or avoidable results) - we'd be playing a stageless game. Good luck with that.

This is why YI (B) is pretty much the only one up-for-debate on this criteria.

The boundaries of the stage doesn't move at all: the stage itself becomes a hazard. Now you're just being subjective as well. It gives you a warning alright...just like how other hazards do. I can easily say "If you didn't hear the boom of the cannon, and couldn't see the cannonball go flying towards you from the background, you just suck at the stage." or "If you couldn't see that giant claw slowly moving around and getting ready to hit you, or that giant laser crosshair following you around, followed by it pausing and blinking before firing, you just suck at the stage." Frigate flipping DOES directly impact results. It's rare, but it happens. You are subjectively calling it a "boundary shift" instead of a "hazard" in order to allow it to be legal in your criteria, because otherwise it would be banned in it.

If you want to get technical, the moving platforms can also directly impact results. If you land on one after going into your free fall animation, and it starts to move back just as you land on it, some characters can't make it back. D3's standing back up animation after canceling his Up B takes a while for example. It can also kill Ness or Lucas's recovery attempt by colliding with their Up B at just the wrong time. Even more technically, the ballon on Smashville can do the same. How are these not hazards? Ness and Lucas mains using their Up B must make sure to avoid these things, otherwise they die. If you want a truly "hazard free stage list", those two stages must go as well. Otherwise it's actually a "minimal amount of hazards stage list"

At least one of the glitches are easily produced, and not fully avoidable. If you're forced to recover from a rather low point in the first stage of Castle Siege, and it starts to change to the second stage: you're dead. The transition floor will occur, and you can't get through it. You're forced into it like how you're forced into various other hazards in the game if your opponent puts you there (or if you're just plan stupid), like on Jungle Japes. The stages shift at a set time: the croc comes at a set time. There is no luck factor involve: you were simply forced there, or for some stupid reason you decided to hang out down there during that time period. There is no difference between the two, except that the croc comes more often, and the floor glitch has a bigger area.

As for the "fall through any stage" comment, I've only see that happen with D3 involved in doubles. That's caused by D3 inhaling, and being hit just as his opponent is being sucked forwards but isn't in his belly yet.

 

[SuSa]

@Nidentdo
I can down smash as Snake and fall through Delfino when the platform drops down into the stage.

Now you ignored my entire counterpoint.

Each of those changes is different for each player. You completely ignored this point.

When the Halberd Claw targets onto me it is choosing my opponent over me.
When the Norfair/Brinstar lava spawns on my side (be it top, left, right, or bottom), not my enemies. It is choosing my opponent over me.
When Pictochat decides to transform into a hazard (EG: Missiles) it is choosing one player over another. It's "move or I'll make you move by hurting you".

When Frigate flips. It flips for both of us.
When Delfino moves. It moves for both of us.

I guess Japes can be argued legal under this, since the croc isn't really targetting either player over another and thus can be strategically used. It has a fixed starting point on a fixed time.


We've moved on from the OP, stop focusing on the OP. Jack tore the OP apart. We've moved past that. If you want to argue your random standpoint - you have to realize you are now arguing for items to be in gameplay. After all, we already have that precedent. We shouldn't be playing on any stage due to the random spawn points. *rolls eyes*

 

[T-block]

We cannot define advantageous. Therefore the distinction became "a force in change that neither player can adapt to without warning"

PS1, PS2, and Delfino (to a much lesser, and arguable extent) all give warning that players may adapt to in this change. Nor can it be argued whether or not this change is really 'advantageous" for either player as this changes dependent on the matchup.

No matter WHAT MATCHUP I am playing, if Halberd targets me. I'm put into a disadvantaged situation (one cannot argue that taking damage isn't disadvantaged given our win criteria). I MUST do something, or take damage. Regardless if I'm MK or Ganon or anyone inbetween. This is the major distinction in the line that can be drawn.

Pictochat would be totally viable under this... if it didn't have hazards that dealt damage. All of it's non-damage-dealing changes take time to draw, and players have enough warning (as it draws) to realistically adapt.

Warning is anything withing the standard human reaction time of 12 frames*

I'm going to bed

We cannot concretely define advantageous, but we also cannot deny that an advantage exists. Don't you agree that it's possible to play the same matchup on PS2 several times, and get different outcomes based on what transformations show themselves? While there is an important difference between this and what you're describing, as you pointed out, they are fundamentally the same - random aspects of the stage are changing the outcome of the match - and I think in this discussion this is the level we should be looking at, because what matters in the end is the outcome, right?

In other words, you are targetting randomness as a ban criteria, but arbitrarily limiting the scope to randomness that causes direct harm to the players. I don't see why this limitation should exist when other randomness can have the same effect - deviance from the "expected" result.

 

[SuSa]

Very possible. Within that scope however, every stage is bannable (and is currently bannable. I'm not adding any criteria here.. it's bannable under the precedents our removal of items set)

However, and I'll point this out one more time in another manner to show the major, practical distinction between the two.

When you go to Halberd, you do not know whom the hazard will pick. But you know the hazard will exist. You can essentially predict, that at some point in this match, the hazard will make it's decision. It's possible to predict because it only happens during a certain phase of the stage.

However...

When you go to PS1/PS2, you do not know which transformations will be picked. But you know the transformations exist. However you cannot predict at some point in the match, which transformation will be chosen until it's already decided. It's impossible.

I am separating the "impossible to predict" from the "possible to predict". With this separation (which is very logical) exists, it's okay for spawn points to be random at the start of the match. Because we have no way to predict which spawn you will get.

EDIT:
This would unban Japes

 

[T-block]

I'm afraid I'm not really following. Yes, I suppose you could make that distinction, but what does it matter?

It's okay for spawn points to be random not because of this distinction, but because the effect is negligible. As I said, where we draw the line that says "this much randomness is okay" is arbitrary. We look at how much the stage could potentially affect the outcome of a match, and make a decision based on that. Perhaps it's not the best way, but it's the most obvious, and it's the way it's always been done. It's safe to say the spawn points have less effect on the outcome of a match than which PS transformations are chosen, so if we allow PS, we're okay with spawn points.

 

[SuSa]

I'm following on that, but I'm trying to make the distinction... let me try to make it a tiny bit more obvious.,

Assuming you reach the battleship on Halberd - is it safe to assume you know for a fact you will get hit by a hazard? (Read my last paragraph as to why which hazard doesn't matter)

Assuming you reach the first transition of either Pokémon Stadium. Is it safe to assume you know for a fact you will go to the Fire transition first? How about the electric transition first?

I'm trying to draw the line (logically) between "I know ____ will happen, but if it attacks me or my opponent is pure luck" and "I think _____ will be the stage transition"

Again - I removed the "disadvantage/advantage" as far as stage position goes. This is completely matchup dependant and you can't draw that line.

You can however say that getting hit by a random hazard is a disadvantage. Because, according to our criteria to win, you don't want to be the target of any hazard. Whether it's direct (Halberd's hazards) or indirect (Lava wall on Norfair). This is why for Halberd "which hazard" doesn't matter.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I'm going to give a very simple reply here. I think the argument in the original post is flawed in many ways, but I only need to refute one part of it to topple the argument.

Since these hazards deal damage, theoretically I can do absolutely nothing but run away once my opponent gets hit.

Premise 1: Hypothetically, you can run after getting any damage advantage and win so we can presume, unless you are arguing we don't play the game at all, that if the damage is caused by the opponent, it is okay.

Premise 2: On every stage in the game except WarioWare Inc. (with its unpredictable damaging rain that kinda forces you to take 1-2% sometimes), it is not only possible but very easy for a player of any real skill to avoid all damage indefinitely when under absolutely zero threat from the opponent. On PictoChat or Onett, there are places to stand and indefinitely never get hit, on Norfair and Halberd every hazard can be dodges on reaction, on Rumble Falls even Ganondorf can very easily keep up with the stage while avoiding the spikes, etc.. I hope we can just take this as a given; I don't want to make a bunch of 15 minute youtube videos of me dodging stage hazards while "fighting" a training dummy.

Premise 3: If two circumstances are exactly identical except for one factor and have a different outcome, that one factor can be attributed to be the cause of the different outcome. Since the universe is essentially non-random on the macro level, a different outcome must result from some different causal effect, and if there is only one different factor at all, that factor must be the source of the different causal effect and therefore causal to the phenomenon observed.

Conclusion: On all stages except WarioWare Inc., if a competent player is hit by a stage hazard, it can fairly be called damage caused by the other player by a simple combination of premises 2 and 3. This makes damage via hazards okay as per premise 1.

 

[SuSa]

I'm about 1 reply away from editing my OP to require any counterarguments to read the past 2 pages of debate.

We're past that the OP is flawed.

 

[T-block]

Okay but SuSa, this is the question that you're not answering.

Why are we making that distinction?

 

[Raziek]

Ok, I'm late to this thread, so I need a Tl;DR of what the current issue is, since it's already been established that the OP is MASSIVELY flawed.

 

[SuSa]

Because there is a large difference between the two. There is a difference from me hitting one opponent - and pushing two players into one area.

There is a difference competitively between one that may be biased but is (subjectively) advantageous or disadvantageous and that which also may be biased but puts one at a disadvantage regardless of the matchup.

As stated earlier - "the better ground" is completely subjective. However "Getting killed/hurt" is not subjective.

Think of what we consider to be degenerate. Is it polar or is it degenerate? That's the distinction I'm making in a sense.

"Better Ground" will always change in one of the 666 matchups in this game. However "Disadvantage due to a random hazard" will never change based on the matchup.

This same "Better Ground" concept can be applied to spawn points. You cannot say which ground is actually the better ground. Therefore you can't draw an objective line.

 

[Ghostbone]

Hmm....well, there are still two stages with (afaik) non-random hazards, which are Port Town Aero Dive and Brinstar. Port Town Aero Dive's cars follow a set path don't they? The cars position might be slightly random though and it could still probably be considered random because of the random transformations effectively making the hazard random....but i'm not sure. Brinstar's lava follows a set pattern as well doesn't it?
Both of these might be technically slightly random in their timing though.....someone correct me on this.

Japes should definitely be legal though under this criteria.

Also...wouldn't Smashville (barely) have to be banned with this new criteria? While its hazard doesn't deal damage, it can directly take stocks off ness and lucas players (and possibly some others). So it would directly affect the win criteria of "take all your opponents stocks"

 

[SuSa]

The car's position, unless they can be proven to not be random. Otherwise PTAD is 100% legit.

I don't think Brinstar's lava follows a set pattern.

Japes is totally legal.

Smashville's balloon isn't a hazard (remember, I defined taking damage for a very specific reason) - and it's random within a set height. I'd argue more of "that's suicide" considering I'm 80% sure Ness/Lucas can recover to the stage without use of their up-B at that height... I see it no different than I see stage transformations.

I had a nice hour-long discussion with Raziek over AIM about this. His only qualm (I'm kind of paraphrasing you, sorry Raz. Feel free to correct me) is that I'm removing so much depth from the game by ignoring subjectivity (which ruins any and all criteria - since criteria must be objective to "hold firm").

So he's against my removing depth, which I feel is a justified opposition. Please remember I supported a 22 stage list for that exact reason - but at the time I felt that was what was objectfully right.

Also before anyone tries to argue against random moves (certain attacks from characters) - let me remind you that each of these is only subjective to being an "advantage".

While the Gordo deals (23%?) and has a good chance at killing, what if the Waddle Doo let you get an extra 30% off of a chaingrab? What if your opponent missed the Waddle Dee jumping and died due to that? Which one is more advantageous?

It's all subjective. While a G&W may want a 9 for his Judgement Hammer at KO %'s. He may want a 7 when he's at a higher % and his opponent ISN'T in a KO%. It once again, is subjective to whether or not this random is advantageous or disadvantageous.

 

[ANTi_]

Legit imo.

 

[Ghostbone]

Yea just had a look at Brinstar now...the timing definitely varies, so that would have to be banned. Weird...i always thought it was on a timer.
PTAD would need someone to look at the position of the cars throughout a match to see whether the cars themselves are random.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

I like a legit CP for Zelda (Luigi's Mansion)

 

[SuSa]

Legit imo.

---------This post is off the record------​

**** yes. Anti and ADHD both approve.

Yea just had a look at Brinstar now...the timing definitely varies, so that would have to be banned. Weird...i always thought it was on a timer.
PTAD would need someone to look at the position of the cars throughout a match to see whether the cars themselves are random.

Yeah... I'm not looking at the cars and I'm going to go under the safe assumption - that because it is a race - that the cars will be random. :V But it can quickly be unbanned if proven otherwise. Since they are fixed when actually going around the stage otherwise (to my knowledge)

I like a legit CP for Zelda (Luigi's Mansion)

Don't be too happy, just because it's legal on this stagelist doesn't mean regions would use it. It has a light circle, and even though in over an entire year I've never seen it abused, people hate it.

This is more-or-less supposed to be an improvement over the BBR's recommended list because this one tries to be as objective as possible while not inducing matches lost to "luck" which a majority of players frown upon.

Although I personally support Weegee's Mansion.

---------This post is off the record------​

 

[Raziek]

I don't think Brinstar's lava follows a set pattern.

BRINSTAR IS NOT RANDOM.

 

[SuSa]

Posted in your thread. I still question it a bit, and while I know there are "levels" to how it rises. I didn't get the consistency of that. (I'll go reread the thread)

 

[Ghostbone]

@Raziek
I ran the stage through twice, without the characters moving at all. (I used MK FYI) On the first time the character on the right ended with 56 damage, on the second time he ended with 42 damage.
So it varies.

Edit: Which makes it random

 

[Raziek]

It varies VERY slightly in the height of which each level raises. What DOES NOT vary, is the times at which it rises to those levels. However, the important phases are always in the same spots relative to all the others, which means you can watch for when the acid begins to rise, and you will know that it is that phase.

 

[SuSa]

What he's saying is, standing in 1 spot for two different matches. He ended with 2 different %'s for damage while doing nothing.

If it doesn't vary, how is a difference of over 5% possible?

 

[Ghostbone]

Yea, it hit me 4 times the first match, 3 times the second, and I'm pretty sure the timing changes from 10-20 seconds also.

 

[Raziek]

It doesn't. What changes very slightly is whether or not Level 6 touches the bottoms of the platforms. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. That's the only minor inconsistency I've found.

It still rises in the same ORDER every time.

 

[Ghostbone]

Ok then....while the stage might have a pattern, that pattern's timing will vary and the level it rises to is random.

I ran through the stage two more times without moving (both characters MK).

1st time:
character on the left finished with 14%, character on the right finished with 28%
within the last 5 seconds, the lava was continuously rising (still rising when the time ran out).

2nd time:
character on the left finished with 56%, character on the right finished with 56%
at around 12 seconds left, the lava rose up to level 5. Then stayed there for the rest of the time.

So the level it rises to definitely varies, and it's not only level 6 that varies, 7,8 and 9 also obviously vary. And the timer obviously varies by at least 5-10 seconds.

So the stage is inconsistent, and to prevent subjectivity in "how much is too much?" Brinstar would have to be banned under this criteria. As it has a (slightly) random hazard.

 

[Raziek]

In a real match, are both opponents sitting on the platform doing nothing? OF COURSE NOT. They're fighting for the safest spots, and they're making their best efforts to avoid the lava as effectively as possible.
Such minor variations making very little impact in the run of an actual match, but when both players sit there doing nothing, it makes it seem more significant than it is.

This is the main reason I will never support this criteria. You're taking a SUBJECTIVE LOGICAL PREMISE (That we should remove all randomness), and you're sacrificing TONS of depth at the hands of the TINIEST INCONSISTENCIES IN COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE STAGES.

I will have none of it!

 

[ADHD]

@Raziek
I ran the stage through twice, without the characters moving at all. (I used MK FYI) On the first time the character on the right ended with 56 damage, on the second time he ended with 42 damage.
So it varies.

Edit: Which makes it random

It makes me proud that this man belongs to the diddy kong mainers.

 

[ADHD]

This is the main reason I will never support this criteria. You're taking a SUBJECTIVE LOGICAL PREMISE (That we should remove all randomness), and you're sacrificing TONS of depth at the hands of the TINIEST INCONSISTENCIES IN COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE STAGES.

It's not subjective that a stage deals damage that does not belong to either player. If the stage desires to dish out percentage based on randomness, then it should not be legal.

Whoops, double post.

 

[Ghostbone]

This is the main reason I will never support this criteria. You're taking a SUBJECTIVE LOGICAL PREMISE (That we should remove all randomness), and you're sacrificing TONS of depth at the hands of the TINIEST INCONSISTENCIES IN COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE STAGES.

I will have none of it!

Actually I agree with you, but you must realize that wanting more depth at the cost of slight randomness is subjective, and some people would want to try to minimize the effect of randomness on a game. And the 13/14 stages that would be legal under this criteria is still a fair amount of competitive depth.

Also, we already have drawn an arbitrary line on what we deem too random, and that line is at wario-ware and items. Some people want it at Pictochat as well. Why can't we lower that line to stages with random hazards?

 

[SuSa]

Answer me this:
When has any competitive video game allowed as much randomness as possible?

I can't think of any...

If I wanted to win $12,500 due to a random occurrence I'd go play Poker or Blackjack.

 

[DLA]

Dogmatic objectivity is ruining competitive Brawl.

I'm not saying that objectivity has no place in the making of the ruleset (because it's very important), but forcing ourselves to play on stages that are horribly gay and unfair (like YI:Melee) just because they aren't banned by "strictly objective criteria" is absolutely counterproductive to a competitive setting.


I just don't understand why the BBR is being so obtuse. I understand the need for criteria on which to base the stage list, but why can't "a general consensus of the stage's competitive value" be one of the criteria?

GASP it's not objective though!

Well big deal. If the stage list is truly objective, then what's the point choosing a skilled, knowledgeable, rational group of Back Roomers to decide a stage list? If it's only based upon objective criteria, a team of trained monkeys could literally choose the correct stage list.

But wouldn't you still need that group of knowledgeable smashers to DECIDE the criteria?

Well, yes. But who's to say which criteria should be used? The debate of which set of objective criteria to use is, in itself, a SUBJECTIVE argument.


Now don't get me wrong, I understand why objectivity is so important in debate. And while I don't blame the BBR for trying to stay as objective as possible, I unfortunately just don't see any way to make a fair, completely objective stage list. Not even the court system is completely objective; most sentences that are handed down are largely left to the judge's discretion. And they subjectively decide how long the sentence is. So while the court system is extremely objective, it's the little subjectivity that is has that makes it as fair a system as possible.

(Sorry if this seems like a rant against the BBR... all of the points I'm making also apply to your proposed ruleset as well.)

 

[SuSa]

I'm not objecting to your point, and I feel that the "subjectively questionable by a large majority" stages - AFTER CRITERIA HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED should be done.

EG:
Under my criteria, Halberd is banned.

If 67% of the community votes Halberd to be an exception to the criteria I see no beef with it.

It's also easier to vote stages in/out once you have a criteria to narrow down said stages to what is competitively fine on an objective basis. So now most, if not all stages that are voted in are because of a SUBJECTIVE VIEW ON WHAT IS FINE BASED ON A MAJORITY.

So yes. 100% agree with you tbh, but it's easier to say "All of this is uncompetitive for _________ reasons" and then have people say "Well a large majority of us say _________ is fine, so it's exempt."

It's EASIER TO VOTE LIKE THAT than it is to say "Well a large majority of us feel _________ ISNT competitive... so ban it"

Because that's banning **** we think is "GAY". While this can work (read; Pipes is like the ONLY stage this applies to... MAYBE Luigi's Mansion) it's better on a SMALL SCALE for COMPETITIVE reasons. Banning staff "because its gay" is HORRIBLE logic.

However UNBANNING STUFF because "Well it's not gay enough" - while still HORRIBLE logic, is more practical.

tl;dr
Exceptions made to unban are better than exceptions made to ban.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Guys, the problem is with that is consistency. The reason so many people right now are arguing for objectivity is because objectivity is easy to enforce, is clear, concise, and discreet. Interestingly enough, those are the same as Sirlin's banning criteria, so who knew? Anyway, when you have a community of thousands of people arguing about issues that decide hundreds of thousands of dollars, not being able to quickly and decisively come to decisions and agreements can make or break a community.

Want a good example? Look at US politics today. Not being able to distinguish what is a subjective or objective reason for making a law, and not being able to objectively define why laws should be made in the first place cause most of our problems (the rest caused by partisan bickering and the media gone insane). These problems only make stabilizing future issues more difficult.

So, the reason people want objective criteria for things we do is because objective criteria are easy to enforce, create, and explain to others. They, in essence, are the basis of what makes a ruleset good in the first place.

After all, if your rules aren't clear, concise, and discrete, who can anyone even play your game to begin with?

And with that said... back to cleaning.

 

[DLA]

I agree that exceptions made to unban are better than exceptions made to ban.

However, it seems to me that you're basically saying that you should be 100% objective until you finish the stage list (by deciding what should be banned), and then once it's done, use the community's subjectivity to alter it (unban stages) as needed. And that's the part that doesn't make sense to me.

Where's the BBR's subjectivity? They're supposed to be the knowledgeable ones haha.

Doesn't it make more sense for each member of the BBR to use "his own subjective view of each stage's competitive value" as a criterion, IN ADDITION to the objective criteria already established? And THEN submit the finished stagelist to the community?

My point is, what's the point of having a knowledgeable backroom if they're not allowed to be subjective?


Oh and I'm sorry if it seemed like I went off the handle last post, I just had to get it out haha.

 

[BSP]

I can't see anything wrong with it so far i guess. Good work. This objectivity idea is good, so keep at it Susa.

 

[Ghostbone]

Yay the OP's been edited.

@DLA, objectivity is always better than subjectivity, so if we can keep the stagelist completely objective (which is what Susa's basically done here) then there's no good reason to ban or unban stages due to it being "gay" or "unfair". These stages haven't been proven degenerate and don't have random hazards so the stages are not banable.

YI(M) hasn't been proven to have any degenerate tactics. (planking has been brought up, but MK's is unbeatable everywhere, and other character's planking can be beaten, the two edges doesn't help the planker, it gives players invincibility to help combat them, and the walls help characters with wall jumps deal with it even better)

Luigi's Mansion is a fine stage as well, it might have a light circle while the mansion is up but it's never been proven, and you can just destroy it. In fact, destroying the mansion can lead to strategic gameplay not degenerate gameplay between players trying to give themselves the best combination of the stage. It also lets players refresh moves so they can kill easier. And while the stage is really good for certain characters, once again, it's not degenerate. There is no, "do this or lose tactic".

Also Susa, how many stage bans would you give players with 13 stages? I would say two. But 1 may suffice.

 

[DLA]

Yay the OP's been edited.

@DLA, objectivity is always better than subjectivity, so if we can keep the stagelist completely objective (which is what Susa's basically done here) then there's no good reason to ban or unban stages due to it being "gay" or "unfair". These stages haven't been proven degenerate and don't have random hazards so the stages are not banable.

Did you even read my posts? I didn't even attempt to refute anything you just said.

(except that "objectivity is always better than subjectivity"--that's just an ignorant statement.)

 

[Ghostbone]

Well that wasn't directly aimed at you except for the first part. Also at least in regards to stages, objectivity is a lot better than subjectivity.

I'm not saying that objectivity has no place in the making of the ruleset (because it's very important), but forcing ourselves to play on stages that are horribly gay and unfair (like YI:Melee) just because they aren't banned by "strictly objective criteria" is absolutely counterproductive to a competitive setting.

Yea that's what you said. I included Luigi's mansion in my post because that's another stage most conservatives will try to get banned. (in fact hardly anyone wants that stage legal). And I did read through your posts.

 

[AllyKnight]

this english is too advance for me to understand

 

[ぱみゅ]

Well, We liberalists think of stages as an element that people remove with no reason other than "we think they should be banned".

You conservatives (other than SuSa) think of them as obstacles that people allow with no other reason than "we think they shouldn't be banned".

Which one is flawled?

SuSa is just trying to find the inbetween: a logic that applies to every stage, with no arbitrary statements or personal toughts.


EDIT: lol Ally.