What did he win? A silly little trophy? He certainly isn't going to be highly regarded by the community for his performance...hate to break it to you but you're in the minority. Majority of folks believe he - to use the scientific term - played gay.
It makes it all the worse that nothing was really on the line here. He went to such GREAT miserable lengths to win when there was literally no stakes. Desperate is all that looks.
Ok, so majority means that you are right. Great. Now comes a class on argument and knowledge and why your opinion is, basically, wrong or toxic for a community.
There is a reason why not everybody is allowed to voice his oppinion unless he has some info on the stuff. That's called authority argument (more or less, is called this way in my language).
It comes down to: the one who understand more about the problem, is usually right.
(But it can be a falacy too. It's a falacy when you take it as "The one who knows most, it's ALWAYS, or ABSOLUTELY right")
It expands over the one who knows more, can see more points about the problem thus making most of your points already obsolete or looked already at. It prevents scinece to have to prove every thing they use evvery time they have to use it.
But the wiser can't look at all things, it might be biased too. That's why if someone makes a valid point who has not been proven false it must be taken care of. (Or if someone plainly contradicts him, he must make sure to see that the contradiction is false or what's the fault on his knowledge).
An example how can it come in both ways:
If 20 children in a class want to leave because is better out, they are usually wrong because they have to study. (Even so, the minority who thinks "the teacher does it right" will be called "idiots" because the majority clearly doesn't want to go to class). The children don't know that education is important yet, but the teacher knows, that's why the teacher stops the children from leaving.
But if 20 children who saw a fire started in a nearby classroom say they want to leave because is better out, well, they are right. Because the teacher doesn't know about it yet.
Now coming to you:
COMPETITIVE people play in a TOURNEY where a COMPETITIONS is hold. A competition is some sort of comparation using a medium between a competitiors and a set of rules regarding who wins, and how they win, how they can use that medium.
Few people will say that Zero did good playing to win. That's because these people know what i just explicitly stated. They are competitive, too, so they must know better too, but this is secondary.
MOst of the people don't play in tourney... don't even know the most basic thing stated before. They will just say "that looked bad". And if that looked bad DONT watch this game tourneys because the strategy needed to win in Brawl (and in this game, but we will have to see about this) is similar to it, thus you will be bored.
But you can't say that "it's wrong". He played to win, it's right. The competitive gaming looks bad, that it's right. There is time to improvement, that it's right. The tactic was really bad looking, that's right.
But Zero didn't play bad for using a bad looking tactic. That a flawed argument. In a competition there is no place for looks so much as in style. Competitive people, smart people, and esentially everybody who knows what i wrote before know this. If we are minority, well, too bad. There's a reason why we have authority and that's knowledge. There's a reason why we know you are wrong and that's knowledge (and i've just proven it to you).
So yeah, the majority means you are right. Right. Next time go ask a bunch of people how to cure a cold and do a vote to see what's the majority's option and use that. Good luck man.
