Why not to limit characters:
1. Where do you stop, and if we accept limiting this character or this aspect why not apply that elsewhere for the benefit of the game? If it's ok to nerf MK, why isn't it ok to nerf or buff other areas? You want me to slap all this stuff on MK to make him more fair (lol our community has to use specific rules on a character to make him more fair, I bet we lookin darn good and non scrubby at this point), but then I can't make CF better or nerf Snake a slight bit or limit Diddy or other characters?
If it's not ok to nerf or buff the other characters because the game's balanced enough for you or there's no need to or going around tweaking the game like that is scrubby, ok. But then the very fact of nerfing MK specifically indicates something is wrong with him, if all you have to do is contrast it to the rest of the cast that doesn't need this nerfing or buffing or if changing characers is scrubby (not nerfing MK apparently hue). You can't have it both ways where we limit him to the ground and justify it with "He wasn't broken, we just want a funner game!". He's either Broken and we're doing this to make him fair, or we need to leave his *** alone. And I doubt anyone seriously wants a National Tournament with no LGL or scrooging rule or blah blah blah blah. Do you?
Using this word automatically made your post really interesting to me, I'm gonna address some points:
1) You still haven't given me your explanation as to why, in Melee, it is forbidden for Peaches and Jiggs to use Peach Bomber and Rising Pound as stalling techniques, but those are somehow not considered as nerfs NOR are these characters considered broken despite being limited.
Gea did and we pretty much agreed that despite the risk/reward of those techniques and the ones Metaknight use, they are still supposed to fall under the category of stalling tactics.
2) When limiting characters, where you stop is where the majority of the community feels like stopping because it has always been this way when it comes to limiting something in Smash.
3) By "nerfing" do you mean preventing a character from using one his moves/tools/tactics?
Then it is something that actually is used in other areas of Smash as well.
Banning stages and banning items are good example of trying to remove some aspects of the game in an attempt to make it more competitively fair. Preventing characters from stalling uses the same logic BECAUSE we chose to consider stalling as not fair.
4) Because all those rules follow the same logic, the Smash community actually is scrubby and has always been this way, we didn't wait for Metaknight before trying to shape up a game to suit our competitive "needs" or whatever we chose to consider as needed for competitive play.
Same goes for the way we look, and by that I assume you're talking about other communities. They find us scrubby, and rightfully so, ever since we started banning stages and items, so it shouldn't matter to us how more or less scrubby they think of us.
5) The reason why a majority of people wouldn't want to go to a tournament without LGL or no-scrooging is exactly the same as the reason why MK got banned:
It is opinion-based.
I feel like this comment is pertinent here too:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13967163&postcount=56
Thino and John, if you guys are looking for an analysis structure, I've roughly outlined one in the linked comment. Hopefully it makes even a little bit of sense, it's a bit of train-of-tought kind of thinking. I just don't have the time to get that data. :-/.
Otherwise, I agree about the whole data vs analysis thing.
This approach would certainly have, at the very least made thing easier to explain, and I already told John about it in the previous MK ban thread but maybe he doesn't remember.
My reasoning pretty much went like this (borrowing ideas from your post and I think Cassio said so in a recent post above too) :
The only way data would have been relevant is if, BEFOREHAND (Let's say 2008-2009?), a higher authority of this community decided that if a certain character goes past a certain percentage of usage (overcentralization), a certain percentage of wins (overpowered) or/and a certain amount of money earned, that character is deemed as broken, therefore banned.
Or having some sort of reference before applying it to Metaknight.
But certainly not out of the blue, it doesn't make sense.
And this is why at this point I preferred and I'm glad that the way this ban was justified is opinion-based (polls). Because despite the naysayers on the pro-ban side, this is exactly what it was.
