Feelings on MK and the MK ban after Apex

[Strong Badam]

Why are people constantly ignoring the fact that the LGL is not a nerf it's in place to specifically shy away from timeouts?

Why aren't timeouts a legitimate strategy, and why are there rules in place to attempt to prevent them?

 

[Cassio]

bleh, I was going to avoid this conversation buuuuuut.

in a ruleset has a LGL, it's just as reasonable for it to have a rule against projectiles or camping in general. it's not MKs/GWs/Pit's/etc fault that their opponent refuses to approach them. if your character can't deal with it, then oh well, find a new character.

There is a rule against 'camping in general'. Its the timer/victory by percent criteria. When items were standard in smash this criteria did not exist, since matches were stated to hit as high as 18 minutes without it it was included.

Again, the point is the purpose of the rule. I accepted my loss, but it doesn't mean that the rule had any purpose to limit Toon Link in the first place.

The timer is there for a legitimate purpose, therefore I can accept a legitimate win from a time out (also because the person who is winning is the winner at the end). However, an LGL ignores who is winning and determines a victory based on the condition that someone was cheating by doing something illegal (stalling or planking).

Even if Toon Link could plank, nobody would be able to prove that I cheated because the ledge grab limit is that ****ty of a win condition. With no proof, I'm innocent. Why is my loss deserved under that circumstance?

I understand your argument, and I know weve had this discussion before but let me highlight in the quote the main issue here. First of all Ill state that its a fine subjective argument for anyone that would like to agree with it. But it is not internally consistent if an obvective philosophical argument is being made (which appears to be the case). In smash with the lgl there are three conditions for victory.

1. Stock victory
2. Victory by percent via timeout
3. Victory by lgl via timeout

Stock Victory - the standard set by the game itself
Victory by percent - Created to solve issues from camping
Victory by lgl - Created to solve issues from planking

Saying that a timeout based win via percent is there for a legitimate purpose while the timeout based win via lgl is not is completely subjective, as is saying that a percent based lead is the person who is winning. Saying that having a percent lead can determine the winner while the lgl cannot is inconsistent. Saying that the lgl ignores who is winning to disqualify someone who may or may not have been 'cheating' ignores the fact that the same thing can be said of a percent based win.

Victory via percent is certainly not our only option:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H_Jil1CBNs&t=10m45s

Again the argument is fine as a subjective argument and I completely understand why people would favor a ruleset without an lgl. However theres no reason to believe an lgl less ruleset is anything more than equal to a ruleset with one. If you wish to argue that it creates some egregious error in ruleset creation or philosophy, then you need to address how the lgl separates itself from victory by percent other than how people might personally feel about the rule. Otherwise the contrary appears to be true, its consistent with how we've solved issues in the past.

 

[Akaku94]

The lgl is completely unnecessary in the absence of MK. Without MK in the picture, planking is reduced to a few specific instances and matchups, if at all. For sake of example, I've seen it stated that DK planks hard on Olimar or something like that. If he can, than what's different in that than D3 having an infinite on DK? There are no characters that can abuse planking except in very specific instances against certain other characters, at best. As such, a universal lgl is about as useful as a universal limit on consecutive tilts to limit locks, or a limit of consecutive grabs to limit chaingrabs. If a character gets planked so hard by another char that that matchup becomes nearly unwinnable, it's the same as a character that gets chaingrabbed hard by another char (e.g. DK and D3). If DK planks Olimar to the point of 1 hit + run away = win, then DK counters Olimar! But imposing an lgl on Kirby and Zelda has no use whatsoever, and the only thing that will come of it is a player that wasn't stalling losing via technicality.

Essentially, there is no point to an lgl, just as there is no point to a regrab limit or a special limit or a tilt limit or a jump limit.

 

[Thino]

No it's not. Percent as the determining factor is arbitrary because stock =/= percent.

Then again what is NOT arbitrary in this Smash Bros games rulesets?

People are not going to drop an entire game because of one character.

Are you sure about that?

Then why is banning him a problem if he's not interesting to you at all?

Because some people still assume that we are a 100% competitive community when in reality we aren't.

Because in the context of a game that is fully competitive, things like "interests", "tastes", "likes", "dislikes", "boring", "fun", "wishes" and "needs" shouldn't matter, which is clearly not the case here.

What's also scrubby is ignoring what the community showed they wanted.

What's equally scrubby is applying a poorly ideal Double Standard. Either they're all bannable, or nothing is. A character is just as much of an option or an item and Stage. We choose not to play them, and they're all equally easy to enforce. No Double Standards.

In addition, one thing people need to realize is that the scrubby attitude means nada in actual gameplay. Eliminating problems to have an more unique gameplay is the goal of the actual rules list. It's only scrubby if we don't test it out well enough to know it's a problem. Some stages and Meta Knight were the only things given enough testing(Pictochat, for example) to figure out it's just unfit for fun gameplay for the majority of the players. Likewise, getting more players is better, and if we want more players, we should cater to them more. Vast majority spoke. But if people think it's the only reason MK got banned, you're wrong. It's just one of many.

Stop thinking of "scrubby" as just some kind of derogatory or negative term, it's not.

A scrub is simply someone that removes,refuses to use or refuses to play against some aspect of the game because it doesnt fit his/her needs or tastes, which is essentially what we've been doing since like 2005 when banning items.

Ignoring what the community wanted has nothing to do with that, hell it's the complete opposite of being scrubby, neither does having Double Standards, it's either we don't ban anything, which is fully competitive, or we ban ONE thing or EVERYTHING which are both scrubby.

Testing apprpriately or not has nothing to do with being scrubby or not either, it's just about justifying why we do it, that is all.

Also stop putting the SF community on a pedestal, just because their games have it easier than us when it comes to adding rules to keep it fun doesn't mean they can't be scrubby in some situations.


TL;DR : Scrubby =/= bad, it fits our community and the game we play, it's just that we should stop luring ourselves that we're a competitive community.

At most we're semi-competitive, which is not an insult and makes the game more enjoyable that way.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Are you sure about that?

We've gotten more people thanks to dropping him, so yes, I'm sure about that. Also, yes, if Akuma was not banned, people would stop playing since there's absolutely no other viable character. It's almost as bad as here.

Because some people still assume that we are a 100% competitive community when in reality we aren't.

We are playing competitive Smash, not Casual. Tourneys are all competitive. We're competitive by making specific rulesets. We're casual when we just play the game randomly. Those item tourneys are just as competitive.

Because in the context of a game that is fully competitive, things like "interests", "tastes", "likes", "dislikes", "boring", "fun", "wishes" and "needs" shouldn't matter, which is clearly not the case here.

All rulesets are made with those in mind. Every single one. Things get banned because they are not fun, no longer keep the game interesting, is took broken, and because players do not like them. That applies everywhere and always will. It's an illusion to think that anybody uses broken as a sole reason to ban something. That was never the case. Overcentralization is also a huge issue.

Stop thinking of "scrubby" as just some kind of derogatory or negative term, it's not.

No, it quite is. The way it's used is specifically to tell us we're doing something stupid or wrong. Casuals are not Scrubs, in fact, they're the opposite. Scrubby is only doing stuff with no good legitimate reason. Banning items before testing is scrubby. Banning both Pictochat and Meta Knight is not scrubby because we tested to make sure it was a problem.

A scrub is simply someone that removes,refuses to use or refuses to play against some aspect of the game because it doesnt fit his/her needs or tastes, which is essentially what we've been doing since like 2005 when banning items.

No, the problem was that we didn't fairly test them. Sure, the end result would be the same, but if you don't give stuff a chance, then there's the problem. Also, no, refusing to play against an aspect of a game is not scrubby in itself. It's doing so for stupid reasons. This is why items should've been tested first. Jack's tourneys could easily help see if they were hitworthy in the first place.

Ignoring what the community wanted has nothing to do with that, hell it's the complete opposite of being scrubby, neither does having Double Standards, it's either we don't ban anything, which is fully competitive, or we ban ONE thing or EVERYTHING which are both scrubby.

Yeah, it severely does. The community drives the game. If you refuse to listen to them, then and only then are you being scrubs. Casual players, competitive, they ain't scrubs. Ignoring the community, the PLAYERS of the game for stupid reasons is the problem. Not researching is a problem(which had no effect on the polls anyway). Doing things for no good reason is a problem. Banning Meta Knight cannot be called scrubby either, mind you, as we actually tested the hell out of him before coming to that decision. I agree that no Items, and only certain courses was a problem because of scrubbiness.

Testing apprpriately or not has nothing to do with being scrubby or not either, it's just about justifying why we do it, that is all.

The problem is, we do not use it that way. We use is an excuse for "bad" players. Albeit, even if it's the correct definition, it definitely doesn't have a single positive point to it. Whatsoever, that is.

[quoteAlso stop putting the SF community on a pedestal, just because their games have it easier than us when it comes to adding rules to keep it fun doesn't mean they can't be scrubby in some situations.[/quote]

Everybody can be scrubby. The act of putting bad rules in with no legitimate reason or to nerf a single character is pretty damn scrubby.

TL;DR : Scrubby =/= bad, it fits our community and the game we play, it's just that we should stop luring ourselves that we're a competitive community.

We're competitive as hell. Competition is all about making rules, not what kind of game we're playing. Having less rules does not make you competitive. We're extremely competitive as is. Scrubby is purposely being inferior. Doing stupid stuff without testing is being inferior in itself. I've noticed we've finally started testing BEFORE banning now. We finally stopped acting like scrubs and acted like better players. We're no longer scrubs.

At most we're semi-competitive, which is not an insult and makes the game more enjoyable that way.

There is no semi-competitive. It's a myth. You're either competitive or you're not. If you're not competitive, you're a casual. It's a state of mind, not going to a freakin' tourney. Fighting over something(whether a win, a debate, whatever) is all it takes to be competitive. If you choose not to bother with arguments, then you're being casual about it. The only way to be semi-competitive(of which we're not) is to only make a debate once in a while, and mostly ignore it. The line is beyond thin.

 

[Strong Badam]

The problem with saying "Listen to the players" is that a lot of people here on smashboards are just keyboard warriors and don't even attend relevant tournaments. It and a variety of other reasons are why the smashbaords/AiB polls just don't work.

 

[DMG]

Don't even get me started on the GameFAQ smashers......

 

[Cassio]

The polls are legitimately bad. It doesnt even have to do with keyboard warriors vs tournament attendees. Hyperfalcon your arguments rely on community opinion, but you have nothing to base your thoughts on what community opinion actually is.

The only real poll thats been done on a community is in socal, and 60% of them wanted MK around even with RC/Brinstar, 75% of them wanted Brinstar gone and 70% wanted RC gone regardless of the ruleset. Not that Im arguing that anyone should be forced into a ruleset because of this, but if you want to rely on community opinion for your arguments then you need to do considerably more research.

 

[Thino]

We've gotten more people thanks to dropping him, so yes, I'm sure about that. Also, yes, if Akuma was not banned, people would stop playing since there's absolutely no other viable character. It's almost as bad as here.



We are playing competitive Smash, not Casual. Tourneys are all competitive. We're competitive by making specific rulesets. We're casual when we just play the game randomly. Those item tourneys are just as competitive.



All rulesets are made with those in mind. Every single one. Things get banned because they are not fun, no longer keep the game interesting, is took broken, and because players do not like them. That applies everywhere and always will. It's an illusion to think that anybody uses broken as a sole reason to ban something. That was never the case. Overcentralization is also a huge issue.



No, it quite is. The way it's used is specifically to tell us we're doing something stupid or wrong. Casuals are not Scrubs, in fact, they're the opposite. Scrubby is only doing stuff with no good legitimate reason. Banning items before testing is scrubby. Banning both Pictochat and Meta Knight is not scrubby because we tested to make sure it was a problem.



No, the problem was that we didn't fairly test them. Sure, the end result would be the same, but if you don't give stuff a chance, then there's the problem. Also, no, refusing to play against an aspect of a game is not scrubby in itself. It's doing so for stupid reasons. This is why items should've been tested first. Jack's tourneys could easily help see if they were hitworthy in the first place.



Yeah, it severely does. The community drives the game. If you refuse to listen to them, then and only then are you being scrubs. Casual players, competitive, they ain't scrubs. Ignoring the community, the PLAYERS of the game for stupid reasons is the problem. Not researching is a problem(which had no effect on the polls anyway). Doing things for no good reason is a problem. Banning Meta Knight cannot be called scrubby either, mind you, as we actually tested the hell out of him before coming to that decision. I agree that no Items, and only certain courses was a problem because of scrubbiness.



The problem is, we do not use it that way. We use is an excuse for "bad" players. Albeit, even if it's the correct definition, it definitely doesn't have a single positive point to it. Whatsoever, that is.



Everybody can be scrubby. The act of putting bad rules in with no legitimate reason or to nerf a single character is pretty damn scrubby.



We're competitive as hell. Competition is all about making rules, not what kind of game we're playing. Having less rules does not make you competitive. We're extremely competitive as is. Scrubby is purposely being inferior. Doing stupid stuff without testing is being inferior in itself. I've noticed we've finally started testing BEFORE banning now. We finally stopped acting like scrubs and acted like better players. We're no longer scrubs.


There is no semi-competitive. It's a myth. You're either competitive or you're not. If you're not competitive, you're a casual. It's a state of mind, not going to a freakin' tourney. Fighting over something(whether a win, a debate, whatever) is all it takes to be competitive. If you choose not to bother with arguments, then you're being casual about it. The only way to be semi-competitive(of which we're not) is to only make a debate once in a while, and mostly ignore it. The line is beyond thin.

I wouldn't have thought "scrub" and "competitiveness" had such different meaning from one person to another, I guess they don't have clear definitions yet so it makes them still subjective to an extent.

To me, competitiveness is playing to win, plain and simple.

as soon as you remove something from that, it's no longer totally competitive to me.

The smash community basically went from "playing to win" to "playing to win without items" to "playing to win without items, without certain stages without a character without glitches without stalling".

Rules to me are just plain decorations to a competitive environment.

They can change it (e.g deciding to play stock instead of time, or coin, deciding that winning a set is best out of 3 or best out of 5) or remove aspects from it (various bans).

The latter, although making the game more interesting and more fun, adds conditions to the "playing to win" clause, which to me is no longer just playing to win, but playing to win IF you don't use items, or IF you don't play on a certain stage.

The justification or so-called "legitimacy" doesn't matter.

It can be a rule added for a stupid reason or a reason like "in an environment where money is at stake, we don't want something random to interfere with the players ability" which is an entirely fair and legitimate reason,but they're both equally scrubby because of the fact that they remove an aspect of the game not because they are well justified or not.

Following that logic I DO agree that rulesets are made with all the words I mentioned in mind, which is exactly what makes them less competitive, WHICH ONCE AGAIN IS NOT NECESSARILY A BAD THING.

If we start from the "playing to win" argument, competition is not all about ruleset at all, nor the kind of game we're playing.

It is just plain playing to win.

You could be playing to win while getting blown up by random crates, with items on very high while trying to avoid the most random hazards in the worlds and still trying your best to get the most coins, it's still playing to win, you don't need ANY rules to play that way.

I don't really see the myth in being semi-competitive, playing competitively is not a state of mind, it's a way to play.

You can play competitively without going to tourneys.

You can either play to win, no matter what, in that case you're playing competitively.
You can play to win, but only if some aspects of the game are removed for XYZ reasons, justified, legitimate or stupid, in that case you're playing semi-competively
You can play without caring if you win or lose and regardless of the rules used, in that case you're casual.

The smash community is doing the 2nd one, no matter how you look at it.

The analogy to semi-competitiveness in a debate would rather be preventing a person from using an argument because of some reasons.

These are my 2 cents about "scrubbiness" and "competitiveness", our opinions on the matter are so different because our definition of those two concepts are different too, so we can't really argue until we agree on those first.

Not listening to the players is just inconsiderate IMO.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I wouldn't have thought "scrub" and "competitiveness" had such different meaning from one person to another, I guess they don't have clear definitions yet so it makes them still subjective to an extent.

To me, competitiveness is playing to win, plain and simple.

Which is what we're doing, believe it or not. And apparently the only definition that is related to Games when using the term "Scrub" is Inferior or Insignificant. In other words, it's not that off from "bad". So it indeed can be perfectly defined as bad.

as soon as you remove something from that, it's no longer totally competitive to me.

Except that's not what competition is about. It's about playing to win under specific rules. We are competitive by shaping the game exactly how we want to play it. Leaving everything there would not be a competitive way to play unless there's absolutely nothing wrong with the game(which we both know isn't true).

The smash community basically went from "playing to win" to "playing to win without items" to "playing to win without items, without certain stages without a character without glitches without stalling".

That's called evolving using competition.

Rules to me are just plain decorations to a competitive environment.

You can't have a competition without rules. They're the key crux of it. If there are no rules, it's not a competition. While it's truly not the definition, you cannot determine a winner without rules in general. They go hand in hand. If there are no rules, there's no literal way to determine a winner, thus, the competition is entirely pointless.

They can change it (e.g deciding to play stock instead of time, or coin, deciding that winning a set is best out of 3 or best out of 5) or remove aspects from it (various bans).

Which is not a problem. It's a competition either way. As long as we can determine a winner using actual rules. The amount of stocks are rules themselves.

The latter, although making the game more interesting and more fun, adds conditions to the "playing to win" clause, which to me is no longer just playing to win, but playing to win IF you don't use items, or IF you don't play on a certain stage.

It's still playing to win. It's just different conditions. Doesn't make it any less a competition whatsoever. It means we're trying to find a specific way to win. The fact that we're using those specific conditions just shows how hardcore and dedicated we are. Another thing required for competition.

The justification or so-called "legitimacy" doesn't matter.

It does. If there is none, the rule won't go through. No matter how stupid it is, you cannot except a rule to go through without reasons. Same with a law. It does not work that way.

It can be a rule added for a stupid reason or a reason like "in an environment where money is at stake, we don't want something random to interfere with the players ability" which is an entirely fair and legitimate reason,but they're both equally scrubby because of the fact that they remove an aspect of the game not because they are well justified or not.

No, they're not. Scrubby just means bad. Removing an aspect from the game without a good reason is not bad. It's only bad if there's no reasonable justification. That's actually scrubby. Like banning a course because you don't like it. If you cannot prove the course is bad, you have no business banning it. I agree that items weren't given a fair chance. They needed testing. The 8 Minute Timer should not have happened so quickly. But atleast the justification is better than items. You need to finish a tourney on time. The win condition is more or a less a bonus(and legit).

Following that logic I DO agree that rulesets are made with all the words I mentioned in mind, which is exactly what makes them less competitive, WHICH ONCE AGAIN IS NOT NECESSARILY A BAD THING.

They're made to find fair play among all the members. That's the part of competition, finding equal ground for everyone using various rules. Not as in balance, but as in actual fair play. There's a bit of a difference there. Balancing a game would require hacking. Making the game's part tolerable requires no hacking. This is why we turn off things. Keep in mind I only consider is being scrubby to remove the items without proof. Everything else in general, we had logical reasons and testing.(not every course, mind you)

If we start from the "playing to win" argument, competition is not all about ruleset at all, nor the kind of game we're playing.

Name a competitive game without rules. You can't. They're both required.

It is just plain playing to win.

That's being competitive, not playing a competitive game. We're playing a competitive game here. Thus, rules are required to even play it. Without it, there is no game. Some games need less than usual. Some can use default settings. However, the game is designed with TONS of options so one can make their own rules. I'd like to note that the entire reason we make rules has nothing to do with scrubbiness. It's something that is agreed upon by multiple players. That's why it's truly good for the community, because it's what they want. They get what they want, or most do, anyway. That's how voting works. People do make mistakes and regret things. That's why we move to change rules if we make mistakes.

You could be playing to win while getting blown up by random crates, with items on very high while trying to avoid the most random hazards in the worlds and still trying your best to get the most coins, it's still playing to win, you don't need ANY rules to play that way.

And nobody would take the competition seriously. At all. One major point about a competitive game is remove as much of the luck factor as possible. It's why banning things exist. It's why rules exist. It's why there's only 3 outs in Baseball. Whatever rule that exists, it's there for a reason. They are not good by default, but they aren't bad either.

I don't really see the myth in being semi-competitive, playing competitively is not a state of mind, it's a way to play.

No, it's a state of mind. Playing the game to win is no different from playing casually. You're either trying to win or not. It has nothing to do with competitive play. A casual play uses no rules. A competitive player does.

You can play competitively without going to tourneys.

No real competition if there's no goal or rules. BTW, that goal is a rule that's created.

You can either play to win, no matter what, in that case you're playing competitively.
You can play to win, but only if some aspects of the game are removed for XYZ reasons, justified, legitimate or stupid, in that case you're playing semi-competively
You can play without caring if you win or lose and regardless of the rules used, in that case you're casual.

Removing stuff does not make it less competitive. It has zip to do with it. All that makes it competitive is rules. We could remove absolutely nothing or mostly everything, but as long as it has rules and a goal to win, it's a competition.

The smash community is doing the 2nd one, no matter how you look at it.

We play the game. We don't play to win at any tourney without some kind of rule. Trying having a competition without a rule. It doesn't exist.

The analogy to semi-competitiveness in a debate would rather be preventing a person from using an argument because of some reasons.

What you're talking about doesn't exist. Being competitive is playing to win, true. But playing a specific item competitively is not the same thing. When we play a game competitively, we're playing it under certain conditions to win. There is no such thing as a competitive game without rules. Let's say you can't change any option. The rule is who has the highest HP at the end of time by default is the winner. Even the oldest games had built-in rules made for competition. It doesn't matter who makes the rules, but without it, competitive gameplay cannot exist. Being competitive is a bit different from having competitive gameplay.

These are my 2 cents about "scrubbiness" and "competitiveness", our opinions on the matter are so different because our definition of those two concepts are different too, so we can't really argue until we agree on those first.

Scrub means being bad.

Competition means playing to win.

Competitive Gameplay means to play to win within the game(which has built-in rules). You're talking about two different(but related) concepts.

Not listening to the players is just inconsiderate IMO.

Damn straight. Everybody has a right to say something.(in a respective way) You can indeed prove them wrong, but all opinions count and always will. Keep in mind that we both agree that everything should be tested first and the LGL has no purpose anymore(save MK Legal tourneys.)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The problem with saying "Listen to the players" is that a lot of people here on smashboards are just keyboard warriors and don't even attend relevant tournaments. It and a variety of other reasons are why the smashbaords/AiB polls just don't work.

Thinking back about two years...

Yeah.

So.

Much.

This.

I used to be you, hyperfalcon. I used to be you. Then I went to BiB2, noticed, "hey, this is actually kinda nice", and stopped giving a ****.

 

[Steam]

I miss old BPC. Because I agree with old BPC on believing there should be a large stagelist :<

 

[DMG]

Old BPC also had the rage of the gods and an crazy Ideological side

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I miss old BPC. Because I agree with old BPC on believing there should be a large stagelist :<

Old BPC also had the rage of the gods and an crazy Ideological side

Have you guys seen that one south park episode? The one after Stan becomes a cynic? The one where they rip off the matrix in season... IIRC 15? Yeah. That's me. ^_^

 

[Akaku94]

Old BPC would spend a paragraph of Sirlin-worthy game philosophy sandwiched between two paragraphs of cursing at scrubs... good times...

 

[ぱみゅ]

This thread is actually nice debating old BPC and stuff about scrubs I skimmed.

Subscribing and might make some contributions later if I'm not too lazy not to read at least the last 30 posts.

Also, thino I see you lurking.
I need to know where is your sig from, I've seen that character a lot of times before but I don't know her origin.

 

[Thino]

snip

We are still not agreeing on what are "competitiveness", "scrubbiness" and even "competition" too now, but I'm not willing to further about it in this thread

since this thread in mainly about Metaknight

I need to know where is your sig from, I've seen that character a lot of times before but I don't know her origin.

Its a Sadida from Wakfu

 

[fabulouspants]

when did bpc become anti ban? i remember when he was the biggest pro ban poster ever. whoa

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yeesh, I can't please anyone. You guys all suck. -.-

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

We are still not agreeing on what are "competitiveness", "scrubbiness" and even "competition" too now, but I'm not willing to further about it in this thread

since this thread in mainly about Metaknight

You clearly did not read my post, then. Because we agreed what being competitive is. Except competitive gameplay is a whole nother kettle of fish. Being competitive is to win. Competitive Gameplay is to win under certain conditions(A.K.A. rules).

A Scrub is literally being inferior. In other words, bad. It is literally the only actual game-related definition I could find. Being a scrub is being bad. This does mean being a Scrub in itself is LITERALLY a bad thing, and I know what you're referring to. It has no positive means, just is meant to be used negatively, as the actual definition severely suggests. I mean, unless you consider calling someone inferior a positive comment.

Anyway, there's no reason for us to actually care if a person is a Scrub or not here. Because they all count.

@fabulouspants: He has based his stuff widely upon his region, despite the fact the ban has little to no effect on him.(of course his opinion counts, but it doesn't mean it has a direct effect on the guy, and there's no reason for it to, since the U.K., unlike the U.S., respectively doesn't have an MK problem)

 

[Strong Badam]

A Scrub is literally being inferior. In other words, bad. It is literally the only actual game-related definition I could find. Being a scrub is being bad. This does mean being a Scrub in itself is LITERALLY a bad thing, and I know what you're referring to. It has no positive means, just is meant to be used negatively, as the actual definition severely suggests. I mean, unless you consider calling someone inferior a positive comment.

A scrub can be good. A scrub is someone who has an incorrect mentality; "that's cheap!" or any other ideology that lends itself to not playing to win.

Anyway, there's no reason for us to actually care if a person is a Scrub or not here. Because they all count.

No they don't. Why care about people that aren't even playing the game correctly? Complaining about characters being OP when they can't even use their own character at a high level? It's the whole reason there was a Smash Back Room to begin with; there are decisions to be made in this community that should be made by the players that understand the game at high level and can discuss it effectively and respectively. No matter how many walls of text you write behind your computer monitor, you haven't proven that you understand the game and that I should care about anything you say.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

A scrub can be good. A scrub is someone who has an incorrect mentality; "that's cheap!" or any other ideology that lends itself to not playing to win.

Being a scrub has nothing to do with trying to win or not. That's a different concept. You're looking for the term "Scrubby mentality", as in a literal bad mentality. Not being a Scrub.

No they don't. Why care about people that aren't even playing the game correctly?

You're right. We're not, since Sakurai didn't even want these Tournaments. Sounds just as bad as you say it when they do, doesn't it?

Complaining about characters being OP when they can't even use their own character at a high level? It's the whole reason there was a Smash Back Room to begin with; there are decisions to be made in this community that should be made by the players that understand the game at high level and can discuss it effectively and respectively.

All players count. You should know that by now. It's the reason why we don't cherrypick people for polls here. Because it affects everyone. Have you ever thought that those players might soon visit tourneys? Oh, right, if you ignore them, they won't. That's NOT how you get more players. Treating them like dirt because of their gaming status is not just elitist, but it's downright rude.

No matter how many walls of text you write behind your computer monitor, you haven't proven that you understand the game and that I should care about anything you say.

I'd give this a full response, but I shouldn't care what you say because you're an elitist. /Irony

 

[Strong Badam]

Call me elitist all you want. It's how this community has lasted this long. I've already explained why the URC polls mean nothing and shouldn't be used as data points. The opinion of someone who could potentially go to a tournament is worth far less than that of someone who attends tournaments regularly and supports their local/regional scene.

 

[Cassio]

People can refuse to cherrypick all they want, that doesnt allow them to pretend that the polls that are referenced arent irrecoverably useless. Even the type of data hyperfalcon wants does not exist (nor has it in the past), which is why its pointless atm to speculate on what the community's opinion may be.

 

[The Ben]

Call me elitist all you want. It's how this community has lasted this long. I've already explained why the URC polls mean nothing and shouldn't be used as data points. The opinion of someone who could potentially go to a tournament is worth far less than that of someone who attends tournaments regularly and supports their local/regional scene.

This really translates to "People who aren't yet part of the community shouldn't be part of the community because we've already expanded as far as we want to."

 

[etecoon]

old BPC was a terrible terrible scroob and I for one am happy that he knows better now : ) not that it matters since there will always be 20 more of you to step in and argue that 75m and big blue should be legal, banning a character though? all about that!

 

[Strong Badam]

This really translates to "People who aren't yet part of the community shouldn't be part of the community because we've already expanded as far as we want to."

It doesn't mean I don't want them to be part of the community; it just means that their opinion is far less informed and less valuable than those who are already a part of it.

 

[Steam]

there is no type of poll that would be good. take a poll at a tourney? what about the regular tourney goers that happened busy on that day?

was the tourney MK legal? plenty of players are much less likely to enter tournies with MK legal now that MK banned tournies exist (like me)

was the tourney MK banned? Plenty of MK mains won't go to MK banned tournies...

because of the division in rulesets polls we take at tournies are useless and are irrecoverably biased. in a way they are voluntary response polls because attendance of said tourney is voluntary. Attendees would likely be more biased towards the ruleset the tourney is using.

 

[Naridax]

there is no type of poll that would be good. take a poll at a tourney? what about the regular tourney goers that happened busy on that day?

was the tourney MK legal? plenty of players are much less likely to enter tournies with MK legal now that MK banned tournies exist (like me)

was the tourney MK banned? Plenty of MK mains won't go to MK banned tournies...

because of the division in rulesets polls we take at tournies are useless and are irrecoverably biased. in a way they are voluntary response polls because attendance of said tourney is voluntary. Attendees would likely be more biased towards the ruleset the tourney is using.

A poll from a single tournament would never be a good representation of the entire community. Even polls of multiple tournaments probably would not accomplish that. These issues are the same issues statisticians face when developing any sort of experiment, sampling method, or survey.

The simple and obvious solution is randomization. Randomize which tournaments will be selected for conducting the polls, and randomize which individuals at those tournaments will be polled.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

The polls here were random, let's note. It did not cherrypick a single person. Thus, we get any member of the community. Any. All who want to play. Their reasons had no relevance for a reason; We want what people believe is the right thing, yes or no. Polling top players is even worse. In fact, want to know why cherrypicking is worse?

Bribery. People will bribe others by giving them free wins. If we do not know who'll vote, we have no way of every having any misinformation whatsoever. And we should care what all the community says, because they drive the game, not just the top players. We didn't do one poll here, we did a lot of them. The results were always in favor of the ban, so if people actually changed their minds and thought he wasn't so bad, the results would show it. In addition, because of the randomness, there's no way to tell people voted once or twice. This could be a bad thing, or a good thing. It means people could've changed their mind and chose a different option later respectively. But even then, if it was a big deal, you'd think the results would be in favor of the anti-ban. That was not the case, clearly.

In fact, once we took a poll with the top players, you know, something Elitists think only count, we still were in favor of the ban, throwing the theory that only Scrubs want him banned out of the water.

Statuses don't ever matter in a poll. It's Anonymous due to all kinds of illegal stuff, extortion, bribery, most notably. But also what Steam said. Polls at the tourneys would be useless. Not every player can attend every single time, but almost all of them can be online here to answer the poll. Thus, we got the general consensus from the community itself(not one part of the community, but as a WHOLE, since their overall opinion matters more than any single Scrub or Top player).

In addition, want to know why I don't give a crap about anybody's Status when I look at their points and debate? It's 100% irrelevant to the actual POINTS. Choosing to ignore someone because they're not a top player is the same as ignoring someone for their gender, race, or age. They're all statuses, and equally discriminate. You want to ignore what they say, put them on the Ignore List. Likewise, it's the attitude that makes people's points harder to look at. If you have almost no points in a sea of flaming, most, if not all, will see the flames, not the points. Best idea? Just put out the points with no form of flaming or discrimination. Do not ignore points unless they're just that bad(since they have NOTHING to do with who says them, and never will). Bad points are bad regardless of the one who speaks them.

 

[Naridax]

The polls here were random, let's note. It did not cherrypick a single person.

The polls were not randomized. I recommend reading the OP and my posts in this thread: URC Analysis - Voluntary Response Polling and the 75% Myth.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

The polls were not randomized. I recommend reading the OP and my posts in this thread: URC Analysis - Voluntary Response Polling and the 75% Myth.

I would if he even understood how they worked. It's put up, any player SSBB player can vote.

It's beyond legitimate as is. There is nothing illegitimate about it. Likewise, its purpose was to get the COMMUNITY'S view on it. And that's why more than one poll was done, to get as many different people as they can. The overall community just couldn't stand MK.

And before anybody brings up the crappy Scrub voting argument. Since the polls are anonymous, and the top players are not made any more important than the bottom ones(for good reasons, as that shows bias and ignores legitimate voting), you cannot tell who was a bad player and who was not. Also, because of this, the overall numbers work like this thanks to anonymous voting: 25% of the anti-ban are Scrubs. 25% are Top Players. 25% of Pro-Ban are Scrubs, and 25% are Top Players.

While those numbers are not exact, the point is that we cannot tell which were scrubs and which were not. The reason why? A person's vote counts regardless of their status as a player. Which is why only doing it at tournaments fails. Not every actual player gets a vote, or would be player. So matter how you slice it, Voluntary Anonymous polling on these forums are more guaranteed to be accurate and represent the questioned people; The Community, since, you know, they're why we do things, not to appeal to a small scale of all players.

In fact, one could say most players are Scrubs, you know. And since they can't better without practice, and they won't if MK is still around because they refuse to visit, making sure the community wants it gives us more potential players, which is kind of what the URC actually wants. Or a TO in general. Attendance is kind of important, you know. Like, the entire key things about Tourneys. If we gain more players with a single rule, then it was better as a whole for the long run, even if the rule is not that good.(LGL is a good example of this)

In addition, I don't believe any of what he says, since calling multiple polls that work on the basis of getting all the players' opinions(regardless of their status, which has no effect on any poll whatsoever unless only those are allowed to vote, which has nothing to do with a community-related decision like this one) crap... is well, just poor taste. I even doubt he'd be calling this illegitimate if the vote was in favor of keeping him in. Note how almost every single reason for people hating the poll just happens to be because Pro-Ban won. Or because they didn't ignore Scrubs.(both very bad reasoning to ignore a poll) I mean, maybe he might have a point, but it's kind of hard when I don't see any other kind of poll picked apart here whatsoever. Regardless of the outcome. Whatever illegitimate part does not exist.

Top Player =/= All Players. I'm more inclined to listen to everyone than a select few, since, you know, status is about as important as one's gender if they think a food tastes good(for example). The polls got completely randomized players(sorry, but saying it wasn't random is bullcrap) in the end. Except one poll which only asked the Top 100, and it was STILL in favor of the Ban itself(which also debunks any theory that only Scrubs wanted him banned, or the majority of Pro-Bans were Scrubs). But that's not the point. A poll is only illegitimate if bribery or extortion(or other illegal acts) are done. Since none of that happened because of not checking who any player is, the polls are the most legitimate you'll ever get.

 

[Naridax]

It's put up, any player SSBB player can vote.

Do you think that that procedure is randomized?

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Do you think that that procedure is randomized?

It is randomized. Because we do not choose which exact players when we do that. So yes, yes I do.

Likewise, the Mods have ignored the votes from duplicate accounts, and you know, people that are definitely not players. So whatever illegitimacy was removed. The point was to get any SSBB player's opinions, and that's all they got.

We put it on the board, and anybody who knows anything related to it will vote. The margin of error is extremely smaller than you think it is. Barely by 1% at best(but definitely not high enough to ultimately change the final outcome). And any illegitimate voters were ruled out for each poll, by the Mods do their job. In addition, if anything, only, say, anyone with maybe 100 posts or more might've been allowed to post.(to note, that doesn't change the randomization whatsoever. It just eliminates people who are less likely to be players, but it's just as random)

 

[theunabletable]

the funny thing about big communities, and the minority parts of those communities.

often while it could be 60% of the entire community wants something, it likely isn't 60% everywhere. in some places it might be 30%, in some places it might be 80%.

it seems weird to make decisions for EVERYBODY based off of 75% of the overall community wanting something, when majorities of certain areas don't want that thing. one size doesn't fit all, and we don't gain much by attempting to force it to c:

 

[Steam]

well if some regions banned MK and others didn't... no one would want to go OOS to regions with the opposite ban policy.

MK legal regions wouldn't want to travel because half of them probably use MK in some way shape or form.

MK banned regions wouldn't want to travel and get wasted by MKs because they don't have the MU practice.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

You do realize that it was multiple polls where the majority was always towards the MK ban, right?

Likewise, almost everybody that goes to the URC tournaments, the ONLY ones affected by this, head to this messageboard, right? So other communities not affected by this... well, if they care and want to go to the URC tourneys(the only ones this ban counts for), they'll go on here and vote. If they don't vote, they cannot complain when it goes through. Making an account and voting is pretty easy, you know.

I don't buy that, after multiple polls, I'd say about 90% of the people who wanted a say got their chance eventually. While I'm not among them, a good chunk of users are. If people didn't care, they most likely won't vote.

Likewise, are you understanding that this is for the URC Tournaments only? Not every single tourney that exists? The URC, who runs those specific tourneys, is not making the decision based upon the 76%(the final number, please cite it right) alone, but tons of other factors. And frankly, only two countries are directly affected by this anyway, for those who do their research. So most votes will come from those people as is.

The minority was the Anti-Ban here, and some Anti-Bans have been swayed towards banning him, and vice versa. To be frank, if every poll had the majority for his ban, I'm pretty inclined to believe that majority in the long run wanted it. I don't know, wouldn't multiple polls with the final result being general the same consensus say something by now? How many polls were there? I'd like a mod to answer that.

 

[theunabletable]

well if some regions banned MK and others didn't... no one would want to go OOS to regions with the opposite ban policy.

Regions aren't capable of making exceptions for people coming out of state?

And on another, also related, note, you would say that you know what every region would benefit from the most, more than they do, so much so that you get to decide their rules for them?

MK legal regions wouldn't want to travel because half of them probably use MK in some way shape or form.

So half of the players from a region wouldn't go to tournaments if MK was banned?

MK banned regions wouldn't want to travel and get wasted by MKs because they don't have the MU practice.

idk if this is actually the case. Lots of people go to tournaments with rulesets they dislike

Like, for instance, I played against Raziek at MLG Dallas with MK, and IIRC at the time he banned MK at his tournaments.

You do realize that it was multiple polls where the majority was always towards the MK ban, right?

I didn't dispute this. I disputed that it was a majority from every part of the community.

Likewise, almost everybody that goes to the URC tournaments, the ONLY ones affected by this, head to this messageboard, right?

Nope, not true. Lots of people go to AllisBrawl (especially west coast), and of the people who go to smashboards out of the competitive players who actually go frequently to one of the sites, very few of those players come here, to the ruleset discussion boards.

So other communities not affected by this... well, if they care and want to go to the URC tourneys(the only ones this ban counts for), they'll go on here and vote. If they don't vote, they cannot complain when it goes through. Making an account and voting is pretty easy, you know.

They certainly can complain

I don't buy that, after multiple polls, I'd say about 90% of the people who wanted a say got their chance eventually. While I'm not among them, a good chunk of users are. If people didn't care, they most likely won't vote.

I think this is true for the most part.

I think you misunderstood me; I never said that the majority of people in the entire community on average want MK banned, I said that not every region/part of the community/micro-community/local-regional community has a majority of wanting MK banned.

I'll phrase it like this. Just because the majority of US players want him banned doesn't mean the majority of Arizona players want him banned, or the majority of Idaho players want him banned, or the majority of California players want him banned. Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. But certainly not every part of the community wants him banned with a majority behind it.

 

[Judo777]

the funny thing about big communities, and the minority parts of those communities.

often while it could be 60% of the entire community wants something, it likely isn't 60% everywhere. in some places it might be 30%, in some places it might be 80%.

it seems weird to make decisions for EVERYBODY based off of 75% of the overall community wanting something, when majorities of certain areas don't want that thing. one size doesn't fit all, and we don't gain much by attempting to force it to c:

Same could be said for EVERYTHING in the game. It's weird we have made a decision for EVERYBODY even tho only 80% of the community wants to play with the rules we have set up.... Like maybe one city likes playing with ALL items on, time game on Mario Bros. I don't think its fair for us to make a rule set that applies to EVERYONE whenever not EVERYONE wants to play the game that way.

 

[theunabletable]

^I feel like you're being sarcastic, but I agree with all of that completely lol

Like if a city really wants to play with all items on, and on mario bros, they should be able to without being hindered. They probably won't be able to grow at all with a ruleset like that, just because of how people's subjective opinions are, but if they're able, they should completely be allowed to try their best. In the end, they'd probably end up going with whatever ruleset is close to the standard anyways, just to get more people to come.