Feelings on MK and the MK ban after Apex

[Steam]

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

well if they do that then regions with similar rulesets to that one would be less likely to attend.

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?

nope

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

there's a difference between choosing a new character to go to any tournies at all, and choosing a new character to go to the trouble of going OOS for a tourney. people are going to be much more likely to choose a new character if they're basically forced to.[/quote]

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.

neither of us can really poll about it, but I know personally I'd never even consider going out of state to MK legal tourney. If MK was legalized locally in my region I'd go just to enter melee and maybe play MK banned MMs with people in brawl XD

 

[theunabletable]

well if they do that then regions with similar rulesets to that one would be less likely to attend.

perhaps to some extent. Shouldn't it be handled on a case-by-case basis, by the people who are most intimately close to the situation in each case?

there's a difference between choosing a new character to go to any tournies at all, and choosing a new character to go to the trouble of going OOS for a tourney. people are going to be much more likely to choose a new character if they're basically forced to.

You're right, but this is kind of the case with forcing anyone to do anything lol.

neither of us can really poll about it, but I know personally I'd never even consider going out of state to MK legal tourney. If MK was legalized locally in my region I'd go just to enter melee and maybe play MK banned MMs with people in brawl XD

So why couldn't you go to the MK-banned nationals haha?

 

[Judo777]

^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.

I had some half sarcasm in there but my analogy was correct and your response can be said back at your own statement. No one is FORCING MK to be banned at the tournaments, no one says you have to use the stage list the URC uses and no one says you have to turn items off. You can host whatever the hell you want, however if you want to use the tournament standard ruleset (aka the URC ruleset) you do have to play 3 stocks, items off, urc stage list, Mk Banned.

It's their decision if they want to use that ruleset, its their choice if they want their tournament to be considered a serious one. No one is making anyone do anything, but this is what was decided by a majority of the community to be best approach at making the game more competative.

It's not like the decision was super hasty, in other fighting games I have seen the game get re-vamped and rebalanced off of some people at 1 tournament being mad 2 months after the games release. We waited a full 4 years to do this so its not like its super sudden.

 

[theunabletable]

I had some half sarcasm in there but my analogy was correct and your response can be said back at your own statement. No one is FORCING MK to be banned at the tournaments, no one says you have to use the stage list the URC uses and no one says you have to turn items off.

wait
yeah
this is exactly everything that I'm saying. Just that the sticky rule that the URC enforces should be abolished (and potentially other things I haven't given thought to, but especially this), so that smaller regions and communities are allowed to flourish they best they can, without artificially hindering them.

I think if someone were to host an items tournament, and it was getting potentially a lot of people to go, and it was gonna be a big deal, they should be allowed to get a sticky, to get as many people to go as they can. Or if someone wants to host tournaments with the Japanese rulesets. You get the idea I'm sure

It's their decision if they want to use that ruleset, its their choice if they want their tournament to be considered a serious one. No one is making anyone do anything, but this is what was decided by a majority of the community to be best approach at making the game more competative.

It's not like the decision was super hasty, in other fighting games I have seen the game get re-vamped and rebalanced off of some people at 1 tournament being mad 2 months after the games release. We waited a full 4 years to do this so its not like its super sudden.

I completely agree with people hosting tournaments with the rules they want. If some people want to ban MK, and they ban him, that's great. If some people don't want to, and they decide not to, that's great too.

I disagree with almost forcing (with threat of potentially worse community growth) the entire nation to use a ruleset, when some parts of the nation don't want it.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

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

Then the other communities can do their own respective polls. There's no problem with that. However, the URC is only here, and this is the only place to review them. You need to go here for URC stuff, and to vote on URC polls or have a say related to the URC. Unless they had a separate area.

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.

But do they go to the URC tournaments? Maybe they do. But refer directly to my first response.

They certainly can complain

Not if they don't visit where the poll is at. Now, don't get me wrong, they could've polled that place too, I agree completely. But forcing the players to register and actually vote on one messageboard in unity is not a bad thing either. I mean, you know, the URC is named Unified for a reason.

I think this is true for the most part.

Okay.

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.

If by region you mean anywhere but U.S.A. and Canada, that's where I disagree. This tournament settings affects strictly those two countries only. Now, whether you visit them or not does not mean you can't vote. Even if it won't affect you(unless you visit). If you mean not every specific community, well, "locals" don't always follow the URC ruleset, so they won't be affected either, right?

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.

Then why did they not vote on here during one of the many chances they had? They can't complain they didn't have the time. The thing is, we're not asking one particular state about this, we're asking the entirety of U.S.A. and Canada. This is like voting for the President of the United States, if you will. It affects everyone, so... everybody gets a vote. We're not looking for which STATE wants him/her elected, but the entirety of them all.

I get your point, but that would mean we're asking one particular piece of the community when we want them all. In fact, let's note, unless a Mod can dispute this, we did not care about what region they were from with the poll. If you're a person who plays Brawl, you had a say in the polls. And by the way, they cannot complain if they refused to vote during the multiple times. It's too late. Does it suck they missed out? Well, it's not like they really didn't have a fair chance.

If a person is complaining, and they never voted, are their complaints really worth hearing?Before you call elitist, and I do agree to an extent, they missed their chance by not taking the time to do it.

 

[Steam]

So why couldn't you go to the MK-banned nationals haha?

it's quite difficult to travel at all when you're part of such a small scene that's so isolated... the nearest scene from us is probably new mexico (which is extremely small) which is like an 8+ hour drive... colorado is planning on attending whobo this summer though

 

[theunabletable]

Then the other communities can do their own respective polls. There's no problem with that. However, the URC is only here, and this is the only place to review them. You need to go here for URC stuff, and to vote on URC polls or have a say related to the URC. Unless they had a separate area.

Wait, I'm confused what this has to do with what I said lol.

I'm saying it's probably not fair, nor good (they usually go hand-in-hand, but not always. In this case, I'd argue that they do, though,) to let the majority of a country infringe upon the abilities of the majorities within individual regions.

For a hypothetical example, let's say that 70% of SoCal wants items on, but 90% of New York (and New York has a lot more people than SoCal) wants items off, along with most of east coast wanting them off, and a smaller amount, but still a majority of west coast wanting it on. And let's say, taking into account it being a larger majority opposing it on one side of the country, than the majority who supports it on the other side, that the overall amount, taking into account everyone in the country equally, ends up being 65-70% of the country wanting to ban items.

Sure, the "majority" wants items banned, but it's only the majority at the national level. This decision, if it's forced to hold any weight (and it would hold power) would REALLY suck for west coast, that really wants items on.

I say that this situation is unfair, and bad for the community as a whole, on each level, in the end.

My question for you (and you should reply by responding to the question, instead of just responding to each individual line, unless you have an issue with how the premise is set up, or it was a false analogy) is, do you feel that it would be justified for the national majority to invoke their opinion on the individual regions that have a majority against their rules, within their own region? If so, then 1) Why do you feel that way? 2) Do you feel that the international community, all the countries in the world, should also take part in it, and we should take it a step further, and decide what rules to make based on the international majority's opinion?

The answering of those questions would likely be a good way to succinctly respond to what I have to say, unless you have an issue with the analogy itself, and the way it was constructed.

I felt that either I had mis-communicated the thought I was trying to get across, or you misunderstood it, so I thought it best to take this back to fundamentals, and readdress the exact question, that way we're both actually... you know... talking about the same thing lol.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Table has a point.


How often does EC really interact with WC? Think about that for a minute. Now ask yourself: how often does EC interact with Europe. Or Japan. Once a year? Twice a year? A handful of times a year? How, exactly, is it fair to call the USA one cohesive community if the fact of the matter remains that they're still so separated by so many factors?

Now the obvious question: why does it make any sense for the WC community, especially (as far as I've gathered) after internal polling shows that they are in favor of keeping Metaknight legal and banning Brinstar and RC, to keep using the Unity ruleset? Why does it even make sense to incentivize them to do so?

A lot of people (Jack Kieser and AlphaZealot, among others) like to reference the way that sports have the same rules on a professional level. This is not strictly true; often, international rules can vary in different ways. And Brawl does not currently and may well never have a true international community – we're very different regions with very different rulesets, customs, and ways of running tournaments, and this is not likely to change any time soon.

See, it goes beyond the actual tournament rules. When went to my first tournament in the states, KTAR6, I was a fish out of water – I had no idea what the tournament etiquette was. This lead to me pissing off a bunch of people, completely missing the scope of the tournament, and me being very confused. See, in Germany, the general rule of thumb for "real" tournaments is that if you can't get the location at least for Friday night, all of Saturday, and Sunday morning, then the tournament isn't going to go anywhere. People sleep on the floor of the location in sleeping bags and air mattresses. There's rarely such a rush that people need to get kicked off of TVs for tournament matches, and when there is, it's only for a few hours near the start of the tournament bracket. It's a completely different environment to what I have seen in the states. And this leads to different smash cultures.

The point of this is that it goes beyond the ruleset – attitudes matter just as much. I can't imagine that EC and WC are so similar in attitude, tournament culture, and everything else that it actually makes sense for both of them to run tournaments the same way, or with the same ruleset.

 

[Cassio]

Table, dont acknowledge those polls. Read this thread:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=317228


Hyperfalcon your explanation of polling does not reflect the reality behind statistics. You cant make up your own procedures and definitions, these already exist. They were explained in the thread and posts you were linked to earlier. The polls were not done properly, and it makes the data that was collected useless.

 

[Judo777]

Table has a point.


How often does EC really interact with WC? Think about that for a minute. Now ask yourself: how often does EC interact with Europe. Or Japan. Once a year? Twice a year? A handful of times a year? How, exactly, is it fair to call the USA one cohesive community if the fact of the matter remains that they're still so separated by so many factors?

Now the obvious question: why does it make any sense for the WC community, especially (as far as I've gathered) after internal polling shows that they are in favor of keeping Metaknight legal and banning Brinstar and RC, to keep using the Unity ruleset? Why does it even make sense to incentivize them to do so?

A lot of people (Jack Kieser and AlphaZealot, among others) like to reference the way that sports have the same rules on a professional level. This is not strictly true; often, international rules can vary in different ways. And Brawl does not currently and may well never have a true international community – we're very different regions with very different rulesets, customs, and ways of running tournaments, and this is not likely to change any time soon.

See, it goes beyond the actual tournament rules. When went to my first tournament in the states, KTAR6, I was a fish out of water – I had no idea what the tournament etiquette was. This lead to me pissing off a bunch of people, completely missing the scope of the tournament, and me being very confused. See, in Germany, the general rule of thumb for "real" tournaments is that if you can't get the location at least for Friday night, all of Saturday, and Sunday morning, then the tournament isn't going to go anywhere. People sleep on the floor of the location in sleeping bags and air mattresses. There's rarely such a rush that people need to get kicked off of TVs for tournament matches, and when there is, it's only for a few hours near the start of the tournament bracket. It's a completely different environment to what I have seen in the states. And this leads to different smash cultures.

The point of this is that it goes beyond the ruleset – attitudes matter just as much. I can't imagine that EC and WC are so similar in attitude, tournament culture, and everything else that it actually makes sense for both of them to run tournaments the same way, or with the same ruleset.

If WC were to decide to just keep him legal and not follow the ruleset, and then every one else did ban him, then what are the chances that ANYONE from WC would go to an MK-banned tournament on the EC.

EC and WC don't interact that often maybe a few times a year, but those tournaments that they do are always huge and a big success. If EC and WC played with such a huge difference in rulesets (an MK-legal metagame is COMPLETELY different from an MK-banned one) those tournaments would have a good chance of not happening or being a big success./

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Wait, I'm confused what this has to do with what I said lol.

I'm saying it's probably not fair, nor good (they usually go hand-in-hand, but not always. In this case, I'd argue that they do, though,) to let the majority of a country infringe upon the abilities of the majorities within individual regions.

I don't even think you're reading what I"m saying. The URC Tournaments are just ONE kind of tournament. That's all. And non-URC tournaments get stickied too, actaully.

For a hypothetical example, let's say that 70% of SoCal wants items on, but 90% of New York (and New York has a lot more people than SoCal) wants items off, along with most of east coast wanting them off, and a smaller amount, but still a majority of west coast wanting it on. And let's say, taking into account it being a larger majority opposing it on one side of the country, than the majority who supports it on the other side, that the overall amount, taking into account everyone in the country equally, ends up being 65-70% of the country wanting to ban items.

You're looking too far into "region" wants and not "universal" wants. You're also ignoring that these are URC tournaments, not just tournaments. That's why they run their own respective tourneys, which anybody can join. Nobody is saying they can't, won't, or shouldn't. Likewise, the point of the URC's ruleset is to have one that the MAJORITY of ALL players agree to it. It's pretty all regions that count as one for the purposes of it. That's what I've been saying the entire time. Your problem appears to be you hate only one kind of tourney that exists, which is silly anyway, since they're not required by anyone.

Sure, the "majority" wants items banned, but it's only the majority at the national level. This decision, if it's forced to hold any weight (and it would hold power) would REALLY suck for west coast, that really wants items on.

They run their own tourneys. That's the point of it being a NATIONAL level.

I say that this situation is unfair, and bad for the community as a whole, on each level, in the end.

Except it's the community as a whole, not the individual or the region. It's not unfair to the community whatsoever. It's for a general consensus among everyone, or the majority. That's the POINT.

My question for you (and you should reply by responding to the question, instead of just responding to each individual line, unless you have an issue with how the premise is set up, or it was a false analogy) is, do you feel that it would be justified for the national majority to invoke their opinion on the individual regions that have a majority against their rules, within their own region? If so, then 1) Why do you feel that way? 2) Do you feel that the international community, all the countries in the world, should also take part in it, and we should take it a step further, and decide what rules to make based on the international majority's opinion?

I don't cherrypick stuff. Unless I concede that point.

1) Because this is a tourney meant for the majority to play. If they don't like it, they don't run it.

2) Not all the countries in the world follow this, just two. And there's no reason to make it a majority of the world either. The reason? The URC's rules is based mainly off of the Canada and U.S. metagame. Thus, unless an URC for the U.K. and Japan(separately) were made, there's zero reason to do this. They do not control the world, nor intend to.

The answering of those questions would likely be a good way to succinctly respond to what I have to say, unless you have an issue with the analogy itself, and the way it was constructed.

I think the problem is is that you either have a huge problem with the premise of the URC(which it to get one setting for all, making one key metagame, and to get all players together under one ruleset, etc.), or you think that people not using the URC ruleset is being discriminated in some way.(which they are not in any way, shape, or form) Stickies, which may be your other problem, are for BIG non-hacked tourneys. URC Tourneys just happen to be the biggest, and the Stickies are not for them only.

I felt that either I had mis-communicated the thought I was trying to get across, or you misunderstood it, so I thought it best to take this back to fundamentals, and readdress the exact question, that way we're both actually... you know... talking about the same thing lol.

It appears to be the other way around. You should probably for one of the URC topics, because your problem is with them, not having tourneys with some rules.

 

[Ghostbone]

I don't even think you're reading what I"m saying. The URC Tournaments are just ONE kind of tournament. That's all. And non-URC tournaments get stickied too, actaully.

Brawl tournaments don't get stickied unless they have the URC ruleset....

 

[Cassio]

If WC were to decide to just keep him legal and not follow the ruleset, and then every one else did ban him, then what are the chances that ANYONE from WC would go to an MK-banned tournament on the EC.

Thats not a hypothetical scenario. Thats whats actually happening, lol.
http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=132495

Although not everyone outside WC is banning him either. Its also not as bad as your making it sound, players go to mk banned or unbanned events every once in awhile regardless of how they feel about the issue.

 

[BSP]

Brawl tournaments don't get stickied unless they have the URC ruleset....

Fortunately, this policy will be ending.

IDK how unity support will go once that sticky rule is gone though.

 

[Judo777]

Thats not a hypothetical scenario. Thats whats actually happening, lol.
http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=132495

Although not everyone outside WC is banning him either. Its also not as bad as your making it sound, players go to mk banned or unbanned events every once in awhile regardless of how they feel about the issue.

Well that's freaking terrible. Failure to oblige to what most of the community has agreed to and creating a separation in the community is like the worst thing that can happen in a game.

What if people that played Marvel didn't approve of a patch to the game and as a result an entire well known region agreed to not connect to Xbox live and get the update? Like that is just people being stubborn and damaging the community.

Also such attitude toward that shows a general lack of concern for the community in general.

 

[Cassio]

First, the community didnt agree to anything. Like Ive stated frequently the polls that were taken are not usable. Given so many flaws in the process that lead to banning him I dont see how anyone can say the ban is conclusive about anything in regards to the community or disagree when people dont choose to follow its results.

Secondly, at least for socal about 40% of our players dont want MK banned even with RC/Brinstar legal (which are being banned). Why would a local region have its tournaments suffer for nationals that happen a few times a year?

Lastly its not that big a deal for different regions to adopt different rulesets. This isnt marvel, the game isnt patched there are legimitately different ways to play the game. Im not sure what harm youre expecting to come, imo theres been greater division as a result of the URCs attempt to unify the ruleset then to simply leave local/regional tournaments alone (especially after their attempts to ban MK).

 

[theunabletable]

Table, dont acknowledge those polls. Read this thread:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=317228

haha it's a good thread.

I figure if I can get my point across, even accepting the "75% national majority" as true (even though it isn't really), then perhaps it'll be even easier once that majority is acknowledged as also not being as strong as it was thought, you know?

If WC were to decide to just keep him legal and not follow the ruleset, and then every one else did ban him, then what are the chances that ANYONE from WC would go to an MK-banned tournament on the EC.

Didn't it happen in Melee, when there was the WC-EC items divide?

Back when the EC and WC were barely connected, there had been times when they traveled to the other's tournaments, despite very different rules.

I don't even think you're reading what I"m saying. The URC Tournaments are just ONE kind of tournament. That's all. And non-URC tournaments get stickied too, actaully.

It's against SWF rules to sticky non-URC tournaments (with Apex as the exception).

They run their own tourneys. That's the point of it being a NATIONAL level.

The issue is this simply isn't how it is. These rules aren't made solely for nationals. These rules are made for EVERYBODY who wants to promote their tournament with having a sticky, or a featured tournament on AllisBrawl. Regardless of if it's a national, a regional, or a local. Regardless of if that region and everyone with in it really hates the rules, but has to to get more new players to come.

If their rules were COMPLETELY optional, and they didn't hinder TOs for not using them, it wouldn't be an issue.

1) Because this is a tourney meant for the majority to play. If they don't like it, they don't run it.

That's not really an answer lol.

"Why should the national majority dictate what the regional majorities are allowed to do?" "because it's the national majority."

2) Not all the countries in the world follow this, just two. And there's no reason to make it a majority of the world either. The reason? The URC's rules is based mainly off of the Canada and U.S. metagame. Thus, unless an URC for the U.K. and Japan(separately) were made, there's zero reason to do this. They do not control the world, nor intend to.

This is incredibly inconsistent. If the west coast doesn't want to follow what the east coast wants to do, they have to, because we're looking for a national majority. But if the United States doesn't want to do what the rest of the world, taking into account every player there is' opinions, it's irrelevant, since it's just based on the US metagame.

No, it's not based on the US metagame in the scenario we're talking about, it's based on the east coast metagame.

It's a complete double standard.

You say that Japan shouldn't follow the URC because it's based on American metagame? I say that west coast shouldn't have to follow the URC because it's based on east coast metagame.

Fortunately, this policy will be ending.

IDK how unity support will go once that sticky rule is gone though.

What?!

Really? Where has this been said?!

 

[BSP]

@Table: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=14018789&postcount=13

No info on when yet, but it will end.

 

[theunabletable]

That's great, thanks for the link. I guess my giant thread mostly on getting rid of it was unnecessary lol.

I wonder for how long they had been discussing whether to get rid of it or not haha

I'm fine with continuing our discussion, HyperFalcon, but it does seem like, in light of this new information, my first goal has been achieved c:

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

It's against SWF rules to sticky non-URC tournaments (with Apex as the exception).

Actually, last I checked, it isn't. It's that you won't usually get it stickied. Unless they changed it from last time.

The issue is this simply isn't how it is. These rules aren't made solely for nationals. These rules are made for EVERYBODY who wants to promote their tournament with having a sticky, or a featured tournament on AllisBrawl. Regardless of if it's a national, a regional, or a local. Regardless of if that region and everyone with in it really hates the rules, but has to to get more new players to come.

I did not say they were for Nationals only. I said it was on a National level. It means everybody practices the same ruleset so they all can fight under it come nationals. Otherwise, it's a mess. They go hand in hand, but are not the same thing. I apologize if that wasn't clear.

If their rules were COMPLETELY optional, and they didn't hinder TOs for not using them, it wouldn't be an issue.

Then it would not be very Unified, now would it? You can't be part of the URC if you aren't going to follow the same ruleset. It makes sense, after all.

That's not really an answer lol.

"Why should the national majority dictate what the regional majorities are allowed to do?" "because it's the national majority."

Because it's not regional play. Those are not URC tournaments, and thus, won't have any effect on those. And why should it? If many tournaments use different rules, then it's no longer unified. I shouldn't have to keep saying this to realize the point of the URC. I do agree other tourneys(obviously ones not using hacks, and they NEED to be big enough) should be stickied too. But that's not an URC issue, anyway, that's a Staff issue.

This is incredibly inconsistent. If the west coast doesn't want to follow what the east coast wants to do, they have to, because we're looking for a national majority. But if the United States doesn't want to do what the rest of the world, taking into account every player there is' opinions, it's irrelevant, since it's just based on the US metagame.

The US Metagame only applies for the URC Tournaments. No other part of the world wants to follow it, so it's completely consistent where they're run. If people want the URC to start affecting all parts of the world, then the TO's from other parts of the world have to join and work with it. But they haven't, so it only affects the countries that follow it. Of which there's two. It's another thing that goes hand in hand.

No, it's not based on the US metagame in the scenario we're talking about, it's based on the east coast metagame.

It's a complete double standard.

No, it isn't whatsoever. They have their own tourneys. That's fine. URC only applies to the WHOLE US Metagame, not one region's. If it only took them into account, then it would just be plain worse. The point is for all regions to follow ONE ruleset. Otherwise it's not Unified.

You say that Japan shouldn't follow the URC because it's based on American metagame? I say that west coast shouldn't have to follow the URC because it's based on east coast metagame.

West Coast is a part of US. That analogy fails upon that alone. There is no Double Standard here. The "national level"(not Nationals themselves) is done by the URC to make sure everybody follows the same ruleset. If you're not following it, you're not part of the URC. I agree with the sticky problem, but that's the only actual problem that exists. If TO's want to change the rules and metagames, they need to join the URC to work on the inside. Whining that their favorite rules aren't accepted on a general consensus does absolutely nothing. If they refuse to do it the right away, by going on the inside, nobody is going to honestly care because they sound like whiny brats instead.

 

[theunabletable]

Actually, last I checked, it isn't. It's that you won't usually get it stickied. Unless they changed it from last time.

Any tournaments that do not follow this ruleset will not be eligible for stickies on SWF or featured coverage on AllisBrawl.

I did not say they were for Nationals only. I said it was on a National level. It means everybody practices the same ruleset so they all can fight under it come nationals. Otherwise, it's a mess. They go hand in hand, but are not the same thing. I apologize if that wasn't clear.

It's simply not a mess, though.

Then it would not be very Unified, now would it? You can't be part of the URC if you aren't going to follow the same ruleset. It makes sense, after all.

You can't be part of the URC if you aren't going to follow the same ruleset only by design, it's not necessary.

I do agree other tourneys(obviously ones not using hacks, and they NEED to be big enough) should be stickied too. But that's not an URC issue, anyway, that's a Staff issue.

Alright, sounds like it's settled (except I do disagree that if a tournament uses hacks, it should be fine).

If it only took them into account, then it would just be plain worse.

90% of east coast wants items gone
60% of west coast wants items
overall majority says that more want items gone, so they remove items.

West Coast is a part of US. That analogy fails upon that alone.

What I'm saying is that, in the analogies I've given, the URC artificially (by that I mean through hard east coast influence, despite what the west coast wants) has as much undue authority over west coast, as it would if it decided to take every single player in the world into account, when deciding what east coast/the US should use.

The same arguments for justifying that the east coast should be able to have some level of authority over what the west coast does apply (atleast on a fundamental level, taking into account all the variables there could definitely be a degree of variability in overall effect) also to any argument justifying that Europe should have some level of authority over what the US does, and vice versa.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

It's simply not a mess, though.

Do you even understand what I'm saying? It's definitely a mess. Forgot about the stickies, as they're completely unimportant here. The point is to that everybody follows the same rules, so we can have CONSISTENCY. For that matter, that's why we have a specific set TO's with one unified rulset.

You can't be part of the URC if you aren't going to follow the same ruleset only by design, it's not necessary.

If you're not going to use the URC ruleset, then you're not part of the URC. I mean, speaks for itself, you know?

Alright, sounds like it's settled (except I do disagree that if a tournament uses hacks, it should be fine).

If they alter gameplay, it's not fine whatsoever. Hacks are a minority anyway.

90% of east coast wants items gone
60% of west coast wants items
overall majority says that more want items gone, so they remove items.

Because the overall majority will be the same as the ones being in the URC tourneys. If more people want it, that's who'll mostly attend by default, so it makes more sense to get attendees by the majority. I mean, it's hard to explain directly, but it speaks for itself. You want more players, you cater to the majority that want the rule. Likewise, Items aren't off due to majority alone, you should know this by now; Majority is not the sole decider of ANY rule in the URC.

What I'm saying is that, in the analogies I've given, the URC artificially (by that I mean through hard east coast influence, despite what the west coast wants) has as much undue authority over west coast, as it would if it decided to take every single player in the world into account, when deciding what east coast/the US should use.

This is complete and utter bullcrap. You keep trying to use separate areas, but it's the majority of the COUNTRY that they're listening to, not one part of it. They all are taken as a whole, not one region over the other. I've repeated this atleast 5 times by now. Majority rules, which means them all. It's not the east coast, it's the majority of votes. And even then, that isn't their sole influence. They also do vigorous testing too. I mean, like any TO does with rules, they make sure it works for the game they want played. Perhaps I should let an URC member explain how they determine the rules.

The same arguments for justifying that the east coast should be able to have some level of authority over what the west coast does apply (atleast on a fundamental level, taking into account all the variables there could definitely be a degree of variability in overall effect) also to any argument justifying that Europe should have some level of authority over what the US does, and vice versa.

You keep trying to justify one part of the region over another. No one region is right, but no one region is voting. It's the entire two countries. And no, the UK does not have authority over the US tournaments. They can have a say, but unless they PLAY in the US tournaments, why the hell would what they say have any effect on this? It makes absolutely no sense. As I explained before, majority does not constitute a rule, it just shows what might be the best to do, not WILL be done.

In addition, the URC Tournaments are strictly for U.S. and Canada. So getting the votes only from the regions affected is, you know, LOGICAL. This is a logical point. The other parts of the world that aren't affected by the URC have no reason to care about it.

As I said before, the sticky is of no important and is being removed so any tournament can be sticked(depending on criteria, and don't feel bad if they refuse to do hacked tourneys, but I've explain why in other topics, the main reason being that it makes Nintendo see more than it's happening, where it's happening, and how to shut it down, since they will. It's too big of a risk, and is entirely foolish to do so)

 

[theunabletable]

They can have a say, but unless they PLAY in the US tournaments, why the hell would what they say have any effect on this?

THIS

Why should East Coast players have a say in West Coast tournaments when they won't be playing in those west coast locals or regionals?

The other parts of the world that aren't affected by the URC have no reason to care about it.

I'm not arguing this. I'm arguing that to allow the URC to affect a region that doesn't want its authority so much is akin to allowing the URC to affect other parts of the world.

As I said before, the sticky is of no important and is being removed so any tournament can be sticked

I'm fine with continuing our discussion, HyperFalcon, but it does seem like, in light of this new information, my first goal has been achieved c:

To sum up, in case you haven't been reading what I've said. All of this is dependent on the URC having undue authority with the sticky rule. With the sticky rule gone, this argument isn't necessary anymore. All I'm saying is that I'm content with discussing whether it's justified to remove it or not.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

THIS

Why should East Coast players have a say in West Coast tournaments when they won't be playing in those west coast locals or regionals?

Depends what you're defining by East Coast. Do you mean Japan/UK? Because all parts of the US and Canada count as a whole. It's not the East Coast having a say, it's the entire two countries doing this.

I'm not arguing this. I'm arguing that to allow the URC to affect a region that doesn't want its authority so much is akin to allowing the URC to affect other parts of the world.

Because you're not understanding what I'm saying. It affects two countries as a WHOLE. It does not affect the rest of the world, nor has it been. You keep bringing up something that does not exist for this purpose. The west coast and east coast are not in question when the URC works on polls. It does not matter if you're from one part of the country affected or not. There's no reason they should care about that. The only thing that is cared about when you answer the poll(if even that) is whether you're from US or Canada. They're the most legitimate people to ask if any.

To sum up, in case you haven't been reading what I've said. All of this is dependent on the URC having undue authority with the sticky rule. With the sticky rule gone, this argument isn't necessary anymore. All I'm saying is that I'm content with discussing whether it's justified to remove it or not.

It has nada to do with the sticky rule. That has no effect on anything. It's an illusion entirely. That has nothing to do with the URC, as they are not in charge of this. This is the Administration's fault only. Your issue is not with the URC, and they are doing nothing wrong. They do not have priority like you think they do. They just run a specific set of US and Canada tourneys, and nobody has ever been forced to go there.

The URC is not responsible for it, and blaming them is incorrect. Nowhere have they shown that they want the sticky to themselves. The entire problem is the Administration thinking it's the only other tournament that should be stickied. In fact, it's pretty clear why; That and Apex are the BIGGEST tournaments that exist and are deemed the most important by that alone. So the most used tourneys that have the largest turnout getting the sticky is not unrealistic. Now, I don't agree with only allowing those two, but I can't do anything about that by complaining to the URC. I'm sure we'll figure this out, and if the rumors are true, AlphaZealot may be trying to get this unfair rule removed.

So yeah, your problem is with the Sticky, and the URC is not catered to anything but the US and Canada regions on the entirety, btw. If you're going to call discrimination, it should be that the UK and Japan are not entirely included in this(and the URC can answer if that's true or not). One part of the US means nothing in the entirety of it all. It's the whole thing overall, and will continue to be.

 

[Judo777]

First, the community didnt agree to anything. Like Ive stated frequently the polls that were taken are not usable. Given so many flaws in the process that lead to banning him I dont see how anyone can say the ban is conclusive about anything in regards to the community or disagree when people dont choose to follow its results.

Secondly, at least for socal about 40% of our players dont want MK banned even with RC/Brinstar legal (which are being banned). Why would a local region have its tournaments suffer for nationals that happen a few times a year?

Lastly its not that big a deal for different regions to adopt different rulesets. This isnt marvel, the game isnt patched there are legimitately different ways to play the game. Im not sure what harm youre expecting to come, imo theres been greater division as a result of the URCs attempt to unify the ruleset then to simply leave local/regional tournaments alone (especially after their attempts to ban MK).

BS! You keep reerring back to the poll not being usuable due to it being flawed. That doesn't change the fact that a stifling majority of the community has wanted him banned for over a year now. The funniest thing about this whole scenario is that he has been banned less than a month and people keep complaining about it, when the duration of the ban up to this point is about 1/6th the amount of time of a temp ban which a HUGE portion of the community wanted to try.

But no its the same thing that has been since the beginning, people putting their hands over their ears saying "NO NO NO." Btw I have no freaking clue how anyone is supposed to compile any amount of data, because regardless of what they do, people are going to argue that its never flawless (because no amount of research is, even the stuff you know that we rely on scientifically everyday). And even when we do get concrete (within reason numbers) all i ever hear is "well how much it too much" which any person can argue and has no freaking answer. It's literally the same argument as "well everything is just words anyway so your not right cause everything you say is just words it doesn't mean anything."

Like seriously it makes me want to ram my head into the desk.

 

[theunabletable]

Depends what you're defining by East Coast. Do you mean Japan/UK? Because all parts of the US and Canada count as a whole. It's not the East Coast having a say, it's the entire two countries doing this.

By east coast, in the example, I mean the east coast of the US. They would have unfair force, in the analogy, because their majority vastly outnumbers the opposing majority in the area where their majority isn't even relevant (only relevant artificially).

It affects two countries as a WHOLE. It does not affect the rest of the world, nor has it been. You keep bringing up something that does not exist for this purpose.

I acknowledge this, and have been this entire time.

What I am saying is that, if an authority is almost forcing people to use a ruleset, then it SHOULDN'T affect two countries as a whole.

It has nada to do with the sticky rule. That has no effect on anything. It's an illusion entirely. That has nothing to do with the URC, as they are not in charge of this. This is the Administration's fault only. Your issue is not with the URC, and they are doing nothing wrong. They do not have priority like you think they do. They just run a specific set of US and Canada tourneys, and nobody has ever been forced to go there.

You're saying that if the URC as a whole decided that they openly disapprove of their ruleset being required in almost all cases to be used if someone wants a sticky, that they would have no influence what-so-ever?

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

By east coast, in the example, I mean the east coast of the US. They would have unfair force, in the analogy, because their majority vastly outnumbers the opposing majority in the area where their majority isn't even relevant (only relevant artificially).

No, they're all relevant. So the majority of them all win. The minority doesn't. Your anlogy doesn't actually work because this is not the case. URC is ALL tournaments in any area(that an appropriate TO runs). They are not catering to the West side or any other side at all. As I said, this does not apply unless you mean other countries, where I could see it, but the URC doesn't affect them. I get the analogy, but it's not the case here.

I acknowledge this, and have been this entire time.

What I am saying is that, if an authority is almost forcing people to use a ruleset, then it SHOULDN'T affect two countries as a whole.

Those two countries actually, you know, agreed upon it majority-wise. And nobody HAS to go those tourneys, which we've said atleast... 10 times now? There's more than one tourney. We have results from stuff other than the URC Tourneys for a reason. But the URC results is the only one consistent as they're under the same rules. There's like... 14 members, maybe? I agree with need more TO's there, but a TO must join and use the agreed ruleset to do so.(or work to fix it)

You're saying that if the URC as a whole decided that they openly disapprove of their ruleset being required in almost all cases to be used if someone wants a sticky, that they would have no influence what-so-ever?

What the hell does this even mean? The URC has no control over the Stickies. They're more or less victims of the sticky rule. And yes, they do not think everybody should use it. They never said they should. They implore people to, but the reasons isn't to be some kind of dominating force, which you're accusing them of, or a dictatorship, it's so the entire two countries can be united in the metagame. You're accusing them of something they're not doing. If anything, the sticky rule is making it look like that, and you should not be blaming the URC who are not being treated fairly by the Administration. Whatever the Administration's reasons are are currently irrelevant at this moment, but I agree that it needs to change.

What I'm saying is that the URC is NOT responsible for the problems that are existing. They have nada to do with this, and just look like they are. As for the sticky rule, it's bad, so why are you even discussing it still? Just about everybody except perhaps the staff does not like it.

The URC's goal is not to look important, it's to have one full playerbase as a whole. Can an URC member actually, you know, state their goal in case I'm incorrect?

 

[theunabletable]

They are not catering to the West side or any other side at all.

They would be, in a practical sense, if the entire nation banned items (including having it banned on the west coast), even if 60% of the west coast wanted items.

Those two countries actually, you know, agreed upon it majority-wise.

ugh

Yeah, they agreed on it in that the majority on one side of the country vastly outnumbered the opposing majority on the other side of the country.

One side of the country would still get ****ed over unnecessarily.

And nobody HAS to go those tourneys, which we've said atleast... 10 times now? There's more than one tourney. We have results from stuff other than the URC Tourneys for a reason. But the URC results is the only one consistent as they're under the same rules. There's like... 14 members, maybe? I agree with need more TO's there, but a TO must join and use the agreed ruleset to do so.(or work to fix it)

Yes, nobody has to go to those tournaments, or host them. I've never disputed this.

What I am saying is that hindering those who decide to host an alternative ruleset is bad for the community, and EVERYONE should oppose it. This is ONLY in regards to the sticky rule.

What the hell does this even mean? The URC has no control over the Stickies. They're more or less victims of the sticky rule.

If the entire URC, along with the whole community, came out right and said that they whole-heartedly disapprove of the sticky/featured tournament rule, it seems unlikely to me that the smashboards senate in charge of the rule would decide to NOT take that into account AT ALL, and that Neal and the people in charge of enforcing it on AllisBrawl would do the same.

Do you disagree with that? Do you believe that if the entire community, and the whole URC, outright spoke out against the sticky/featured tournament rule, that the AllisBrawl and Smashboards staff would completely ignore it, and try and pass along their own agenda instead?

That is what I'm saying there.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

They would be, in a practical sense, if the entire nation banned items (including having it banned on the west coast), even if 60% of the west coast wanted items.

ugh

Stop bringing up analogies and scenarios that have never had any effect. The items were banned extremely early on due to Melee having them banned. Hell, I don't think the URC even existed yet. Not sure on this one, but really, items were overall banned due to being random crap, and trying to copy off of Melee.

Yeah, they agreed on it in that the majority on one side of the country vastly outnumbered the opposing majority on the other side of the country.

One side of the country would still get ****ed over unnecessarily.

That's how life works no matter what the situation. You cannot cater to everyone. That will never happen. So this isn't even worth complaining about. The majority of the world can vote and it could be the same exact outcome. Votes WORK that way. There is no such thing as one part of the fanbase not being screwed over. It is unpleaseable on a whole. The majority is just a number that TO's use an an incentive or a suggestion at best.

Yes, nobody has to go to those tournaments, or host them. I've never disputed this.

What I am saying is that hindering those who decide to host an alternative ruleset is bad for the community, and EVERYONE should oppose it. This is ONLY in regards to the sticky rule.

People completely oppose the sticky rule, or the majority. Only the Administrator's are doing this, for whatever reason it could be.

If the entire URC, along with the whole community, came out right and said that they whole-heartedly disapprove of the sticky/featured tournament rule, it seems unlikely to me that the smashboards senate in charge of the rule would decide to NOT take that into account AT ALL, and that Neal and the people in charge of enforcing it on AllisBrawl would do the same.

They would(probably) take it into account, but they do not have to do a thing. You really think they haven't? And sorry, but AllisBrawl would not just do that. They have their own reasons for doing it. I don't think it's hard to guess why, though. Sticky the main tourneys that most players go to. Makes logical sense to me, you know?

Do you disagree with that? Do you believe that if the entire community, and the whole URC, outright spoke out against the sticky/featured tournament rule, that the AllisBrawl and Smashboards staff would completely ignore it, and try and pass along their own agenda instead?

That is what I'm saying there.

The entire community will never agree on one thing, so that's not possible. A majority could, and I'm pretty sure most want the sticky rule gone. And guess what? They can sure as hell ignore it as much as they wish. You cannot always convince a change, no matter how much you try. That isn't always possible.

We're lucky that it may get changed, but I wouldn't get your hopes up any time soon.

 

[theunabletable]

That's how life works no matter what the situation

Doesn't have to, that's why America is a federalist republic, not a direct democracy.

You cannot cater to everyone.

Yes you can! I offer the solution as well!

Allow people to do what works best for them!

Oh look everyone's catered to! (or at the very least significantly moreso than a 1-size-fits-all approach)

The entire community will never agree on one thing, so that's not possible.

Yep. That's why searching for something that the NATIONAL majority wants is as pointless as searching for what the INTERNATIONAL majority wants. Allow the local majorities to do what they think will work best for them, and encourage that, and then every single person is catered to, except perhaps the occasional individual here or there (which is preferable to entire communities being disgruntled, at the same rate or higher that occasional individuals are disgruntled under a more... decentralized point of view)

And guess what? They can sure as hell ignore it as much as they wish.

apparently they're getting rid of it eventually c:

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Doesn't have to, that's why America is a federalist republic, not a direct democracy.

Now ask Smashboards that. Because this is Smashboards. It's not America. It's its own system and will follow its own rules. If it wants to be a direct democracy, it will. If it wants to be a dictatorship, it will. That's up to the owners of the boards. American law does NOT apply here. It's the internet, which has its own set of rules. You don't like it here? You either convince the owners to change the rules or you leave(or you know, deal with it).

Yes you can! I offer the solution as well!

Allow people to do what works best for them!

Oh look everyone's catered to! (or at the very least significantly moreso than a 1-size-fits-all approach)

That's not an URC tourney then. It also eliminates the point of the URC. Unified Ruleset Committee. I've explained what their purpose is. But what would happened if a Wisconsin player wants to play with a California player? They would want to play under the exact same rules, thus, can be at the exact same level when playing.(practice is all that matters is skill) All you're been saying is that we should specifically alienate players and make it impossible for them to play outside of the very crappy online. Guess what? That's very pointless when you want two Countries to be UNITED.

Yep. That's why searching for something that the NATIONAL majority wants is as pointless as searching for what the INTERNATIONAL majority wants. Allow the local majorities to do what they think will work best for them, and encourage that, and then every single person is catered to, except perhaps the occasional individual here or there (which is preferable to entire communities being disgruntled, at the same rate or higher that occasional individuals are disgruntled under a more... decentralized point of view)

No entire community is disgruntled. This is entirely false. We get players from every single state, further proving your "ideal situation" wrong. We want the national majority, because that's what the ruleset is for. And always will be for. It's the same with ANY game that exists. Let's say that Football(American) starts having separate rules for every State. Okay, another state's team comes in. Well, the rules are different. They have only practice under their OWN ruleset. Which means they won't be as good as the Home players. The ground is now completely uneven and unfair to the visiting team. That's a horrible way to have a national game. There are tons of nationals.(Worlds is what Apex is, by the way) We want the people who practice for it to all know what the exact ruleset is, and have been using it the same so they have as much equal practice as possible. This cannot happen if we go have separate rulsets. It's very messy and horrible for national play. So I guess we can't have national or international games then. If that's what you're proposing, okay. If not, then you don't understand why we do this, or you're not listening.

apparently they're getting rid of it eventually c:

Or they're not. AZ appears to be TRYING to do it, but has yet to succeed. Trying to =/= Is. But that's not the issue anyway. Because it's honestly not a big deal. In fact, I don't think it has anything to do with URC. It's only for tourneys that will be Nationals or Internationals, which is all that matters in the long run. A few extra tourneys means nothing in some cases. Maybe they only record major tourneys. Low-level play is rarely taken into account, for whatever reason.

 

[theunabletable]

ugh

I do not care to take part in this discussion (which has been circular, riddled with strawmen and misrepresentations, and full of blatant inaccuracies), in which the point has already been reached, any longer.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

The only point is that the Stickies suck, and the URC has nothing to do with it besides being victim of an unfavorited rule. And that blaming the URC is completely incorrect and will do you no good.

 

[Steam]

BS! You keep reerring back to the poll not being usuable due to it being flawed. That doesn't change the fact that a stifling majority of the community has wanted him banned for over a year now. The funniest thing about this whole scenario is that he has been banned less than a month and people keep complaining about it, when the duration of the ban up to this point is about 1/6th the amount of time of a temp ban which a HUGE portion of the community wanted to try.

But no its the same thing that has been since the beginning, people putting their hands over their ears saying "NO NO NO." Btw I have no freaking clue how anyone is supposed to compile any amount of data, because regardless of what they do, people are going to argue that its never flawless (because no amount of research is, even the stuff you know that we rely on scientifically everyday). And even when we do get concrete (within reason numbers) all i ever hear is "well how much it too much" which any person can argue and has no freaking answer. It's literally the same argument as "well everything is just words anyway so your not right cause everything you say is just words it doesn't mean anything."

Like seriously it makes me want to ram my head into the desk.

yeah it would take a very large number of pro-bans not voting to change the results of that poll... it was 75-25 in favor of a ban... and over 4000 voted iirc. that and there was also a majority in the top 100 players to ban him... just goes to show that they'll keep trying til they get data that suits their agenda :L

 

[Thino]

The funniest thing about this whole scenario is that he has been banned less than a month and people keep complaining about it, when the duration of the ban up to this point is about 1/6th the amount of time of a temp ban which a HUGE portion of the community wanted to try.

But no its the same thing that has been since the beginning, people putting their hands over their ears saying "NO NO NO." Btw I have no freaking clue how anyone is supposed to compile any amount of data, because regardless of what they do, people are going to argue that its never flawless (because no amount of research is, even the stuff you know that we rely on scientifically everyday). And even when we do get concrete (within reason numbers) all i ever hear is "well how much it too much" which any person can argue and has no freaking answer. It's literally the same argument as "well everything is just words anyway so your not right cause everything you say is just words it doesn't mean anything."

Like seriously it makes me want to ram my head into the desk.

I can't believe some pro-bans still don't understand the reasons why we're anti-ban.

It's not about the data or the effect it will have over the community after a certain period of time.

The problem is the ban itself. That's why compiling data is useless and there is literally no possible argument other than the poll one since everything is arbitrary and everyone has different opinions about similar situations.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

There is no problem with the ban in the way you're making it anyway. There are a ton of reasons for it. The poll is just ONE reason it went through.

And no data is useless as long as it's accurate(enough in this case, and that applies everywhere) and related to the subject at hand.

MK's winning too much, yes. He's the dominant force, yes. He makes more money than anyone else(and notably this is without the pocket ones, as there's also more of them, so it's giving MK less credit), oh, and we made the only rule that's completely arbitary... just for him, and is STILL caters to him and o one else.(that LGL really says something) None of these are really opinions either. All of it is completely true.

The only thing that's an opinion is whether they take these facts into account.

The rest, yeah, I can agree are opinions. Broken, broken planking, too unbeatable, and so on.

 

[Thino]

There is no problem with the ban in the way you're making it anyway. There are a ton of reasons for it. The poll is just ONE reason it went through.

And no data is useless as long as it's accurate(enough in this case, and that applies everywhere) and related to the subject at hand.

MK's winning too much, yes. He's the dominant force, yes. He makes more money than anyone else(and notably this is without the pocket ones, as there's also more of them, so it's giving MK less credit), oh, and we made the only rule that's completely arbitary... just for him, and is STILL caters to him and o one else.(that LGL really says something) None of these are really opinions either. All of it is completely true.

The only thing that's an opinion is whether they take these facts into account.

The rest, yeah, I can agree are opinions. Broken, broken planking, too unbeatable, and so on.

Maybe I havent made my previous post clear then because I'm not questioning any of those facts.

The opinion of taking these facts in account is indeed the one I'm talking about.

This is exactly what makes this data useless when arguing about the ban.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

The data is not useless either way.

By that logic, the polls are all 100% useless since they're still data. It's all useless, or none is. Can't have it both ways.

And opinions are everything in this case anyway. I get what you mean(mostly).

 

[Strong Badam]

APEX was stickied because it was a national Melee tournament; it wasn't an exception to the mandatory Unity Ruleset rule.

Your argument is terrible, HyperFalcon. Some data is more useful than others based on how it was gathered and external factors.

 

[Cassio]

Hyperfalcon youre abnormally hardheaded. People are giving up talking to you because you repeat the same points and completely ignore or dont address what was stated by other people. You only reference or quote them to repeat points youve already made without addressing what they said as if repeating the point they challenge suddenly makes it correct again.

Yes, the polls are useless. You've been told why in multiple ways from multiple perspectives and multiple people, yet have stubbornly avoided addressing the points mutliple times by stating the same argument that was being challenged in the first place.