Feelings on MK and the MK ban after Apex

[EthereaL]

You don't need an analogy. The bottom line is that, to the majority of gamers, MK would not seem "ban-worthy". Was he the best? Yes. By a noticeable margin? Yes.

However, he was beatable, and, therefore, to the eyes of many, not worth banning.

I appreciate the game's slightly increased depth his removal brings (which is a debatable point), and the ability to allow the metagame of low-tiers to focus more on other match-ups (possibly elevating them higher). However, for the majority of the reasons he was banned, I disagree vehemently.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

The majority of Smashboards users found him banworthy, EthereaL, just putting that out there. They're also the main ones who use the URC ruleset and go to those tournametns. Just wanted to clarify that tidbit.

I do agree that the line between banworthy and OP is hard to tell with MK, of course.

Anyway, the reasons for anything will never be acceptable to anyone regardless. But atleast the results have been better on the banned tourneys. The variety has been actually increased through wins and money so far. Nobody knows if the meta will be much more diverse yet, or if that is just a fluke. Namely, a year without him is good enough for testing(if 6 months doesn't work) to make sure the game would truly be better off without him.

It could, could not, it's just a matter of giving the change a chance.

 

[ぱみゅ]

The majority of Smashboards *voters* found him banworthy.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

The majority of Smashboards *voters* found him banworthy.

And those who didn't vote didn't voice their concern. Thus, they missed the vote or decided not to. It's kind of hard to take them into account. We don't know which either. What they say on here is taken into account for any debates, but not their votes(because they don't exist).

Anybody who didn't is neutral, and that's fine.

The point is, Smashboards in itself, those who voted, and those who actually counts towards the data alone(and not the neutrals) are what we can use for any possible reason or statistic.

So yes, Smashboards consensus is him gone.

 

[EthereaL]

The majority of Smashboards users found him banworthy, EthereaL, just putting that out there. They're also the main ones who use the URC ruleset and go to those tournametns. Just wanted to clarify that tidbit.

I do agree that the line between banworthy and OP is hard to tell with MK, of course.

Anyway, the reasons for anything will never be acceptable to anyone regardless. But atleast the results have been better on the banned tourneys. The variety has been actually increased through wins and money so far. Nobody knows if the meta will be much more diverse yet, or if that is just a fluke. Namely, a year without him is good enough for testing(if 6 months doesn't work) to make sure the game would truly be better off without him.

It could, could not, it's just a matter of giving the change a chance.

Oh, I completely agree, and I completely understand.

I simply disagree with the logical steps "for" the ban provided by many people, in spite of being pro-ban myself. The reasoning of "he was too good," or "it's easier to play as him," has ever been a rash decision in gaming communities (edit: I'd have also required a 2/3 or 3/4 majority [i.e. a non-split community] before banning a character in the "official" rules...it was rather a close vote, if I recall).

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Oh, I completely agree, and I completely understand.

I simply disagree with the logical steps "for" the ban provided by many people, in spite of being pro-ban myself. The reasoning of "he was too good," or "it's easier to play as him," has ever been a rash decision in gaming communities (edit: I'd have also required a 2/3 or 3/4 majority [i.e. a non-split community] before banning a character in the "official" rules...it was rather a close vote, if I recall).

Just going to note that it wasn't a "rash" decision. He was actually questioned from the start. Trust me, the players took a long time to make sure he was beatable by enough of an apparent large margin. Apparently 50% is what people appear to want before they usually calm him "beatable".

Banning, say, every new version of Akuma was a rash decision. And to be fair, he is somewhat easier to pick up and learn than most characters. That wasn't an exaggeration, and "too good" is rather accurate. They may not be good reasons, but they're accurate, respectively.

 

[shaSLAM]

Why? Because there's FOUR CHARACTERS in the best tier in MvC2.

There is ONE CHARACTER in the best tier in Brawl. That changes the comparison entirely.

there are three characters to a team. meaning only one team. marvel works in teams. i think its the equivelent to the one character in brawl. marvel is not a 1v1 game by any means it revovles around a team.


also i am just throwing out the fact that low tiers are viable bc of the MK ban. like said before, its just a plus, it wasnt the point i was trying ot make.

 

[EthereaL]

Just going to note that it wasn't a "rash" decision. He was actually questioned from the start. Trust me, the players took a long time to make sure he was beatable by enough of an apparent large margin. Apparently 50% is what people appear to want before they usually calm him "beatable".

Banning, say, every new version of Akuma was a rash decision. And to be fair, he is somewhat easier to pick up and learn than most characters. That wasn't an exaggeration, and "too good" is rather accurate. They may not be good reasons, but they're accurate, respectively.

In my opinion, accuracy of a claim does not maintain the validity of its reasoning.

Also, I don't mean "rash" in the sense it was not argued over for a long period time, but in the sense of following imprudent reasoning.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

In my opinion, accuracy of a claim does not maintain the validity of its reasoning.

Also, I don't mean "rash" in the sense it was not argued over for a long period time, but in the sense of following imprudent reasoning.

Ah, okay. I completely understand you now.

there are three characters to a team. meaning only one team. marvel works in teams. i think its the equivelent to the one character in brawl. marvel is not a 1v1 game by any means it revovles around a team.

also i am just throwing out the fact that low tiers are viable bc of the MK ban. like said before, its just a plus, it wasnt the point i was trying ot make.

And Brawl does not revolve around one team. The comparison is further off because the game is played entirely differently. If people are going to make comparisons is should be for 1-on-1 or 2-on-2 under the condition it's multiple PLAYERS, not just characters.

Also, technically, the lower characters aren't any more viable. That's only theorycrafting right now. Could happen, I admit.

 

[shaSLAM]

im making a comparision between competitive gaming communities, not specifics about the games themselves. im comparing their reasonings to ours and their maturity/proffesional conduct/approach to competition to ours.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

im making a comparision between competitive gaming communities, not specifics about the games themselves. im comparing their reasonings to ours and their maturity/proffesional conduct/approach to competition to ours.

Okay... we're definitely a different community, so I don't see much of an issue at this point.

Yes, we definitely ban some things too early. I completely agree.(albeit, MK wasn't one of those, notably)

I agree, long story short. Won't really make a difference in the end, but eh.

 

[Cassio]

So yes, Smashboards consensus is him gone.

Its not an election. Nor are all smashboards users very helpful in coming to a decision. Might as well ask my local school their opinion on the ban and use that result

You really shouldnt be talking about polls etc. though if you dont know what youre talking about.

 

[Judo777]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y

People need to get over the money thing lol

Yeah, I think this is why Suinoko made that blog before Apex saying that the Apex ruleset still favored MK too much.

And why Seibrik made his thread saying that the ruleset plays a part in it.

Your premises don't lead to ONLY your conclusion.

This indicates to me that we're likely buffing MK too much, just to stick to competitive "values".

The greatest irony of these values, however, is present before the final s.

Mk isn't buffed in our ruleset, he just isn't nerfed. Like how many stages were legal at Apex? 12? Why should we ban even more stages just to make the bat less dominant? We already took away the stages that were "the problem" but then we got a similar result.

If you don't make someone worse by making his closest competition better, I don't want to play diddy on his CP every game......

 

[ぱみゅ]

Japanese just addopted the most static and flat stages because of their game approach.
Those happened to be the worst ones of the best character of the game.
And they still sticked to that ruleset instead of whining about everything like people do here.


I really think both rulesets and approaches (shortstagelist-MK, largestagelist-noMK) are viable and justified.
If I had the time, I'd run tournaments with two events, each using a different ruleset.
Hopefully, people would complain less.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Mk isn't buffed in our ruleset, he just isn't nerfed.

MK is quote noticeably buffed in the ruleset.

 

[shaSLAM]

Okay... we're definitely a different community, so I don't see much of an issue at this point.

Yes, we definitely ban some things too early. I completely agree.(albeit, MK wasn't one of those, notably)

I agree, long story short. Won't really make a difference in the end, but eh.

we are both "competitive fighting game" communities.
there's a reason SRK is cool with EVERY other community except for us.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

we are both "competitive fighting game" communities.
there's a reason SRK is cool with EVERY other community except for us.

Hitting things super early isn't helping. But that has nothing to do with MK anyway. They also ban stuff, we ban stuff.

Doing it early is the problem, however. MK and some stage bans were the only time we bothered to test stuff enough to even find it banworthy by any margin.

That, and who the hell cares about what SRK thinks? They don't run us and never will. Only one that matters for us is MLG.

 

[EthereaL]

Why can't we be friends,
Why can't we be friends?

We can all agree that MK as a character was favored or neutral in every match-up (the few neutrals being Pika, Diddy, and maybe Snake).

Everything else is based upon opinions. Is he "too good"? What does "too good" even mean? If it turns out that ICs become just as dominant post-MK, should we ban them? What else is "too good"?

It's a slippery, opinion-based slope that nobody gains any ground on. So, please, respect that you won't convince eachother, and let it be.

 

[zmx]

Why can't we be friends,
Why can't we be friends?

We can all agree that MK as a character was favored or neutral in every match-up (the few neutrals being Pika, Diddy, and maybe Snake).

Everything else is based upon opinions. Is he "too good"? What does "too good" even mean? If it turns out that ICs become just as dominant post-MK, should we ban them? What else is "too good"?

It's a slippery, opinion-based slope that nobody gains any ground on. So, please, respect that you won't convince eachother, and let it be.

..........

MK beats Snake and Diddy -1. It gets even worse on any stage that's not a neutral because MK has no bad stages unlike the other two. They are not even. Many people don't agree that pika is even with him either and that will likely change in the next update.

Please stop posting false information, you are only making the anti-ban side look bad.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Let me break down exactly why the Analogy fails. It's appliable at best to Melee.

Why? Because there's FOUR CHARACTERS in the best tier in MvC2.

MvC2 has 7 viable characters that are stand alone.
Big four which are
Magneto
Storm
Cable
Sentinel

You then have the next three which are
Cyclops
Strider
some ******* whom i don't care to remember but probably matters.

You often include at least one of the top 7 based around their assists/capability.
You can then choose two others frm anywhere based around how you want your team to work.
Clockwork for example, utilized a team based around constantly pressuring and chipping his opponents.
Strider, Doom and Sentinel.
Sentinel was essentially the tank, there to build meter and stall in the event one of the other two needed to regenerate health.
Of course once strider or doom died, the ability to maintain pressure was noticeably hindered

MvC2 was based around three characters forming into one team, so even if in theory, only 4 characters were viable, the fact it was team based opened up more possibilities.
It wasn't balaned, but it isn't bad.

There is ONE CHARACTER in the best tier in Brawl. That changes the comparison entirely.

Doesn't matter at all.
A tier only represents that there is a gap in capability between one character and the other.
The existence of that gap doesn't signify a bannable character so much as it is the size of that gap.
Simply saying 'there is only one character in that tier!" isn't an indication of that character's legality.
It probably is one of those factors that would be ignored entirely.

 

[EthereaL]

I'm pro-ban. Also, currently Pikachu is even, many believe Diddy is even, and I am of the opinion that Snake is even. I hadn't meant to ascertain that they were guaranteed to be neutral.

I really don't understand your incessant urge to make yourself look like a foolish, angry person.

Edit: this post was directed at that annoying zmg fellow, or whatever his name is.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

MvC2 has 7 viable characters that are stand alone.
Big four which are
Magneto
Storm
Cable
Sentinel

You then have the next three which are
Cyclops
Strider
some ******* whom i don't care to remember but probably matters.

You often include at least one of the top 7 based around their assists/capability.
You can then choose two others frm anywhere based around how you want your team to work.
Clockwork for example, utilized a team based around constantly pressuring and chipping his opponents.
Strider, Doom and Sentinel.
Sentinel was essentially the tank, there to build meter and stall in the event one of the other two needed to regenerate health.
Of course once strider or doom died, the ability to maintain pressure was noticeably hindered

MvC2 was based around three characters forming into one team, so even if in theory, only 4 characters were viable, the fact it was team based opened up more possibilities.
It wasn't balaned, but it isn't bad.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I get that there's a lot more in the Top Tier, and that the game plays differently. But that's part of the thing; It plays completely differently. It's based upon specific teams, while Brawl is not. The reason the comparison doesn't work is that this is a 1-on-1 game, so the way the Tiers work is differently as well. That's why the comparison is bad. Now, a similar game with 1-on-1 or 2-on-2(with 4 Players, or atleast 2 computers, etc.) is more realistic to compare in general.

All the comparison is is a broad generalization that ignores the context completely.

Doesn't matter at all.
A tier only represents that there is a gap in capability between one character and the other.
The existence of that gap doesn't signify a bannable character so much as it is the size of that gap.
Simply saying 'there is only one character in that tier!" isn't an indication of that character's legality.
It probably is one of those factors that would be ignored entirely.

Except for the fact that it's much more significant. We're not banning a Tier, just a character. Him being in another tier is just a bonus, but all it indicates is that he's good enough to be his own tier.

In addition, the only comparisons that truly work is 1-on-1 games like Soul Calibur or Mortal Kombat.(obviously not the Team Battles) And even then, they aren't like Smash. Well, at all. Best they got is hazardous stages.

It never ultimately works to compare Brawl to other kinds of fighting games, especially ones that play completely different from it. The MvC2 comparison was borked from the start. The context is required in any comparison, and the context changes everything, making both games barely comparable.

 

[ShadowLink84]

snip

It is still a 1v1 game.
It merely makes uses of strikers essentially that you can switch in for use.
The comparison fails simply because that is how MvC2 balances itself and why none of the characters were banworthy.
Not even mag-friggin-neto.

Except for the fact that it's much more significant. We're not banning a Tier, just a character. Him being in another tier is just a bonus, but all it indicates is that he's good enough to be his own tier.

Again a seperate tier is not in itself an indication of anything.
It cannot even be looked upon as a bonus.
All it states is, this character is noticeably better than the one directly below him.
It does not state how much better and truth bet old, outside of his abuse of ledge mechanics, MetaKnight would probably be a perfectly acceptable character.

The rest of the post is just cyclical. =\

 

[Smooth Criminal]

It is still a 1v1 game.
It merely makes uses of strikers essentially that you can switch in for use.
The comparison fails simply because that is how MvC2 balances itself and why none of the characters were banworthy.
Not even mag-friggin-neto.



Again a seperate tier is not in itself an indication of anything.
It cannot even be looked upon as a bonus.
All it states is, this character is noticeably better than the one directly below him.
It does not state how much better and truth bet old, outside of his abuse of ledge mechanics, MetaKnight would probably be a perfectly acceptable character.

The rest of the post is just cyclical. =\

I actually agree with Shadowlink for a change.

...well, except for the part about 1v1 Marvel. The rest of your posts are fine though.

Really, HyperFalcon, the concept of a tier list isn't some thing that changes because it's a different game altogether. What constitutes what is better than the rest, and what factors may play part in that, can differ. People have already made it abundantly clear that the BBR put MK in his own tier not because he's bannable, but because he's that much better than the rest of the cast. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's also the same in fighting game tier lists (the ones that we modeled our own after, it seems).

Smooth Criminal

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

It is still a 1v1 game.
It merely makes uses of strikers essentially that you can switch in for use.
The comparison fails simply because that is how MvC2 balances itself and why none of the characters were banworthy.
Not even mag-friggin-neto.

It'd be 1-VS-1 if you couldn't change characters easily on the drop of a hat. Nobody in Brawl can change characters fast enough to make a relation to the MvC2. The comparison was never good in the first place.

Again a seperate tier is not in itself an indication of anything.

This is wrong. A character makes the tiers, not the other way around. This is ESPECIALLY the case in Brawl. It doesn't matter what the Tier's name was. Tier 0, God Tier, Ultimate Tier, SS Tier, whatever. It was made for MK alone. That has not changed.

It cannot even be looked upon as a bonus.
All it states is, this character is noticeably better than the one directly below him.
It does not state how much better and truth bet old, outside of his abuse of ledge mechanics, MetaKnight would probably be a perfectly acceptable character.

MK would never be acceptable without nerfs. Everybody knows that. Items MAY balance him out at best. But no courses actually hinder him enough. No characters actually counter him. That's why he has his own Tier and why the Tier is strictly for him alone.

The rest of the post is just cyclical. =\

The comparison to 3-VS-3 game just doesn't work with the design. MvC works in the way that you use all your other members to defeat the opponent. MK doesn't need anyone. There's no way for a single character in MvC2 to be good enough on their own.

They still play completely differently and use different styles. The comparison will never ever work and it's horrible to use it since it fails on all levels.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

You're missing Shadowlink's point, HyperFalcon.

Being that much better than the rest of the cast does not make a character ban-worthy.

It just makes the best character.

Smooth Criminal

 

[ShadowLink84]

I actually agree with Shadowlink for a change.

You usually agree with me!

 

[Judo777]

MK is quote noticeably buffed in the ruleset.

Wouldn't this be based on how the standard of how the game has been made? Like orginally you start with all of the stages, then you narrow it down to stages we deem non-competative, so by striking down to about 5 flat static stages, that would be, in fact nerfing him, by keeping those stages we have added less from the original.

 

[ShadowLink84]

snip

First: Not arguing about MvC2. You keep bringing it up even after I left it behind and said its a pointless argument. So...quit bringing it up

Second

This is wrong. A character makes the tiers, not the other way around. This is ESPECIALLY the case in Brawl. It doesn't matter what the Tier's name was. Tier 0, God Tier, Ultimate Tier, SS Tier, whatever. It was made for MK alone. That has not changed.

This is wrong because it is responding to some, imaginary statement.
Where at all did I ever make a statement about a tier making a character?
Are you so damn warped that you completely could not understand a simplistic statement of
"A tier represents a character being noticeably better than the character below him."

At this point you seem so wrapped up in your own argument you are not comprehending what is being said.

Third: Again I shall repeat. Simply because a character is in his own tier does not indicate the character is overpowered/banworthy. It simply means he is better than the characters below him.

Why he is in his own tier list is completely insignificant and not at all did I make any statement alluding to his reason for being there.
I stand by my statement about MK being perfectly legal were it not for his ledge abuse abilities.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

How come people are still trying to make Hyperfalcon understand stuff? He's not just going to suddenly post

"Wow guys, I magically understand what you've all been telling me all this time! Gosh, don't I feel silly. It's all so obvious now!"

Can't you just let him be wrong? People are wrong on the internet every single day, but most people don't take the time to acknowledge them. Don't be that guy.

 

[Flayl]

You're missing Shadowlink's point, HyperFalcon.

Being that much better than the rest of the cast does not make a character ban-worthy.

It just makes the best character.

Smooth Criminal

How much is that much?

Is it *______________________* this much? or maybe just *_______* this much?

Ok as a more serious reply, if you're putting a character in his own separate tier above everyone else, it's an indicator that you should look into just how big the gap is. Tier Lists can't possibly tell us how big a gap is, if that's the message you and SL are conveying to HyperFalcon then I agree completely.

My point is the best character being in his own tier is a yellow flag, not something anyone should use for banning him but it merits investigation on why it's the case.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

First: Not arguing about MvC2. You keep bringing it up even after I left it behind and said its a pointless argument. So...quit bringing it up

k.

Second
This is wrong because it is responding to some, imaginary statement.
Where at all did I ever make a statement about a tier making a character?
Are you so damn warped that you completely could not understand a simplistic statement of
"A tier represents a character being noticeably better than the character below him."

You pretty much implied it was the opposite earlier.

At this point you seem so wrapped up in your own argument you are not comprehending what is being said.

Kind of hard when you just use the term "snip", so I don't know what exact words you're replying to. So be specific. The "snip" looks like you're ignoring it completely.

Third: Again I shall repeat. Simply because a character is in his own tier does not indicate the character is overpowered/banworthy. It simply means he is better than the characters below him.

Nah, it means they're OP by default if they deserve their own tier. Banworthy? No. OP, yes. If they're not OP, why would they need their own tier? They wouldn't be good enough for it. Which, well, we both know MK is.

Why he is in his own tier list is completely insignificant and not at all did I make any statement alluding to his reason for being there.
I stand by my statement about MK being perfectly legal were it not for his ledge abuse abilities.

Unfortunately, our attempts to curb those abilities have failed. Although taking away his B Moves could do it... except that's a bad idea anyway.

Also, what Flayl said in general. WHY is he in his own Tier? If he's a "fine" character, he'd be with the rest of the "fine" characters. Something is definitely wrong, and I ain't talking about him being banned.

 

[Strong Badam]

Nah, it means they're OP by default if they deserve their own tier. Banworthy? No. OP, yes. If they're not OP, why would they need their own tier? They wouldn't be good enough for it. Which, well, we both know MK is.

this is only true if everyone uses your arbitrarily contrived view of the term "OP". get your head out of your *** and realize that not everyone thinks the same way you do
or just shut the **** up because you're really just pissing everyone off and accomplishing nothing else.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Didn't Hyperfalcon try this same **** trolling the Project M thread, claiming it shouldn't exist because it has some hellish moral implications?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

How come people are still trying to make Hyperfalcon understand stuff? He's not just going to suddenly post

"Wow guys, I magically understand what you've all been telling me all this time! Gosh, don't I feel silly. It's all so obvious now!"

Can't you just let him be wrong? People are wrong on the internet every single day, but most people don't take the time to acknowledge them. Don't be that guy.

I really, really, really love this post. Hyperfalcon is almost as bad, if not worse, than Jébüs.

 

[Steam]

I am pro-ban and hyperfalcon makes makes my head hurt.

 

[Cassio]

I dont understand whats wrong with him. People try to help him but he insists on using his pov as a universal standard. I can tolerate almost every poster, but hes legitimately infuriating.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Wouldn't this be based on how the standard of how the game has been made? Like orginally you start with all of the stages, then you narrow it down to stages we deem non-competative, so by striking down to about 5 flat static stages, that would be, in fact nerfing him, by keeping those stages we have added less from the original.

Actually I'm not talking about the legality of stages at all. It's rules like LGL, the stage ban rule or the 8 minute / 3 stock rule that I'm referring to - rules that were arbitrarily put in place [or taken over from Melee] and nerf a lot of characters ... except MK.

 

[DMG]

LGL certainly nerfs MK, especially considering many people wanting a lower one for specifically him than the other cast to make sure he isn't too much and to make sure we aren't hurting the rest of the cast too much.

Stage ban rule only favors MK because he's great on tons of stages and can use the ban to get rid of his worst stage. On the flip side, if you COULDN'T ban, you'd get RC/Brinstar every time from MK players. You could definitely say the stage list is too MK friendly, but the stage ban rule is not lopsided or biased specifically towards any character. There's no way to argue that at all lol.

8 min 3 stock fine, but you also have to accept that changing it either up or down also changes the game. If anything, it's probably more along the lines of you disagreeing with the % timeout rule, and you're more interested in changing that than whether the timer/stock count goes up or down. Which is fine there's a case to make for changing the timeout rule. The actual stock and minute count though isn't that biased towards MK, especially considering you could get exponentially more outrageous results from MK and other characters if the timer was drastically lowered even if the timeout rule was changed.


After that point, what about bad rule suggestions like a ground/air time limit? I've not seen a single person justify the existence of that rule for the entire cast, or even for "problem" characters, besides MK. That rule treads a fine line of being a veiled disguised rule that doesn't specifically single out MK while only really being designated or created with him in mind. If MK was banned, and stages like Brinstar RC were removed, name 1 person that could seriously argue for a ground or air time limit. It's frankly not there. We would have rules in place like a LGL and scrooging rule, so edge play and stalling under stages would be taken care of. After that I can't think of anyone who argues that being vertically above the stage is so powerful that we then need a rule like this for the cast. So you could chalk that rule up to or almost specifically up to MK (even though someone is gonna come in here with a boring explanation or something like "Well the game is funner with a ground time rule so deal with it" that doesn't actually justify using the rule and would look hypocritical to calling the MK ban unjustified and forced lol)

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Its not an election. Nor are all smashboards users very helpful in coming to a decision. Might as well ask my local school their opinion on the ban and use that result

You really shouldnt be talking about polls etc. though if you dont know what youre talking about.

That doesn't matter when it comes to any open polling, which it technically wasn't the bar was just low, 75 posts with a SWF account.

Even then, it's still arbitrary and hard to remove bias if you close it up to "trusted" people. Which isn't well accepted or defined by anyone.