Because, Omni, existentialism is only useful up until a certain point. It's a great life philosophy, but it's a TERRIBLE practical one, especially in terms of group dynamics and governance.
Your argument is basically, "everything is subjective, so how can you say that your idea is better than mine?" The problem is that statement only applies to base philosophies. Even more so in the case of one-on-one social dynamics. However, we're dealing with a practical group dynamic here, which means that we HAVE to make a group to function, and that group HAS to have a formal dynamic that is agreed upon to function, as well. This is why Brawl is in such a state of disarray right now; because every region is CONVINCED that it doesn't need the other regions to survive. The group dynamic is destroyed. The group ceases to exist because the group is too stubborn to act like a group anymore.
Back before we turned into such CHILDREN (before NY/NJ decided that they didn't need the rest of the community to function, and that we didn't need them), we, as a community, decided that we wanted to be competitive, adn that we wanted to force a game that wasn't designed to be competitive TO be competitive through targeted and creative implementation of basic core game design principles, principles that had been tested for YEARS beforehand. In order to function as a group, we needed to do that. Or, at least we needed to form a formal dynamic, a base "rule of law" that defines everything else we do. I'll give you a practical example.
America is a "democratic republic", which means that we, as a country, have already decided that everyone gets a voice, limited by the necessity of representatives. America could have chosen ANY rule of governance, and (existentially speaking, not practically speaking) no one of them would have been better than another. We could have been a theocracy (like we are now <_<), we could have been an autocracy, we could have been a strict meritocracy, we could have been a dictatorship... but we chose democratic republic. Now, what happens when people start questioning if we should have been a democracy or not? The whole system breaks down, because everything built after that decision, every law, court ruling, EVERYTHING, was based on the ASSUMPTION that "democratic republic" was the way to go. This late in the game, it doesn't make sense to change what kind of BASE COUNTRY we are unless there is a clear and present danger to continuing that way (for instance, a dictatorship revolting when the dictator starts gassing his own people).
Now, apply that to Brawl (and Smash, in general). We've decided, way back, that we were going to apply a certain game philosophy to Brawl and FORCE it to work (we'll just call it Sirlin's philosophy, for the sake of having a naming convention). Everything we did since then has ASSUMED that was the way to go. It's TOO LATE in the game to change it now, and there certainly isn't a "clear and present danger" to continuing with that line of reasoning (namely, people aren't quitting left and right because we like competitive depth). So, everything we do from HERE ON OUT should also assume that competitive depth is the way to go because it's the base social dynamic that bonds the entire society together and keeps it functioning. Without that dynamic, we're nothing more than a loose group of TOs.
What SuSa, Raziek, Thiocyanide, Ripple, BPC, and I, to name a few of us, have been doing in this thread and others is simply challenging the fact that people who agree with your view are making rules and systems that contradict the basic assumption that "competitive depth" is the most important part of Brawl, something that has already been decided. And, we continue to prove that.
Now, you may argue that "competitive depth" isn't the way to go, to which we can ONLY respond:
Go make your OWN community. Because you shouldn't be changing this one on such a core level. It will only result in community destabilization. It only hurts us all in the long run. And it doesn't actually help us at all. Not in a practical way.
