This thread's getting kind of flame-y / theoretical. It should probably stay as close to reality as possible. Remember: the questions posed weren't about how the community should act, but how it does act.
It should be noted, however, that there does seem to be a sort of psychological "schism" in how the community perceives the game and their individual relation to it. No polling has been done, but there does seem to be a general split among players between two competing philosophies: the concept of objective imperative (game control) and the theory of subjective mandate (player control).
The concept of objective imperative is rather simple: there is an imperative (or an "an unavoidable obligation or requirement") to treat the game and community as objectively (or in a manner "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice") as possible. True / perfect objectivity, just like true altruism, is unattainable, but this concept mandates attempting to come as close as possible to objective standards. This is the underlying philosophy behind Sirlin's seminal "play to win" philosophy, as it places high emphasis on the worth of the game over the worth of the player; the game is ascribed dominant importance and the players play the game almost by privilege. The integrity of the game, in whatever form, is of paramount importance in this philosophy, and so it makes sense that someone who has an objective imperative would view the rules of the game as granitic: able to change and evolve, but only given intense time and pressure.
Meanwhile, the philosophy of the subjective mandate is the more popular one, as it centralizes control in the hands of individual players. This philosophy states that the playerbase (and its wishes) are more important than the game itself, and so players have an inherent mandate (or "an authoritative command") to change the game in whatever subjective (or with "excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions") ways they wish. The calling card of this philosophy is the tenant that the playerbase is more important than the game itself. In essence, those who think in this manner feel that the actual game played is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that players are playing something, and what they play is inconsequential, merely a means to the end that is competing. In light of this, these players feel it is justified in editing the game, its rules, and anything administrative to it in whatever way they feel is necessary to facilitate playerbase growth; more importantly, these players reject the notions that the game has inherent integrity (indeed, that competition at all has integrity) or that objectivity is necessary (or even preferable). This is a very individualistic philosophy of play that places emphasis on whichever player happens to be in charge at the time / the prevailing emotional state of the playerbase.
Smash, historically, has belonged to the former classification of player philosophies, but (as I noted earlier) has been steadily migrating to the latter ever since the Japanese release of Brawl; this is due, mainly, to the deterioration of the self-respect that the community used to possess and the corner-cutting of the previous ruleset creation processes. Brawlers decreasingly view themselves as "athletes" and view Brawl as "only a game" instead of a sport. It is important to note that countries like Korea, who have already elevated gaming to a national sport rivaling most physical competitions, view games largely through the lens of the objective imperative.
Smash used to view itself as very high-brow, even for a video game, due to Melee's large degree of technical skill and high barrier of entry. Brawl's reduction in necessary technical skill and lowering of the technical and strategic barriers of entry reduced, in many players eyes, the breed of the game and, thus, the breed of its competition. Brawl is, in no uncertain terms, respected less (as a competitive game) than Melee was (even taking into account respective playerbases), and so it is only natural that the community would shift philosophically to a state that reflects its lowered respect for the game itself (and thus for the level of competition it produces).
[/collapse]
