Let me try to simplify the arguments of all those who are NOT in favor of banning the infinites. First, let me begin by outlining what creates a competitive community:
-The better player should win most or all of the time. This was in scar's thread, and I think it's a perfect definition.
-A competitive community does not create arbitrary definitions of "honor," "fun," or "cheapness." The community plays the game, and pushes it to its limits. The game knows nothing of honor or fun. The game knows nothing of cheapness. The game only knows winning and losing.
-A competitive community finds fun in pushing the game to its limits, and in winning. When money's on the line, the question is who the "better player," not who can win while being the least cheap.
Now then, what defines a "better player?"
-The "better player" uses available resources to his advantage than the other player. This can be an overarching resource, such as mental dexterity; it can also be a specific resource, such as understanding his character's priorotity in comparison to other players.
Which "resources" are available in Brawl?
-The answer to this question comes before even turning on the Wii; your attitude. Are you playing the game to beat the other person? If not, don't expect to win.
-The next set of "resources" is the character select screen. Characters are not made equal, and there's no reason for them to be. This literally is equivalent to allowing two duelists to choose their weapon before a duel. One picks a grenade launcher. The other picks a rubber band. The man with the rubber band is at a significant, self-inflicted disadvantage. It doesn't matter how much he likes rubber bands, or how much fun he has flicking them around with friends, because it's an inferior weapon in this situation.
-"Resources" then come in-game; your character's moves are "resources." A competitive player does not have these bizzare notions of moves or techniques being cheap. A Marth using only f-smash to defeat a 'scrub' faces the likelihood of being called "cheap." Conversely, a Mario using only FLUDD against the same 'scurb' will likely be informed of how little skill he has in playing the game. This is the inherent flaw in the 'scrub' argument. To a competitive player, there is skilled and unskilled. To a casual player, there is cheap and unskilled.
-There are many other "resources," including stage picks, random chance, and glitches/bugs. Each is used to heighten a player's chance of winning.
What does this have to do with infinites?
-Infinites are part of this bucket of "resources". It's incredibly rare that an infinite, no matter how simple it is, will break the metagame. There is always some sort of counter.
-Infinites lead to winning, nothing more. Anyone who tries to label them as "cheap" or say that there's no honor in them, that's all well and good. You can create a tournament with arbitrary mental restrictions, and no one will care. Maybe it'll be well attended. But don't try taking that idea to MLG or the like.
Where are the pro-banning arguments failing?
-A ban must be EASILY monitored. EASILY. This is the key word. For example, it's EASY to monitor players who play on banned stages. You can see the stage very easily without having to constantly moderate. It's DIFFICULT to monitor things like infinites without having a judge at every table.
-A ban must be EASILY enforced. You might think it's fair to cap out these grabs at 3 or 4. How can you tell? You can not read a person's intentions by watching, only their actions. If a player truly wants to infinite, and you put some sort of arbitrary limit on it, then they will simply perform UP TO that limit, take an out-of-pattern action, and then resume the infinite.
-I see this argument coming up far too frequently: a tactic renders a few characters completely unusable. Sadly, this doesn't matter. A large roster does not increase a game's competitive value in the slightest. There will always be strong characters and weak characters. Always. SMGs don't beat rockets in halo, the bullpup does not beat the AK in CS 1.6, and Goblins doesn't beat Alluren in MTG. There is imbalance in games, and part of the game is learning to use the best tools available.
-Connected to this idea; why should we literally cripple a character in order to bring in others? When chaingrabbing is a powerful tactic, why should we take away a character's ability to do it while letting other characters retain their ability? By this, I mean to say: suppose we limit all chaingrabs on Ness to a maximum of 4 grabs. What if someone develops a chain of moves with ness that automatically guarantees at least 10% more damage to an opponent than Ness takes from the now limited infinite? Now Ness has a gross advantage merely because the other character is restricted by this arbitrary idea of "cheapness."
In summation, none of the arguments in favor of attempting to ban this technique are legitimate. It doesn't matter how easy it is. It doesn't matter that some characters become unusable afterwards. These are not the concerns of the game.
There is only one time when a tactic should be banned, and that is when the technique becomes completely and totally unbeatable and uncounterable on all accounts at all times. That means that there is only one character and one tactic with any chance of winning. An example of this would be the infinite pound tactic in melee; playing against a jiggs who would strike once and then stall infinitely could only be countered by attempting to do the same. This merits a ban.
However, rendering a few characters useless is not the same concept. There are still a wealth of techniques and characters available for play. If they're your favorite character, then that's a shame. It truly is. But until one character wins all tournaments with only one technique, then a technique is not worth banning.
The only exception I can imagine is if Ness and Lucas completely and totally lose any and all tournament viability. Based on what I've seen so far, I don't think this infinite is going to break the game--or their chances.
. Bad comparison, here's why. 