You seem to not understand the mistake you made. This debate began when
pure awesome (you said you never made this argument, I'm too lazy to check up on you so I'll just take your word for it) made the argument that "3S and SSF2T banned characters!" as if that automatically made them less balanced than Melee.
I contested this. Somewhere along the line, you stepped in and randomly started counter-arguing me. What am I supposed to do, assume you didn't read the entire conversation and just jumped in to counter-argue a few minor points?
No, I just assumed you knew what it was all about and was arguing the same thing. This was
your fault.
The only thing I was trying to do was disqualify "They had to ban characters!" as a valid argument because that does not automatically make a game less balanced than another. I didn't make the entire balance argument revolve around Gill and Akuma.
I made up a rhetorical example where there existed a 3S game where Gill was much better than everyone else, but not by much (but still bannable because ->) while everyone else is 50/50 against each other, completely neutral. This is 18 characters who all 50/50 each other vs. 1 who 80/20s them or something.
The logical result of this would be that Gill would be banned. But wait, does that mean 3S is automatically less balanced than Brawl? No, it doesn't.
You don't look at the big picture. The entire basis of your current interaction with me in this thread is ignoring the big picture and picking nits.
Because you're using inherently flawed arguments. Even put together into a bigger picture, it's just a bunch of flawed arguments strung together.
If this were a court room, you'd merely be an attorney standing there waving around a lot of circumstancial evidence, none of it entirely solid.
You're not in the position. You don't have the understanding or the knowledge of argumentation or methodological proof, only a pigheaded sense of always being right.
But you see, a 60/40 match-up does not always end in victory for the one holding the advantage. The best character in the game doesn't always win. Just because everyone
thinks a character is the best one, it doesn't mean they really are. Also, the American 3S community is a bunch of tierwhores.
These are all variables you do not take into consideration, staring yourself blind at your "methodological proof". Your proof isn't iron-clad.
Tell me, why don't you just pull up match-up data like I asked you?