Canada [Jul 26, 2014] B.C. Brawl Monthlies - Back in business, now featuring Smash 64! (Burnaby, BC)

[Firestorm88]

When you're talking to 9,000 people or whatever amount tuned you, you should not be a complete homer. I mean, I get it's hard not to show some bias but Coontail's M2K comments were ridiculously over the top. He was clearly losing his edge over a Japanese player doing well. That was the least of the issues though with "Come on, be as gay as possible" and actually calling someone a "******" (the slur for gay people) on stream along with all the terrible jokes at women's expense just because a female character was in finals. I mean what the hell was that? I think on Friday on one of the Melee streams someone said how there were so few female Smashers. Maybe because of sexist turds like Keitaro?

Not to mention not saying a single word but screaming for the entire final minute of the match. Melee commentary was much better in comparison. They had two guys who knew the game and understood their audience. Good commentary with the other person explaining terms knowing that many of the 12,000 were fans of other fighting games checking out Melee for the first time.

 

[`dazrin]

No. Busy on Friday.

Wed/Thurs only. Pick one.

 

[Yakal]

Go on friday

#yolo

 

[| Big D |]

They brought the hype.

That's all you can ask.

 

[~Firefly~]

Not really, the matches by themselves brought hype. The issues Firestorm mentioned are very legitimate, and I wish Brawl had more commentators of the calibur of the Melee commentators. If it were up to me, that is definitely not the pair I would have picked for commentary...

 

[Jason!]

 

[~Firefly~]

Amazing gif

 

[Yakal]

Mango 2013 looooooooool

 

[~Firefly~]

That picture needs an eyepatch photoshopped over his far eye with a pirate hook for his hand.

 

[Alphicans]

Idk skidd Pierce can be really legit sometimes... As he actually adds insight into the match instead of saying wrong stuff 90% of the time (keitaro and coontail). Yeah he can be annoying when he goes too far into showing off his knowledge about the game, but in the end it's always relevant and I learn something every time I listen to him commentate, which imo is a really strong trait for a commentator.

Overall Sky is the best commentator (hilarious and informative), but the EE/Pierce combo is really good too imo.

 

[traffic.]

There were many times I found myself asking why Keitaro was there at all, but Coontail deserves a lot of credit. His youth (unrelated to age in this context) really shows at times, but his passion was apparent throughout the entire night. He is a great example of the gamer population, both in his dedicated work ethic and his shortcomings as a social paragon, and for all of the criticism he will receive I do truly hope that he continues to work on his professionalism. While he may not have the same intimate game knowledge as many of the players listening to him, he is much better than many of the gaming commentators who are constantly cussing, talking about nothing (or even worse, being directly disrespectful and ignorant) and giving "legitimate" esports a terrible image.

tl;dr - Coontail will be a great commentator one day, because he is on the right path, regardless of how far along it he's gotten so far.

edit- on a related note, dogysamich was one of the most disrespectful and astoundingly disappointing commentators I have seen, on a stream that was representing apex and the smash community. if you want a perfect counterpoint to everything I gave Coontail props for, this is the guy.

 

[traffic.]

the feels everyone had after game 5:

 

[SKidd]

lmfao traffic




pierce says 'not the option i woulda chose' sooooo much it's mad annoying
guess he does throw some knowledge out tho





i was dying at sky though man he's funny

 

[T-block]

There were many times I found myself asking why Keitaro was there at all, but Coontail deserves a lot of credit. His youth (unrelated to age in this context) really shows at times, but his passion was apparent throughout the entire night. He is a great example of the gamer population, both in his dedicated work ethic and his shortcomings as a social paragon, and for all of the criticism he will receive I do truly hope that he continues to work on his professionalism. While he may not have the same intimate game knowledge as many of the players listening to him, he is much better than many of the gaming commentators who are constantly cussing, talking about nothing (or even worse, being directly disrespectful and ignorant) and giving "legitimate" esports a terrible image.

tl;dr - Coontail will be a great commentator one day, because he is on the right path, regardless of how far along it he's gotten so far.

I agree with this. I felt CT did a fine job, especially at keeping commentary going without sounding forced or awkward, which is incredibly difficult. Game knowledge may have been somewhat lacking (although not to an unacceptable degree imo), but that's easily improved.

The offensive content personally didn't bother me, but of course it shouldn't have happened. What bothered me most tbh was Keitaro freaking out "WHAT WAS THAT" over small things that any top player should be familiar with. That, among other things, really made me question why he was on commentary at all... not someone I would want as a face of my tournament or my game. I get that it generates hype, but that could have been done without making yourself look ignorant.

 

[Arcansi]

I kinda wanna commentate.

I did a bit of commentating for LoL but I can't really stream so I stopped.

I would add to the conversation at hand but I can't really comment.

I honestly didn't notice anything positive or negative about them at all.

 

[Asa]

ok i srsly cant wait to meet this traffic guy he seems super legit

sky is funniest commentator
esam/pierce are most knowledgeable

also y'all need to go to Genesis 3 , esepcially the ppl i haven't met before!!

 

[breez]

ok i srsly cant wait to meet this traffic guy he seems super legit

sky is funniest commentator
esam/pierce are most knowledgeable

also y'all need to go to Genesis 3 , esepcially the ppl i haven't met before!!

He's my hetrosexual life partner; what did you expect?

 

[breez]

First off, I only break down posts because it's extremely unwieldy not too. Having to scroll a ton and keep track of where I am on the post otherwise is nigh impossible.

In this post I can't, because the point is summed up in the second paragraph. But my response here doesn't need to anyway.



I'm not sure what you mean by see your self awareness.

I wouldn't favour either. I don't go into an argument with favour for either side without being presented proof, and neither argument actually really presents any objective proof. (in those two posts)

I actually thought about this myself earlier, the fact that my posts had no points in themselves.

The problem is breez has gone so far off topic that I can't anymore. I just wanted input on the ruleset, that's all. (EDIT I do have an opinion on the issue, but there was no reasonable way to get it out there.

Breez has attempted to say his side is invariably correct, and I am simply proving him wrong. I couldn't find a reasonable way to say "here's why I'm right" because he was going off on tangent after tangent, and I was waiting for a stable discussion platform.

[removed sentence here. I apologize.]

Coming in halfway through this argument is REALLY unwieldy, though. But this is somewhat unavoidable, unless I keep restating myself like a broken record.

Also, in context I don't even need to state most of my points until breez asks for them. He seems to assume a lot of them, and he doesn't seem wrong yet, so I'm okay with this. (This is unapparent from an outsiders' perspective.)

I have a lot of points I could present. In hindsight, perhaps I should have presented some, may have been able to focus the argument more. I'll admit I know barely anything about how most people discuss things. I just know how to do it logically.

If he really wanted me to bring something up, all he had to do was ask. As a result of not knowing a lot, I'm very open to feedback. I argue logically, but most people don't seem to like that.



This is, I believe, the right part in the response for this quote. I may be wrong here.

I feel that he should have asked more of me before giving up. He wasn't getting a response he liked, but that's normal in any legitimate argument that doesn't end immediately.

He wasn't getting a response he felt he could get anywhere with, though, is something we can deal with. If he wanted one, all he had to do was ask. Or stop going off on tangents, but he seems to like that.

The by proxy thing is partly right and partly wrong. When you start discussing something, one person can sit back sometimes and just bounce back other arguments. This is because at some point one side has asserted something that, if unable to be proven, results in the other side being right.

In this discussion, that was 'Metaknight has an advantage' (This is a given) 'This advantage is not overbearing (sic)' can be proven wrong, and if it is makes my point correct.

The burden of proof was on me, but breez never actually used it. Had he, I would have been happy to present something.

The problem with the overarching picture is that irrelevant things detract from it by nature.

Logically, unless all the presented parts of the picture line up, the picture doesn't. Something less coherent does, and breez may or may not want to present that. That's his choice.

Like, with his Starcraft analogy, most of it was irrelevant. It's a different game with a different gamestyle. But there are relevant points in it, but those are mostly based on new tech coming into the game in question, which is not happening in brawl. If it was, the point would be more effective.

I'm not sure I fully get what you're trying to say here. It looks like you're trying to say that by taking apart the posts, I remove the general point from them because parts of them are wrong. But I am not seeing this. His points are all responded to, from what I can tell. If you can point something out I'll be happy to respond. Or, I might be interpreting what you're saying wrong.

I THINK I can end here. So, in finishing, while mine looks worse to someone outside the argument, that's because breez's posts are more attuned to people outside the argument. Both because he thinks a lot more like them and because he is arguing more emotionally than I am. (Which is a fallacy in itself, people.)

This is not a correct thing to do, but it can look like so sometimes.

:fluttershy:

Saying you are logical doesn't make it so.

When I draw a clear parallel to support my argument, it is called a supporting argument, which is logical. Just because you refuse to see it, does not make it so.

I tried to illustrate a very clear point, on a very similar scenario, in order for you to understand my reasoning. You simply refused to understand or accept it; this is not my fault, and which is why it is hopeless.

I've FELT from the start that an MK ban was not warranted - however, I was completely willing to let the situation play out and see, as I do not like making decisions based on personal bias. If you would take a second and research my well-founded, and well researched and discussed claim - then you would find out that my analogy was absolutely pertinent. Another thing which you failed to do.

I've played games all my life. Video games and otherwise. I've watched (over many years) people claim an unfair advantage, or ***** and moan in one way or another, for situations that blatantly turned out to be incorrect. The starcraft example is my favorite one to bring up, because it staggeringly illustrates the point. It also shows the divide between "casual" competitive players, and real competitive players.

You simply refuse and deny others valid logic. Which inherently makes you illogical - not matter how logically put together your arguments are. I was reading socrates when you were in diapers son, and I've been pwning noobs 15 years before bronies existed. This is called credentials. My previous statement was an analogy. And my current view is that the test of time has proven the MK ban unwarranted, harmful to the community, and scrubby.

 

[Asa]

He's my hetrosexual life partner; what did you expect?

a ****ing no good metaknight main

 

[breez]

a ****ing no good metaknight main

He certainly is <3

I just noticed arcansi plays LoL; explains a lot, lololololol

 

[~Firefly~]

Idk skidd Pierce can be really legit sometimes... As he actually adds insight into the match instead of saying wrong stuff 90% of the time (keitaro and coontail). Yeah he can be annoying when he goes too far into showing off his knowledge about the game, but in the end it's always relevant and I learn something every time I listen to him commentate, which imo is a really strong trait for a commentator.

Overall Sky is the best commentator (hilarious and informative), but the EE/Pierce combo is really good too imo.

I agree with this, and I'd like to add that it seems like Pierce is getting better at not doing the things that irritate people. He used to be a lot more condescending than he is now (Apex 2012 vs. 2013); if he just stops phrasing mistakes he finds as "I would've done X in that situation", I think he'd be a great commentator.

Sky/Pierce would be a great team IMO. Sky is entertaining yet respectful, which could go a long way in counterbalancing the tones of elitism that sometimes show through in Pierce's commentary, and their combined game knowledge would greatly outshine that of a team like Keitaro/Coontail.

 

[Asa]

10/10 great review would read again

 

[traffic.]

*fist bump*

if you cant beat an akuma player, you aint no pro

 

[Asa]

Ill help u get better traffic, I'm the true hero of bc

 

[traffic.]

i always get better, i only play with the best <3

 

[~Firefly~]

I can't wait for hero dittos.

 

[Arcansi]

[actual argument. Responding to this later, see my post below]

I've played games all my life. Video games and otherwise. I've watched (over many years) people claim an unfair advantage, or ***** and moan in one way or another, for situations that blatantly turned out to be incorrect. The starcraft example is my favorite one to bring up, because it staggeringly illustrates the point. It also shows the divide between "casual" competitive players, and real competitive players.

You simply refuse and deny others valid logic. Which inherently makes you illogical - not matter how logically put together your arguments are. I was reading socrates when you were in diapers son, and I've been pwning noobs 15 years before bronies existed. This is called credentials. My previous statement was an analogy. And my current view is that the test of time has proven the MK ban unwarranted, harmful to the community, and scrubby.

This is cool. Discussion is, in general, cool.

And your claims are correct, given the context that you use in them is correct. More on that later.

The main problem I have with this is that you claim a lot of stuff, and then you go and claim credentials.

Credentials. And in a post where you already shoved a large amount of bias (in an anecdote, none the less) already.

So I'm going to be straight with you. Your credentials don't mean anything to me. You've seen the rise and fall of stuff, and you've read socrates, and you're older than me. Sure.

This has no relation to your logic. It does not mean you are wrong, but it does not mean you are right. I am sure you know this, as appeal to authority is a thing. So, assuming you know this, there is no reason to quote it, okay?

You claim to know this stuff, so I would appreciate if you acted like you did.

I am refuting that your analogy is totally logical. Based on points. That is what an argument is. Assuming you read my post, you would know that my point is that Starcraft is fundamentally different from Smash, not in an RPS vs FG way, but in the way that Starcraft has(had) new tech to find, and Smash really doesn't.

You can respond to this, that's how arguments work. I'm sorry if I sound condescending here, but you just don't seem to be doing this stuff.

You claim I'm refuting your points, and that's true. But you're leaving out that I'm using logic to do so, and acting like I'm using nothing to do so.

A point without proof isn't a point. (Anecdotal in nature)

Sometimes, some paragraphs don't have points in them. This was most notable when your story was going on, and it was legitimate, but annoying. Nothing inherently wrong with this.(If I missed something, point it out. I don't miss points on purpose)

In I believe all other cases, I've responded to your point with some form of logic. I would appreciate if you would do so with mine. It's notable that you have done that, a little bit.

EDIT: This sentence had false premises. Continuing.

Because I've only responded to the bottom two paragraphs here, I'm going to put the top two below and respond to them. It'll be backwards, but I like it.

Saying you are logical doesn't make it so.

When I draw a clear parallel to support my argument, it is called a supporting argument, which is logical. Just because you refuse to see it, does not make it so.

This is true. Strawman and tangential points I was calling because of the lack of responses to my points on your arguments. Which, left unanswered, make the original point illogical and by proxy(I think that's the word) the parallel illogical. Unless the parallel in itself refutes my response, but I didn't see any of this.

I tried to illustrate a very clear point, on a very similar scenario, in order for you to understand my reasoning. You simply refused to understand or accept it; this is not my fault, and which is why it is hopeless.

See: How I responded to your points. I just blindly refuted("Doesn't Matter") the paragraphs that didn't matter. It's nothing against you, I just don't care about stuff that isn't a point and doesn't really teach me anything. But, this doesn't take away from your actual points.

I've FELT from the start that an MK ban was not warranted - however, I was completely willing to let the situation play out and see, as I do not like making decisions based on personal bias. If you would take a second and research my well-founded, and well researched and discussed claim - then you would find out that my analogy was absolutely pertinent. Another thing which you failed to do.

1. 'I've FELT from the start that an MK ban was not warranted - however, I was completely willing to let the situation play out and see, as I do not like making decisions based on personal bias.'

This has no bearing whatsoever on the argument, so it warrants a response of 'I don't care'

2. 'If you would take a second and research my well-founded, and well researched and discussed claim - then you would find out that my analogy was absolutely pertinent. Another thing which you failed to do.'

It is not my job to research your points. This comes off as you being lazy, although I doubt that is what is happening here.

Not to mention all the possible things I could do while researching. It is 100% possible I could find a completely opposite opinion of the scenario than the one you presented, which I would hardly be able to argue, due to not knowing SC at the time of this incident. For reasons such as this, it's your job to prove your own points.

Oh and also, because they're your points, not mine.

You almost do have a legitimate point, though. This probably comes off badly, but I don't believe there is any other way to accurately represent the situation at this point and time.

And I guess that's the forums' cue to insult me, isn't it?

:fluttershy:
-Arcansi

 

[traffic.]

Assuming you read my post, you would know that my point is that Starcraft is fundamentally different from Smash, not in an RPS vs FG way, but in the way that Starcraft has(had) new tech to find, and Smash really doesn't.

Sorry, you're wrong. This not only shows you admittedly don't know anything about RTS but you also don't know anything about Fighters, traditional or alternative, through your diminutive appreciation for how game tech evolves. If you want to talk about logical fallacies, go ahead, we're talking about games. If you want to argue semantics, go ahead, we're talking about games. If you would like to join in the conversation about games, go ahead, but you'd better learn to appreciate that you're imposing that knowledge and experience mean less than your ability to pick apart a sentence. This does not make you correct, it only makes you persistent. In a discussion where you only refute other people's arguments, you are not making an argument yourself, which means that regardless of whether you think we are wrong or not, you are contributing nothing to the growth of the subject and are trying to put up fences so that you can contain the discussion to things you know you can be right about.

tl;dr put up or shut up, you're only being counter productive by arguing for no reason.

translation edit - start bringing up all those points you said nobody's asked you for. I'm asking you for every reason you have to back up your claims. I'm asking you to do this during every argument or discussion. Start with your opinion, if you have a logical gripe, back that up with your knowledge piece and you will have an interesting contribution.

 

[Arcansi]

[COLLAPSE="1st Paragraph. For Space"]Sorry, you're wrong. This not only shows you admittedly don't know anything about RTS but you also don't know anything about Fighters, traditional or alternative, through your diminutive appreciation for how game tech evolves. If you want to talk about logical fallacies, go ahead, we're talking about games. If you want to argue semantics, go ahead, we're talking about games. If you would like to join in the conversation about games, go ahead, but you'd better learn to appreciate that you're imposing that knowledge and experience mean less than your ability to pick apart a sentence. This does not make you correct, it only makes you persistent. In a discussion where you only refute other people's arguments, you are not making an argument yourself, which means that regardless of whether you think we are wrong or not, you are contributing nothing to the growth of the subject and are trying to put up fences so that you can contain the discussion to things you know you can be right about. [/COLLAPSE]

tl;dr put up or shut up, you're only being counter productive by arguing for no reason.

translation edit - start bringing up all those points you said nobody's asked you for. I'm asking you for every reason you have to back up your claims. I'm asking you to do this during every argument or discussion. Start with your opinion, if you have a logical gripe, back that up with your knowledge piece and you will have an interesting contribution.

I appreciate both that people can actually respond reasonably now, and that you have a point.

When I said tech, I was referring to new things. Like how diddy's nanner lock was new, or planking was new. As opposed to things like 'Move X is really good against Strategy Y!', or something. But I guess that is called tech in the FGC? Pretty much everything that will exist, does exist. This is almost never true at the start of a fighting game's life, but it's believable at the moment. People can hold out for new tech, though. That's definitely a possibility.

Experience is irrelevant until put to use. The sentence 'I have a lot of experience, therefore X' is a kind of appeal to authority. However, 'My experience has shown me X, because Y' is logical and legitimate. I'm not trying to undermine knowledge or experience. I'm trying to say that they are bases on which you can build strong points, but not reasoning for a point being correct.

I had responded to the claim that I wasn't presenting any points earlier, but this is both a new discussion and a solid time to restate my points, so I'll do it.

I'm claiming that Meta Knight should be banned at Gottacon 2013's Brawl Tournament. I'll also argue that he should be banned more globally, but situation can be relevant here, and that's it.

The main points I have at this point are:

Balance ('Brawl is more balanced without MK' In addition, banning him is both simple to do and easily enforceable.)

I believe that actually sums up everything I've brought up.

Should be noted that I usually do make it more clear what my point is. This was partly my fault, here. Unless you mean every post, which seems overly redundant.

I don't understand what you mean by 'back this up with your knowledge piece'. It makes sense if I sub in logic for this, but I don't want to assume this is true.

 

[Jason!]

paragraph posts.. paragraph posts everywhere

(insert buzz lightyear meme)

 

[Alphicans]

Ill help u get better traffic, I'm the true hero of bc

Olimar players can't be heroes

 

[| Big D |]

I'm the true hero of bc

You can't be BC's hero, you abandoned us and then came back and TRIED to conquer us.

also asa is always unconfirmed for the next monthly
and basil exists


and happy belated birthday skidd


and welcome, newgen. I'm asa, BC's villain and olimar main.

Sup ******s I name searched here seeing that Asa used my acount again....WELP

Yo boi Arcansi or whatever is pretty whiny lol.

Also Big D is my hero and the hero of BC

Why am I up? I'm trying so hard to sleep :/

By the way Asa is my best employee

Edit: what the hell? It censors w4nkers???

 

[breez]

And I guess that's the forums' cue to insult me, isn't it?

:fluttershy:
-Arcansi

You don't understand inference or extrapolation. This is common of people who are part of the autism spectrum. edit: Just wanted to make note that I don't mean this offensively at all. I have my own host of mental.... peculiarities as well; I like 'em!

At the same time I lack the communication skills to get my points across to you in a way you understand - and (as you have stated) you lack the same towards me.

I'm thinking this is where most of the contention is coming from. You're not an idiot. We just have different ways of thinking, explaining, and communicating.

You're still wrong though.

Spoiler

inb4 head assplode

 

[Asa]

Villains are but former heroes, you would know this, comrade...

 

[traffic.]

Balance ('Brawl is more balanced without MK' In addition, banning him is both simple to do and easily enforceable.)

I believe that actually sums up everything I've brought up.

So your point proves itself and does not need supporting evidence?

edz- it is only because of one side supporting their arguments and the other thinking they don't need to that this (and many other) discussion is rolling around in a filthy pile of ad nauseum garbage.

 

[_GrapE_]

Nobody actually likes balance, do they?

 

[traffic.]

Yeah removing the top end of any spectrum makes it more "balanced" for the people at the bottom

 

[Arcansi]

So your point proves itself and does not need supporting evidence?

That's a thing.

I'll start off with the tier list and matchup chart, here.

From these you can tell that MK is just..above the rest. He has no negative matchups, and can completely shut off a lot of characters from tournaments, just by being there.

edz- it is only because of one side supporting their arguments and the other thinking they don't need to that this (and many other) discussion is rolling around in a filthy pile of ad nauseum garbage.

There are other reasons.

Nobody actually likes balance, do they?

Seems like that sometimes.

You don't understand inference or extrapolation. This is common of people who are part of the autism spectrum. edit: Just wanted to make note that I don't mean this offensively at all. I have my own host of mental.... peculiarities as well; I like 'em!

No, I understand these things. I guess it's possible that I don't understand them as you do, but I feel that don't use them is more appropriate. Like, I could see where you were coming from on all your arguments, they just weren't fully correct.

Like, they made sense as points, but they didn't prove your point.

At the same time I lack the communication skills to get my points across to you in a way you understand - and (as you have stated) you lack the same towards me.

I also do not think this is true, both ways.

I'm thinking this is where most of the contention is coming from. You're not an idiot. We just have different ways of thinking, explaining, and communicating.

You're still wrong though.

I think it was a combined fault of the way we went about it, tbh.

If I was wrong, you could prove it. Logic 101. (This is actually a fallacy, but explaining it makes this post look ugly. I apologize)

You can keep stating points and stuff, I understand you on a fundamental level.

You just need to stop assuming that I'll accept what you say. I'm going to dispute almost everything you say here, by the nature of this discussion. But I'll only dispute it so long as I have a logical way to.

While 'needs proof' can seem like a cop-out, what it really does it both makes sure the claim is true and keeps us all on the same page, both of which are very important in discussions.

What I ACTUALLY don't get is the giant use of emotion in your posts(scrub, etc), or what traffic. means when he uses the awesome face.

 

[traffic.]

All charts and systems become more balanced when you chisel away at the tops and bottoms of the variables in a table. Removing the bottom variable will inevitably balance the difference between the remaining numbers and create a closer balance to the spreadsheet just the same as removing the top variable by reducing the average difference. However by altering the number of variables in your list, you alter the possibility for different outcomes and different results, limiting the application of your system to a bias of preferred results. If you are hoping for a specific result, reducing the likelihood of all other results is intentionally offsetting the balance and making your system less effective in a greater number of applications. The less applications a system has, the less users that system will have by proxy. Regardless of the number of users interested in sharing the previously stated biased results, the system is still inherently flawed and will become outdated much faster than systems with more constant applications.

edit- I'd go on to further demonstrate the reduced application of a system by intentionally reducing the number of users but it all seems a little silly now that my brain vomited that tripe out.

 

[Jason!]

You can't be BC's hero, you abandoned us and then came back and TRIED to conquer us.

This.

Infinite this.