Lemme first point out that I don't disagree with you, in fact in reading your arguments in those topics awhile ago you actually changed my opinion. However, agreeing with you doesn't mean that I think you're right.
This doesn't really make sense. You agree with something that is wrong? It sounds like you're suggesting that my stance is not prudent to running a successful tournament. Which I would agree with. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
A lot of times you don't acknowledge points that are ultimately subjective. Like "banning something when it's not broken", while "brokenness" is subjective, or thinking that keeping the unliked stages banned is "unfair", while "unfairness" is ridiculously subjective.
"Fairness" has a strict definition when I use it: when I say something is unfair, I mean strictly that we are banning something on preference alone, thus eliminating an option from players for reasons that are unrelated to brokenness. You see no problem with this, but I see scenarios in which people QQ about how "unfair" (not in the sense defined here) it is that Jigglypuff plays the way she does, and a majority wishing to ban it. And immediately I note that every single Jigglypuff player, who isn't detracting from the game in any way that doesn't fall down to individual preference (i.e., she isn't eliminating depth in any meaningful way), is forbidden from playing his main.
That is unfair.
You should know better than to assert these points as facts.
If they aren't facts, it's not really possible to assert them as such. Any more than saying "The Dark Knight is a ****ty movie" without explicitly writing "in my opinion" makes the sentence a "fact."
The ideals of someone who thinks otherwise are just as valid,
All ideals are equally valid. This isn't really my concern. If someone really likes gameplay with Marth, and that's what floats his boat, his decision to ban every other character is
valid. This does not make his decision
fair.
and ultimately you ARE arguing for something you like.
No, I am not. If I were arguing for something I liked, I'd lobby for a Falco ban. **** Falco.
You like the idea of some more stages being included and you argue based on the concepts that you like, I.E. non-scrubbiness, fairness. So don't pretend like your points are the end-all of this discussion.
No, I don't necessarily like more stages. I've said before that my preference is the MBR5. The difference is that there is no justification, as far as brokenness, for me to ban these other stages. And yes, "brokenness" is subjective. This doesn't make my stance less consistent: if we are unwilling to ban Sheik because we don't consider her broken, that immediately gives us a nice little lower-bound on what constitutes brokenness:
"Something is broken when it makes more characters unviable than Sheik, i.e., if Sheik makes X characters unviable, something is broken when it makes more than X characters unviable."
Obviously, "viable" is subjective. I would have no problem with these stages being banned because they are broken, even if I disagreed with the justification, because there is some degree of subjectivity and opinion there. What I don't agree with is people coming up with things totally unrelated to brokenness and acting as though this justifies a ban. Exactly the same sort of logic allows you to reach a ban of anything.
In the end, you're comparing "I want to avoid banning things unless they overtly reduce the game's depth in a significant way" with "I want to ban Brinstar because the lava is on a random timer" or "I want to ban Brinstar because floaties are strong there." There is a clear difference.
The problem with your logic is even in what you think Kish's response will be. You present the latter situation (that of the stage being at fault) as a player's error, but that's not even close to being proven. You're just assuming that if you show that it can be interpreted as player error, then people will be swayed to think as you do, but that's not true, because the other interpretation is just as valid.
Except there are obvious ways to account for such randomness. You can't account for randomly falling exploding blocks or capsules, to the best of my knowledge. You can avoid starting a combo on the floor of Mute City, and you can avoid positioning yourself such that the lava hits you on Brinstar.
I think it's rather silly to blame yourself being affected by random occurrences, and even sillier to expect players to never be affected by them enough to think that they would grow to dislike it.
The irony, here, is that you seem to misunderstand the point altogether. We're not expecting players to blame themselves for being affected by something random. We expect them to blame themselves for allowing themselves into that situation in the first place. As in, if you know you're taking a huge risk by starting a combo at the bottom of Mute City, it's profoundly stupid to start a combo there and QQ about how bad your luck is. Yeah, your luck sucks. You're also not great a managing risk versus reward.
Also ironic that you mention I think they would never grow to dislike it. Whether they like it is absolutely beyond the point.
And Overswarm, it's technically still subjective. Even something like "an outlier is 2.5 standard deviations away from the mean" is a matter of convention. You'll end up being forced to make
some arbitrary cut-off. This doesn't invalidate anything, however.
