Meta Knight Officially Banned!

[WindMajor]

This is not a social thread. However, this is.

 

[NinjaFoxX]

can we close the thread and see how many MK banned threads come up?

 

[KirbyandSonicrock14]

We should. I can't wait to hear all the salty mk mains whine.

 

[Jack Kieser]

And that is the history of Smash folks. Now stop playing with those stupid items.

Not quite. In 2004-2005 (GB, i think it spanned both years), there was a major debate about item legality. Originally, the whole scene used items, at least a few times. Eventually, EC turned them all off and WC played all-Melee. In 2004, the community decided to do a URC-style merger of rulesets to try to standardize a little bit, which meant items had to be dealt with.

EC argued that items introduced randomness, and that randomness was inherently bad. WC argued that there is nothing inherently negative about randomness, and that as little should be banned from the game as possible, including items. They argued that the small amount of statistical variance introduced by item play was worth the depth.

Up until that time, matches had been lost to item spawns, but WC still argued in their favor. Eventually, though, IIRC an explosive capsule spawned in front of a Smash attack during a WC grand finals match, which helped decide a tourney (I don't remember exactly what happened; I was only, like, 15 or 16 at the time), and WC decided to concede to EC and agree to ban all items.

The problem back then was that the ban was all-or-nothing due to the nature of the item switch; you couldn't turn off basic containers, which meant that you'd always have the chance of having an explosive one spawn in front of an attack, which no one wanted to happen. So, WC couldn't take a more reasoned approach like we can now thanks to Brawl's more advanced and open item switch screen.

So, it wasn't so cut-and-dry simple. There was a LOT of debate and grey area.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I went to a tournament yesterday. I was talking to Zekey (a Socal ranked DDD) and I asked him if he voted for or against the ban. He said he said voted for the ban because he thinks more players would start attending tournaments.Then I asked him if he thought that MK deserved to be banned and he answered no.

My question to is do you guys think we asked the right question in the poll (Should MK be banned?)?

 

[Ripple]

it was the right question, it doesn't matter if he deserves to be banned. if 70% of the community wants him banned, he will be banned

 

[Tesh]

I think when asked openly, many people will sugar coat their answers, rather than speak openly.

Not saying thats why he answered that way, but im sure alot of pro ban doesn't feel like its necessary to argue their points anymore.

Also, it seems like you are assuming anti-ban doesn't have voters with similar reasons like "I voted against the ban, because MK is fun to watch and its not just a bunch of projectile spam with him" .

 

[SaveMeJebus]

it was the right question, it doesn't matter if he deserves to be banned. if 70% of the community wants him banned, he will be banned

But they may want him banned for the wrong reasons (it makes the game more fun being one of them)

@Tesh, Maybe, but we don't know how many people did this.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Every time I read this thread title, my brain replaces the "officially" with "finally". I can't help it.

I am so glad I'm not the only one.

 

[Ripple]

But they may want him banned for the wrong reasons (it makes the game more fun being one of them)

doesn't matter. deal with it

 

[SaveMeJebus]

doesn't matter. deal with it

It does matter.

 

[Ripple]

It does matter.

obviously it doesn't.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Another poll should be made that asks if MK deserves to be banned.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Another poll should be made that asks if MK deserves to be banned.

I love how anti-ban has to fight to get things done now, such a refreshing change.

You try and get this poll in order, Jebus, I'll just sit back and relax.

 

[Ripple]

Another poll should be made that asks if MK deserves to be banned.

go ahead and make another thread asking people. see what happens

 

[Tesh]

Lol this is dumb. Reminds of when Obama got elected in 08. I met alot of people that voted for him just because he was black and alot of people that voted against for the same reason without even considering his views or what his plan was for the country. But, even if you voted a certain way for a stupid ****ing reason, it still counts. That goes for both sides Jebus.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Lol this is dumb. Reminds of when Obama got elected in 08. I met alot of people that voted for him just because he was black and alot of people that voted against for the same reason without even considering his views or what his plan was for the country. But, even if you voted a certain way for a stupid ****ing reason, it still counts. That goes for both sides Jebus.

There is a higher chance of the pro ban players voting for the wrong than the anti ban players since there are more of them

 

[Smooth Criminal]

There is a higher chance of the pro ban players voting for the wrong than the anti ban players since these are more of them

Oh please.

I'm staunchly anti-ban and I find this to be fallacious.

It's done. It's over with. MK is banned, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Smooth Criminal telling it like it is.

 

[Tesh]

So if we assume 50% of people are just plain stupid on both sides, it doesn't change the ratio between the reasonable people. That should be obvious to you.

For every reasonable anti-ban voter, we can assume there are 3 reasonable pro-ban voters.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

What else can I say, Grim?

The decision is ironclad regardless of argument. Tesh summed it up very well: People voted for what they wanted, regardless of how informed they were. If the majority said "nay" to MK being in their game, that's pretty much it.

If people don't like it, they can host their own tourneys.

Smooth Criminal

 

[SaveMeJebus]

So if we assume 50% of people are just plain stupid on both sides, it doesn't change the ratio between the reasonable people. That should be obvious to you.

For every reasonable anti-ban voter, we can assume there are 3 reasonable pro-ban voters.

50% of 75% is higher than 50% of 25%. Think of what would happen if these players changed votes

 

[WindMajor]

Don't you mean 75% and 25%?

Regardless, that's some snazzy math there. What's your point?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Don't you mean 75% and 25%?

Regardless, that's some snazzy math there. What's your point?

it means that if those players voted for reasons other than MK actually deserving to get banned, they might change their vote for this poll

 

[Ripple]

obviously the wording of the question confused people to vote for pro-ban

 

[da K.I.D.]

Jebus, the real question here is why are you opposed to more people attending tournaments?

 

[Ripple]

go ahead and make another thread asking people. see what happens

*sees new locked thread*


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa

 

[Spelt]

lol I see jebus is pulling arguments out of his *** now.
Really getting desperate, I guess.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Jebus, the real question here is why are you opposed to more people attending tournaments?

I'm not but that's debatable. I could argue that banning MK would cause a lot of players to quit

 

[John12346]

50% of 75% is higher than 50% of 25%. Think of what would happen if these players changed votes

Jebus, not for nothing, but this is an extremely flawed approach. Watch what happens for a second.

Let X = The %age of pro-ban voters
Let Y = The %age of anti-ban voters
The left side of the equation will be what happens to the pro-ban voting potential under your description.
And of course, the right side will represent what happens to the anti-ban voting potential.

X - .5X + .5Y vs Y - .5Y + .5X
.5X + .5Y vs .5Y + .5X
Divide both sides by (X + Y)
.5 + .5 vs .5 + .5
1 vs 1

No matter what the initial percentages, any voting result going through your function will result in a 50-50 split EVERY time. It's flawed reasoning.

 

[Ripple]

I'm not but that's debatable. I could argue that banning MK would cause a lot of players to quit

its already been proven to bring more people back to the game.

****ing ******, we already went through this like 11 hundred times.

my school just had tournament with MK banned, first 1 ever. guess how many people showed up ON A SUNDAY WITH MIDTERMS TOMORROW?!

40 people.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Jebus, not for nothing, but this is an extremely flawed approach. Watch what happens for a second.

Let X = The %age of pro-ban voters
Let Y = The %age of anti-ban voters
The left side of the equation will be what happens to the pro-ban voting potential under your description.
And of course, the right side will represent what happens to the anti-ban voting potential.

X - .5X + .5Y vs Y - .5Y + .5X
.5X + .5Y vs .5Y + .5X
Divide both sides by (X + Y)
.5 + .5 vs .5 + .5
1 vs 1

No matter what the initial percentages, any voting result going through your function will result in a 50-50 split EVERY time. It's flawed reasoning.

But it's not like that because there are more pro ban players than there are anti ban players

@Ripple, there were over 44 people at Mike's tournament yesterday

 

[Ripple]

But it's not like that because there are more pro ban players than there are anti ban players

@ripple, there were 44 people at mike's tournament

who was wrong earlier about John's math? oh, that's right, you were

 

[SaveMeJebus]

who was wrong earlier about John's math? oh, that's right, you were

And you say I strawmann?

 

[John12346]

Jebus, it's simple math, just take ANY two numbers that add up to 100.

70 and 30, for example.
70 is going to lose 35, and 30 is going to lose 15. Half of their total votes, correct? (70/2 = 35, 30/2 = 15)
So we're left with 35 and 15.
Now, 35 will inherit the 15 that 30 lost. ((70/2) + (30/2) = 50, 35 + 15 = 50)
And 15 will inherit the 35 that 70 lost. ((30/2) + (70/2) = 50, 15 + 35 = 50)
50 vs 50. Simple stuff.

Also, Concentrate if anything proves that MK banned tournies defo. brings in the players. 56 entrants, and a ****load of MK players went and showed up anyway.

 

[Ripple]

And you say I strawmann?

who gets infracted for strawmanning?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Jebus, it's simple math, just take ANY two numbers that add up to 100.

70 and 30, for example.
70 is going to lose 35, and 30 is going to lose 15. Half of their total votes, correct?
So we're left with 35 and 15.
Now, 35 will inherit the 15 that 30 lost.
And 15 will inherit the 35 that 70 lost.
50 vs 50. Simple stuff.

Also, Concentrate if anything proves that MK banned tournies defo. brings in the players. 56 entrants, and a ****load of MK players went and showed up anyway.

But if they switched votes, it would change the percentages

What about Apex and the MLGs? Try to get that many OOR players to go to an MK banned event

 

[Ripple]

But if they switched votes, it would change the percentages

What about Apex and the MLGs? Try to get that many OOR players to go to an MK banned event

And you say I strawmann?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

/caps

 

[SaveMeJebus]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

/caps

He brought up concentrate, I brought up Apex and MLG. I don't see anything wrong with my argument. OOR players also attract more players to the events

 

[John12346]

But if they switched votes, it would change the percentages

Jebus, c'mon, just try it yourself. Take ANY two numbers that add up to a hundred. Make both numbers subtract half of themselves and give it to the other number.

No matter what numbers you use, it comes out to 50 vs 50.

What about Apex and the MLGs? Try to get that many OOR players to go to an MK banned event

Well, for a small regional tourney, I would say that 56 entrants is a pretty legit turnout.

To help prove my(or your) claim, I think that we'd need to keep better track of MK banned tournies and see what the turnouts end up being, and maybe have someone host a LARGE regional/national with MK banned and see how the entrant rate goes, y'know?