Meta Knight Officially Banned!

[AlphaZealot]

A broken character is a singular concept. You don't ban an entire group of multiple characters. By definition, only a single character can be broken.

Removing those four characters in Melee would simply make a new S-tier of 3-4 characters.

 

[ElDominio]

Melee has 4 S-tier characters so it's different. You can't argue that it's not usually one of those 4 characters that take most of the money in tournament. Those characters have just as much a reason to get banned as MK does, yet Melee doesn't ban those characters.

this sentence made me quit life

 

[Ripple]

One bad match instead of five? Most characters below Pika are still viable. Viability would probably end at Yoshi

not 1 but multiple, everyone below pika gets hard countered by at least one in high tier or ICs.

then they still have to have good match ups with samus, doc, AND ganon.

which no one does, they may not get hard counted but they still lose

 

[Conviction]

I wouldn't put it beyond a doubt if one day Jebus just comes out and says.

"I've been trolling you all"

 

[da K.I.D.]

-Does no bad matchups means MK is unbeatable?
-How is a character winning everything effects negatively on competitive play?
-How does character usage affects competitive play in a bad way that requires nerfs or a ban?
-How is a character earning the most money bad for competitive play?
-How do you determine what keeps a character "legal" BEFORE deciding to nerf him?
-How is domination by one character bad?
-If by "doesn't work" you mean MK still winning, what exactly do you mean by "working"? Why do you not want MK winning in the first place?

2 problems here.

1. youre ignoring the scope of the arguements. its not that the best character making the most money is bad for the game. Its that the character in a game with 35 other characters is still getting half the money from all tournaments thats the problem. The problem is that He still makes more than twice as much than the next best character. Its that it takes an entire top tier of characters to rival how much money the single character makes. Its not just, lololo those guys think hes bannable because he gets the most money.
2. Youre trying to single out and individualise the arguements when AZ clearly stated that the problem isnt that he is broken in one singular sense, its that hes so overpowered in every conceivable quantifiable aspect of the game, that it results in him being too broken.

make you argue in circles?

Congratulations, welcome to Jebus.

Melee is pretty much as centralized around S tier as Brawl is (maybe even more). Removing those characters adds more character diversity to the game. Characters that get destroyed by Shieks chain grab now have less things to worry about. Most of mid tier only really has trouble with S tier. Is it the right thing to do though? I don't think so

Wow. I finally get it. So youre trying to say that since melee didnt ban the top tier from tournaments, that brawl shouldnt either?

Is that what you really believe? Even though almost IMMEDIATELY after that, you go on to say:

Melee has 4 S-tier characters so it's different.

Ill say it again. Stop talking about games that are not Brawl.

everyone below pika gets DESTROYED by either falcon, peach or ICs

removing S tier wouldn't change anything

IT WOULD GIVE ME A CHANCE TO WIN ONCE IN A WHILE.

/ganonmain.

 

[Conviction]

NOOO don't destroy jebus's last bit of arguments!

It's what keeps this thread alive!

 

[Cassio]

It seems like anti-bans points at this junction are simply attacking a specific argument when it is really the holistic argument.

Umm, no.

It isn't "OMG POPULAR OPINION IS WHY YOU BANNED MK" it is "MK was banned because he has no bad match ups, wins practically everything, is the most used character by far, wins the most money by far, requires specific and multiple rules to keep him legal and he still dominates a crazy amount, the entire game is getting bent to keep him legal and that still doesn't work, and on top of all of that, 75% of the community wants his *** gone."

Emotional appeal and popular opinion is why you banned MK. Every reason you listed in your second set of quotes says absolutely nothing about whether or not metaknight ought to be banned from the game, and instead is an element of the communities emotional desire to have him banned (technically not all, but Ill wait for someone to point those out for a separate deconstruction). The competitive game of SSBB could tolerate Metaknight, our emotional community could not.

That said Im not opposed to placing the community over the games competitive integrity, but you guys did a piss poor job of judging the communities opinion in the first place. The fact that you site that silly poll is evidence of that.

 

[John12346]

The competitive game of SSBB could tolerate Metaknight

Someone needs to get on this. I'm in a rush so I can't...

That said Im not opposed to placing the community over the games competitive integrity, but you guys did a piss poor job of judging the communities opinion in the first place. The fact that you site that silly poll is evidence of that.

I'm going to keep saying it, but until you explain why that poll is flawed, your point does not stand.

Not trying to be harsh, but you have NOT explained yourself, despite promising you would.

 

[Cassio]

As Ive said, for now claiming its uselessness is just as strong as claiming its validity (there are ways to show both). I honestly just havent had time since its part of something bigger I wanted to post and requires a bit of research.

btw Ill admit that a lot of what anti-ban says can be pretty lame (same with pro-ban too). But picking on weak and unpopular arguments doesnt do any good to the opposite side of the argument. Which was the point of the first thing I quoted from AZ.

 

[John12346]

I can respect all that, I guess.

Also dangit, you stole my trademark stalemating tactics just now >___<;

 

[Thino]

2 problems here.

1. youre ignoring the scope of the arguements. its not that the best character making the most money is bad for the game. Its that the character in a game with 35 other characters is still getting half the money from all tournaments thats the problem. The problem is that He still makes more than twice as much than the next best character. Its that it takes an entire top tier of characters to rival how much money the single character makes. Its not just, lololo those guys think hes bannable because he gets the most money.
2. Youre trying to single out and individualise the arguements when AZ clearly stated that the problem isnt that he is broken in one singular sense, its that hes so overpowered in every conceivable quantifiable aspect of the game, that it results in him being too broken.

Alright.

1.Now explain why, in a game that has tiers and where unfortunately there will always be characters that in a competitive setup will earn more money than others, why it is a "problem" and not "just" if one character gets half the money at tournaments.

I mean I genuinely don't understand why and how you guys draw that line, why is there a threshold of money % a character shouldn't get past or else he's deemed as broken, why is it half the money, why is it not 1/3 or 2/3?

Why is it a problem that a character that is the strongest in the game earns the most money, isn't it natural and normal for a S-tier character to do so?

At what % of money earned in tournaments does a character switches from S-tier to broken?

2. How exactly is it possible to say that it is the whole combination of reasons that makes MK bannable when not being able to explain thoroughly every single one of these reasons in the first place?

It doesn't work that way, at least not when it comes to convincing.

If you guys are really willing to argue (despite MK being already banned) you will have to explain every single of these conceivable and quantifiable aspects.

not LOOK AT ALL MY REASONS, WE HAVE LOTS OF REASONS, your reasons don't mean anything if you don't explain them, it could as well be that you guys don't like Metaknight's mask and that it disturbs the opponent.

 

[Cassio]

I can respect all that, I guess.

Also dangit, you stole my trademark stalemating tactics just now >___<;

lol, Im just being lazy for now I guess. Its much easier until I get the drive to really think about it.

 

[AlphaZealot]

I mean I genuinely don't understand why and how you guys draw that line, why is there a threshold of money % a character shouldn't get past or else he's deemed as broken, why is it half the money, why is it not 1/3 or 2/3?

Why is it a problem that a character that is the strongest in the game earns the most money, isn't it natural and normal for a S-tier character to do so?

At what % of money earned in tournaments does a character switches from S-tier to broken?

Is it?

Can you find this information for any other game? I'm not talking about 1 tournament, I'm talking about hundreds of tournaments, like we have done for Brawl.

 

[Cassio]

The correct answer is, its not a problem. Its only a problem if the community deems it to be.

 

[Thino]

Is it?

Can you find this information for any other game? I'm not talking about 1 tournament, I'm talking about hundreds of tournaments, like we have done for Brawl.

Information for any other games you say? When exactly for you pro-bans is it okay to talk about other games or not?

Stop talking about games that are not brawl

If I find some information about this in other games, does it means it is now okay to compare Brawl's ruleset and every other aspect to other games?

Regardless of that, let's assume I don't find any info in other (fighting) games, it would still not answer my question to why it's a problem and how you guys decided that it is one.

 

[Life]

The correct answer is, its not a problem. Its only a problem if the community deems it to be.

Hey look, a poll.

 

[DMG]

So maybe you (or anyone else) can answer the questions from from dissecting your sentence between quotes above :

-Does no bad matchups means MK is unbeatable?
-How is a character winning everything effects negatively on competitive play?
-How does character usage affects competitive play in a bad way that requires nerfs or a ban?
-How is a character earning the most money bad for competitive play?
-How do you determine what keeps a character "legal" BEFORE deciding to nerf him?
-How is domination by one character bad?
-If by "doesn't work" you mean MK still winning, what exactly do you mean by "working"? Why do you not want MK winning in the first place?

Arbitrariness and subjectivity aside.

1. Define "beatable". Beatable as in has counters, beatable as in other equal characters/strategies to employ, beatable as in there is no equal but other characters/strategies aren't voided, or beatable as in hard counters everything in the game but you can still win if the other person plays wrong.


Beatable is a subjective term. If you use Pokemon as an example (I wouldn't, but there are certain things you can take from it). Every Pokemon and every Pokemon set possible has a counter. Uber pokemon, despite being "beatable" since they clearly have counters or trouble pokemon/types/moves, are restricted from playing with other Pokemon for being too centralizing and requiring in effect too much effort to beat. You CAN counter Kyogre, Darkrai, Mewtwo, even Wobuffet (he has bad pokemon/moves to deal with, but it's hard to exploit because of Shadow Tag *nerdy Pokemon stuff*), but the effort you would have to put in would be immense and risky unless you turned to using them yourself, which further leads to a cycle of using them more to counter them better.




2. If a character wins everything or a lot, depending on to what degree he is winning you can reasonably interpret it as unhealthy for the game. Especially if you can see the effect it has on character diversity.

It is ok for the best character in the game to make the most money, AND for him to make more money than other characters. However, at the same time, if the best character makes a significant amount of money, a VERY significant amount of money also compared to other characters, that should at least raise some eyebrows. People are not mad that MK makes more money than Snake or has the most national tourney wins. BUT, if the gap win wise and money wise is quite large, you can't blame people for going "Hey wait a minute, maybe we should question this level of success".


3. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but I'm assuming you're talking about whether/how being the best character calls for nerfs/bans.

Being the best character in the game does not inherently mean nerfs and bans are called for. What you need to look at is what the margin is from best character to everyone else. Being barely the best character? No problem. Being the best character by a larger margin? At least deserves some discussion.

MK is not targeted for simply "being the best". He's targeted for being "too much best" lol.


4. As I expanded on this earlier, winning the most money is not inherently a problem. You need to look at what margin of success he has over the rest of the cast. Earning a significant portion more than the other characters, earning a significant portion of total tournament winnings, or a combination of both calls for discussion.



5. What do you mean "determine" what keeps a character legal? Criteria laid out for characters is traditionally "a line in the sand" of what is too much. Of whether a character is broken or not and deserves action. Characters are kept in the game unless/until they break this boundary.

Before you say anything, yes the boundary is subjective, no there is no objective boundary or absolute boundary, and there is no possible way of changing that. Otherwise, it would have been done a long time ago.


6. Again, it's not the inherent idea of 1 character being better than the others. This is expected for any game. The question is if the best character is best by a significant margin over the others. Being "king" over other champs is ok. Being "God" over other champs is not. If that comparison illustrates it more clearly.



7. People don't want MK winning "too much." It's not "I don't want to see MK win ever", it's "I don't want to see MK win all the time".





AND to end all of this:


ALL of this is subjective. Every bit of it. Why? Because you can't make it objective. Every question asked about whether to ban MK or not is based on "is he too much/does he cross the line/etc".

What IS too much? Where do you DRAW the line? Don't tell me you know of some objective, irrefutable, ancient wisdom passed through the generations on stone tablets answer to this.

Tell me an objective approach to banning or defining when to ban a character. That includes defining exactly where the line is, NOT simply saying "ban it when it's broken" without giving a definition of Broken, which also happens to be subjective in itself. How much money, how dominant, how much of a negative impact on the scene, how much centralization, how much "broken" or bad traits to be observed or the degree of these traits, etc.


TL:DR

Deciding whether a character is problematic or not is ALWAYS a subjective process. You can ask people to "prove" why they think a certain amount is too much or not enough, but you cannot ask them to explain objectively why he is too much, because any criteria you come up with will be subjective. If you're not willing to accept that the "standard" for banning a character, no matter how low or high it is set, will inherently be subjective, then you can go no further in trying to establish what to do with a character regardless of his status.

 

[AlphaZealot]

What IS too much? Where do you DRAW the line? Don't tell me you know of some objective, irrefutable, ancient wisdom passed through the generations on stone tablets answer to this.

Correct. And it seems there are anti-ban out there that think bans in other community actually had data and a line or something to draw from. I'm asking to point this data out.

 

[Cassio]

I think its possible to find objective reasons to ban MK, but its likely well beyond whats practical. Unless we all became robots.

AZ the point is its entirely subjective. At that point really the only thing to consider is if it will affect the community and if so how.

 

[AlphaZealot]

I'm simply saying some people think there already is a line drawn based on the precedent of other communities banning characters. I'm asking where the data is for those communities to even make this comparison to begin with.

Even if they did have data and draw a line, it is still subjective - I know.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

The only thing strictly objective would be the the data.

As for how it affects the community, so far, we've seen more people show up for tourneys, we know that more people wanted him banned(that in general is not actually subjective, although the reasons are, but the fact they want him gone in itself says something).

So far, all we know is that it currently is making the community better overall.

Will this change? Perhaps. After atleast a year of having him gone, we can see if it got better or not.

Fact of the matter is, if people were right in him being banned as a bad thing, it'll show. But we can't know that till we try, right?

To be honest, if people are quitting because they can't play one guy, then you can actually somewhat argue just how dedicated they really are to Smash in general.(don't get me wrong, I do feel bad for M2K, or I would if he took this maturely instead of giving worse reasons than Jebus. I'm serious, his reasons make more sense, not by much, but still)

Long story short, it's just a character: If we want to test the player skill, and if they really are a top player, they shouldn't only have to use one character to win. We DO encourage diversity, otherwise we wouldn't have a counterpick system. That's actually part of the skill we wish to test.

If there were no counterpicks, I doubt he would NEED to be banned, although it'd still be questionable.

 

[Thino]

1. Define "beatable". Beatable as in has counters, beatable as in other equal characters/strategies to employ, beatable as in there is no equal but other characters/strategies aren't voided, or beatable as in hard counters everything in the game but you can still win if the other person plays wrong.


Beatable is a subjective term. If you use Pokemon as an example (I wouldn't, but there are certain things you can take from it). Every Pokemon and every Pokemon set possible has a counter. Uber pokemon, despite being "beatable" since they clearly have counters or trouble pokemon/types/moves, are restricted from playing with other Pokemon for being too centralizing and requiring in effect too much effort to beat. You CAN counter Kyogre, Darkrai, Mewtwo, even Wobuffet (he has bad pokemon/moves to deal with, but it's hard to exploit because of Shadow Tag *nerdy Pokemon stuff*), but the effort you would have to put in would be immense and risky unless you turned to using them yourself, which further leads to a cycle of using them more to counter them better.




2. If a character wins everything or a lot, depending on to what degree he is winning you can reasonably interpret it as unhealthy for the game. Especially if you can see the effect it has on character diversity.

It is ok for the best character in the game to make the most money, AND for him to make more money than other characters. However, at the same time, if the best character makes a significant amount of money, a VERY significant amount of money also compared to other characters, that raises at least should raise some eyebrows. People are not mad that MK makes more money than Snake or has the most national tourney wins. BUT, if the gap win wise and money wise is quite large, you can't blame people for going "Hey wait a minute, maybe we should question this level of success".


3. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but I'm assuming you're talking about whether/how being the best character calls for nerfs/bans.

Being the best character in the game does not inherently mean nerfs and bans are called for. What you need to look at is what the margin is from best character to everyone else. Being barely the best character? No problem. Being the best character by a larger margin? At least deserves some discussion.

MK is not targeted for simply "being the best". He's targeted for being "too much best" lol.


4. As I expanded on this earlier, winning the most money is not inherently a problem. You need to look at what margin of success he has over the rest of the cast. Earning a significant portion more than the other characters, earning a significant portion of total tournament winnings, or a combination of both calls for discussion.



5. What do you mean "determine" what keeps a character legal? Criteria laid out for characters is traditionally "a line in the sand" of what is too much. Of whether a character is broken or not and deserves action. Characters are kept in the game unless/until they break this boundary.

Before you say anything, yes the boundary is subjective, no there is no objective boundary or absolute boundary, and there is no possible way of changing that. Otherwise, it would have been done a long time ago.


6. Again, it's not the inherent idea of 1 character being better than the others. This is expected for any game. The question is if the best character is best by a significant margin over the others. Being "king" over other champs is ok. Being "God" over other champs is not. If that comparison illustrates it more clearly.



7. People don't want MK winning "too much." It's not "I don't want to see MK win ever", it's "I don't want to see MK win all the time".





AND to end all of this:


ALL of this is subjective. Every bit of it. Why? Because you can't make it objective. Every question asked about whether to ban MK or not is based on "is he too much/does he cross the line/etc".

What IS too much? Where do you DRAW the line? Don't tell me you know of some objective, irrefutable, ancient wisdom passed through the generations on stone tablets answer to this.

Tell me an objective approach to banning or defining when to ban a character. That includes defining exactly where the line is, NOT simply saying "ban it when it's broken" without giving a definition of Broken, which also happens to be subjective in itself. How much money, how dominant, how much of a negative impact on the scene, how much centralization, how much "broken" or bad traits to be observed or the degree of these traits, etc.


TL:DR

Deciding whether a character is problematic or not is ALWAYS a subjective process. You can ask people to "prove" why they think a certain amount is too much or not enough, but you cannot ask them to explain objectively why he is too much, because any criteria you come up with will be subjective. If you're not willing to accept that the "standard" for banning a character, no matter how low or high it is set, will inherently be subjective, then you can go no further in trying to establish what to do with a character regardless of his status.

1. I mean beatable in the literal sense of the term, according Brawl's current competitive ruleset, aka : can MK lose all his stocks, on all the neutral and counterpick stages against other characters?
Y/N?

2. See? You guys take in account "character diversity" I don't understand how this is part of the competitive side of the game.

----

But for the rest of it you gave me the replies I expected for all of the points and I agree with them

For all of them you gave me quantitative that are vague because there is indeed no way to determine exactly where these lines are crossed for each aspect.

Which leads me to the reply to your TL;DR :

There is indeed no objective way to determine that MK is actually broken or not. We both agree.

THEREFORE..

he doesn't need to be banned, from a purely competitive aspect.

The only way to ban him is by popularity contest poll or caring about stuff like character diversity which is exactly the way it happened, that is my point.

Even if they did have data and draw a line, it is still subjective - I know.

I'm in complete agreement with you then, because what I'm questioning is why the data matters in the first place anyway.

and by that I mean Brawl's.

 

[Cassio]

Thino I think were past that, lol.

Like, that sort of data really doesnt say anything about the character itself, just the tendencies and personality of the community. If people didnt know how dominating a character is would they really care if he was banned or not? My personal guess would be no, but theres really no way to tell.

The line that we eventually do decide to draw doesnt really tell us anything about whether a character should or shouldnt be banned. Just the tolerance level of the community. [Thats assuming anyone could even judge the tolerance level correctly and define what "tolerance" should mean.]

 

[da K.I.D.]

There is indeed no objective way to determine that MK is actually broken or not. We both agree.

THEREFORE..

he doesn't need to be banned, from a purely competitive aspect.

That is a really, REALLY REALLY large jump in logic. And I disagree with it fervently.

If there is no set checklist that we can use to determine whether hes broken, that means hes automatically not broken by default?

Really? Thats such terrible reasoning that even the conceptualization of it is awful.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

A broken character is a singular concept. You don't ban an entire group of multiple characters. By definition, only a single character can be broken.

Removing those four characters in Melee would simply make a new S-tier of 3-4 characters.

http://www.smogon.com/rb/tiers/uber

The original had 2. More were banned in later games

 

[da K.I.D.]

PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT GAMES THAT ARE NOT BRAWL.

If you do, Jebus is just going to pull another random example out from in between his buttcheeks, because EVERY GAME/COMMUNITY DOES THINGS DIFFERENTLY

 

[SaveMeJebus]

PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT GAMES THAT ARE NOT BRAWL.

If you do, Jebus is just going to pull another random example out from in between his buttcheeks, because EVERY GAME/COMMUNITY DOES THINGS DIFFERENTLY

How the **** am I supposed to respond to that without using another game as an example?

 

[Thino]

That is a really, REALLY REALLY large jump in logic. And I disagree with it fervently.

If there is no set checklist that we can use to determine whether hes broken, that means hes automatically not broken by default?

Really? Thats such terrible reasoning that even the conceptualization of it is awful.

Why? it is a simple onus probandi, I don't know what kind of logic or reasoning you work with, but if you disagree with that one, then I'm sorry we cannot continue this argument :

-MK was not considered broken in the first place
-YOU Pro-bans claim that he is
-YOU guys are the one that have to prove that he is broken before he can be considered broken
-WE Anti-ban provide the counter-arguments
-as long as you haven't proven that he is broken, he is not, and yes that is by default as you say.

Point out where is the leap in logic and I'm actually PRETTY sure that you guys do have actually a very long checklist but that the reasons on that checklist are arbitrary, which is the big problem here in the way you guys are trying to prove it.

That's where we're at, I respect your opinion if you disagree, but that is my stance no matter how terrible you find it.

 

[AlphaZealot]

The issue is the line is arbitrary. Pro-ban has proven by their own standards that he is broken, whereas those standards are simply different for anti-ban. The question then became who has essentially the more accepted opinion of where the line is, and I would argue 75% of the community would agree that, whatever that line is, it has been crossed. Within that 75% the line was likely crossed at different thresholds for different people-too, which is what makes it hard to make a 'concrete' universal for where the 'broken line' is.

There is also no other community with data to help us with our problem, which makes us unique and also at the forefront of how to deal with the situation.

 

[Cassio]

Honestly people should just stop using the word broken. 99.9999% of things that are broken are very clearly bannable. Thats not to say that things shouldnt be banned if they arent broken, but we really need to find a different word for metaknight.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

The issue is the line is arbitrary. Pro-ban has proven by their own standards that he is broken, whereas those standards are simply different for anti-ban. The question then because who has essentially the more accepted opinion of where the line is, and I would argue 75% of the community would agree that, whatever that line is, it has been crossed. Within that 75% the line was likely crossed at different thresholds for different people-too, which is what makes it hard to make a 'concrete' universal for where the 'broken line' is.

There is also no other community with data to help us with our problem, which makes us unique and also at the forefront of how to deal with the situation.

Again, this is why the question asked should have been "does MK deserve to be banned?". A lot of players voted for the ban for other reasons

 

[Cassio]

Also I know a good chunk of people who advocate for metaknights ban who dont think hes broken or even overpowered, but simply because they thought it would be better for the community or made the game more fun. In fact thats a few of the biggest advocates and even some URC members. People have different reasons so community tolerance cant even be judged on some line for how strong or weak a character is.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

@Jebus: How about you prove he's not broken using this own game then?

Likewise, the major difference here is that MK is pretty much the same as the Uber Tier, while the top tier of Melee actually is not. Want to know why? Melee's Top Tier does not win enough as is. They are indeed the best characters overall, but they are not the sole winners or win the top percentage. MK does, and he just happens to have his own Tier, regardless of what you call it. Right now, all you're proving is that MK should be banned then.

Let me put it this way: If a character has his own Tier, then something's already wrong by that alone. If MK wasn't good enough to be his own Tier, then we wouldn't even have to worry about banning him, because we'd have no decent reasons to.

Want to know who have their own Tiers? Bosses. As long as they are not severely nerfed for play, they have their own Tier. Nobody but themselves can beat them reasonably. This does not count for any other Tier except Ubers as you pointed out. So far, there's MK, other Bosses, and Uber that fits this criteria.

A Tier in Melee or Brawl does not. Your argument no longer holds any water here. He is not beatable by any margin outside of human error. He is not consistently beaten enough either.(half the time isn't good, as that means that he's as good as a Boss)

Likewise, Cassio has it quite right. Many want MK ban for multiple reasons. We do not know these, which is why we're not speaking for that specifically. In fact, among many boards the most I here is "About time". People want him gone.

 

[Thino]

The issue is the line is arbitrary. Pro-ban has proven by their own standards that he is broken, whereas those standards are simply different for anti-ban. The question then because who has essentially the more accepted opinion of where the line is, and I would argue 75% of the community would agree that, whatever that line is, it has been crossed. Within that 75% the line was likely crossed at different thresholds for different people-too, which is what makes it hard to make a 'concrete' universal for where the 'broken line' is.

There is also no other community with data to help us with our problem, which makes us unique and also at the forefront of how to deal with the situation.

Thanks a lot, this is what I wanted to hear and I'm satisfied with this reason for the ban : The opinion of 75% of the community mattered because it is impossible to do this any other way.

Therefore there is no need for pro-bans to get bothered or try to argue when we say that MK has been banned because 75% of the community decided that he should be, rather than actually having determined if he's broken or not.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

We should also get to vote for the banning of stages we consider broken

 

[Zankoku]

We do. It's called the Experimental Unity Ruleset, and it's voted by the TOs who experiment by taking stages out of the list.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

We do. It's called the Experimental Unity Ruleset, and it's voted by the TOs who experiment by taking stages out of the list.

Could TOs still experiment with MK after the ban?

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Jebus, check the official rules. They can. Although he still has surgical rules.

 

[da K.I.D.]

How the **** am I supposed to respond to that without using another game as an example?

Exactly.

If you cant pull bs examples that have no bearing, then you have nothing to say.

Honestly people should just stop using the word broken. 99.9999% of things that are broken are very clearly bannable. Thats not to say that things shouldnt be banned if they arent broken, but we really need to find a different word for metaknight.

I agree.
MK does not break the game flat out. But he is bannable.

We should also get to vote for the banning of stages we consider broken

We do. It's called the Experimental Unity Ruleset, and it's voted by the TOs who experiment by taking stages out of the list.

Countered.

 

[DMG]

Thino: That's fine, except when/if you make the "literal" argument that you can't ban MK at all because you cannot objectively determine whether he is broken or not, instead of "You can ban MK but not specifically because of an objectively found brokenness." If people take it to that extreme, we basically have no power or reason to shape the game by any means since we'll never objectively know what to do or what is best besides the absolute fundamentals like 2 people playing with some kind of timer lol. You could take that logic and stretch it to stages as well despite "knowing" that Hyrule Temple is bad for competitive play without having an objective line to define it through. We'd be stuck with a much worse competitive game if we accepted that "we can't objectively prove these stages/facets of the game are broken/at this objective line of unhealthy, therefore they have to stay."