Meta Knight Officially Banned!

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Master Hand.



MASTER
HAND
YOU ******

Excuse me for thinking it was a Typo.

Also, he didn't have that banned beforehand? Lmao.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

If you are going to call my state scrubby, then there is no excuse, sorry

We did ban MK, but it was not for a stupid reason like our TO losing to him. We did it because the majority of our players agreed with it, to be standard with the Unity rules and to increase character diversity (we've gone from being an MK state to what is probably the most diverse state in Australia)

 

[Ghostbone]

Ooo masterhand discussion.

Masterhand is like the worst character ever, so funny.
/yea masterhand stole MK's thunder as the first smash character banned....

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

To be fair, Master Hand is an actual boss. And he froze the game, anyway. Justified quite a bit.

...MK's practically a boss too.

 

[Tommy_G]

So is Pikachu....when you're playing with Falco...

 

[Zankoku]

They were like 53-47 in favor of the ban, each time.

There have been 5 votes(maybe 4) that have all said to not ban MK.

Your maths are intriguing to me. Please elaborate.

 

[Steam]

yeah last time I checked every ban vote had a majority to ban MK.

 

[Tommy_G]

Every other ban vote didn't ban MK.

 

[John12346]

A bit late, but while you're explaining things...

I've tried basing my information on statistical information and viable assumptions

This... I don't remember any number crunching coming from the anti-ban side during this whole crazy hoo-hah of a debate.

If you have some statistical info, I wouldn't mind seeing it...

 

[Zankoku]

The BBR (and likely the URC) decided against banning Meta Knight unless there was overwhelming support to do so. While it is true that Meta Knight was not banned until this point (what with a 75% favor), previous public votes had not, in my memory, ever been in favor of not banning Meta Knight. So while, yes, your latest statement is true, the previous one I quoted, that "There have been 5 votes(maybe 4) that have all said to not ban MK." is not quite so.

 

[Tommy_G]

Excuse me, 5 official votes.

 

[Zankoku]

What are you qualifying as an official vote? The one where under 30 people vote on it?

 

[Kuro~]

Tommy. All the other votes were slight in favor. Not enough to warrant a ban however. That's the info. Use it how you will.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

So is Pikachu....when you're playing with Falco...

This just in: A single -2 match-up is comparable to Meta Knight.

 

[holyv]

Getting a -2 against metaknight means your character is ****ING AWESOME.

 

[Dre89]

Tommy G reminds me of the new age atheists; fellow anti banners probably cringe when they see his posts because he destroys their credibility.

Also, I still don't understand how it's rational for 25% of a community to demand that 75% play a video game the way they don't want to, when the 25% aren't owed anything.

Someone please explain this to me.

And please, I hope some anti ban comes in and generalises all pro ban logic off one post again, or makes some comment about how scrubby the competitive brawl community is. Those posts are so innovative and insightful, and contribute so much to this discussion.

 

[Thino]

Tommy G reminds me of the new age atheists; fellow anti banners probably cringe when they see his posts because he destroys their credibility.

Also, I still don't understand how it's rational for 25% of a community to demand that 75% play a video game the way they don't want to, when the 25% aren't owed anything.

Someone please explain this to me.

And please, I hope some anti ban comes in and generalises all pro ban logic off one post again, or makes some comment about how scrubby the competitive brawl community is. Those posts are so innovative and insightful, and contribute so much to this discussion.

I don't see how Tommy G would destroy our credibility on each side people have different reasons to be anti-ban or pro-ban and different way to argue it.

putting us all in the same bag would be generalizing.

My stance on this is probably different than most anti-bans and has always been that pro-bans should be honest about the reason why they are pro-bans.

It's indeed not rational not to follow what 75% of a community wants based on attendance level at tournament of course.

But that is not a reason to come here in this thread and argue that Metaknight has been banned because he was broken rather than being banned simply because 75% WANTED him to be when most of the ones I discussed with agree that the arguments they use to prove that he's broken are completely arbitrary.

 

[DMG]

Well yeah. At the same time however, it would be a mistake to just give up or do nothing BECAUSE the discussion is arbitrary. If we're not willing to accept some degree of arbitrary, then we effectively have no power to shape the game because just about every decision we make to shape the game is arbitrary. Stocks Timer Stages etc.

 

[Dre89]

Well yeah. At the same time however, it would be a mistake to just give up or do nothing BECAUSE the discussion is arbitrary. If we're not willing to accept some degree of arbitrary, then we effectively have no power to shape the game because just about every decision we make to shape the game is arbitrary. Stocks Timer Stages etc.

Exactly.

Soz to get technical, but anything that isn't a truth claim (eg. isn't a 'this dog has four legs') is arbitrary. Which means the whole competitive system is arbitrary.

And arbitrary doesn't equal unjustified.

Besides, people seem to think that the reason for the ban could be either reasoning that he's broken, or just an appeal to the majority. Why can't it be both? The reason why the majority wanted him banned was because they thiought he was broken.

Saying 'he only got banned because the majority wanted him banned' makes it sound like they banned him for no reason at all. He got banned because he was deemed broken. It's not as if people were calling for other top tiers like Snake and Diddy to get banned, despite the fact that these characters are annoying and still render a lot of the cast unviable. Their heads weren't called for because despite all that, no one deemed them broken, because they have bad mus and stages, plus more limiting character traits than MK.

All I ever see the anti bans do is try to straw man pro ban logic by saying the entire community thought X or Y, instead of trying to show why MK isn't broken.

 

[Tommy_G]

He got banned because he was deemed broken.

Serious question..........how?

 

[Cassio]

I would just ignore that entire post. It was pretty horrible.

Also as Ive always said I dont deny that there are good points from pro-ban. But the ones that are constantly stated and were used as reasoning for his ban are garbage. The garbage has to be tossed before any honest discussion can occur. The reason he was banned was very dishonest.

 

[Thino]

Well yeah. At the same time however, it would be a mistake to just give up or do nothing BECAUSE the discussion is arbitrary. If we're not willing to accept some degree of arbitrary, then we effectively have no power to shape the game because just about every decision we make to shape the game is arbitrary. Stocks Timer Stages etc.

Exactly.

Soz to get technical, but anything that isn't a truth claim (eg. isn't a 'this dog has four legs') is arbitrary. Which means the whole competitive system is arbitrary.

And arbitrary doesn't equal unjustified.

Besides, people seem to think that the reason for the ban could be either reasoning that he's broken, or just an appeal to the majority. Why can't it be both? The reason why the majority wanted him banned was because they thiought he was broken.

Saying 'he only got banned because the majority wanted him banned' makes it sound like they banned him for no reason at all. He got banned because he was deemed broken. It's not as if people were calling for other top tiers like Snake and Diddy to get banned, despite the fact that these characters are annoying and still render a lot of the cast unviable. Their heads weren't called for because despite all that, no one deemed them broken, because they have bad mus and stages, plus more limiting character traits than MK.

All I ever see the anti bans do is try to straw man pro ban logic by saying the entire community thought X or Y, instead of trying to show why MK isn't broken.

In that case let's be honest and admit that we're a community that "needs" to shape the game to suits our needs instead claiming things that we cannot prove.

It doesn't make it unjustified nor is it okay not to do anything about it.

The reason why it cannot be both reasons is because you pro-bans haven't justified the 2nd reason yet, it's that simple.

You guys proved that most of the community want Metaknight banned, It's very different than "most of the community think Metaknight is broken".

Why try to put the burden of proof on us when YOU pro-bans are the ones that claimed MK was broken in the first place when he wasnt considered to be that way and was legal at every tourney before?

I don't know how agreeing with the pro-bans I discussed with that the reasons they are arguing how Metaknight is broken are arbitrary can be considered straw manning, since we all agree that 75% of the community thought X or Y.

Fine. You guys really want a reason why Metaknight is not broken? How about, Metaknight is not unbeatable therefore he's not broken.

If I start saying that, won't you guys tell me that we have a different definition of what is "broken"?

 

[Spelt]

Serious question..........how?

I direct you to the last 6000 posts of this thread.

I would just ignore that entire post. It was pretty horrible.

This is what I say whenever I see your username.

Example:

Also as Ive always said I dont deny that there are good points from pro-ban. But the ones that are constantly stated and were used as reasoning for his ban are garbage.

Another Example:

Fine. You guys really want a reason why Metaknight is not broken? How about, Metaknight is not unbeatable therefore he's not broken.

I know you didn't post this but I laughed really hard after reading this so I think it should still count.

 

[Cassio]

This is what I say whenever I see your username.

Spoiler

fyi thino ignore spelt. He's admitted his ignorance on this game and his inability to think beyond a fool's level.

 

[DMG]

In that case let's be honest and admit that we're a community that "needs" to shape the game to suits our needs instead claiming things that we cannot prove.

It doesn't make it unjustified nor is it okay not to do anything about it.

The reason why it cannot be both reasons is because you pro-bans haven't justified the 2nd reason yet, it's that simple.

You guys proved that most of the community want Metaknight banned, It's very different than "most of the community think Metaknight is broken".

Why try to put the burden of proof on us when YOU pro-bans are the ones that claimed MK was broken in the first place when he wasnt considered to be that way and was legal at every tourney before?

I don't know how agreeing with the pro-bans I discussed with that the reasons they are arguing how Metaknight is broken are arbitrary can be considered straw manning, since we all agree that 75% of the community thought X or Y.

Fine. You guys really want a reason why Metaknight is not broken? How about, Metaknight is not unbeatable therefore he's not broken.

If I start saying that, won't you guys tell me that we have a different definition of what is "broken"?

That's the whole debate: both sides (and even different people on the same side) have different views on what is broken. That's not been different lol. MK falls under your definition, anti ban. MK meets or goes past definition, pro ban.


We shape the game to suit our competitive views/needs. That's also clear. We don't "have" to shape the game, in the sense that we clearly would not have as active of a competitive scene if we allowed stuff like Hanenbow Hyrule etc. We choose to mold it to what we want or think will have a better outcome. Now every decision isn't just "take a vote and move on", there's discussion and debate over competitive ideals and even more boring ****. Sure it's subjective, but I'd rather have a discussion on whether to allow x component than "Well I can't REALLY prove that Hyrule is broken, EN GARDE!!!!"


You can make the distinction between "Yes I think it's broken remove it" and "No I don't think it's broken but I'd like to see it gone". However, if those 2 groups of people both feel that the game would be better with it gone, what's wrong with that? If you have a significant group of people, even if they differ in opinion on what's broken or where exactly the character lies, that say Yeah get rid of him, then what's wrong with getting rid of him?


Even after all of this, if I polled every single person that voted on the MK ban... Asked all of them to state whether he fits their broken criteria or not, and every person said yes, you could simply say "Well that means nothing since you can't objectively define what's broken or not." Even proving that an overwhelming majority of people not only want him banned, but feel that he is broken, would not be enough if that's the stance you adopt.


I can't prove that MK fits YOUR criteria. I hope I never have to prove that MK is hands down unbeatable because yes there would still be people holding out (that and having an unbeatable character sucks even harder). BUT, if enough people feel he's past their line, then that's the way the beans roll dawg.

 

[Cassio]

I can agree that a wide range of opinions for "bannable" are alright and a fine assessment for judging whether or not MK should be banned if polled correctly (to an extent).

I can't say the same for broken, unless youre willing to claim that opinions such as "hes better than my character, broken!" are fine judgements for defining broken.

In essence you can poll an opinion for decisions, but you can't poll a definition or that defeats the purpose of it being able to define. If a suitable definition for broken cannot be achieved, then the term broken should simply be ignored and instead it should simply be stated that MK is bannable.

 

[DMG]

Clearly there's a certain agreeable line of "Yeah MK has to be at least this tall before you can even make the claim". Being better than Snake or Diddy doesn't mean HOLY **** ban him. Those people you ignore lol. Those opinions you don't count, the same for people that also have no idea about MK and say keep him in the game without having an actual reason for it. "I haven't been to tournaments, I want to decide what we do with MK" *for both sides*

 

[Spelt]

Spoiler

fyi thino ignore spelt. He's admitted his ignorance on this game and his inability to think beyond a fool's level.

lolol continuing to take everything highly out of context to suit your needs, I see.

I know you only continue just taking pot shots at me instead of trying to prove me wrong because those posts would just be laughable excuses for any type of coherent thought like the rest of them.

 

[da K.I.D.]

That's the whole debate: both sides (and even different people on the same side) have different views on what is broken. That's not been different lol. MK falls under your definition, anti ban. MK meets or goes past definition, pro ban.


We shape the game to suit our competitive views/needs. That's also clear. We don't "have" to shape the game, in the sense that we clearly would not have as active of a competitive scene if we allowed stuff like Hanenbow Hyrule etc. We choose to mold it to what we want or think will have a better outcome. Now every decision isn't just "take a vote and move on", there's discussion and debate over competitive ideals and even more boring ****. Sure it's subjective, but I'd rather have a discussion on whether to allow x component than "Well I can't REALLY prove that Hyrule is broken, EN GARDE!!!!"


You can make the distinction between "Yes I think it's broken remove it" and "No I don't think it's broken but I'd like to see it gone". However, if those 2 groups of people both feel that the game would be better with it gone, what's wrong with that? If you have a significant group of people, even if they differ in opinion on what's broken or where exactly the character lies, that say Yeah get rid of him, then what's wrong with getting rid of him?


Even after all of this, if I polled every single person that voted on the MK ban... Asked all of them to state whether he fits their broken criteria or not, and every person said yes, you could simply say "Well that means nothing since you can't objectively define what's broken or not." Even proving that an overwhelming majority of people not only want him banned, but feel that he is broken, would not be enough if that's the stance you adopt.


I can't prove that MK fits YOUR criteria. I hope I never have to prove that MK is hands down unbeatable because yes there would still be people holding out (that and having an unbeatable character sucks even harder). BUT, if enough people feel he's past their line, then that's the way the beans roll dawg.

Thread should be closed after this post.

 

[Spelt]

I agree.

This thread stopped being relevant like a month ago.

 

[Cassio]

I think theres some confusion. I dont think thino is making a claim on whether or not MK should be banned. Hes making the claim that broken has a strict definition which MK clearly does not fit criteria for. The alternative claim is that broken has a variable definition which allows broken to mean the same thing as bannable. Two issues result from the latter method, the first being that its useless to have two terms that mean the same thing and winds up causing confusion. The second being that it allows people to be dishonest.

For instance, think of the statement "we banned MK because he is broken". What is this really saying?

We banned a bannable character? That would be silly.

We banned a character that is overpowered but beatable? Doubtful that broken can apply to a beatable character even on the verge of being unbeatable, or that many would agree.

We banned a character that is unbeatable? More people may agree with this definition, but its also extremely questionable that the community finds metaknight unbeatable. However, theres no denying that some do, and these are the people who thino is giving the callout. Because when asked to defend whether MK is broken they can simply appeal back to the 'loose' (and useless) definition of MK being broken because he was banned, and the community wanted him banned; while also using the term to imply hes unbeatable. Its dishonest to use one word in two different ways like this, and when asked to defend the claim that MK is unbeatable, many arent able to do so.

fyi this is also why I called Dre.'s post horrible

Spoiler

Spelt

. Because he did precisely this, impressively all in one post.

Realistically anyone who claims that MK is broken should also be prepared to defend the claim that MK is at least unbeatable as that is the
lightest definition broken can have. Not questionably unbeatable, but literally unbeatable.

however, if a large majority of people do want MK banned even if they do not believe he is unbeatable or worse, youre right there is little that can be done about it by those who disagree aside from taking a moral high ground. I doubt thino would disagree.

 

[DMG]

Well what exactly does unbeatable entail? Depending on how you see it, unbeatable can range from not having a losing/even MU, to breaking the game through some absurd glitch like winning at character select/as the fight starts without any gameplay involved.


The other thing is that you could arguably make the case that MK is unbeatable if you let him plank/that planking rule is artificial/bad/we need another solution. Depending on whether you look at MK through an unfiltered unrestricted or heavily regulated perspective, you see different things. I do not count IDC in this because that's something easily addressable and unquestionably absurd if allowed in game.


IF we are talking about no rules MK (besides IDC), you could make the argument that he unbeatable TO the degree that no character in the game should win vs him. But most people shrug off the LGL and just accept it even if it's a subjective rule aimed at "trying to limit" something, as if banning MK was a war crime but putting on a LGL was the hand of God.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Exactly why I'm pro-ban.

 

[Cassio]

Yeah its not everyone, I know some people can actually present their case. The people that are infuriating are those that simply got tired of seeing MK or personally dislike him, then come up with BS reasons to call him broken like the poll or tornado or the phase of the moon, etc.

I dont think having no losing/even MUs alone is a strong argument for unbeatable, although I dont think you were making a case for it so I wont delve into it. Personally I think any argument that states MK is "broken/unbeatable" without the words "planking without lgls" in it would be easily refuted if presented openly, but they are frequently stated in here dishonestly.

The planking argument is better than most, the only issue I have with that I sort of implied. Planking as far as we know is only questionably or theoretically unbeatable, which at best makes meta knight only questionably/theoretically broken. I'm not super crazy though, loll. Even though I think it should be lightly tested to see how powerful it truly is, I dont think it needs to be thoroughly proven to be broken for tournament play before he could be banned without lgls, assuming this was the biggest reason people felt MK was bannable (although I think it wasnt that big a deal for most people so its not something that really needs to be tested).

If I wanted to make an argument for MK's legality I'd argue that we should be fine with lgls, but thats something separate.

 

[Tane]

Very interesting to read all this. I'm personally in favor of the ban. I'm no expert by any means, but I've also seen the crazy increase in win potential when somebody whose submain is MK goes from main to submain, both in personally playing against them and in watching. The argument that limiting MKs just to keep him legal is a good one that should make a difference (DMG did a good job of pointing this out clearly) in the opposers' opinions. But again, I'm no expert and don't expect to be taken very seriously on the subject.

On a slightly different note, I'm interested to see what happens to he tier list after this ban. Since a lot of characters' positions on the list were reliant on their MK matchup (Wolf in the most recent list is the first example that comes to mind), I'm interested to see where currently-high tier characters are placed because of their lack of a god to compete with. I also am curious to see what characters people start picking as safety characters (I know that I use MK as a safety net when I'm getting owned) post-ban.

In any event, I'm happy about the ban. It's going to be a little sad not having the lagless demon to play as from time to time, but after getting destroyed by pro MKs many many times in the past is going to keep me from complaining.

I say, good job URC.

 

[DMG]

I was just asking for clarity on the term unbeatable, since you can have different "acceptable" definitions for it in the range I specified. You could state that unbeatable means totally impossible to lose like pick character game win screen comes on, or that you could apply it to a character with no losing or even MU's since technically that means he doesn't lose to any character.

As for LGL, that's a whole nother can of worms. But, lemme ask this: what happens if planking is "technically" beatable as in MK still hard counters everyone in the cast but it's not impossible to win (because as we know, unbeatable can mean a lot of different things)? It would fall short of unbeatable, but would clearly and effectively ruin the game. Are we to stand aside and let it run amok because "Well he doesn't 8:2 everyone in the cast, deal with it"?


If planking is not "broken/unbeatable" but is a clear drag on the game AND a large portion of the community (and I mean community not random people voting on Game FAQS or something horrid) wants it gone, are we really doing any good for "keeping the moral ground" and saying no? You take a stand on an arbitrary issue when you could just say **** it, use a LGL/something, make a positive impact on the game when otherwise you'd be allowing MK to plank and hard counter everyone (is the "moral" high ground still worth it?)


That's likely the case too. It may be impossible to prove that MK planking is completely and totally instant win. BUT something doesn't have to be instant win to be a harmful force in the game. Harmful enough that yes removing it probably entails more positive than negative.


I don't mind people not wanting to do things until very far down the road, and it's better to pick 1 point and stick to it than be all over the place or give in to the demands of anyone who shouts and complains. But I'd rather salvage the game or do something that's likely to be positive, than stick to my point/ideal even if it means the game and community suffer for it.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

If MK had a 70:30 MU against everyone in the game, I'd probably still consider him banworthy. Its a tricky subject though.

The reason I would be pro-ban in that situation is because the game wouldn't just be more competitive with him out of the way, the game's competitiveness would change so much that no other surgical rule could really be compared.

Like, the reason I am against the global LGL is because I feel the situation is similar enough that you can say "well if you're gonna do x, why not do y?" I don't think the same thing could be said for this hypothetical MK.

 

[Cassio]

I agree. I dont think MK needs to be proven unbeatable/broken in tournament to be bannable. I guess someone intent on maintaining the games integrity over the community might do so, but I think drawing the line on bannability in terms of how it will affect the community is fine (at least in this specific case).

I think what bothers anti-ban more at this point is many people seem unwilling to acknowledge that this was a decision reached based on community opinion. Theyre so averse to the idea, that they start inventing BS reasons for why MK needed to be banned to make the decision seem objective when at most there exists only one under specific parameters and in theory.

Can't really quantify how many there are, but its not hard to tell who they are.

 

[philbobjoe]

My biggest problem with the planking argument is that it technically has been banned since metaknight was considered second best. Under the no stalling rule of course. And while I agree that "no stalling" is hard to enforce that is why the lgl was instituted in the first place, to effect the no stalling rule.

 

[Ghostbone]

I think what bothers anti-ban more at this point is many people seem unwilling to acknowledge that this was a decision reached based on community opinion. Theyre so averse to the idea, that they start inventing BS reasons for why MK needed to be banned to make the decision seem objective when at most there exists only one under specific parameters and in theory.

Can't really quantify how many there are, but its not hard to tell who they are.

I might just be blind to it due to bias, but I don't think many people would disagree that community opinion was the main reason for banning MK.

MK did need to be banned, because of all the reasons that caused 76% of people who voted to vote pro-ban.