Before you respond to this, Yuna, go back and respond to my first posts.
Too lazy, compile a new post with these supposed new arguments and I will give them my undivided attention. Note that the second I touch upon something either I or someone else have already responded to in the last 5 or so pages, I will stop responding so that post (and post what I've typed in up 'til that point).
The only time stalling was brought up at a tournament I attended, a TO watched the remainder of the match and the player did not stall anymore.
Who said only stalling gets abused. Anything that
can be abused
will be abused (at least by
some). This is why we need rules instead of relying on merely the honour system. And if we set an arbitrary time limit, someone
will abuse it.
In fact, since this thing is so good,
many will abuse it. And this is
much harder to police than the other stalls that are limited by amounts of repeats and not the amount of time used.
I was not competitive while playing Melee. I am sure that, in some rare instances, there were disputes over stalling. I have not seen stalling being utilized or complained about in any of the threads I've seen, videos I've watched, or people I've talked to.
That's because they were
banned. This isn't banned yet, which is why we
need to ban it. Also, they were
easily monitored and policed. And did you know,
I've already addressed this?!
See above.
But that's not even the point: the community is still largely dependent on the subjectivity of TO's as the solution to this problem.
Umm... no they're not.
Tournaments where the TO can just subjectively go "You've stalled too much, you lose!" are
bad tournaments and most SWF:ers who've played the game Competitively for at least a while
ridicule tournaments and TOs like that.
Whether or not someone is excessively stalling and should lose a match by forfeit should
never be subjective. There needs to be clear rules which will easily let one see when someone's excessively stalling. 1-2-3-4-5 Rising Pounds, you're out!
Save someone not seeinga Rising Pound, there's no way to miss someone stalling with it. Now with the Meta-Knight stall, you have to have a stopwatch to accurately gauge the time. And you have to do it over and over and over again. And you have to have the reaction time to
immediately start the stopwatch whenever the Meta does Down B.
It's not like with Rising Pound where you can miss it starting, see it has started and count it then.
There has never been a set number of moves (which I argued before DIRECTLY against a point you made, so much for me ignoring you) that constitutes a stall. We rely on a TO's judgment on the topic, and the same thing can apply to this move for stalling.
Actually, there have. They just aren't consistent with all tournaments. At most, it's just "Any kind of stalling, at all, is banned". You can only use a move to recover, you can wallbomb as Peach, but if you, at any time, drop down while doing it and you keep on doing it, you've forfeited the match. Or if you wallbomb when there's no way of recovery (like on the middle of Pokémon Stadium), that's also an obvious stall.
Or
any kind of Rising Pound when not trying to recover.
However, how are you going to police this one? "Oh, I was trying to gain momentum.", "Oh, I was trying to approach safely.", "Oh, I was trying to get out of pressure.". I just kept doing it again and again and again.
Heck, I did it only once but at that time, there remained only 10 seconds on the clock. I did it for 5 seconds, grabbed the edge and then jumped off into 4 jumps into Up B and the game ended and I won. We can't have TO's subjectively deciding when something's a stall or when something isn't.
My first two posts directly dealt with what you and Mookierah were saying, and you ignored both of them. The only person to respond since your post has been Pierce, who I responded to thoroughly. You didn't respond to anything topical I said until this post.
Because I saw two paragraphs of BS that had already been responded to, so I ignored the rest.
Next, you can say the same thing about stalling. SOME people will abuse it, I'm sure. Some people will do 4 rising pounds instead of 5.
Yeah, only with Rising Pounds, it's
obvious when someone does the 5th Rising Pound. With this, what are you going to do, use a stopwatch
every time Meta-Knight down Bs? If it was easily monitored, it wouldn't have to be banned.
But it's
not. Also,
already dealt with.
You get the same problem there, yet we still rely on the same method for solving the issue: a subjective TO decision. And who's to say that it has to be a time limit? The TO could say no stalling and completely judge for himself whether you do it in the future. The fact is, some people may abuse it, but it can be monitored the same exact way we've done it in the past.
So the solution is to have TOs subjectively watch all Meta matches and go "You've used the Prolonged Down B too much! You lost!"? Gee, great solution.
I understand that you can move to the edge or jump to counteract the 'stall.' This point doesn't refute what you quoted... just replace it with another stalling technique. Stop using cop-outs.
Ummm... what?
I'm not saying the same things over and over, I'm not IGNORING anything. Every single post directed towards me has been answered. I read the thread fully before posting in response to you and Mookie. Stop using cop outs.
Then why did I just have to respond to three paragraphs of "This is just like any Rising Pound-like stall!" when I'd
already posted about why it's
not.
I told you to go back and read a few pages of what's been posted so far. You obviously didn't. You just waltzed in here as if what you're saying is
totally new and has
never been uttered in this thread so far, forcing us to repeat an endless cycle.
This is why I told you to go back and read five pages past when you first entered the thread.
* Must constitute a win in a such a way it's virtually impossible to win against it once it has begun.
This one? You can only make this point by saying it can stall, which is what I've been arguing against.
We banned it for stalling. Then comes the problem of when it constitutes a stall. In this case, it will
obviously be a time limit and not a limit of repeated uses of the same move. But then comes the problem of what the time limit will be. Followed by the problem that it's so **** hard to keep check of that the Metas aren't breaching said time limits.
This is a TO's nightmares and takes too much time and manpower. Also,
I've said all of this three times already.
Yea, my point was that you can ban the stall and not the technique, so it wouldn't become an instant-win. Kind of like how we'd ban wobbling past %300 but not the technique in general. If it's the stall that gives the win, then we ban stalling with it, but that's not a reason to ban the technique.
No one Wobbles past 150% because you
die before that, anyway. No one's gonna risk you breaking out of Wobbling by prolonging it past what's needed. If someone
does take it to 300%, you can just look at the percentages and go "You took it past 300%". With this, you need a stopwatch to measure the millisecond.
Also,
I've already brought this up.
The tech is broken, YES, it should be banned, YES, but (and my ONLY point has been) that we can limit the stalling the same way we've done with other moves, so it shouldn't be used as an excuse for banning.
Must I repeat everything I just said or will you be satisfied with me not replying to this paragraph?
Edit: You know what, despite the fact that this took a while to type up, arguments between Yuna and I always devolve into some circular garbage.
Because you're not good at debating. You
ignore anything you can't refute and repeat old used and already refuted arguments, even those originally brought up by yourself and already refuted by whoever you're debating against. It's quite telling when almost no one who isn't random agrees with you in debates.
Sometimes, they agree with your standpoint, but not the way you motivate it because your debating skills are quite lacking. Mine are basic, I do not use any fancy-schmancy stuff. But at least I use actual facts to back myself up.
Is it illegitimate for the SBR to suggest a ban for a move being 'too good?'
Did you just ask if it's against SBR rules for itself to suggest a ban on a move for being "too good"? Or did you mean "Is it legitimate"? In which case the answer is, obviously, yes.
If something is just "too good" and lets someone win every single tournament without ever standing a realistic chance of losing, then it will be banned. If it's the character in itself, then we'll ban it. If it's a special technique that's not a natural part of their moveset (like they can't accidentally do a Fair, even though it's so good it has to be banned), then we'll just ban the technique.
