New Rule Pertaining To MK / Rainbow Cruise + Brinstar (?)

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Brinstar is random, prove me wrong.

Pretty sure this was proven wrong in the stage forums a bunch of times.

Edit: Apex is a large reason MK isn't getting banned in a lot of places.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Look, I can go 15 rounds with this if I have to.

Then let's because it looks like you're using an outdated video of MikeHaze to do your fighting for you. Do you know how long that rule where providing an incentive (not forcing) a TO to use unity actually lasted in practice? Do you know about how you could gain experimental ruleset status? Did you try and host tournaments at that time? Can you point to me a single example of a tournament who's attendance suffered based on that rule?

 

[deepseadiva]

Also I don't see how not providing a privilege counts as forcing... Also that wasn't the urc's doing in the first place I believe. It was actually from higher up. And even then after a short while they eliminated that rule, and then they got disbanded for some reason. Not seeing their forceful dictatorship.

Selectively withdrawing privilege from those that disagree is a punishment. That's why that ridiculous rule was eliminated - because it was a threat - que "incentive" jajajaja.

The URC was a hilarious power-grab. I'm glad it's forever documented for us to look back on. That garbage was shameful.

 

[The Ben]

The URC was a hilarious power-grab. I'm glad it's forever documented for us to look back on. That garbage was shameful.

Certainly someone should have the power to get things done. I find it more shameful that whenever that person or group exists you guys get mad about it.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

Essentially it was. You wouldn't get any prime tournament advertising(i.e. A sticky on Smashboards or having your tournament as a featured tournament on AiB) unless you ran the Unity ruleset before the committee disbanded. Even MikeHaze, who was a part of it himself, admitted that you had to run Unity to get that prime advertising. Then Apex came along and forced the committee to disband because they saw that enforcing a national standard isn't going to do them any favors in the long run.

Look, I can go 15 rounds with this if I have to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD11l3omQzM

Wow, almost everything you just said is inaccurate. The sticky rule ended a long long time before the URC disbanded, so there goes that lame old argument. I don't think it was ever very strictly enforced even when it existed? Also, Apex had nothing to do with the URC disbanding. In fact, Apex basically used the Unity ruleset, since all they did was remove RC and Brinstar from the stagelist. That just shows how good the Unity Ruleset actually was. I didn't check your youtube link, but I'm sure it's just the mikehaze video. Ya know, the one with all the same outdated and inaccurate points that you're making. That video is old.

 

[deepseadiva]

Certainly someone should have the power to get things done. I find it more shameful that whenever that person or group exists you guys get mad about it.

Unity! Everyone play the same game! Reminds me of:

You don't encourage this by disciplining those that disagree and choose not to partake. The mere existence of that rule revealed the URCs true colors: a power-hungry group that felt they knew best. And knew so much, that they needed to exercise their measly powers to quiet any dissenters. A party legitimately interested in unity wouldn't have needed forced coercion.

Honestly, the rule wasn't even half bad. It's simple existence revealed so much of their true priorities though - unity being secondary.

I didn't check your youtube link, but I'm sure it's just the mikehaze video. Ya know, the one with all the same outdated and inaccurate points that you're making. That video is old.

It's still entirely factual? Maybe the math is wrong in one portion, but even then the results implied can still be debatable (a 50% MK-player base being overcentralizing)?

Listen, we can't talk if the counter-point is just "OLD!!"

Anyways, what's this thread about. Some bad rule to not ban MK...? Ill your BBR member now whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

 

[BSP]

Pretty sure this was proven wrong in the stage forums a bunch of times.

It's predictable, but it's still has some randomness to it.

 

[DeLux]

Unity! Everyone play the same game! Reminds me of:

You don't encourage this by disciplining those that disagree and choose not to partake. The mere existence of that rule revealed the URCs true colors: a power-hungry group that felt they knew best. And knew so much, that they needed to exercise their measly powers to quiet any dissenters. A party legitimately interested in unity wouldn't have needed forced coercion.

Honestly, the rule wasn't even half bad. It's simple existence revealed so much of their true priorities though - unity being secondary.

Meno, having gotten to meet you in person, this saddens me because it is absolutely and positively false. If we took strawpolls of the committee members, I'd say unanimously the URC did not support the sticky rule by the end, with maybe one or two supporting it originally. I know a few members (like myself) went so far as lobbying non-URS tournaments to get stickied and have the same privileges as other tournaments. If anything, the URC was instrumental in the removal of the sticky policy by lobbying the higher level site staff administration to revoke the rule.

Further, the URC was a week away from releasing 3.0 when we were disbanded which would have appealed to community common practice for a unified ruleset using analytic stats based on ruleset usage.

I think your anger or negative sentiments are misdirected. It's not the URC, which did everything it could to cater to the community as a whole, but the higher level staff that was responsible for the sticky policy as well as disbanding the URC right before such a monumental change that addresses nearly all of your criticisms.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

@Meno: John#s literally posted this a few posts before mine. Check his link

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13578522&pos­tcount=695

(There's supposed to be two pictures there but imageshack crapped out on one of them, but you can still get the point from the remaining one...)

So, to answer your question? No, it's not factual. It's also still old, outdated and inaccurate. How many ways do I need to say it?

 

[The Ben]

You don't encourage this by disciplining those that disagree and choose not to partake.

The rest of your post is a bunch of odd accusations about the nature of URC's members which I don't think I can rightfully address because I don't personally know any of them. However, this part I feel I can safely answer without making any assumption of them as people.

Nobody was being punished. Nobody has the obligation to promote any event unless they have a contractual obligation to do so, period. Selective promotion, however, does create a stronger sense of organizational structure. Despite what you're saying happened never actually happening, it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad thing in the long run. If the goal is to have a unified structured format that is instantly recognizable, easy to advertise, and accessible on a wide scale than yes limiting the meme-pool would be a good thing. MLG and Evo run on the notion of brand identity, and having a unified way of doing things helps that. Getting rid of that for Smash only limits the scope of the community. While I don't necessarily think URC was trying to exist as a promotional entity, at least the unified rules part is the best thing you can do from a business standpoint.

On the other hand, I'm not even sure that competitive smash should be accessible to the general gaming public.

 

[deepseadiva]

I think your anger or negative sentiments are misdirected. It's not the URC, which did everything it could to cater to the community as a whole, but the higher level staff that was responsible for the sticky policy as well as disbanding the URC right before such a monumental change that addresses nearly all of your criticisms.

A qualified group legitimately concerned with the community would have been against such a measure from the beginning. It's cool the URC eventually aligned itself with reality, but it's naive baby steps are glaring evidence of it's ineptitude. Which is especially alarming, since this group attempted, and succeeded at wielding power over the community.

w

t

f

@Meno: John#s literally posted this a few posts before mine. Check his link

So, to answer your question? No, it's not factual. It's also still old, outdated and inaccurate. How many ways do I need to say it?

Yes, I was aware of the link. MK takes 11%~40% of the money. Okay.

This discrepancy discredits the entire video. Plus it's from last year. 2011 was when Melee came out, right?

Nobody was being punished. Nobody has the obligation to promote any event unless they have a contractual obligation to do so, period. Selective promotion, however, does create a stronger sense of organizational structure. Despite what you're saying happened never actually happening, it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad thing in the long run. If the goal is to have a unified structured format that is instantly recognizable, easy to advertise, and accessible on a wide scale than yes limiting the meme-pool would be a good thing.

Yes, no one owes anyone anything, but it's hypocritical for this group to emphasize unity and then implement a thoroughly dividing gesture.

The URC, though with noble intentions, was ultimately incapable. The whole debacle was harmful to the community, I would even argue. This is our community leadership?

 

[DeLux]

A qualified group legitimately concerned with the community would have been against such a measure from the beginning. It's cool the URC eventually aligned itself with reality, but it's naive baby steps are glaring evidence of it's ineptitude. Which is especially alarming, since this group attempted, and succeeded at wielding power over the community.

w

t

f

Given that decisions were made by majority decision within the framework and charter of URC establishment, it would be fair to say that the URC was against the rule from the beginning. URC members arguing against the sticky rule since its inception were common and pretty well documented. The most famous probably being Mike Haze's video and the most persistent being mine.

Baby steps were not made by the URC, as again, it was not a URC decision to be made by a site staff decision. If anything, you ought to be raging about admins and moderators that have sticky privileges in tournament forums. The URC had literally 0 power in the decision making process in that regard.

You're free to criticize all you want, but your method of taking a false premise and trying to portray it as the truth is at the same level of what you are falsely accusing myself and other URC members of doing. What you're doing is libelous and insulting.

 

[deepseadiva]

Given that decisions were made by majority decision within the framework and charter of URC establishment, it would be fair to say that the URC was against the rule from the beginning.

I don't bother looking at intentions and am only judging actions. True or false. At one point, leadership valued MK-banned tournaments over MK-legal tournaments.

URC = smash leadership

All yall failed. Man up.

 

[DeLux]

That has absolutely 0 to do with your statements on powergrabbing and things of that nature.

If you're going to make an argument, even from faulty premises, at least make it coherent.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Oh please. Intentions are extremely important to the actions. The world isn't black and white. There's shades of grey.

Grow up. They did an excellent job at a very coherent rule set and it's not their fault they were forced to disband before the next rule set was released.

 

[lordvaati]

so it's a reverse version of the Ness/Saffron City rule from 64? hmmm.....

 

[The Ben]

This is our community leadership

Well, considering how childish the community acts and the way it constantly backlashes against anyone who tries to be the leader, yes.

 

[deepseadiva]

That has absolutely 0 to do with your statements on powergrabbing and things of that nature.

If smash leadership was legitimately concerned with unity, and was an actually capable representative of the smash community, and wasn't motivated by other priorities and things of that nature, such a basic mistake simply would not have occurred. At all.

It did.

1+1=

Oh please. Intentions are extremely important to the actions. The world isn't black and white. There's shades of grey.

Look I made them a sticker.

Well, considering how childish the community acts and the way it constantly backlashes against anyone who tries to be the leader, yes.

Excuse me for demanding quality from my representatives. You're right, that's childish and un-American.

 

[DeLux]

Which again leads to the concept that your "leadership" was the site staff that had the issues you bring up
Sorry, 1+1 does not equal "the URC is to blame"

The system on the cusp of being debuted would have addressed all of that from the URC end, but was shut down by the Senate for whatever reason prior to launch.

 

[The Ben]

Excuse me for demanding quality from my representatives. You're right, that's childish and un-American.

Demanding quality is one thing, and you should do it. What you've been doing is throwing around accusations hoping something sticks. You've been wrong on a lot of claims (including the URC punishing people for not using their rules). However, it isn't just you who does it.

Remember when what's his face tried to get Evo to use his ruleset instead of their own? Dunning-kruger effect in action.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

How can I explain this so you'll understand? The URC didn't make the sticky rule. If our community was the US government, here's how it was supposed to work. The SWF admins/mods would be the executive branch, the BBR would be like the legislative branch, and the URC the judicial. So, as the makers and enforcers of rules, it's often veiwed that the URC was responsible for the sticky rule. Understandable, since stuff like that was, in fact, supposed to be their job. However, in reality, the SWF staff were the ones who actually had the means to control that stuff. URC members did not, in fact, have the ability to give stickies to who they chose. What it ultimately boiled down to was this. The URC was not allowed to carry out their job properly. A few select members, who also happened to be SWF staff, ended up being the face of an organization whose members actually had very little power. Just as this problem was about to be corrected, these same outside powers that be disbanded the URC, leaving them as something of a scapegoat for their own personal failings, and the failings of the community. In reality, the individual members of the URC did more for the smash community than you or anyone else. It's unfortunate that they are unfairly grouped together as a collective failure, when as individuals they were far from it.

 

[Sanji Himura]

No matter who is ultimately to blame, whether or not it was the URC or SWF admins/mods, you have to face facts that the URC took the blame for 99.99% of the BS. Obtaining special permission from a URC member to alter the rules for it to qualify for full benefits of a URC-run tournament(and this was prior to the MK ban), then there was the fact that at the time of the ban vote taken place, not one single member of the URC who voted for the ban was a MK main(again, going by what Mike Haze said).

It appeared to me that while the URC's actions may appear just, they really set the game backwards by inaction.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

No matter who is ultimately to blame, whether or not it was the URC or SWF admins/mods, you have to face facts that the URC took the blame for 99.99% of the BS.

They took the blame, and continue to do so, because people like you insist on placing blame without getting their facts straight. The URC will continue being an easy target to blame for any problems seen by the smash community for years to come, simply because it's so commonplace. People read posts like yours, and watch videos by mikehaze, and go from not knowing what the **** they're talking about, to not knowing what the **** they're talking about, but thinking they do know cuz they heard it somewhere before. That's a volatile combination. That's how trolls are born.

 

[DeLux]

We should probably get this thread back on topic though

 

[#HBC | Joker]

Brinstar and RC are bad tho

This rule idea is ok if that's what the people who attend your tournaments want. It'll never be the standard though, because there will always be players, not to mention entire regions, who'd rather just ban those stages altogether.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

No matter who is ultimately to blame, whether or not it was the URC or SWF admins/mods, you have to face facts that the URC took the blame for 99.99% of the BS. Obtaining special permission from a URC member to alter the rules for it to qualify for full benefits of a URC-run tournament(and this was prior to the MK ban), then there was the fact that at the time of the ban vote taken place, not one single member of the URC who voted for the ban was a MK main(again, going by what Mike Haze said).

It appeared to me that while the URC's actions may appear just, they really set the game backwards by inaction.

What does this even mean?

They took the blame and that doesn't mean they didn't deserve it. They did their best to get around the sticky rule that they did not put in place. They were a group that you could apply for and join as a tournament host. Nothing stopped MK mains from joining. Besides, the site wide poll stayed consistent at about a 60-40 (iirc) split in favor of banning MK at all skill levels.

We should probably get this thread back on topic though

Neither Illmatic nor Sync appear to be in favor of defending their proposed rule. No one else seems to want to fill in the gap to try and save it from the criticism it has taken. What we have here is a chance to correct misconceptions and I would prefer that not be taken away for the sake of "on-topic" when being "on-topic" just makes the thread die and become useful for absolutely nothing even if it's original intent was a bust.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

He's a mod tho, so he's gotta at least try to "keep order". This may not be his forum to moderate, but since he's partially responsible for the derailment, I can understand him wanting it to get back on-topic.

 

[Joaco]

Rainbow Cruise and Bristar should not be in the ruleset regardless of MK

 

[z00ted]

Thanks for telling us exactly why, 8 Bit.

 

[DMG]

Instead of reasoning, I give you Meta Knight with a Banana and the children of Mr. Peanut!

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

The real argument that I haven't really heard answered is why are we only drawing the line at rainbow and brinstar when halbred and delfino are arguably just as good for him

 

[Sync.]

Thi thread got angry calm down this isn't at your tournament. I'm doing what I want cause I can and you can't stop me <3 Teehhee!

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Thi thread got angry calm down this isn't at your tournament. I'm doing what I want cause I can and you can't stop me <3 Teehhee!

Dude, your concept is absolutely laughable. You want to take a system designed to givecharacters an advantage, and then make a surgical rule limiting which character is able to play on these stages. It doesn't even stop the problem in its current form. The only way to seriously address the problem with a similar rule is either to ban more stages and move this to another pair (let's face it, if we start banning more stages, then these are going to go quickly) or to expand on it. You either have to forbid the MK from going to more stages and leave him with essentially only starter stages to artificially buff certain characters in the match-up or ban MK from going certain stages in certain match-ups (a further implementation issue and an absolutely disgusting double standard). Let's face it, this rule is never going to reach the point where MK can be banned from picking FD against Wario and Game & Watch.

You're much better off further burying your standards and supporting the Brinstar/RCruise hate in order to try and get your bad idea implemented.

Reposted for your convenience. Keep in mind that I was more than a little pissed off when this was originally posted, as you can tell from my large post directed at Illmatic.

Look. You and I BOTH know you're going to get absolutely no strong opposition to this rule from a local. I've read your Ascension tournament thread. You can run whatever ruleset you feel like as a TO, especially in a region where no one is willing to host (literally every smasher is able to host, you just don't have a region where they are willing) because of two reasons.

1.) They don't have options. Most of them will go because it is what they have to go to. The ones with enough backbone to say "No" are few and far between and you can quite literally ignore them because one or two's attendance is not going to damn your tournament.

2.) The majority of local players don't care. I could run a tournament with the most liberal stagelist that remains plausible (something like Unity + Japes, Norfair, Distant Planet, Pictochat, and YIipes) with MK banned and I would still get about an average attendance. I would lose maybe 2 players who might otherwise come and this is with a crazy radical change to rules. Don't turn items on and locals really don't care. Ironically, I would lose about two cars full of players if I left MK legal.

If you want your ruleset to catch on at the larger stage, you're going to have a lot more dissenters. I hate the rule because it's a double standard that is only a band-aid solution. The band-aid isn't even big enough to cover the blister as I've outlined in the way the rule can't help anyone who does okay on CP stages, but loses badly to MK on neutrals.

If you want to talk about the rule, then by all means, let's talk. We can take the conversation away from issues of MK legality and we can talk about whether or not your rule can be refined enough to be effective.

 

[salaboB]

If you want your ruleset to catch on at the larger stage, you're going to have a lot more dissenters. I hate the rule because it's a double standard that is only a band-aid solution. The band-aid isn't even big enough to cover the blister as I've outlined in the way the rule can't help anyone who does okay on CP stages, but loses badly to MK on neutrals..

Which is back to my modification:

If you pick MK and your opponent doesn't, they pick the stage regardless of who's pick it normally would be.

If MK is brokenly good, he's brokenly good. Don't pretend it's not a direct slap to weaken the character and the rule can be a lot more straightforward.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

You're rule is still bad, but I'm not going to get sidetracked until I can find out if Sync is going to respond.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

What modification to the rules would you suggest within the lines of keeping mk legal, making mk managable, and maximizing legal stages? I think that banning those stages vs mk is a good first step but I don't think that it would probably be enough cause mk still has the hard counter picks with delfino and halbred and lesser extent frigate and possibly others. Not letting mk get stage counter picks at all might effectively control the situation. Why do you disagree ryker?

 

[z00ted]

Ryker, Frigate/Delfino/Halberd (all three) do not necessarily have to be legal with this rule still in place.
We're testing stage lists at our tournaments.

 

[Player-1]

I don't think frigate should be legal

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Ryker, Frigate/Delfino/Halberd (all three) do not necessarily have to be legal with this rule still in place.
We're testing stage lists at our tournaments.

That helps me none at all. As far as I understood it, the point of this rule was to SAVE content, not remove more of it.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

What modification to the rules would you suggest within the lines of keeping mk legal, making mk managable, and maximizing legal stages? I think that banning those stages vs mk is a good first step but I don't think that it would probably be enough cause mk still has the hard counter picks with delfino and halbred and lesser extent frigate and possibly others. Not letting mk get stage counter picks at all might effectively control the situation. Why do you disagree ryker?

There isn't a way I can possibly conceive where you can have the first and third bolded items coexisting. The second is debatable in whether or not it's even possible and the amount of changes and surgical rules that have to be put into place to even put up an argument is hilarious, especially when you look at the fact that he remains dominant even with all of these limiters.

Completely removing the choice to counter pick is a much better route, but it runs into similar problems. It, once again, artificially buffs the characters that do well against MK on neutral stages. It ALSO is a heavy blow to the mid tier MKs for whom anti-banners seem to preach out in defense.

Why, if you are so damn dead set on keeping MK legal, do you want to punish players for selecting him by denying basic privileges afforded by the game's format? Seeing as you're reaching outside of the match itself and into set procedure, why can anyone counterpick a lower tier character than themselves?

I would legitimately like to hear the answer to the last question so I can pose a follow-up.