Official Metaknight Discussion

[Overswarm]

The thing is, you didn't really prove him wrong. The fact that they're not indicative of a trend in the character doesn't mean they're not indicative of the metagame as a whole. In other words, he's ok as long as occassional outliers occur.

We have proven this wrong beyond a reasonable doubt.


Since then we've refined it, and now you have to be bat**** crazy to doubt it. Like, insane. Like a 3% chance of occuring insane.



But I'll post the new stuff later

Whether it works or not is subjective, the point is that unless the criteria is met, nothing happens. The truth of whether or not the criteria is met is an objective fact, so people can't go posting "BBR decisions" that have less the 2/3rds majority, otherwise they'll be ignored if they're not in it, and kicked if they are.

The "objective decision" isn't 2/3rds. It's the BBR decision that is objective. 2/3rds is just what we use to determine something. We've voted on battlefield as a stage before, and there were 4 votes for "banned". They were joke votes. If for some reason all of the BBR had voted banned as a joke, we wouldn't have made it a banned stage.

You're placing principles on things as if they are never-changing truths, and this is not the case.

What happens if we say "we need 51% or more" and use that as the new criteria? It's still objective, so it's still okay, right?

 

[Nanaki]

There are no police here, and it doesn't change most people's minds.

True enough. I was just pointing out the idiocy required for your hypothetical situation to really take place.

I liked the name you quoted me as, btw.

 

[MarKO X]

oh kay
so wut exactly are we trying to prove with this criteria discussion? it's subjective, that's understood... and?

 

[Overswarm]

oh kay
so wut exactly are we trying to prove with this criteria discussion? it's subjective, that's understood... and?

Adumbrodeus is the guy that doesn't understand the lessons from Julius Caesar. I am attempting to educate him. Hubris stemming from "what we have said to be right is right" leads to your downfall. If the public rises up, you're screwed. If the public doesn't but one guy decides to stab you, you're screwed. In subjective areas there are no objective measurements without a compromised criteria, and in situations like this where there is inherent bias on the line it is near impossible to do so.

Think about it... our offer is for a 6 month ban on MK to collect data and make a real decision.


When you're offered that, the logical solution isn't to say "no". It's a testing procedure.

An argument agaisnt the temporary ban that made sense would be something along the lines of "6 months is too long" and then a debate on how long we'd need to see an actual new metagame to emerge and indicate trends (we've been using 6 months as a standard so far in the debate, or at least pro-ban has; anti-ban has used more along the lines of "in the past two weeks", which isn't enough to show a trend). Another one could be "we should only do it in certain regions" and then a debate on what that would mean and why it would or would not be viable.

Not a straight up "no". It's a test, not an execution sentence.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Rotten at its core. Thrown out the window as irrelevant. Wrapping poop in a gift box doesn't make it a good present.

Community consensus is not a valid way to obtain a ban criteria?


Then what praytell IS?


Obviously everything and nothing is banworthy, therefore I will commence to campaign for the ban of lyat's cruis, final destination, and every non-neutral stage.

Furthermore, I will campaign for the ban of MK, Snake, ROB, DK, ICs, and DDD.


Because if there is no valid way to reach a ban criteria, obviously my views on what I'd like as the metagame are most valid, right?

Thus, it'd be someone's criteria. I'm not sure on your point.



So?

In both cases the statements are irrelevant

If they say it outright they can still say I changed my mind.

You can't lock anyone onto anything. That's the point!

Why?

That's people's job as representatives of the community, when necessary they must lock themselves into a position.

If they cannot take the responsibility of locking themselves into the position in terms of what is and is not banworthy they should not be there.

Great, except.... the objective criteria is met subjectively, defeating the purpose. This isn't a constant. It's not scientific. You can't say "the criteria needed to be met for boiling water on Earth is for N amount of water to be at X degrees over Y surface area" and be proven wrong if you have the variables right because it is a constant. We do not have said constants.

Subjective met objectively.

We do have constants, the game is established in it's present form and will always be the same, we are merely learning how to understand it better. As for the things that we DON'T have constants, we do have statistically significant results as you have shown MANY times. Ok Crow! has shown.

and the MK mains in the BBR voting not to ban MK? What about people saying "M2K is my friend and I don't want him to lose money"?

Why is the committee needed in the first place if you're giving it to the BBR?

Too large and unwieldy, and isn't considered as representing the people.


As for those people, they should know to recluse themselves from the voting. Doesn't the SBR have ethics policies?

People who vote based on that reasoning should be removed. They always have a right to vote, but not reclusing oneself when they are doing it out of personal interest should merit disciplinary action.

So?

Omni literally said "I'm not going to read your arguments" after I trounced him and said he was "too lazy", but continued to argue with other posters who posted flawed arguments. No one is rallying for a new anti-ban voice.

And you don't think that hurts anti-ban signifigantly in terms of PR?

Now your making subjectively met objective criteria a holy grail even when the process is compromised. I'm not saying we should abandon the standard, but saying "Well this is our criteria!" and not changing it because you're afraid of a PR fiasco when it's the right thing to do is downright silly.

Objectively met subjective criteria, and how would it not be the right thing to do? I'm sorry, but this is the way that law works in the real world. You can't just go back on your legally binding commitments cause "you think it's the right thing to do".

Maybe we need to start taking a lesson from the real world for a change.

 

[dainbramage]

Adum, if I were to say "MK should be banned if he has more than 30% of the total points in ankoku's list" it's easy to see whether it's true or not. That doesn't make it any less subjective.


EDIT: At any rate, anti-ban will pick criteria which is hilariously difficult to achieve, and pro-ban will pick criteria which metaknight already reaches. Hence we go back to one's personal ideology.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Adum, if I were to say "MK should be banned if he has more than 30% of the total points in ankoku's list" it's easy to see whether it's true or not. That doesn't make it any less subjective.

You're missing the point, I'm talking about how for a criteria to be useful, the fact that it's met must be objective fact. The process for obtaining such a criteria, though referenced, wasn't what this was about at all.


This was a commentary on how the SBR's supposedly met criteria was useless.

EDIT: At any rate, anti-ban will pick criteria which is hilariously difficult to achieve, and pro-ban will pick criteria which metaknight already reaches. Hence we go back to one's personal ideology.

Use data that hasn't been obtained yet, for the 500,000th time.

 

[Overswarm]

Community consensus is not a valid way to obtain a ban criteria?


Then what praytell IS?


Obviously everything and nothing is banworthy, therefore I will commence to campaign for the ban of lyat's cruis, final destination, and every non-neutral stage.

Furthermore, I will campaign for the ban of MK, Snake, ROB, DK, ICs, and DDD.


Because if there is no valid way to reach a ban criteria, obviously my views on what I'd like as the metagame are most valid, right?

Huzzah!!!!

You get it!


So yes, you are correct. Everything and nothing is banworthy when looking at the whole.

This is the problem.


What we CAN do is make a better competitive game. How we determine this is generally by the BBR, and BBR members are supposed to make a better game. If the membership of the BBR can be considered compromised, BAM. Results are basically worthless.

So it's up to how you feel about the BBR or, on a local level, your personal TO.

That's people's job as representatives of the community, when necessary they must lock themselves into a position.

If they cannot take the responsibility of locking themselves into the position in terms of what is and is not banworthy they should not be there.

Tell the police?

We do have constants, the game is established in it's present form and will always be the same, we are merely learning how to understand it better. As for the things that we DON'T have constants, we do have statistically significant results as you have shown MANY times. Ok Crow! has shown.

But the statistics are oooooooopen to interprataaaaaatiooooooooooooon

</Omni if he was a ghost>

As for those people, they should know to recluse themselves from the voting. Doesn't the SBR have ethics policies?

We're a secret video game forum.

People who vote based on that reasoning should be removed. They always have a right to vote, but not reclusing oneself when they are doing it out of personal interest should merit disciplinary action.

Tell the police.

And you don't think that hurts anti-ban signifigantly in terms of PR?

Looking at the people who are still anti-ban, I think it doesn't really matter.

Objectively met subjective criteria, and how would it not be the right thing to do? I'm sorry, but this is the way that law works in the real world. You can't just go back on your legally binding commitments cause "you think it's the right thing to do".

Maybe we need to start taking a lesson from the real world for a change.

What you are talking about is government change at the core in an attempt for legitimacy and it is far beyond the scope of this debate.

At the core, you have the 3 leaders of BBR (AlphaZealot, Hylian, Marc) and the admin of smashboards (JV), and they basically have the final say on who is in or out. We'll be getting a head director soon who will also do that kind of stuff, but that's neither here nor there.

So if you're worried about legitimacy and holding people accountable, talk to them and ask them what their standards are for holding people accountable... because I'm not a police officer that can threaten them with banning or the like.

Use data that hasn't been obtained yet, for the 500,000th time.

You're like half a year too late. Also, the data can be pretty easily guessed in advance with the data we currently have.

 

[Orion*]

I think I'm gonna take a step back from this thread for a while.

I'll support pro-ban and w/e but a part of me wants to believe that we'll see more non MKs taking top spots at tournies etc..

For now I'll do my part and temporarily drop MK and see if I can still take top spots with Snake/Falco. You guys play nice in here.

im doing the same except falco/pika (anti ban lol).

GL!

 

[adumbrodeus]

Might I assume I you agree with me on the points you drop?

Huzzah!!!!

You get it!


So yes, you are correct. Everything and nothing is banworthy when looking at the whole.

This is the problem.


What we CAN do is make a better competitive game. How we determine this is generally by the BBR, and BBR members are supposed to make a better game. If the membership of the BBR can be considered compromised, BAM. Results are basically worthless.

So it's up to how you feel about the BBR or, on a local level, your personal TO.

Definitely a constructivist.




We develop criteria so we can avoid that issue, we make it firm so we can do just that, otherwise we have the exact situation that we're in this exact moment.

But the statistics are oooooooopen to interprataaaaaatiooooooooooooon

</Omni if he was a ghost>

Not if you control for the proper factors like we illustrated. Regardless, if we establish in the criteria how we interpret certain statistics we eliminate that issue.

We're a secret video game forum.



Tell the police.

And you think that gives you an excuse? It's no wonder there's so much negativity towards the SBR these days.

What you are talking about is government change at the core in an attempt for legitimacy and it is far beyond the scope of this debate.

At the core, you have the 3 leaders of BBR (AlphaZealot, Hylian, Marc) and the admin of smashboards (JV), and they basically have the final say on who is in or out. We'll be getting a head director soon who will also do that kind of stuff, but that's neither here nor there.

So if you're worried about legitimacy and holding people accountable, talk to them and ask them what their standards are for holding people accountable... because I'm not a police officer that can threaten them with banning or the like.

You think I don't know that, but you're a member too, these are things that you should be pushing for too.

You're like half a year too late. Also, the data can be pretty easily guessed in advance with the data we currently have.

There's still a great deal of data we're missing, but I will agree the empirical data we can go on is retracting significantly.

 

[Overswarm]

Might I assume I you agree with me on the points you drop?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Overswarm
Huzzah!!!!

You get it!


So yes, you are correct. Everything and nothing is banworthy when looking at the whole.

This is the problem.


What we CAN do is make a better competitive game. How we determine this is generally by the BBR, and BBR members are supposed to make a better game. If the membership of the BBR can be considered compromised, BAM. Results are basically worthless.

So it's up to how you feel about the BBR or, on a local level, your personal TO.


Definitely a constructivist.




We develop criteria so we can avoid that issue, we make it firm so we can do just that, otherwise we have the exact situation that we're in this exact moment.









Quote:
But the statistics are oooooooopen to interprataaaaaatiooooooooooooon

</Omni if he was a ghost>

Not if you control for the proper factors like we illustrated. Regardless, if we establish in the criteria how we interpret certain statistics we eliminate that issue.






Quote:
We're a secret video game forum.



Tell the police.

And you think that gives you an excuse? It's no wonder there's so much negativity towards the SBR these days.

No, I'm saying there is no avenue for what you're suggesting

 

[Kewkky]

The SBR-B might need some re-hashing, but how can you tell if it does or not? We as a community with no viewing rights on what's going on in there can only assume who does and doesn't deserve to be called 'elite' due to how they act and talk out here, where it doesn't matter much. For all we know, in the SBR-B everyone takes things too seriously and the ones who seem the stupidest out here, could be the smartest and most reasonable in there (and vice-versa).

Just let the SBR-B have whoever they have, politics are no different. They might talk one way, but they sure act differently most of the time. We can speculate and talk about who doesn't belong in there, but with no proof behind our claims, what kind of ground are we standing on?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Just so everyone knows, "proving something wrong" is impossible and can't be done. You can only ever "prove something."

With that said, if you want to say something, you have to have supporting evidence or it doesn't even need to be "proven wrong," it can just be discarded.

All I mean is that evidence against something can't exist that isn't expressly "for" something else.

This is why (and I don't intend to start a religious argument) some scientists simply throw out the notion of an all-powerful universal entity. There can never be any supporting evidence for, nor against it. But just because there's no evidence "against" it doesn't mean that it can be considered.

 

[Masmasher@]

I ask why can you guys not collaborate and build on criteria thats been suggested in the past? for other games of this genre

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Any criteria selected based on a numerical value will be arbitrary.

Any criteria selected based on the whims of the community will also be arbitrary, but at least we can show that the community feels it is better for it.

There is no criteria that can be truly objective, and there really doesn't need to be. The important thing is the health of the Brawl community overall, not making sure that we adhere to some numeric standard plucked from thin air.

My point is that we can argue over criteria for days and days and nothing will ever change nor should it. Criteria is by definition a subjective thing. You can attempt to support it with logical arguments and perhaps even find something that most people will agree upon, but please don't pretend there is any such thing as an objective criteria.

 

[adumbrodeus]

No, I'm saying there is no avenue for what you're suggesting

There isn't any more.


Community pressure was the intended avenue, it's a little late now though, so I'm just gonna watch the fireworks.

The SBR-B might need some re-hashing, but how can you tell if it does or not? We as a community with no viewing rights on what's going on in there can only assume who does and doesn't deserve to be called 'elite' due to how they act and talk out here, where it doesn't matter much. For all we know, in the SBR-B everyone takes things too seriously and the ones who seem the stupidest out here, could be the smartest and most reasonable in there (and vice-versa).

Just let the SBR-B have whoever they have, politics are no different. They might talk one way, but they sure act differently most of the time. We can speculate and talk about who doesn't belong in there, but with no proof behind our claims, what kind of ground are we standing on?

Politics have disciplinary committees, and they're there for a reason, to enforce minimal standards of behavior.


People have been removed from the SBR and I'm sure others will, that implies certain expectations of conduct.

Any criteria selected based on a numerical value will be arbitrary.

Any criteria selected based on the whims of the community will also be arbitrary, but at least we can show that the community feels it is better for it.

There is no criteria that can be truly objective, and there really doesn't need to be. The important thing is the health of the Brawl community overall, not making sure that we adhere to some numeric standard plucked from thin air.

My point is that we can argue over criteria for days and days and nothing will ever change nor should it. Criteria is by definition a subjective thing. You can attempt to support it with logical arguments and perhaps even find something that most people will agree upon, but please don't pretend there is any such thing as an objective criteria.

The thing is, on an issue with such a deep divide we really don't have much of a choice then to develop something to protect the health of the community, that's why community consensus is a good way to develop it and that's why I suggested my process in the first place.


These debates create very harsh divides and without an accepted respected process of dealing with them the community will become more and more broken up over it and fall apart. Fighters have died over less.

 

[Masmasher@]

Could it be agreed upon by both sides that that huge chart of data crow has show ban potiential?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Could it be agreed upon by both sides that that huge chart of data crow has show ban potiential?

Probably not.

 

[hotgarbage]

Terribly sorry if this has been brought up before (I'm sure it has); I haven't really been paying attention to this whole "criteria" side of the debate.

Anyways, isn't creating a ban criteria strictly impossible at this point?
By that I mean, we're already in the thick of this MK ban debacle. People have made up their minds based on what they've personally experienced, looking at arguments and data, etc. And because of that unavoidable bias, making a ban criteria wouldn't be making a ban criteria at all.

At this point it would just be an indirect way of deciding whether or not to ban Metaknight.

Those who believe Metaknight SHOULD be banned (for whatever reason) will push for a criteria that has him bannable. This criteria will be "correct" in their eyes because it bans MK, whom they are convinced needs to be banned.
Those who believe Metaknight SHOULD NOT be banned will do the opposite. For whatever reason they've come to the conclusion that the correct course of action is not to ban MK, and so since they're in the right here the criteria would have to reflect that. There would be no compromise, and the discussion would boil back down to the core problem: "whether MK is ban-worthy or not"..... aka what's going on right now.


Even if the SBR was proactive enough to decide a ban criteria ahead of time I'm not convinced we'd be in the green. If the character in question was borderline (like Metaknight), with a near 50/50 split for each side, the criteria would be mercilessly attacked by whichever side it doesn't favor, and it would be easy to do because it was subjectively created in the first place.

"The criteria made was nothing but theorycrafting! Now that we've seen this stuff actually take place it's clear that it's wrong!"
"We've never had this situation before! The criteria made was ridden with our ignorance at the time!"
"I've seen myself that _____ needs to/doesn't need to be banned! Who cares about some arbitrary criteria??"

...you really can't prove attacks like that wrong at all, and because of that the criteria's survival would depend solely on a majority upholding it. If it were an equal, or god-forbid greater force attacking it instead it would simply collapse. People would rant about how they're convinced ____ needs to/doesn't need to be banned (and the criteria is thus wrong) as a result of the conclusions they've come to based off of tactile things they've experienced. The other side would then respond to those accusations and OHHH CRAAAAAAP we're back at square one.



Soo to summarize:
1. Creating an ideal criteria is currently impossible due to:

At this point it would just be an indirect way of deciding whether or not to ban Metaknight.

2. Even if there were a criteria made in the past it wouldn't work. Mainly because the only thing upholding it in this forum setting would be the ideals of the people. If said ideal is split enough (as seen now) it dies.


(Disclaimer: I'm very out of it now, so hopefully I didn't make any grievous logical errors here xp)

 

[Masmasher@]

Thats why you guys should build criteria from remnants of other games in the genre. collaborate so it has a concentual imput

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

correct post

Making a criteria for MK now is like making a criteria for bombing a country-those who support bombing a certain country, let's say, Iran, will say something like "They must be heavily islamic to the extreme, be a dictatorship/theocracy, and be against women's rights." The other side will create a criteria like "They must have functioning nuclear weapons and have gone against UN resolutions to get them." Just as stupid and ridiculous. Creating criteria at this point is an excercise in futility because there isn't enough data we still have left to get, and almost all of it is subjective in nature.

 

[•Col•]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... I kinda doubt anti-ban even wants to agree upon making a ban criteria as that in itself is a step towards MK getting banned... <_<

 

[ShadowLink84]

*is busy watching people place barrels of nitroglycerine inside of the SWF community*
This will be pretty.

 

[Justblaze647]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... I kinda doubt anti-ban even wants to agree upon making a ban criteria as that in itself is a step towards MK getting banned... <_<

Yeah sorta like how republicans disagree on everything...

 

[rvkevin]

Even if we set criteria that makes MK not banned, it would still benefit pro-ban in the future if the MK problem becomes worse...they will be able to point at said criteria and say he warrants a ban and anti-ban can't say "we can't ban him until we have criteria for banning a character".

 

[Flayl]

Thats why you guys should build criteria from remnants of other games in the genre. collaborate so it has a concentual imput

The problem with criteria adumbrodeus, is that several of us have brought it up several times (which you can apply to any game, not just Brawl) and all anti-ban has to say is "nuh-uh!" because it's based on opinion.

Here are the criteria that have been presented so far, not all of pro-ban agree on them:
a) MK has a technique that shuts down 2/3 of the cast -> opinion
b) MK does not have a matchup outside of mirror that is worse than 6:4 (55:45 on smashboards) -> opinion
c) MK's performace is disproportionately good compared to every other character -> opinion

So... What criteria is there that the pro-ban could gather data for and NOT be dismissed with a "Nah, I don't think so."

These are criteria that are valid for any game.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, I've just read a lot at once, so I want to make sure we're all on the same page here (and by that, I mean I'm on the same page ).

Adum is saying that we can't move forward without some sort of consensus vote. He thinks this because if we don't all come to a consensus, some members of the community / TOs / regions simply won't agree and will refuse to participate in the results of this discussion (ban or not). He feels that we should select a bipartisan group of people to do this because the BBR is large, unwieldy, and has no accountability (or little accountability; certainly not enough to be held to a decision or process without PR backlash).

OS is saying that Adum's proposal is impossible. Even though any ban criteria we come up with will be able to be tested objectively (meaning that if we use the criteria to ask "can this be banned", we will always get a simple yes/no answer), the methodology used to create the ban criteria, in and of itself, will always be subjective and will give dissenters an avenue/reason to stop participating. He recognizes that the BBR has no policing force and is, ultimately, not held accountable to or by the body of Smash because they weren't voted in, and ultimately there is no official action that could be taken towards them in the event of misconduct. In addition, the BBR is inherently biased due to people's inability to be unbiased in the debate (MK mains will almost always want him legal, and people who don't main MK usually fall victim to him, and thus want him banned); this is in addition to the (by definition) arbitrary way that the BBR conducts votes and the lack of a policing force to keep the BBR honest and faithful to even itself and its own policies (see: the joke Battlefield votes).

Is that about right?

 

[Overswarm]

I'd agree with that, more detail could be added but it unnecessary at the moment

 

[Jack Kieser]

Awesome, I just wanted to boil down the arguments into easier-to-digest portions; it was getting a little lengthy and redundant. I'm sure there are some details that were missed, but I just wanted to make sure I got the general arguments.

 

[Espy Rose]

b) MK does not have a matchup outside of mirror that is worse than 6:4 (55:45 on smashboards) -> opinion

Flayl, can you explain to me why the criteria is for a 6:4, when in parenthesis it's a 55:45?

Last I checked, SWF MU Charts still used both.

 

[solecalibur]

Yeah sorta like how republicans disagree on everything...

I beg to differ said can be said of opposite parties, and dont bring poltics into this , this discussion is no way like it

 

[Overswarm]

Flayl, can you explain to me why the criteria is for a 6:4, when in parenthesis it's a 55:45?

Last I checked, SWF MU Charts still used both.

I think that was his point

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

What if there was another governing group giving the BBR competition (for lack of a better word)?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Just to clarify, I'm only asking in response to Kaiser; I have no plans to create such a group.

 

[Overswarm]

What if there was another governing group giving the BBR competition (for lack of a better word)?

Kind of intrinsically impossible. We'd just be like "hey, that guy's good" and invite him to the BBR. Then he wouldn't be part of the other group.

 

[Jack Kieser]

What if there was another governing group giving the BBR competition (for lack of a better word)?

It still wouldn't matter. The whole problem with this is how unofficial everything is; this is because nothing can be official without being enforced, and nothing can be enforced without, well... force.

Let's accept your premise, for instance. We have the BBR, and someone proposes and creates a group of people called the pBBR (People's Brawl Back Room ). Now, the BBR is putting forth a ruleset, and the pBBR is putting forth a different ruleset. Tournament A is using BBR's rules, and Tournament B is using pBBR's rules. The BBR is still the "official" Smash body, however, so they publicly claim that Tournament B is not an official tournament and that people cannot go to it (because it isn't official).

The question is: who cares? What will stop people from going to Tournament B, competing, recording the results, and adding it to Ankoku's list? Absolutely nothing, that's what. The BBR can't enforce their own ruling without sending people to physically stop people from going to Tournament B, or without sending people to physically shut it down. Without a policing force, the BBR, as official as they say they are or want to be, will never have real authority. This is why they only put out "recommended" rulesets: because they know that they have no power to MAKE or FORCE anyone to go by their rules.

Any secondary or tertiary groups (like the pBBR, in this case) would fall victim to the exact same problem, even if they were voted in by a Board-wide poll.

Ultimately, this is the problem with Adum's "consensus" argument; any consensus obtained, even by a board-wide poll, will be literally unenforceable, no matter what! People can simply not agree, and that's that. At this point, it is totally impossible to make anyone do anything, so consensus cannot feasibly happen.

 

[rvkevin]

The pBBR could be considered the TO's that don't follow the BBR rule set (MK banned, LGLs, use custom stages, etc.). They are catering to the local community, but lack any national uniformity.

 

[Jack Kieser]

The pBBR could be considered the TO's that don't follow the BBR rule set (MK banned, LGLs, use custom stages, etc.). They are catering to the local community, but lack any national uniformity.

Which is a community breakdown, exactly what Adum is trying to avoid. He wants it so that there is no community schism between "MK banned" or "MK legal" (in this case). This means that, after everything is said and done, we all agree that, in order to play competitive Smash, MK must either be banned or not banned (depending on the outcome, of course).

The evidence so far, however, shows that, no matter what the outcome, there will be two groups of players: people playing with MK legal, and people playing with him banned. People of one camp will not play the game with people of the other camp, and the community will be effectively halved.

Now, if what you're saying happens, there will be a group of TOs hosting MK events, and a group hosting MK banned events. But, once that happens, they will realize that any cohesion the community had in the past (Brawl OR Melee) was a facade, and so the TO's can now do whatever they want, as long as they have players willing to play. Regions might destabilize and have 5 TOs with 5 different rulesets. TOs might never play the same ruleset twice. Ankoku's ratings will become meaningless because comparisons of skill from tournament results with different rules enacted will become useless.

Uniformity is what makes competition what it is; otherwise, it is impossible to compare the skill of two individuals (which is what competition is all about). The less uniformity there is, the less competition there is. This is why schisms kill games. Imagine if all of the sudden, half of the NFL teams decided that interceptions were illegal. If one team from an interception-legal region met with an interception-banned team at the Super Bowl, which ruleset would they use? How would they play? Short answer: they wouldn't.

This is what we're risking, the way I see it.

EDIT: The only way I can think to stop this from happening is by using SWF itself as a weapon against non-conformity. SWF is the largest and most populous forum for competitive Smash, so the mods and people in charge would have to take steps to make people conform. If people don't play the "official" way, their results don't go into Ankoku's list. Players and tournaments that don't conform can't be in Power Ranking. Mods infract or ban players that discuss or organize non-sanctioned play. This is, obviously, an extreme example (and probably won't happen), but like I said... without a policing action of some kind, there is no such thing as uniformity or enforcement.

 

[Justblaze647]

The evidence so far, however, shows that, no matter what the outcome, there will be two groups of players: people playing with MK legal, and people playing with him banned. People of one camp will not play the game with people of the other camp, and the community will be effectively halved.

Something that struck my interest. What percentage of the matches played by the "MK is legal" camp would be Meta dittos? And how long would they be satisfied with that "game?"

 

[Flayl]

Flayl, can you explain to me why the criteria is for a 6:4, when in parenthesis it's a 55:45?

Last I checked, SWF MU Charts still used both.

It's because 55:45 don't exist in other fighting games, because they don't exist period. Any game's matchup chart that isn't Brawl has who wins what in 10 sets/matches. You can't win 5.5 sets/matches. Having a 55:45 either means there are a lot of people disagreeing on whether the matchup is even or not or are simply downplaying a small disadvantage.