Yo, OS, I have a question related to the application of your Surgical/Global changes thread, in relation to the whole ban MK debate. Sorry if the following it partially innaccurate, it's based more on reading threads/my own limited brawl experience than it is high level play experience. Also, I'm aware that the meat of my argument is nothing new, I just dislike how the anti-ban side are unable to coherently discuss/present a topic...
The way I see it, the biggest problem most people have with Metaknight isn't that he is obviously the best character in the game but rather it's the things he can do to abuse brawl's physics: namely plank and circle-camp (or scrooge I think people are calling it now?). It's because of how well he can use these (his crazy quick upB, his ability to easily go under the stage, etc). At a basic level, this seems like a simple, "well, do we limit MK by surgically removing the ability for players to abuse his edgegame, or do we simply remove the entire character?" At this level, many people would probably agree (as I do most of the time) that global changes are better. However, by looking at it this simply, people are ignoring a slightly different point of view.
In a larger sense, taking MK out of the picture is in itself a surgical change, from the viewpoint of those who believe that the problem with brawl is in fact the abusable physics rather than any one character matchup. Without Metaknight, you still have characters like Game&Watch who can plank very well. You also have Pit, who can plank and circle-camp almost as effectively (if not moreso, according to some) as Metaknight himself. In addition, Pit can do plank *offensively* because of his projectile. Looking at it in this light, the removal of every character's ability to abuse the ledge (by means of more rigorous judging of matches, or enforcing edgegrab limitations, or whatever method gains popular consensus) seems to some (myself included) to be the better choice, despite appearing a shallow, surgical change on the surface.
Even if people looking at it from both perspectives decide that banning MK is the right choice, I just want them to think about the situation in a slightly different perspective than they are used to
Last minute thought: If my original assumption (that most people don't want MK banned because he is "the best") is incorrect, all I can do is say something that is often said: Most fighting games have a character that is "the best"-- Sagat in SFIV being a recent example, but there are more if I need to go into them. That by itself is not a reason to ban a character, unless the difference is so great that he is almost unbeatable (Akuma in SF2A). However, as tournement results and theory show, this is not the case w/ Metaknight.
This being said, I think that if MK banned tourneys happened as often as MK allowed tourneys, it would be easier to gauge what would happen to the community is MK mains weren't allowed to play their character.
