Official Metaknight Discussion

[ElDominio]

Already did.

For ******** people like me, we can't see the counter in another question.
Explain to me how?

What i see is
"Milk has insane amounts of fat in it. We should drink fat-free milk"
"I don't care if people cant drink milk with fat in it!!!! We should still drink it even though people are having more and more cases of high blood pressure!!"

I'm very, erm, visual....

 

[HeroMystic]

For ******** people like me, we can't see the counter in another question.
Explain to me how?

What i see is
"Milk has insane amounts of fat in it. We should drink fat-free milk"
"I don't care if people cant drink milk with fat in it!!!! We should still drink it even though people are having more and more cases of high blood pressure!!"

I'm very, erm, visual....

Basically, it's using probable cause instead of objectivity.

 

[MarKO X]

How many times do I have to say that an objective criteria is not always the only answer to a problem?

Anyways, were I to give you a time, you would just say "Remove that from the clock then and just don't let MK plank altogether" or "but then they'd plank for 59 seconds and get off on the 60th!" It's ground that's already been covered before, and I'm not much for that particular circular argument right now.

that's the problem... you have banning MK, the most discrete option that's easy to enforce, and then you have these alternatives that aren't discrete and are enforcable by the judgment of TOs which can vary from person to person. One TO might tolerate a certain level of plankage, while another TO at a different tournament the next week won't tolerate it. ALSO, while this is more speculation, I could see planking under these not so discrete rules being more lenient on other characters that aren't MK.

 

[UltiMario]

Discrete + Easier =/= Better option

It may be easier, but I thought a competative community (especialy this one) should be able to step up to the plate and not just go the easy way out and going "We don't like MK BANNNNNNNN", but instead trying to take the challenge of balancing out limitations and bans of Planking/Scrooging?
The "temp ban" period the pro-ban are suggesting would take 6 months. I'm sure we could work out definate planking and scrooging rules, and test those out quicker than an MK temp ban, no?

 

[HeroMystic]

That was the plan, but the MLG bomb put a big dent on that.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Discrete + Easier =/= Better option

It may be easier, but I thought a competative community (especialy this one) should be able to step up to the plate and not just go the easy way out and going "We don't like MK BANNNNNNNN", but instead trying to take the challenge of balancing out limitations and bans of Planking/Scrooging?

So, has anti-ban totally given up on Sirlin now?

 

[UltiMario]

So, has anti-ban totally given up on Sirlin now?

I stopped caring about Sirlin since before this thread was made, really.

 

[adumbrodeus]

So, has anti-ban totally given up on Sirlin now?

No...


Some random anti-banners have though.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Honestly, that makes me feel a lot better. Even if that's your opinion (and I don't agree with it), at least it's yours, and you don't believe it just because you want to meatride some random SF player.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Honestly, that makes me feel a lot better. Even if that's your opinion (and I don't agree with it), at least it's yours, and you don't believe it just because you want to meatride some random SF player.

...


Why it meatriding?

He's a competitive gaming theorist and a designer for competitive games, we use his ideals because they're effective and intended to cover EXACTLY the situations that we're in. Honestly the ideas aren't just his own, most of what he did was organize pre-existing ideals and impressions that competitive players had. A great deal of how he worked, smash came to on it's own.

Granted, it's limited, but it's effective, it works, and it's an appeal to a legitimate authority (as opposed to appealing to Sakurai who never intentionally designed a competative game in his life), why not cite him?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Thio, I'm sorry, but your opponent getting a lead = an automatic loss is broken, even if the character is jiggs. Considering he's the universally recognized best character in the game...


Granted, it's not quite automatic, but it's d*mn close.



Then we have the next problem... how do we ban it discretely and enforcably. I'm looking for ways, but my real concern is that it will be literally impossible.

This thread has finally caught up to supermodel from paris.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Lol SFP, I've been saying that for a while

 

[Jack Kieser]

...


Why it meatriding?

He's a competitive gaming theorist and a designer for competitive games, we use his ideals because they're effective and intended to cover EXACTLY the situations that we're in. Honestly the ideas aren't just his own, most of what he did was organize pre-existing ideals and impressions that competitive players had. A great deal of how he worked, smash came to on it's own.

Granted, it's limited, but it's effective, it works, and it's an appeal to a legitimate authority (as opposed to appealing to Sakurai who never intentionally designed a competative game in his life), why not cite him?

Easy: because Sirlin never balanced a Smash game. Again, if we were a SF community, I'd be more receptive of his theories, but:

A ) he's a philosopher, basically. No one elected him to be the "voice" of competitive gamers or to write laws that we must follow, yet many people cite his words as concrete laws as to what we HAVE to do, whether we like it or not. Taking his words as guidelines is one thing, but many anti-banners cite him like we need his permission to ban MK.

B ) he's a SF balancer. Smash is a fighter in a basic sense, but many of the principles behind it are so drastically different from traditional HP-bar based fighters that it's illogical to assume that his theories on balance will transfer over 100%. I'm sure there are smart guys like you out there that are intelligent enough to realize that, but then you have people spamming MK threads with his "theories" and "ban criteria" like they are infallible.

C ) they do not intend to cover ANYTHING we do at all. What people aren't getting about banning planking, for instance, is that the whole reason it's hard to enforce it is because planking encroaches on the very act of recovering, which every character must do to play the game; planking is a modified form of recovering, and so the differences are almost imperceptible. The only difference is intent, and you can't ban based on intent. Sirlin's rules are meant for traditional fighters and were created, tested, and implemented before Smash ever existed as a mainstream, large-scale competitive fighter.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Easy: because Sirlin never balanced a Smash game. Again, if we were a SF community, I'd be more receptive of his theories, but:

A ) he's a philosopher, basically. No one elected him to be the "voice" of competitive gamers or to write laws that we must follow, yet many people cite his words as concrete laws as to what we HAVE to do, whether we like it or not. Taking his words as guidelines is one thing, but many anti-banners cite him like we need his permission to ban MK.

B ) he's a SF balancer. Smash is a fighter in a basic sense, but many of the principles behind it are so drastically different from traditional HP-bar based fighters that it's illogical to assume that his theories on balance will transfer over 100%. I'm sure there are smart guys like you out there that are intelligent enough to realize that, but then you have people spamming MK threads with his "theories" and "ban criteria" like they are infallible.

C ) they do not intend to cover ANYTHING we do at all. What people aren't getting about banning planking, for instance, is that the whole reason it's hard to enforce it is because planking encroaches on the very act of recovering, which every character must do to play the game; planking is a modified form of recovering, and so the differences are almost imperceptible. The only difference is intent, and you can't ban based on intent. Sirlin's rules are meant for traditional fighters and were created, tested, and implemented before Smash ever existed as a mainstream, large-scale competitive fighter.

1. (this covers A and B, as well as the final sentence of C) His ideas are NOT based purely on competitive fighting games, in fact quite the opposite, you'll notice the constant references to Chess, to puzzle fighter, to real life war, to starcraft. His blog constantly cites applications of the principals to subjects as diverse of sports, law, MMORPGs, and many other things. Heck, at the moment, he's balancing card games. It's neither intended for simply Street Fighter (or HP Bar Fighters), nor is that the only thing that influences it. It's intended for competitive games, period.

What I will grant you is that there are gaps, which is why one of my more common references (especially in items debates) is a wonderful post that an individual user made about tournament settings, because for games that offer the option to have a variety of different metagames, a standard for the primary format is necessary, but Sirlin has not mention of how to obtain this.

Also, bans for simple intrusion is something that it doesn't touch on, but in the discussion about the Master Hand in melee on the forum, we came to the conclusion that something could be banned for causing massive interference (though we have yet to define it precisely, but it would cover a number of banned stages).


So the point is, just saying that "he doesn't know smash" doesn't discredit his theories out of hand for us, it just means that we shouldn't apply them to cases that obviously aren't covered.




2. As of right now, planking is powerful enough that it's literally "pick MK and plank or lose", since those sorts of issues are covered in broad strokes, yes it would. Furthermore the "discrete" and "enforcable" criterias for all bans are beautiful, expecting subjective rules to work on a wide scale is a recipe for disaster.

That said, you're right, we can't ban intent, we have to ban actions, we need a clear discrete enforcable criteria that differentiates "planking" from "not planking", and if that line is "playing MK" so be it. Sirlin covers a number of these types of issues in his book.

But the point is, I'm working on this, and I'm not the only one.



TL;DR: Read the post.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Adum, I get what you’re saying, and usually I’d go by point-by-point with you, but honestly, it’s not my aim. This is where we’re at.

We’re 2 years and 4 polls in. We know that a majority of players and forumgoers support a ban. We have 6- an 13-month breakdowns from 2 posters (one a BBR member and one a physicist with a strong background in statistics) that show Metaknight’s dominance on an incredible scale and, whether or not you believe so, clearly shows his influence on the metagame and the community. We have tournament data backed up by anecdotal evidence showing how much of a problem Metaknight has become. We have argument upon argument upon argument refuting and counter-refuting every attack made at pro-ban logic and reason. We have every single justifiable reason to make this decision right here and right now, and have had those same reasons for a long time now…

And people refuse to do so because they cling to the words of some random Street Fighter player with the ability to see historical trends.

I am a philosopher and a philosophy major. In the interests of full disclosure, I am an existentialist. I understand clinging to and fighting for your ideals. It is a noble goal with the best of intentions… but, you do not fight for your ideals when they put you at direct risk. People may dislike Machiavelli, but sometimes the ends DO justify the means. I am not the kind of person to casually discard my beliefs, and one of them is not to bargain with stupid people, but if a stupid person has my girlfriend at gunpoint, I will gladly and proudly abandon my beliefs if it means her safety. This is where we stand now.

We have had a year and 4 polls to deal with this, but the stakes were always low, the consequences always menial, but MLG_JV has changed the rules entirely. This is not low-stakes anymore: this is, in a very literal sense, do or die time. It’s do or die time because this is MLG we’re dealing with. If we are dropped by MLG, if the world sees our game and decides it’s not worth dealing with, I want everyone to just imagine what that’s going to do to our membership, to our recruitment, to our precious metagame. Let’s see what happens when we show our true colors in the big leagues, holding onto a set of antiquated and ultimately meaningless ideals just for the sake of doing so, because that’s always what’s been done and because we’re too afraid to deal with the reality in front of us, the hard numbers that are showing use exactly what road we’re heading down.

I’m not going to be the one to strap a MK-bomb to my chest and waltz into MLG headquarters in the name of Sirlin and his ideals, just for the sake of doing so. And neither is anyone who is pro-ban.

This is it, whether we all like it or not. These last few “moments” where we hold all of the power to decide our future will allow us to make the decisions that shape the entire future of competitive Brawl. We can do this right here, right now, or MLG can do it for us. We can cling to our broken ideals of what makes a competitive game and what makes a competitive community, and then we can get dropped from the MLG circuit, and we can lose our membership, and our recruitment can tank, and our game can substantially weaken. Or, we can just ban one character with obvious problems and obvious divisiveness and save ourselves a lot of trouble. Face it: EVO may be one thing, but if we fail at MLG, not only do we lose a lot of respect, but we lose a lot of players, a lot of sponsors, and a lot of money.

Is Metaknight worth all that? Is Sirlin’s ideal, are the ideals of players who aren’t even in our community, who don’t even play the game, that important to us? Are we really willing to look OS and Crow! and DMG and all of their data and hard work in the face and say “screw it” when this much is at stake?

Anti-ban may be persistent, but pro-ban is willing and ready to act, and right now. We have been for a long time. Hell, thanks to Xyro, we HAVE BEEN acting for a long time. Again, this is do or die time, this is the last chance we have to shape our future before MLG does it for us. If we, as a community, have any sense to us at all, we’ll finish this as soon as possible.

TL;DR: If we don't fix our game, MLG will do it for us... even if that means dropping us for good and seriously damaging our future. It's time to get **** done, and to do it ourselves and with some finality... but not because some outsider says so, because WE say so.

[/angry wall-of-text]

 

[fkacyan]

TL;DR: Read the post.

That doesn't function well as a TL;DR.

I fail to see how having somebody view a game and declare something as planking is any different from a sports referee calling a foul during <insert sports game here>, and I don't see why it's not a viable option.

It's not the best option, but it's better than having MK legal and having no discrete criteria, and, until it can be proven otherwise, a game completely without him.

@Jack: We were fine without MLG before, and I don't think the community would suffer from losing the support of something we've never relied upon.

 

[Jack Kieser]

That doesn't function well as a TL;DR.

I fail to see how having somebody view a game and declare something as planking is any different from a sports referee calling a foul during <insert sports game here>, and I don't see why it's not a viable option.

It's not the best option, but it's better than having MK legal and having no discrete criteria, and, until it can be proven otherwise, a game completely without him.

Because we don't have infinite resources, because having judges watch every second of every match would be too inefficient, and because it's easier, simpler, more resource-efficient, and less invasive to just ban Metaknight.

Why can't people see this?

 

[fkacyan]

Because we don't have infinite resources, because having judges watch every second of every match would be too inefficient, and because it's easier, simpler, more resource-efficient, and less invasive to just ban Metaknight.

Why can't people see this?

Easier does not translate to better.

If it comes down to the community being dishonest to the point where we have to have a judge watching every match to make sure banned techniques don't happen, I don't want to be a part of it.

 

[MarKO X]

Here's the thing Jack:

with DMG's whole planking info, MK falls qualifies as banworthy in terms of Sirlin now.

 

[Jack Kieser]

For 60,000$? Hell yeah. People will do anything to win, and should; anti-ban say it themselves. If no one else calls them on it, that's not their fault.

 

[UltiMario]

Its pretty obvious to EVERYONE when an MK is planking the whole match and has easily gone over X (in this case 50) Ledge Grabs and Scrooged. When MK times you out on a stage NOT named Rainbow Cruise, its safe to say they've gone over the Ledge Grab Limit, for example.

Besides, wouldn't enforcing these rules make it too risky to TRY to go beyond the limits? If you get caught you lose, which is bad and risky, but not as bad as NOT BEING ABLE TO PLAY AT ALL, FOR EXAMPLE *COUGHCOUGHBANNINGMKCOUGHCOGUH*

Being able to play limited >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not being able to play at all

 

[breez]

Because we don't have infinite resources, because having judges watch every second of every match would be too inefficient, and because it's easier, simpler, more resource-efficient, and less invasive to just ban Metaknight.

Why can't people see this?

I don't think banning mk because it's "easier" is a valid reason at all.

Infact, you seem like a pretty intelligent guy - most of your arguments are sound. However, in many of your posts you seem to think that keeping MK will automatically result in MLG dropping brawl, which is quite a fallible argument, in my opinion.

Care to strengthen it?

 

[HeroMystic]

Making it hard to play a character is not the same as being limited. People need to keep that in mind.

 

[UltiMario]

Oh, I just thought of something.

Now, imagine if Brawl's main competative Scene dies. Now, Nationals aren't happening anymore, but you can still participate in local tourneys and the like, seeing as they still exist.

Would it be better to keep on playing Brawl for locals, or quit Brawl altogether?

If you chose the former, that equates to the limits of Planking/Scrooging, the latter, and thats Banning MK.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I don't think banning mk because it's "easier" is a valid reason at all.

Infact, you seem like a pretty intelligent guy - most of your arguments are sound. However, in many of your posts you seem to think that keeping MK will automatically result in MLG dropping brawl, which is quite a fallible argument, in my opinion.

Care to strengthen it?

Of course.

We can't ban planking in any discernible, objective, enforceable way; pro-ban has known this, and DMG's thread is just figuring this out. They are also figuring out that it's nearly (if not entirely) unbeatable, and that it's the best tactic to use, bar none. They have frame data to support this. We also know that MLG is a staple of competitive gaming, has insane amounts of cash, and relies on profits to run, which means sponsorships and people watching for fun.

Planking is not fun to watch.

What can we infer from this? If MK is legal, planking will be, too. People will pick up MK and plank their fingers off for the chance at 60k$. Matches will be, for the most part, dominated by MK dittos with people planking as much as they can, because it's the best and most logical option. People won't watch the matches, because they don't watch them now. Viewership will go down, and with viewership, so will sponsorship. MLG will lose money on Brawl.

If Brawl can't make them money, they will have to drop it.

Q.E.D.: If MK remains in Brawl, Brawl will not be invited back to MLG.

 

[UltiMario]

Thats only a prediction, a theory, if you will, of what will happen.

Who says thats what MLG's tourney will actually look like? You don't know until it actually happens. What if it turns out to be completely different? Then what?

 

[HeroMystic]

Oh, I just thought of something.

Now, imagine if Brawl's main competative Scene dies. Now, Nationals aren't happening anymore, but you can still participate in local tourneys and the like, seeing as they still exist.

Would it be better to keep on playing Brawl for locals, or quit Brawl altogether?

If you chose the former, that equates to the limits of Planking/Scrooging, the latter, and thats Banning MK.

Not only is that completely illogical, but that's also a Strawman fallacy.

 

[UltiMario]

I know the logic has its flaws, but I thought about it for a while and it makes sense to me.

The point I'm trying to make is, would you rather have SOME, or NOTHING AT ALL?

I would rather have some.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I have a suggestion.
Ledge grab limit is 0.
NO ONE can grab the ledge. NO ONE.

practice up that DI <_<

 

[fkacyan]

Of course.

We can't ban planking in any discernible, objective, enforceable way

Objective criteria isn't always the answer. Objective criteria isn't always the answer. Objective criteria isn't always the answer.

There are very few systems in the word that operate completely on objective criteria. Even our legal system has a judiciary system in back of it to properly enforce and interpret laws on a case by case basis. Explain to me why the criteria has to be objective and why onlookers / the players involved can't call a judge over to confirm the presence of planking, or to make sure it doesn't happen altogether? Why isn't this feasible?

Oh, yeah, because it's harder than the alternative. Man, that's a great reason to ban a character; the alternative is harder.

ETA: jeez, both Shadowlink and Adum in the BR now? Thank god for fewer Inuis and more people who don't post gifs.

 

[etecoon]

People won't watch the matches, because they don't watch them now. Viewership will go down, and with viewership, so will sponsorship. MLG will lose money on Brawl.

If Brawl can't make them money, they will have to drop it.

Q.E.D.: If MK remains in Brawl, Brawl will not be invited back to MLG.

no one watches games with most other characters either. brawl is an inherently boring game to watch that few people find enjoyable. if they wanted the crowd pleaser they'd have brought back melee, no one wants to watch brawl.

 

[salaboB]

Thats only a prediction, a theory, if you will, of what will happen.

Who says thats what MLG's tourney will actually look like? You don't know until it actually happens. What if it turns out to be completely different? Then what?

You mean, "What if people don't play the way that they always revert to when things get serious?"

Brawl heavily leans towards camping as-is, you really think people won't use the best camping tactic found so far in a big tournament?

I know the logic has its flaws, but I thought about it for a while and it makes sense to me.

The point I'm trying to make is, would you rather have SOME, or NOTHING AT ALL?

I would rather have some.

Except of course where you can still play Brawl if MK is banned, just without a (crippled) MK.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Adum, I get what you’re saying, and usually I’d go by point-by-point with you, but honestly, it’s not my aim. This is where we’re at.

We’re 2 years and 4 polls in. We know that a majority of players and forumgoers support a ban. We have 6- an 13-month breakdowns from 2 posters (one a BBR member and one a physicist with a strong background in statistics) that show Metaknight’s dominance on an incredible scale and, whether or not you believe so, clearly shows his influence on the metagame and the community. We have tournament data backed up by anecdotal evidence showing how much of a problem Metaknight has become. We have argument upon argument upon argument refuting and counter-refuting every attack made at pro-ban logic and reason. We have every single justifiable reason to make this decision right here and right now, and have had those same reasons for a long time now…

And people refuse to do so because they cling to the words of some random Street Fighter player with the ability to see historical trends.

I am a philosopher and a philosophy major. In the interests of full disclosure, I am an existentialist. I understand clinging to and fighting for your ideals. It is a noble goal with the best of intentions… but, you do not fight for your ideals when they put you at direct risk. People may dislike Machiavelli, but sometimes the ends DO justify the means. I am not the kind of person to casually discard my beliefs, and one of them is not to bargain with stupid people, but if a stupid person has my girlfriend at gunpoint, I will gladly and proudly abandon my beliefs if it means her safety. This is where we stand now.

We have had a year and 4 polls to deal with this, but the stakes were always low, the consequences always menial, but MLG_JV has changed the rules entirely. This is not low-stakes anymore: this is, in a very literal sense, do or die time. It’s do or die time because this is MLG we’re dealing with. If we are dropped by MLG, if the world sees our game and decides it’s not worth dealing with, I want everyone to just imagine what that’s going to do to our membership, to our recruitment, to our precious metagame. Let’s see what happens when we show our true colors in the big leagues, holding onto a set of antiquated and ultimately meaningless ideals just for the sake of doing so, because that’s always what’s been done and because we’re too afraid to deal with the reality in front of us, the hard numbers that are showing use exactly what road we’re heading down.

I’m not going to be the one to strap a MK-bomb to my chest and waltz into MLG headquarters in the name of Sirlin and his ideals, just for the sake of doing so. And neither is anyone who is pro-ban.

This is it, whether we all like it or not. These last few “moments” where we hold all of the power to decide our future will allow us to make the decisions that shape the entire future of competitive Brawl. We can do this right here, right now, or MLG can do it for us. We can cling to our broken ideals of what makes a competitive game and what makes a competitive community, and then we can get dropped from the MLG circuit, and we can lose our membership, and our recruitment can tank, and our game can substantially weaken. Or, we can just ban one character with obvious problems and obvious divisiveness and save ourselves a lot of trouble. Face it: EVO may be one thing, but if we fail at MLG, not only do we lose a lot of respect, but we lose a lot of players, a lot of sponsors, and a lot of money.

Is Metaknight worth all that? Is Sirlin’s ideal, are the ideals of players who aren’t even in our community, who don’t even play the game, that important to us? Are we really willing to look OS and Crow! and DMG and all of their data and hard work in the face and say “screw it” when this much is at stake?

Anti-ban may be persistent, but pro-ban is willing and ready to act, and right now. We have been for a long time. Hell, thanks to Xyro, we HAVE BEEN acting for a long time. Again, this is do or die time, this is the last chance we have to shape our future before MLG does it for us. If we, as a community, have any sense to us at all, we’ll finish this as soon as possible.

TL;DR: If we don't fix our game, MLG will do it for us... even if that means dropping us for good and seriously damaging our future. It's time to get **** done, and to do it ourselves and with some finality... but not because some outsider says so, because WE say so.

[/angry wall-of-text]

The major problem here is that people simply disagree whether he is. That's why I'm emphasizing a process-based approach, because there is a real and present conflict between people who think MK is banworthy and people.


If we have NOTHING to reference to, all we have is subjectivity, and since our rules require a super-majority (with good reason, especially since self-selection bias means our polling of the community doesn't even really establish anything in terms of desires).


And that's what we're left with, this is not a case of an obvious clear and present danger where everyone knows if we take one route there's destruction, this is a case of different people arguing about which is the route that leads to destruction.

The high stakes make it even more so.


When high stakes come up, that's not the time to say, "screw the rules", that's the time when we gotta stick with them, and make sure that it happens properly, because those times set a precedent for our community, and if we can't set a code of how we make decisions, we cannot survive in the big leagues.



I will say this, the data is being considered in the BBR, I cannot say any more then that about the specific topic.


What I will say is in this case, my standing principals of "bans should be discrete, enforceable, and warranted" and "character bans are a last resort" are informing my decision. I do not intend for near frame perfect planking to destroy MLG, nor do I think anyone does, and my actions and decisions will reflect those principals.

That doesn't function well as a TL;DR.

I fail to see how having somebody view a game and declare something as planking is any different from a sports referee calling a foul during <insert sports game here>, and I don't see why it's not a viable option.

It's not the best option, but it's better than having MK legal and having no discrete criteria, and, until it can be proven otherwise, a game completely without him.

@Jack: We were fine without MLG before, and I don't think the community would suffer from losing the support of something we've never relied upon.

Yes it does, you miss important stuff if you didn't read, that TL;DR served as an indicator of that.


The problem is, marring things with subjectivity is a bad option whenever it happens. How often do you see people complaining about bad fouls in sports? Why should a person be deprived of their rightful win just because somebody FELT it was planking (especially when they didn't intend to plank). Furthermore, it requires a great deal more oversight.


Competitive gaming is designed to select for skill, not ability to read the refs.

 

[fkacyan]

Yes it does, you miss important stuff if you didn't read, that TL;DR served as an indicator of that.


The problem is, marring things with subjectivity is a bad option whenever it happens. How often do you see people complaining about bad fouls in sports? Why should a person be deprived of their rightful win just because somebody FELT it was planking (especially when they didn't intend to plank). Furthermore, it requires a great deal more oversight.


Competitive gaming is designed to select for skill, not ability to read the refs.

You missed the joke about the TL;DR

I'm not saying subjectivity is the absolute best option, I am saying it is the relative best option. There isn't enough information to determine whether or not the metagame is better without MK, but at the same time planking is stupid. Unless an objective criteria can be established extremely quickly, the best long-term choice would be to subject ourselves (Pun intended) to subjectivity temporarily while we: a) Determine the merits of an MK-less metagame, and b) Attempt to establish an objective criteria.

Of course, the issue now is that, to many people, MLG is rushing the issue, and is probably going to force us to act for the best short term, which is ether glazing over the issue until next season entirely or banning MK and not looking back, and either option could end up crippling the community, which isn't something I want to see happen.

 

[HeroMystic]

I know the logic has its flaws, but I thought about it for a while and it makes sense to me.

The point I'm trying to make is, would you rather have SOME, or NOTHING AT ALL?

I would rather have some.

You don't strawman to make a point. It's more used to confuse and mislead a debate. For example: "If you are pro-abortion, then that means you are also pro-murder". A classic example of strawman to discourage people who are for abortion.

In any case, you're far too generalizing, and it's not that simple. This is a delicate situation that needs testing and most of all logical rulings. Right now, Metaknight is banworthy, and limiting him, if it doesn't hamper his natural attributes, would be best.

However, if MK still has ways to variate his planking abilities by scrooging and air camping, then it's obvious that the option of banning comes ever closer.

 

[UltiMario]

Except of course where you can still play Brawl if MK is banned, just without a (crippled) MK.

Well I couldn't play Brawl once MK was banned, well, bar low tier tourneys. **** why does Brawl have to be so unbalanced with its bottom characters?

I hate this whole disscussion anyway. What about the players that play MK because they're his favorite VG character in Brawl ****it? It kills me inside to see how people want to seriously debate MK's banworthyness due to "some players switching to him abusing him" blablabla when thres all the people out there that are playing MK because they simply LIKE him as a character in general.

Trying to fix a problem results in 100 more. Try to save a few characters from Meta Knight and you split the scene in half. How many people do you think with QUIT Brawl from MK being banned? Much more than who would quit from an limited MK, to say the very least. Sure, MK's ban might bring in a few people into the scene, but it won't offset at least a third of the competative scene giving up on the stupidity that would have swallowed Brawl, and either quitting or developing a second Brawl scene where MK IS allowed.

Needed to get **** out of my system. This is nothing but a spam and rage venting topic anyways, so I don't see how my post does any harm.

 

[Nanaki]

I have a suggestion.
Ledge grab limit is 0.
NO ONE can grab the ledge. NO ONE.

practice up that DI <_<

Sadly, that's a much better suggestion than some I've heard for limiting MK. Heck, it might make Brawl better as a game in general.

...except tether-recoverers get totally screwed over lol.

The major problem here is that people simply disagree whether he is. That's why I'm emphasizing a process-based approach, because there is a real and present conflict between people who think MK is banworthy and people.


If we have NOTHING to reference to, all we have is subjectivity, and since our rules require a super-majority (with good reason, especially since self-selection bias means our polling of the community doesn't even really establish anything in terms of desires).


And that's what we're left with, this is not a case of an obvious clear and present danger where everyone knows if we take one route there's destruction, this is a case of different people arguing about which is the route that leads to destruction.

The high stakes make it even more so.


When high stakes come up, that's not the time to say, "screw the rules", that's the time when we gotta stick with them, and make sure that it happens properly, because those times set a precedent for our community, and if we can't set a code of how we make decisions, we cannot survive in the big leagues.



I will say this, the data is being considered in the BBR, I cannot say any more then that about the specific topic.


What I will say is in this case, my standing principals of "bans should be discrete, enforceable, and warranted" and "character bans are a last resort" are informing my decision. I do not intend for near frame perfect planking to destroy MLG, nor do I think anyone does, and my actions and decisions will reflect those principals.




Yes it does, you miss important stuff if you didn't read, that TL;DR served as an indicator of that.


The problem is, marring things with subjectivity is a bad option whenever it happens. How often do you see people complaining about bad fouls in sports? Why should a person be deprived of their rightful win just because somebody FELT it was planking (especially when they didn't intend to plank). Furthermore, it requires a great deal more oversight.


Competitive gaming is designed to select for skill, not ability to read the refs.

I'm mostly quoting this post because it's one of the very best I've read on SWF.

Respect +5. I'm sooooooo glad you're in the BBR.

Well I couldn't play Brawl once MK was banned, well, bar low tier tourneys. **** why does Brawl have to be so unbalanced with its bottom characters?

I hate this whole disscussion anyway. What about the players that play MK because they're his favorite VG character in Brawl ****it? It kills me inside to see how people want to seriously debate MK's banworthyness due to "some players switching to him abusing him" blablabla when thres all the people out there that are playing MK because they simply LIKE him as a character in general.

Trying to fix a problem results in 100 more. Try to save a few characters from Meta Knight and you split the scene in half. How many people do you think with QUIT Brawl from MK being banned? Much more than who would quit from an limited MK, to say the very least. Sure, MK's ban might bring in a few people into the scene, but it won't offset at least a third of the competative scene giving up on the stupidity that would have swallowed Brawl, and either quitting or developing a second Brawl scene where MK IS allowed.

Needed to get **** out of my system. This is nothing but a spam and rage venting topic anyways, so I don't see how my post does any harm.

Just why the hell could you not play Brawl once MK was banned? What's stopping you?

'It's not fair to people who like MK! Me and all the other MK mains will quit if you ban him! I swear, we will! BAAAWWW!!!'

That isn't even close to a valid argument.

MLG picking up Brawl does raise an interesting question though: Will M2K still quit if MK gets banned for MLG? I doubt he's going to want to miss out on his chance for that big cash prize...

 

[Masky]

MLG is NOT banning Metaknight

 

[fkacyan]

Just why the hell could you not play Brawl once MK was banned? What's stopping you?

'It's not fair to people who like MK! Me and all the other MK mains will quit if you ban him! I swear, we will! BAAAWWW!!!'

That isn't even close to a valid argument.

MLG picking up Brawl does raise an interesting question though: Will M2K still quit if MK gets banned for MLG? I doubt he's going to want to miss out on his chance for that big cash prize...

Pretty much this. Most people on either side of the argument have something to gain provided their chosen side wins, but that in and of itself isn't a reason.

The loss of key members of a community can be pretty devastating, though, considering all their expertise has to offer to the continuing development of the metagame; not that this is really a large consideration compared to something like a character being truly broken if a technique makes him win every match.

EDIT: @Above: Speaking in absolutes is a wonderful way to make yourself look like an idiot later on.

 

[lordhelmet]

Nah, M2K is just saying that (among other things) to stop MK from getting banned. Sure, he'd probably quit if tourneys didn't get any larger from where they are now, but with MLG sponsoring Brawl, he'll pick up a new character for sure.