Official Metaknight Discussion

[Spelt]

Naruto's chingee kuboo loopoo wongo chongo jutsu gets through meta knight's planking.
discuss.

 

[Nanaki]

Right, but we know the MUs between the top characters -- and they're top because they have the least bad matchups (In general). There is none unless there's been a rather huge mistake.

This isn't necessarily true. The current top characters are top because they have the best matchups against MK. Within that top group, they're somewhat in an order of 'overall other matchups'. Snake, Diddy, Falco. Diddy's matchups especially really aren't all that impressive besides MK.

You could definitely make that claim for anyone under the top tier though, or even for anyone under Falco/IC's.

Hey? Why's everyone hating on the marth boards?!

The Marth boards are the only ones who love anime?

 

[salaboB]

No, you don't. You have matchup data from MK being legal; thus, there is potential that every avenue in other matchups hasn't been explored yet (i.e. some stupid move abuse that changes a matchup). I'm not claiming they exist, but I'm not silly enough to claim that they don't. By the way, the idea of the temp-ban came from the good posters for pro-ban.

So you support the pro-ban idea that banning MK will have a reasonable chance to accelerate development of other character's metagames?

If the chance of this happening is so slim that you don't believe it's reasonable, I fail entirely to see why you're saying people have no proof that it won't happen. You should be the one providing proof that it will have a reasonable chance of occurring, since you're the one saying something not currently going on may suddenly take place (Mystery tech that will rocket someone to dominance and only is not being found due to MK).

...anti-ban spent quite a while trying to disprove that one, actually. You could probably go find pro-ban's reasoning and just use that.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

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.

It's less the whole "We're not on MLG" and more the "They tried us and didn't like us"; imagine it similar to a person trying drugs, getting very hooked, and then having the source dry out.

Basically, having your game dropped from MLG after one year is bound to be terrible publicity.

Here's the thing Jack:

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

Indeed. And planking? Well, planking ISN'T. So why aren't we banning Metaknight yet?

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

Why can you not play at all if you can't play MK? You were just robbed of the easiest-to-use, most effective tool in the game; go find another one like G&W, DDD, ROB, or basically anyone that MK *****.

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.

Strawman.

MLG is NOT banning Metaknight

Common sense

I'm quoting these for future reference so I can point and laugh at you.

Yes, but a lot of his match-ups are dead even.

If you don't call 55:45 dead even you're stupid. Its not really a true advantage until 70:30, and MK as a lot more 55:45s and 60:40s than anything else, which puts him pretty much even only SLIGHTLY going towards him.

people treat 60:40 as unwinnable sheesh.

55:45 is not even. By your definition, every one of MK's 55/45s are 60/40s, which is even worse.

Wrong, Marth, DDD, and I think like ROB would go up on the tier list a bit.

.....

Other than that I'm seeing nothing, though. Is that 3 worth it? Lolno.

There I fixed it.

Thank you mantis.

I personally believe that Ganondorf is going to take place of MK if he is banned.

Just b/c I say it, doesn't make it true.
Marth doesn't do the best against Snake either and people will learn the Marth MU even more.

Thanks you RPSI

You clearly didn't read my post. I said unevenly distributed.

And.... do you truly think that another character would become equally dominant with MK banned? You do realize that in order for this to have a chance of occuring, you need to have a character that has no disadvantageous matchups, sans MK?

Brawl is a game of counterpicks. Every character is subject to this..... except for MK. That is why the character is leagues above any other character within the game.

I will enjoy what results from DMG's information that it's possible for MK to plank in a manner that is realistically nearly unbeatable.

In addition to that, you seem to underestimate what has been done prior to DMG's data. I'm looking forward to seeing how the BBR reacts to DMG's "nail in the coffin", but considering that OS and Crow examined every single point that anti-ban stood on in their "official stance" (in the last Metaknight debate) and pulverized it (nearly a month ago).... then I am slightly confused as to why DMG's well researched data is even necessary to show that MK needs to be banned.

Good post.

Anime fans are the worst people.

You are a terrible person.

this. sooooo much this.

Oh i don't hate the marth boards ... but i do hate anime freaks.
especially naruto fans.

You are a worse person.

 

[PottyJokes]

anime fans really are terrible.

 

[Black Mantis]

You could add Game and Watch to the list as well. Also, Wolf, Sheik, and maybe pokemon trainer if their very smart.

 

[St. Viers]

@ Budget Cash Player:

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.

Strawman.

That isn't a strawman, it's just a ****ty comparison...please use terms correctly.

Also, I agree that w/o Metaknight, it can't be said for sure that another character won't dominate. If one of the reasons MK was so OP was the greater number of people using him and advancing his metagame, and if those people go on to another character, and start speeding up the advance of that char's metagame, we may quickly learn things (strategies/exploits) that make them fill the MK niche of "Even if I'm not unbeatable (without planking), I'm still dominant."

That being said, the likelihood of that happening is pretty low.

 

[fkacyan]

@ Budget Cash Player:


That isn't a strawman, it's just a ****ty comparison...please use terms correctly.

Also, I agree that w/o Metaknight, it can't be said for sure that another character won't dominate. If one of the reasons MK was so OP was the greater number of people using him and advancing his metagame, and if those people go on to another character, and start speeding up the advance of that char's metagame, we may quickly learn things (strategies/exploits) that make them fill the MK niche of "Even if I'm not unbeatable (without planking), I'm still dominant."

That being said, the likelihood of that happening is pretty low.

This. Very much this post.

There's a famous saying coined by the author of Sherlocke Holmes: "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth." Thus, unless you can unequivocally declare something impossible, it remains as a possibility.

As I said before, my personal opinion is that there will be three or four dominant characters that all counter one or two of the other ones. But my speculation doesn't mean too much.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Lol, I was infracted. I probably have more minor spam infractions than anyone on SWF with the possible exception of Inui, or maybe YesNoMaybeSo.

 

[HeroMystic]

@ Budget Cash Player:


That isn't a strawman, it's just a ****ty comparison...please use terms correctly.

That's actually a strawman. Comparisons are used to strengthen a point. Strawmans are used to attack, or rather confuse a point.

"If you want to ban Metaknight instead of limit him, then you'd rather have Brawl die if something went wrong." That's essentially what the quote is, and it's a rather extreme example which is why it's very hard call it out because, well, its far too exaggerated and quite off-topic.

Now if UltiMario used the comparison to describe how he personally felt about MK being banned, then it would be, "If Brawl had no national and regional tournaments, I'd be fine with limiting it to local tournaments because I enjoy the game." It's a decent comparison to strengthen his own point, but when he directly asked the audience what they think they would do, then lead it back to the argument to weaken Pro-ban's stance, though it actually did nothing at all, it became a Strawman because it's an isolated argument. That isn't to say he intentionally meant to perform the fallacy, if anything it was just his wording.

 

[Black Mantis]

Why is it so hard for people to ban him?

 

[Kewkky]

Why is it so hard for people to ban him?

If instead we can find a compromise that's agreeable by both parties, then there would be no need to limit the metagame by one whole character. Before pulling 'absolute' stunts like that, it's wiser to consider every other option before the 'absolute'. And compromise would appeal to both pro- and anti-, meaning that there would be less conflict afterwards.

Like I said way before in this thread, what I hate about MK is how he can play gay on a whole different level, and bend the rules to keep playing gay. If there's no way we can limit those options, then I'm all for a ban. He's really being detrimental to Brawl's image, as well as gameplay. If it's a play-to-win strategy, eventually more people will come around to trying it out, and it will become an even bigger problem... Gotta rip from the ground those weeds, you know?

 

[fkacyan]

Why is it so hard for people to ban him?

Occam's razor is often not the best approach.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

If instead we can find a compromise that's agreeable by both parties, then there would be no need to limit the metagame by one whole character. Before pulling 'absolute' stunts like that, it's wiser to consider every other option before the 'absolute'. And compromise would appeal to both pro- and anti-, meaning that there would be less conflict afterwards.

Like I said way before in this thread, what I hate about MK is how he can play gay on a whole different level, and bend the rules to keep playing gay. If there's no way we can limit those options, then I'm all for a ban. He's really being detrimental to Brawl's image, as well as gameplay. If it's a play-to-win strategy, eventually more people will come around to trying it out, and it will become an even bigger problem... Gotta rip from the ground those weeds, you know?

My rule. Just use my "No Gay MK Stage Pick" rule, or whatever the **** I've been calling it. In a match with MK, the non-MK chooses every stage played on from all stages, including banned stages. Suddenly, MK is not that broken any more! CP him to SMI, Onett, Mario Circuit, GHZ, whatever you want! He suddenly has bad matchups (Lol falco, snake, and ICs on eldin), bad stages (Eldin, SMI, GHZ, etc.), and a reason not to choose him! Plus, the MK mains (who traditionally don't need to work as much as, say, Snake, Diddy, ICs, or Falco mains) have to work harder because they have to learn things like how to play against a Sonic they can't catch on Hyrule, or against a snake they can't gimp on any walkoff. Boom, issue solved, we can all go home.

@ Budget Cash Player:


That isn't a strawman, it's just a ****ty comparison...please use terms correctly.

Also, I agree that w/o Metaknight, it can't be said for sure that another character won't dominate. If one of the reasons MK was so OP was the greater number of people using him and advancing his metagame, and if those people go on to another character, and start speeding up the advance of that char's metagame, we may quickly learn things (strategies/exploits) that make them fill the MK niche of "Even if I'm not unbeatable (without planking), I'm still dominant."

That being said, the likelihood of that happening is pretty low.

It can't be said... stop right there. Is there ANY CHARACTER with even CLOSE to that level of dominance now? Is there any character who doesn't have any bad matchups?

The only one who even becomes considerable is Marth, but remember-less MKs means more DDDs and Snakes, and maybe more DKs (although DK sort of gets nixed by DDD lol).

 

[fkacyan]

It can't be said... stop right there. Is there ANY CHARACTER with even CLOSE to that level of dominance now? Is there any character who doesn't have any bad matchups?

The only one who even becomes considerable is Marth, but remember-less MKs means more DDDs and Snakes, and maybe more DKs (although DK sort of gets nixed by DDD lol).

It is impossible that Marth's metagame might develop to the point that he no longer loses to those characters? You mean to say that you can guarantee that it is physically impossible?

 

[Jack Kieser]

Occam's razor is often not the best approach.

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor), entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, is the meta-theoretical principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation that explains all the data or strategy tends to be the best one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English logician, theologian and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. Occam's razor may be alternatively phrased as pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate ("plurality should not be posited without necessity"). The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (translating to the law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness). When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. To quote Isaac Newton, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."

In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.

So, yeah. By definition, Occam's razor often is the best approach. Keep it simple, people: enact a whole bunch of bans that affect other characters and needlessly complicate the ruleset to give the illusion of stability and balance, which requires a whole slew of assumptions about the future of Brawl, none of which are supported by any of our current data... or just follow the data we have now and ban Metaknight.

 

[St. Viers]

@Hero Mystic: A strawman argument is when instead of fighting a point that was been brought up, you construct a fake point, and attack that, in an effort to deceive the audience into thinking that you are in fact attacking the point brought up. UltiMario was not doing that. He was bringing up a hypothetical unrelated to any point the pro-ban side had, and trying to relate the options of the hypothetical to the sides of the debate. Yes, it was a rhetorical device, used to equate the pro-ban side w/ quitters (or something, as I said, it was a sucky comparison), but *not* a strawman.

An example of a strawman would be in fact Budget Player Cadet's response to my post.

@Budget Player Cadet: I never said there was a character that close to dominant now, nor did I say that as of now there are more characters with no bad matchups. I said that without MK, if the players moved onto another character (Lets say marth, wario, or whatever), and start all using him and boosting his metagame. They get so much experience playing against matchups that were previously disadvataged for them (let's say that they realize crazy powershield-> safe approach on falco/other projectile users) that they even the matchup ratio out, out of sheer overuse and success in tourney play.
(disclaimer: I say this because n brawl, matchup ratios seem to change alot and are very subjective, and based heavily on immediate metaplay)
He would still be able to "dominate" even if he wasn't as good a character as MK.

Also, if you didn't notice, I said that the likelihood wasn't that great. I simply pointed out that it's not impossible. (with the physics of brawl favoring defensive play with characters with ranged melee attacks w/ little ending lag, I can't see someone saying it's an impossible scenario)

 

[fkacyan]

So, yeah. By definition, Occam's razor often is the best approach. Keep it simple, people: enact a whole bunch of bans that affect other characters and needlessly complicate the ruleset to give the illusion of stability and balance, which requires a whole slew of assumptions about the future of Brawl, none of which are supported by any of our current data... or just follow the data we have now and ban Metaknight.

Read the very end of that definition:

In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.

It is a guide. It is not a method. Do not confuse the two.

 

[Black Mantis]

So, yeah. By definition, Occam's razor often is the best approach. Keep it simple, people: enact a whole bunch of bans that affect other characters and needlessly complicate the ruleset to give the illusion of stability and balance, which requires a whole slew of assumptions about the future of Brawl, none of which are supported by any of our current data... or just follow the data we have now and ban Metaknight.

.
I say follow the data.

 

[HeroMystic]

@Hero Mystic: A strawman argument is when instead of fighting a point that was been brought up, you construct a fake point, and attack that, in an effort to deceive the audience into thinking that you are in fact attacking the point brought up. UltiMario was not doing that. He was bringing up a hypothetical unrelated to any point the pro-ban side had, and trying to relate the options of the hypothetical to the sides of the debate. Yes, it was a rhetorical device, used to equate the pro-ban side w/ quitters (or something, as I said, it was a sucky comparison), but *not* a strawman.

An example of a strawman would be in fact Budget Player Cadet's response to my post.

Well I suppose you can twist it in any way, but I can clearly see your point.

I also see how BPC's post is a strawman. XD This entire thread is a Debate 101.

 

[Kewkky]

This entire thread is a Debate 101.

I know, you guys haven't even said anything worthwhile concerning MK and any alternatives on what we should look at for the past pages. It's all about Occam's razor now, and discussing logic stuff. :|

 

[Jack Kieser]

Read the very end of that definition:

In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.

It is a guide. It is not a method. Do not confuse the two.

Read the definition, the last sentence, and the thread: Occam's razor is a supplement, judiciously applied to existing hypotheses / data to make educated decisions on possible best courses of action / most probable accurate scenarios. Occam's razor, by itself, is meaningless...

...but, as has been said before, if you take it within the context of everything that's been said and done in the last year, it very clearly points to a best-of-all-possible-worlds result, and that's a MK ban. Honestly, the only thing we're missing is ban criteria... but that's not even necessary.

It's like having a murder case where the prosecution has the murder weapon, 3 eye witnesses, security footage, and a bloody glove with fingerprints, but lacks a motive; sure, motive is important, but sometimes people are just sociopaths and sometimes all the other evidence is overwhelming enough to convict anyway.

 

[Ray Robo]

Not much talk concerning the MK ban here. Maybe just quiet this time around? Anyway i am strongly supporting the MK ban. He is slightly overpowered in my opinion and he really doesn't have any big weaknesses. SSB is about CP's. The thing is you cant CP MK. Hes just too powerful and should be banned due to his shaping of the tierlist and inability to be CP'd.

 

[Code Lyon]

Hey has anyone checked out the Tier List Thread?

The person who posted is crazy....>.<

 

[salaboB]

It's like having a murder case where the prosecution has the murder weapon, 3 eye witnesses, security footage, and a bloody glove with fingerprints, but lacks a motive; sure, motive is important, but sometimes people are just sociopaths and sometimes all the other evidence is overwhelming enough to convict anyway.

In the context of this analogy, I believe Thiocyanide is trying to plea insanity to get off easy.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Insanity? ...yeah, that sounds about right.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It is impossible that Marth's metagame might develop to the point that he no longer loses to those characters? You mean to say that you can guarantee that it is physically impossible?

No, I mean to say that the way things are going now, it's just not likely. Remember, the chars that counter marth are held down by metaknight! What's far more likely is that people like DDD up their metagame because all of a sudden you can use them more.

An example of a strawman would be in fact Budget Player Cadet's response to my post.

@Budget Player Cadet: I never said there was a character that close to dominant now, nor did I say that as of now there are more characters with no bad matchups. I said that without MK, if the players moved onto another character (Lets say marth, wario, or whatever), and start all using him and boosting his metagame. They get so much experience playing against matchups that were previously disadvataged for them (let's say that they realize crazy powershield-> safe approach on falco/other projectile users) that they even the matchup ratio out, out of sheer overuse and success in tourney play.
(disclaimer: I say this because n brawl, matchup ratios seem to change alot and are very subjective, and based heavily on immediate metaplay)
He would still be able to "dominate" even if he wasn't as good a character as MK.

Also, if you didn't notice, I said that the likelihood wasn't that great. I simply pointed out that it's not impossible. (with the physics of brawl favoring defensive play with characters with ranged melee attacks w/ little ending lag, I can't see someone saying it's an impossible scenario)

I'm giving "Did not read correctly/read too fast" johns, kthx. Rereading your original post, no, that's not very likely. You're basically using the assumption that all MK mains will go over to one other character. Now tell me... what's the likelyhood of there being one char that does everything MK does?
Agressive MKs will go for chars like Marth
Campy gay MKs will go for chars like Wario
Tier ***** MKs will go for Snake or Diddy
Combo-loving MKs will go for Diddy

Not a given, but certainly more logical than your situation.

 

[Sky`]

If only you guys knew!

Anyway, I'm with whatever the public wants.

 

[Kewkky]

If only you guys knew!

Anyway, I'm with whatever the public wants.

Yes, if only I knew what you knew... "Knowledge for knowledge's sake" is the only thing that goes on outside the BBR, I wonder what you guys are discussing in there that wills you to the point of posting what I quoted...

 

[Remzi]

Out of curiosity:


Let's imagine Zeus came down and said "YALL SILLY MILKSOPS" and demanded MK stay in the game, but we HAD to do something about that boring ledge grab stuff.


What do you do to prevent ledge grabs without a judge ruling that would be effective, but never tilt the flow of the match away from MK simply because "we said so"?

MK would plank the **** out of Zeus, then we'd ban both of them.

 

[Kewkky]

What do you do to prevent ledge grabs without a judge ruling that would be effective, but never tilt the flow of the match away from MK simply because "we said so"?

In my opinion, there's no reason at all as to why a character would want to grab a ledge, if the opponent isn't in a threatening position. TO me it just seems like you're just setting up an even tougher defense that is just too strong when performed by certain characters. LGLs aren't a good way of limiting ledge-play because some characters depend on ledge games as their best strategy, and even with that they're abhorrently bad, at an internal level (Samus and Jigglypuff for example... Samus maybe not so much, but me maining Samus in Melee then trying her out in Brawl warped my vision of her forever)... So, we could start with the whole "jumping onto the ledge when not directly threatened" scenario and work our way from there.

If a character is forced onto the stage or a stage-level platform when the opponent is at a non-threatening distance (even a campy opponent, since the best projectiles don't kill), it would both force the one who would've ledgecamped back onto the stage and lose his % lead unless he approaches for the kill, and also give him enough % due to projectile camping for the camper to kill him with relative ease when the approaching time comes. If the opponent camps the edge of the stage, then grabs the ledge everytime the player approaches, then that should be cause enough to call in a judge to watch the match until you attempt to approach again. If the ledge-player grabs the ledge yet again in front of the judge's eyes, then he could be forced some penalty due to his excessively defensive playstyle. I mean, it would mean that he's stalling the timer out if he constantly avoids every single encounter by resorting to ledge-based defensive gameplay like planking or scrooging. Since this isn't an MK-only scenario, it would work on other opponents who would as well play the gay ledge game.

I'm not aiming to limit ledge-game to nothing, more like... Avoiding excessive defensive game, which clearly planking and scrooging are a part of. If you have the lead you obviously wouldn't want to approach, but that doesn't mean you should grab the ledge and avoid all manner of contact between both players! If the opponent is going to approach, then get ready to punish his approaching option: you're already on the winning side of the encounter here! If you have to resors to completely avoiding any and all encounters like how planking and scrooging resort to doing, then obviously you're not taking the game as it is supposed to be seriously. The tactics hand-in-hand are literally broken! Why should something that is otherwise unbeatable, be left to rampage through the tourney brackets? If you're in the lead, then there's no need to avoid contact that way, it literally takes WAY less skill than powershielding the projectiles (and it's not like that requires skill, either!). If you want to maintain your lead, work to maintain it and don't stall the timer out in order to win matches.

So, when a player has the lead, jumping onto the ledge or staying on a ledge while the opponent is at a safe distance (half a stage apart is certainly safe) should not be permitted. Hell, grabbing the ledge whenever the opponent approaches shouldn't be permitted either. You're on the stage, the match goes on the stage, not the ledge. Camping characters might see this as an advantage by keeping their distance... But isn't that what they do now? If you truly believe camping falcos would get campier, you have no idea of what the metagame has brought to our eyes. Falcos camping the other side of the stage and shooting lasers won't change, the only thing that will change is that pesky MK/Pit/G&W/Marth/other character camping the ledge to win the match by time-outs... So, when you have a lead and retreat to the ledge and stay there whenever your opponent attempts an approach, you should be penalized for it.


Questions and comments on my quick draft? Some feedback would be nice. If we can come up with a good rule to control excessive ledge-play, we can find some compromise to this situation.

 

[MarKO X]

hmm... here's a question that just popped into my head... probably lacks common sense, but stab at it if you will:

why allow a broken technique up to 50 grabs?

 

[Jack Kieser]

Kewkky, it's a good start, and a decent effort, but it's still way too subjective; the simple truth is that anything requiring a judge won't work. We need to realize that once the words "judge", "ruling" or "call" are used in our definition, we've already failed.

It's just not practical. Small tournaments can pull it off because everyone is watching each other, but mid-level and national tournaments will need massive resources to do it, at least one judge for each simultaneous match... and even then, all of the judges have to be trained beforehand to know exactly what they're looking for and so that they'll all make the same call in the same situations, so that no player is disenfranchised by a bad call. Judges just have too many holes. If it's not discreet and easily enforceable, there's a good chance it won't work.

EDIT at above: Why allow a broken technique up to any grabs?

 

[Kewkky]

Kewkky, it's a good start, and a decent effort, but it's still way too subjective; the simple truth is that anything requiring a judge won't work. We need to realize that once the words "judge", "ruling" or "call" are used in our definition, we've already failed.

It's just not practical. Small tournaments can pull it off because everyone is watching each other, but mid-level and national tournaments will need massive resources to do it, at least one judge for each simultaneous match... and even then, all of the judges have to be trained beforehand to know exactly what they're looking for and so that they'll all make the same call in the same situations, so that no player is disenfranchised by a bad call. Judges just have too many holes. If it's not discreet and easily enforceable, there's a good chance it won't work.

Awright, let's see how I can morph it around a bit to exclude a judge or 'witness'... But before I do so:

Now that I think about it, how do people enforce IDC? If a judge calling shouldn't be part of a rule, then how can people respect the IDC rule? A player can tell when an opponent is IDC'ing, and when the opponent is planking/scrooging... How different is the situation? There's no way to document a match besides saving the replay, and the same could be said about planking/scrooging. Both techniques require a player to WANT to do them in order to do them. Once the techniques have been performed, and the match has been brought up for inspection due to the breaking of a rule (IDC in this case), how does the judge respond to that? There's no physical evidence that can be maintained for a penalty to be placed upon the opponent, how is the rule still working? And why can't we apply the same approach to planking/scrooging?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Oh i don't hate the marth boards ... but i do hate anime freaks.
especially naruto fans.

You missed the joke, marth boards have a rep for being weeaboos, well except me and one other marth (check his title to find out who).

 

[fkacyan]

You missed the joke, marth boards have a rep for being weeaboos, well except me and one other marth (check his title to find out who).

There is a pretty distinct line between weeaboo and anime fan.

@Jack: In the context of your analogy, all they've actually proven is motive, and further investigation is required to prove that he's guilty of the murder. Except now we find out that there's a video of the murder that shows somebody vaguely similar to the defendant killing the guy, and it's up to one side or the other to deal with it in a fashion that either continues the debate or ends in his guilt.

Or, in other words, they've proven he's extremely dominant. Whether that dominance is acceptable is completely and utterly a matter of opinion. However, with the planking data now around, we have to decide if we can limit that in a feasible manner. If so, we're back to the situation before, which was never close to a permaban (It was close to a temp ban, though). If we can't, clearly the character gets banned.

Also, why does the 'confirm edit' button say Vote Now?

 

[adumbrodeus]

There is a pretty distinct line between weeaboo and anime fan.

All weeaboos are anime fans but not all anime fans are weeaboos.

 

[Nanaki]

Awright, let's see how I can morph it around a bit to exclude a judge or 'witness'... But before I do so:

Now that I think about it, how do people enforce IDC? If a judge calling shouldn't be part of a rule, then how can people respect the IDC rule? A player can tell when an opponent is IDC'ing, and when the opponent is planking/scrooging... How different is the situation? There's no way to document a match besides saving the replay, and the same could be said about planking/scrooging. Both techniques require a player to WANT to do them in order to do them. Once the techniques have been performed, and the match has been brought up for inspection due to the breaking of a rule (IDC in this case), how does the judge respond to that? There's no physical evidence that can be maintained for a penalty to be placed upon the opponent, how is the rule still working? And why can't we apply the same approach to planking/scrooging?

There is no 'judgement call' concerning IDC. Either you did it, or you didn't. Planking isn't anywhere near as discrete.

Say I'm MK. I've been hit off the stage by Marth, and I'm trying to recover. I recover low, and sweetspot the ledge with a downB. Marth now does a run-off bair trying for a stage spike (yeah, stupid, wouldn't happen, just roll with me here and assume the Marth is bad), and I drop the ledge and uair him, then jump, uair again, and regrab the ledge. My recovery route is now safe, so I hop up onto the stage.

Did I just plank, or recover smartly? I did the exact motion of DMG's 'unbeatable planking', but I was only really trying to recover and not to stall out the match. Should I get DQ'd?

 

[GeneralWoodman]

nope, because you were hit off stage and showed no signs of planking

 

[laki]

I wonder how judges would fucntion in smash.

They work in sports and magic cause theres a nice fat rulebook, but in smash not so much.

Meh, gives me something to think on.