Over-Centralization: What should the community's tolerance be?

[DanGR]

RDK, Can you tell me why character diversity is completely irrelevant?

 

[adumbrodeus]

A criteria, by definition, defines necesary conditions. Nothing more.

For exaple, a criteria for identifying if something is a rock is whether or not it is a solid. Not all solids are rocks, though. But all rocks, in the form of a rock ( and not lava or a gas, which aren't rocks anymore because they are defined as lava and gas instead) are solids.

...

Dude, that's not the criteria for identifying when something is a rock, that's PART of the criteria.

The criteria for being a rock is:

"Aggregation of solid matter composed of one or more of the minerals forming the earth's crust."

"Solid" is part of it, but there are other parts of it.


A criteria positively identifies whether something qualifies for something otherwise it's useless.



Even if you WERE correct, it doesn't matter, because we're not looking for a necessary condition, we're looking for a necessary AND sufficient condition, because simply a necessary condition doesn't deal with the issue of being arbitrary.

If you were correct, we'd just be looking for a necessary and sufficent condition for banning, so what criteria actually means DOESN'T MATTER.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

...

Dude, that's not the criteria for identifying when something is a rock, that's PART of the criteria.

The criteria for being a rock is:

"Aggregation of solid matter composed of one or more of the minerals forming the earth's crust."

"Solid" is part of it, but there are other parts of it.


A criteria positively identifies whether something qualifies for something otherwise it's useless.



Even if you WERE correct, it doesn't matter, because we're not looking for a necessary condition, we're looking for a necessary AND sufficient condition, because simply a necessary condition doesn't deal with the issue of being arbitrary.

If you were correct, we'd just be looking for a necessary and sufficent condition for banning, so what criteria actually means DOESN'T MATTER.

Your criteria is insufficient by your own standards, because it neglects to take into account rocks on other planets.

Of course, as I have found, even the most concrete definitions are only generally true. There are always exceptions. To your rule on what a rock is, the exception is a solid matter composed of the minerals forming the crust of other planets. There's also meteors to think about, etc., etc.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Your criteria is insufficient by your own standards, because it neglects to take into account rocks on other planets.

Not true. Only if it's partially made up of a mineral that makes up part of the earth's crust. In which case, it's not a rock.

I'm not sure what the geological term is for such things by the way, but it's a separate concept.

Of course, as I have found, even the most concrete definitions are only generally true. There are always exceptions. To your rule on what a rock is, the exception is a solid matter composed of the minerals forming the crust of other planets. There's also meteors to think about, etc., etc.

Making ad hoc exceptions is generally BAD. It's much better to account for new needs by changing the rules.

And what you are suggesting (not the actual item, because it doesn't necessarily not qualify, but what I pointed out earlier as absolutely not qualifying) is not a "rock". "Rock" is a very specific geological term, it doesn't talk about things made of minerals that aren't found on earth.


That's the point of having specific terminology, it just talks about what you are trying to talk about.

Of course, it's a much wider colloquial term, but it's not well-defined.

 

[RDK]

RDK, Can you tell me why character diversity is completely irrelevant?

Character diversity is not completely irrelevant, but it's not so relevant as to, when dealing with bans, throw consistency out the window.

When you start jacking with it a little bit for the sake of "character diversity" and artificially "furthering the metagame" and all such nonsense, people are going to start complaining about anything and everything, especially when all of our lines boil down to a matter of degrees.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Not important, but if all "rocks" are from earth, what's a "moon rock?" "Moon" is an adjective that defines the origin of the "rock" but the "rock" isn't technically a rock by this understanding, while also being defined as a rock from the moon.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Not important, but if all "rocks" are from earth, what's a "moon rock?" "Moon" is an adjective that defines the origin of the "rock" but the "rock" isn't technically a rock by this understanding, while also being defined as a rock from the moon.

Rocks that formed on the moon.

No problem with that, the definition of rock accounts for that.


(Hint: recheck the definition, note what relates to earth and what exactly it says)

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Rocks that formed on the moon.

No problem with that, the definition of rock accounts for that.


(Hint: recheck the definition, note what relates to earth and what exactly it says)

I checked the definition, I guess it's acceptable.

But I'm not as good or as willing to nitpick as Yuna, who would most likely mention that your original definition assumed that rocks by your first definition, can only form on earth; whatever formed on the moon wouldn't qualify as a rock.

Remember, Yuna may very well be the person to test any standard against.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I checked the definition, I guess it's acceptable.

But I'm not as good or as willing to nitpick as Yuna, who would most likely mention that your original definition assumed that rocks by your first definition, can only form on earth; whatever formed on the moon wouldn't qualify as a rock.

Remember, Yuna may very well be the person to test any standard against.

Not really, the first definition I mentioned only specified that the minerals had to exist on earth, not that it had to form on earth.

Aggregation of solid matter composed of one or more of the minerals forming the earth's crust

"Minerals forming the earth's crust" means that the minerals exist as part of the earth's crust in addition to within the candidate for "rockhood".


Yeah, I know that it's a confusing term, but it's very specific and technical, it doesn't refer to the formation location of the rock itself at all. If it did require rocks to be formed within the earth's crust, above-ground forming igneous rocks would not be rocks, they're required to cool outside the earth's crust. So, pumice would not be a rock for example, which isn't the case.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Not really, the first definition I mentioned only specified that the minerals had to exist on earth, not that it had to form on earth.



"Minerals forming the earth's crust" means that the minerals exist as part of the earth's crust in addition to within the candidate for "rockhood".


Yeah, I know that it's a confusing term, but it's very specific and technical, it doesn't refer to the formation location of the rock itself at all. If it did require rocks to be formed within the earth's crust, above-ground forming igneous rocks would not be rocks, they're required to cool outside the earth's crust. So, pumice would not be a rock for example, which isn't the case.

O.K., I guess.

Just out of curiosity, what's pumice (/offtopic)?

I'm going to wiki it anyway though, so don't feel a need to respond.

EDIT: Pumice, the floating non-rock:

 

[adumbrodeus]

O.K., I guess.

Just out of curiosity, what's pumice (/offtopic)?

I'm going to wiki it anyway though, so don't feel a need to respond.

EDIT: Pumice, the floating non-rock:

Nah, pumic is a rock, it's still solid matter and an aggregate of one or more minerals that form the earth's crust (specifically minerals like rhyolitic, dacitic, andesite, pantellerit, phonolite, trachyte, etc). The fact that it floats doesn't change that.


Did you know coral is a rock?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Nah, pumic is a rock, it's still solid matter and an aggregate of one or more minerals that form the earth's crust (specifically minerals like rhyolitic, dacitic, andesite, pantellerit, phonolite, trachyte, etc). The fact that it floats doesn't change that.


Did you know coral is a rock?

EDIT: I misunderstood your comment. I'm going to bed, I don't have the ability to play Yuna at this hour . I hadn't thought much about coral to be honest, so I don't really recall if I knew that coral was a rock or not. Interesting though. I did know that coral was made of sea-animal skeleton, but I can't remember the technical name for the species of animals that result in the formation of coral reefs (right now; it's pretty late).

 

[Yuna]

It would take a lot of work to make a ban criteria that deals with all those exceptions. Rules rarely have such rigidity.

Yes they do. Because it would hypocritical to ban something under one criteria, yet have something else that fulfills all of those criteria allowed. Complex bans require complex criteria.

In any case, DDD's infinite and IC's are different, and banning DDD's would affect him differently than it would affect IC's.

That was not what was in question. Do not strawman my argument.

Someone put forth a suggestion for what seemed like their idea of the ultimate ban criteria. I poked a huge hole in it by pointing out how this would ban all infinites, thus, it was not the ultimate ban criteria, unless, of course, the user wanted to ban all infinites.

Random stuff.

None of this was in the "Ultimate Ban Criteria" presented. I am not going to argue your adendums. They are perfectly valid (well, some of them). I was merely poking holes in one user's argument.

He didn't say there's no chance. He basically meant that they lose a huge amount of ability with the loss of their infinite. It's not that hard to infer.

The same can be said of Luigi vs. D3. Some people argue that it would be 50-50 or that Luigi would even have the advantage.

Your criteria is insufficient by your own standards, because it neglects to take into account rocks on other planets.

Your logic is non-existent because of a "rock" was found on another planet which did not fit our criteria for "rock", then it wouldn't be a rock.

But I'm not as good or as willing to nitpick as Yuna, who would most likely mention that your original definition assumed that rocks by your first definition, can only form on earth; whatever formed on the moon wouldn't qualify as a rock.

Unlike you, I possess logic. And trivia knowledge.

I do not nitpick just because I can. I nitpick when I can justify my nitpicking. You just illogically nitpicked something you have absolutely no insight into (you eventually conceded defeat) using arguments which were flawed by nature.

I don't just nitpick just because I feel like it. When I nitpick, I provide valid reasons for doing so.

Just out of curiosity, what's pumice (/offtopic)?

Jus tout of curiosity, what's Google?

EDIT: I misunderstood your comment. I'm going to bed, I don't have the ability to play Yuna at this hour .

You never do, ever.

 

[DanGR]

Let me throw out a couple questions to the anti-ban side.

1. If we (the smash community) could come up with a solid, objective criteria for banning a tactic, do you think we could ever ban one?

Personally, I think when two or more characters are made unviable by a single tactic that only one character has (and those two or more would be good characters without out it) (in other words, that tactic is the only thing holding them back), that's enough to call for a ban.

2. Would the smash community rather have an infinite that, in the long run, won't even be used because the number of DK and Luigi players will die out? -Or- Would we rather have two more characters in the mix? (and to add on, DK and Luigi specifically would help balance the game. DK v Snake and Luigi v Olimar come straight to mind)

3. Imagine if Melee Marth had an infinite chaingrab on both Falco and Jiggs that could be be initiated by hitting them with any attack. (any attack will lead to the grab) Do you think people would still use either one? If no, would you ban that?

I'm not saying this is a very good comparison. I'm just trying to understand y'all's reasoning.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Let me throw out a couple questions to the anti-ban side.

1. If we (the smash community) could come up with a solid, objective criteria for banning a tactic, do you think we could ever ban one?

Yes.
it happens.

Personally, I think when two or more characters are made unviable by a single tactic that only one character has (and those two or more would be good characters without out it) (in other words, that tactic is the only thing holding them back), that's enough to call for a ban.

How do they become less viable than Captain Falcon and Ganondorf? They are unviable in that one matchup yes.
Yet Fox has a 9-1 matchup but he has managed to win in a few tourneys.
By no means is a character completely unviable due to it.

2. Would the smash community rather have an infinite that, in the long run, won't even be used because the number of DK and Luigi players will die out? -Or- Would we rather have two more characters in the mix? (and to add on, DK and Luigi specifically would help balance the game. DK v Snake and Luigi v Olimar come straight to mind)

I highly doubt that the DK users and Luigi users would die out. Just like how Bowser users didn't die out in melee or Link users didn't die out in melee (in spite having a **** matchup with sheik).

If they do disappear that is the result of the players not the metagame itself.

3. Imagine if Melee Marth had an infinite chaingrab on both Falco and Jiggs that could be be initiated by hitting them with any attack. (any attack will lead to the grab) Do you think people would still use either one? If no, would you ban that?

Yes they would. Simply because they do have a choice in the matter. In that one amtchup they can be considered unviable, but overall? No.

Primarily because the CP system exists and offers you other choices. Those other choices then work back to allow those characters to remain viable since you have the ability to avoid the **** matchup and use those characters in matchups that are not ****.

They don't lose all their viability due to a terrible matchup.

I'm not saying this is a very good comparison. I'm just trying to understand y'all's reasoning.

I am not good at reasoning =(

 

[Jewdo]

Let me throw out a couple questions to the anti-ban side.

1. If we (the smash community) could come up with a solid, objective criteria for banning a tactic, do you think we could ever ban one?

[paragraph not containing a question]

2. Would the smash community rather have an infinite that, in the long run, won't even be used because the number of DK and Luigi players will die out? -Or- Would we rather have two more characters in the mix? (and to add on, DK and Luigi specifically would help balance the game. DK v Snake and Luigi v Olimar come straight to mind)

3. Imagine if Melee Marth had an infinite chaingrab on both Falco and Jiggs that could be be initiated by hitting them with any attack. (any attack will lead to the grab) Do you think people would still use either one? If no, would you ban that?

1. Yes.

2. Allowing the infinite does not have the same effect as removing the two characters. People would still play Luigi and DK, but would have to pick up an alt to handle players who use the infinite. Ex. Peach gets chain-grabbed by Marth in Melee, and even without the chain-grab, the match-up is still hard for her. However, Peach mains are still fairly common in Melee tournaments.

3. Yes, people would still use those characters. Those who main characters vulnerable to the infinite/grab would simply pick up alts to handle that weakness (see answer to second question).

**edit: The second half of this post is now a [THREAD].

 

[Yuna]

1. If we (the smash community) could come up with a solid, objective criteria for banning a tactic, do you think we could ever ban one?

Yes, if it's warranted.

Personally, I think when two or more characters are made unviable by a single tactic that only one character has (and those two or more would be good characters without out it) (in other words, that tactic is the only thing holding them back), that's enough to call for a ban.

BS logic. "Hey, these characters have this big weakness." - "Let's ban it!". We don't arbitrarily ban things to artifically change the match-ups. We only ban things that over-centralize the game (relatively speaking).

By this logic, anything which renders a character unviable in a single match-up has to go. Fox suffers chaingrabs, chain-Dsmashes and chain-F-tilts. Let's ban those!

Captain Falcon has a crap recovery. Let's ban edgeguarding vs. CF!

2. Would the smash community rather have an infinite that, in the long run, won't even be used because the number of DK and Luigi players will die out? -Or- Would we rather have two more characters in the mix? (and to add on, DK and Luigi specifically would help balance the game. DK v Snake and Luigi v Olimar come straight to mind)

Why should we ban something just because it renders certain characters unviable? Then they are unviable. They were designed unviable and they will stay unviable. Competitive gaming is not about maximizing "fairness" and making as many characters as viable as possible.

3. Imagine if Melee Marth had an infinite chaingrab on both Falco and Jiggs that could be be initiated by hitting them with any attack. (any attack will lead to the grab) Do you think people would still use either one? If no, would you ban that?

No, but we wouldn't ban them either. They just wouldn't be played. Same as Pichu is barely played, same as Zelda is barely played.

I'm not saying this is a very good comparison. I'm just trying to understand y'all's reasoning.

What's your reasoning? If it'll make some characters more viable, then it's bannable and has to go?

 

[XxBlackxX]

nice post Yuna, was gonna post but then read this and it basically summed it up.
and this right here

Why should we ban something just because it renders certain characters unviable? Then they are unviable. They were designed unviable and they will stay unviable. Competitive gaming is not about maximizing "fairness" and making as many characters as viable as possible.

is what most pro-ban people don't seem to get through their heads.
i mean, the only way something is ban-worthy is if it breaks the whole game, makes SSBB unplayable competitively, NOT if certain matchups are unplayable, or if certain characters are unviable.