Pictochat needs to be legalized for our ruleset to have consistency.

[Arcansi]

Unity Ruleset is terrible, everyone knows this. Do you have any other point to make?

What are we going to do about it?

We could (from what DeLux has told me) change things to the way we want, and as long as it was universal, Unity would follow easily.

I doubt this is within the communities ability to do(without proper organization and correct techniques), but it's a possibility.

 

[T-block]

and i would completely agree with you that the written reasons for banning pictochat are generally unsatisfactory

but that's more because there is a lot going on (dare i say subconsciously) in the minds of the decisions makers that they are unable to articulate.

and it's important to realize this and not waste time debating technicalities. i'd prefer to spend my time at the heart of the matter, where things are more interesting than semantics =\

 

[Arcansi]

and i would completely agree with you that the written reasons for banning pictochat are generally unsatisfactory

but that's more because there is a lot going on (dare i say subconsciously) in the minds of the decisions makers that they are unable to articulate.

and it's important to realize this and not waste time debating technicalities. i'd prefer to spend my time at the heart of the matter, where things are more interesting than semantics =\

Where is the heart of the matter?

Note that this serves as a way for me to gather info on how things work, too.

 

[T-block]

realizing that even though people say that they want pictochat banned because there is randomness present, there's actually more to it than that. and i'd rather spend my time addressing that than saying "but that's not what you said lololol"

if that were the only reason for wanting pictochat banned, everyone would be convinced by the comparison to YI, and we'd either have both banned or both legal. but that's not the only reason. people just suck at articulating their reasons =P

 

[Arcansi]

realizing that even though people say that they want pictochat banned because there is randomness present, there's actually more to it than that. and i'd rather spend my time addressing that than saying "but that's not what you said lololol"

if that were the only reason for wanting pictochat banned, everyone would be convinced by the comparison to YI, and we'd either have both banned or both legal. but that's not the only reason. people just suck at articulating their reasons =P

You should inform me, then. Because in my mind I don't have these obstructions, or atleast I don't think I do, or I've gotten over them. I can theorize what they could be, but I'm probably wrong just because I can only theorize based on myself, and I'm completely different from most people on this.

 

[Strong Badam]

What are we going to do about it?

We could (from what DeLux has told me) change things to the way we want, and as long as it was universal, Unity would follow easily.

I doubt this is within the communities ability to do(without proper organization and correct techniques), but it's a possibility.

Dunno. That's your problem, not mine; Brawl is a terribly boring game to play competitively and I care nothing for its future. Posting threads about how Pictochat should be legal, however, is not helping your cause.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

I feel that how much randomness is allowable has to do if it over centralizes the game to that randomness. For example I'm hearing talk about planking the right edge untill the transition is done for every transition just to avoid the randomness. the games on pictochat always are going to involve the random changes on it. They are not only game altering but very intrusive. You would be hard pressed to not be effected by the stage alterations on that stage where as the ghost on yoshi's island rarely effects the game. on pictochat the game revolves around the random transitions where as on yoshi's the ghost is not a center piece of the stage. Hence centralizing. This is at least where I draw the line between these two stages.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Dunno. That's your problem, not mine; Brawl is a terribly boring game to play competitively and I care nothing for its future. Posting threads about how Pictochat should be legal, however, is not helping your cause.

What are you doing in these boards, again?

I feel that how much randomness is allowable has to do if it over centralizes the game to that randomness. For example I'm hearing talk about planking the right edge untill the transition is done for every transition just to avoid the randomness. the games on pictochat always are going to involve the random changes on it. They are not only game altering but very intrusive. You would be hard pressed to not be effected by the stage alterations on that stage where as the ghost on yoshi's island rarely effects the game. on pictochat the game revolves around the random transitions where as on yoshi's the ghost is not a center piece of the stage. Hence centralizing. This is at least where I draw the line between these two stages.

back to sqare one anyone? Read the thread, all those points have already been adressed.


We're currently at "stage is too intrusive" vs "where 'intrusive' goes 'too intrusive'?", and URC (the ones the thread was originally directed at) said that their criteria was not the stage, but how it has been treated overall in their region.
All of them looks like legit stand points.

 

[Arcansi]

k

We're currently at "stage is too intrusive" vs "where 'intrusive' goes 'too intrusive'?", and URC (the ones the thread was originally directed at) said that their criteria was not the stage, but how it has been treated overall in their region.
All of them looks like legit stand points.

My standpoint on all of this.

1. We have no definition of too intrusive in our ruleset, and everything that's been said has been arbitrary. So for this to work in any way, someone would need to come up with a non-arbitrary definition of too intrusive.

2. The URC's region is all of NA smash. Note that they pretty much said they don't care about competitiveness, just the ruleset being standard.

It has been noted by SB that a lot of people feel this could use fixing, but he doesn't play brawl(or care a lot in the matter) so take that with a grain of salt.

T-Block said it was about something more subconscious, but he has yet to explain any of this, so I'm waiting on that.

And I'm waiting on DeLux's possible return. I still have no idea how I'm wrong or why it would be so hard to explain it.

 

[ぱみゅ]

1. We have no definition of too intrusive in our ruleset, and everything that's been said has been arbitrary. So for this to work in any way, someone would need to come up with a non-arbitrary definition of too intrusive.

I agree with that point.

2. The URC's region is all of Canada and USA smash.

Fixed. And I know that.

Note that they pretty much said they don't care about competitiveness, just the ruleset being standard.

And that's a valid stand point.

It has been noted by SB that a lot of people feel this could use fixing, but he doesn't play brawl(or care a lot in the matter) so take that with a grain of salt.

Who is this SB you're talking about? /trying not to go offtopic

T-Block said it was about something more subconscious, but he has yet to explain any of this, so I'm waiting on that.

Probably he do not need to...

And I'm waiting on DeLux's possible return. I still have no idea how I'm wrong or why it would be so hard to explain it.

The point has already been done: Stage has been banned in a vast majority of non-Unity events, so, in order to act according that majority (and try setting a standard), they banned it as well.
Is a valid standpoint, given they are not looking for an "optimal" Ruleset (like BBR's), but one that most people can agree with.

 

[Arcansi]

And that's a valid stand point.

I guess. It seems largely inferior to, you know, sticking with their principles and such. Explained more further down.

Who is this SB you're talking about? /trying not to go offtopic

Strong Bad

Probably he do not need to...

I can NEVER trust my own inferences on matters of human thought. It hasn't worked before, so it probably won't work now.

The point has already been done: Stage has been banned in a vast majority of non-Unity events, so, in order to act according that majority (and try setting a standard), they banned it as well.
Is a valid standpoint, given they are not looking for an "optimal" Ruleset (like BBR's), but one that most people can agree with.

What I'm talking about is DeLux on my consistency argument. Here's a relevant quote

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally circumventing your argument because I'd actually agree with you based on how you define consistency. However, the definition of consistency is subjectively up for debate

Basically, he has yet to explain or defend any of this.

(ie- perhaps we judge that play on pictochat becomes "too" careful; shoutouts to captain l for setting me back on this line of thinking).

Captain L never talks to me...

Also, being careful during like 15 seconds max is not too much. Or else RC would have been horribly horribly banned while MK was legal.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

Pictochat doesn't just require you to be careful for 15 seconds though. It requires you to be careful every time there's a lethal hazard in play, and worse, when there MIGHT be a lethal hazard coming into play soon. Since a lot of what picto does has rather large effects on whether you will live or die, there's a great deal of time spent being careful, sometimes for no reason. It's more than 15 seconds. It's going to be a rather large chunk of time.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Works with intervals.
Play carefully 5-15 seconds, and play the transformation for 10-15.


Arcansi, I can't talk for him, but I think DeLux has a personal point of view, which is probably not the same one of the URC.

 

[WindMajor]

Pictochat doesn't just require you to be careful for 15 seconds though. It requires you to be careful every time there's a lethal hazard in play, and worse, when there MIGHT be a lethal hazard coming into play soon. Since a lot of what picto does has rather large effects on whether you will live or die, there's a great deal of time spent being careful, sometimes for no reason. It's more than 15 seconds. It's going to be a rather large chunk of time.

Are you saying that playing carefully is a bad thing?

 

[#HBC | Joker]

Playing TOO carefully is. It's bad enough that I need to keep constant tabs on what my opponent is doing, now I gotta worry about what the stage is doing every 10 seconds? That doesn't seem like a fine line to me, that seems hella excessive. I'm sure everyone has their own lines to draw with "how much stage intrusivness is too much?" but I feel pretty comfortable saying a vast majority would put Pictochat on the "too intrusive" side of the line.

 

[BSP]

Hence why it s currently banned

 

[WindMajor]

Playing TOO carefully is. It's bad enough that I need to keep constant tabs on what my opponent is doing, now I gotta worry about what the stage is doing every 10 seconds? That doesn't seem like a fine line to me, that seems hella excessive. I'm sure everyone has their own lines to draw with "how much stage intrusivness is too much?" but I feel pretty comfortable saying a vast majority would put Pictochat on the "too intrusive" side of the line.

Well, no matter what, you have to pay attention to your enemy at all times (unless you want to get ***** that is). It's no different with stages. On Lylat Cruise, Halberd, or even Smashville, you have to pay attention to the stage at all times, unless you want something bad to happen to you (the stage tilts away in LC, the main platform moves to a different location in Halberd, the moving platform moves in an unfavorable way).

The same level of awareness should be applied to all stages. Playing "too carefully" shouldn't even exist when by default, you should always be paying attention 100% of the time to prevent from getting *****.

Intrusiveness is one thing, but awareness is another.

 

[UltiMario]

Why is this a thread.

YI's random effect can't kill you. It can save you, but it can't kill you. They don't even really intrude on the main gameplay of the map when they do happen most of the time.

On the other hand, Pictochat CAN hurt and kill you, and it can stall the game by changing the map's structure entirely, and a decent portion of those stage changes are highly intrusive to standard gameplay.

There is literally no correlation at all between the stages lol

 

[Captain L]

(ie- perhaps we judge that play on pictochat becomes "too" careful; shoutouts to captain l for setting me back on this line of thinking)

any time.

I'd be down for banning both YI and Picto though.

 

[Akaku94]

Why is this a thread.

YI's random effect can't kill you. It can save you, but it can't kill you. They don't even really intrude on the main gameplay of the map when they do happen most of the time.

On the other hand, Pictochat CAN hurt and kill you, and it can stall the game by changing the map's structure entirely, and a decent portion of those stage changes are highly intrusive to standard gameplay.

There is literally no correlation at all between the stages lol

What is the difference between a stage killing you when you would have lived and saving you when you would have died?

Furthermore, what is "standard gameplay?"

 

[Arcansi]

Hence why it s currently banned

At first I thought it was Twinkie saying this and was scared.

BTW, I doubt you have any real insight into why it was banned. Were you anywhere near the decision making process? (hint, only the URC were anywhere near it, we don't actually know s***)

Arcansi, I can't talk for him, but I think DeLux has a personal point of view, which is probably not the same one of the URC.

Usually he's okay with prefacing what he would say with 'most of the URC doesn't feel this way, but...' so idk.

EDIT: I also failed to bring this up, but my main problem with DeLux's response is that the URC seems okay with certain things that can make players quit (standing chaingrabs, ICs being in the game, stalling at all being allowed) but not others.

This is even more inconsistent, and I hope DeLux responds to it, although he probably won't.

:fluttershy:

 

[DeLux]

I thought it was implicit when I said "I" and not "we, the URC" that I'm speaking for myself on things.

Just to address those points:

On the standing chaingrabs: Only 2 tournaments from my count of January had ANY sort of standing chaingrab limitation, and it was for Ness/Lucas only
On the ICs: I don't think a single tournament had ICs banned

I don't think it's inconsistent to not have them banned from a national standard point of view

 

[Arcansi]

I thought it was implicit when I said "I" and not "we, the URC" that I'm speaking for myself on things.

If I mixed that up, I apologize

On the standing chaingrabs: Only 2 tournaments from my count of January had ANY sort of standing chaingrab limitation, and it was for Ness/Lucas only
On the ICs: I don't think a single tournament had ICs banned

I don't think it's inconsistent to not have them banned from a national standard point of view

Unfortunately, I'm trying to argue what is best for our ruleset, not what our people like.

We already have a huge problem with people not wanting to test things, and the data gained from the little testing that does happen (If a large tourney does it no one will come so they don't, if a small tournament does it it doesn't matter, data isn't enough, people aren't good enough, etc.)

So are you going to hide behind the fact that 'nobodies changing, so the ruleset shouldn't' when you know the fact that nobodies changing isn't because they don't want the ruleset to change?

 

[DeLux]

On the contrary, there's a large amount of deviation that takes place on things like the legality of Rc/Brinstar (nearly 60% of non-URS tournaments). I think that speaks volumes towards the direction people want the URS to eventually go.

That being the case, we've been discussing stage legality direction lately within the URC, but Pictochat hasn't received much discussion at all because of its perception throughout. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the mandate by tourney usage initiates a stagelist change in the future.

 

[Arcansi]

On the contrary, there's a large amount of deviation that takes place on things like the legality of Rc/Brinstar (nearly 60% of non-URS tournaments). I think that speaks volumes towards the direction people want the URS to eventually go.

And what % of tournaments are non URS?

Also, when is eventually?

That being the case, we've been discussing stage legality direction lately within the URC, but Pictochat hasn't received much discussion at all because of its perception throughout. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the mandate by tourney usage initiates a stagelist change in the future.

What do you mean by mandate by tourney usage?

I still don't know how to take the fact that what you seemed to show me was the basis of my last thread being wrong actually doesn't count for s*** in the URC.

 

[DeLux]

Roughly 45%

Eventually is at the time of the next update, which is yet to be determined as we still discuss things.

In the event enough URC support exists to make the (60% * 45%) + (X percentage of URC votes) = statistical significance, then that's a pretty large indication of what the community wants which result in an implied mandate by tourney usage the direction the ruleset should go.

Your previous thread was both ideologically wrong and is not currently supported popularly. Statistically speaking, hardly any non-URS tournaments run infinite banned rules and I'd venture a guess that not many URC members would support an infinite ban amendment.

 

[Arcansi]

Roughly 45%

Kk.

Eventually is at the time of the next update, which is yet to be determined as we still discuss things.

Okay.

In the event enough URC support exists to make the (60% * 45%) + (X percentage of URC votes) = statistical significance, then that's a pretty large indication of what the community wants which result in an implied mandate by tourney usage the direction the ruleset should go.

Why is this the place that the URC's ruleset changing formula exists? Also, why does your ruleset changing formula involve an arbitrary variable?

Your previous thread was both ideologically wrong and is not currently supported popularly. Statistically speaking, hardly any non-URS tournaments run infinite banned rules and I'd venture a guess that not many URC members would support an infinite ban amendment.

But, you don't seem to care about ideology. I mean, if 100% of all non-URS tournaments ran Smash Balls on Low, what would you do?

Also, isn't working based on population and not ideology a fallacy in itself?

 

[DeLux]

That formula exists as a variable at the moment because it hasn't passed as official rule making policy in place of the current policy of 51%+ of URC votes makes a rule to the URS. However, it's my hope that we take that direction for URS 3.0, instead of advancing forward with URS 2.2. Since I'm attempting to shift how the committee makes votes to being something more democratic in nature, I've taken it upon myself to vote in the manner that my proposed policy would take the ruleset.

Rational decision making theory would suggest that the likelihood of your hypothetical 100% smashball on low tournament scenario is low. Reality also suggests that RDMT holds true.

And to answer your last question, RDMT says no, especially if the mission at hand is to support universal usage. Ideologies in themselves are typically flawed because most of them are value based which from a rhetoric and persuasion theory discipline background I could tell you that people don't budge on their values because all values require some form of suspension of belief to advance forward.

 

[Ussi]

In actually practice.. How often does one get saved by YI and one get screwed over by pictochat? Because people don't whine about SV's balloon screwing someone up (extended hitlag gets you punished)

 

[Arcansi]

In actually practice.. How often does one get saved by YI and one get screwed over by pictochat? Because people don't whine about SV's balloon screwing someone up (extended hitlag gets you punished)

1. Consistency doesn't care.

2. Self-Confirmation Bias.

(I realize people might take this badly, but this is the most concise way I can say what I want to, so I dun get it.)

That formula exists as a variable at the moment because it hasn't passed as official rule making policy in place of the current policy of 51%+ of URC votes makes a rule to the URS. However, it's my hope that we take that direction for URS 3.0, instead of advancing forward with URS 2.2. Since I'm attempting to shift how the committee makes votes to being something more democratic in nature, I've taken it upon myself to vote in the manner that my proposed policy would take the ruleset.

I was going to ask you what the URC intended to be like. You already answered this, so good luck with what your doing.

Rational decision making theory would suggest that the likelihood of your hypothetical 100% smashball on low tournament scenario is low. Reality also suggests that RDMT holds true.

Rational Decision making theory would suggest hyperboles are unfit for metaphorical value?

That doesn't seem to hold true...every other time their used.

And to answer your last question, RDMT says no, especially if the mission at hand is to support universal usage. Ideologies in themselves are typically flawed because most of them are value based which from a rhetoric and persuasion theory discipline background I could tell you that people don't budge on their values because all values require some form of suspension of belief to advance forward.

As far as I know, I've moved on my values and would move if some other value set could prove to be better.

But I'm typically the exception, so -_-.

The only real question I have at this point is this, reiterating what I said above.

Assuming you want universal usage, most of what matters is that X rule is being used, in order to make an amendment.

What other conditions need to be satisfied? Also, is this fair in any way? (In early response to 'Convince people that don't ever talk to you, and are unelected officials'.)

 

[DeLux]

Are we talking how I'm attempting to restructure the URC and URS policy making or are we talking current status quo?

Either way, I think my criteria is fair because it leverages people wanting to influence the ruleset into expanding the community scene via more events. And it's not like a TO is forced to be in the URC or run the URS. Even a URC member that has to run the URS because of our bylaws of membership could opt to resign their post and not run the URS.

 

[Arcansi]

Basically, all I've gotta do is stop people from being selfish, most likely.

Which is kinda impossible.

 

[ぱみゅ]

As I said before, this thread is not for defending Pictochat's legality.
Is about trying to poke holes in the URS. And even then, it fails terribly because it keeps attacking the same already refuted point.

 

[Arcansi]

As I said before, this thread is not for defending Pictochat's legality.
Is about trying to poke holes in the URS. And even then, it fails terribly because it keeps attacking the same already refuted point.

Allow me to explain my thought process, since you can't seem to understand.

First, I noticed an error in consistency, checked it, and made a thread because of it.

Second, I was basically told 'your right, but it doesn't matter'

And then Thirdly, I asked 'ok what does matter?'

By the time we reached Thirdly, my point had already been proven on the simple fact that what I suggest doesn't care about intensity, and arbirtrary lines should never be used to decide a ruleset.

EDIT: Also, it succeeded, atleast for me.

 

[ぱみゅ]

While I agree with some parts of that post, the URC stance seems to be clear: Their criteria is not an objective one, but a logical one.
It only follows what the majority dictates, in order to try to set a standard most people can agree with.

*IF* that Smashball example were true, I'm pretty sure the URC would at the very least analyse it.

 

[Ussi]

If you want consistency then you'll have to ban SV for random balloons screwing people up, even if its not to the degree YI, which isn't at the degree of picto. Use your head when we're limited in what stages we can fight on as it is.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

While semantically there are parallels to the randomness of other stages like YI. I don't agree it's stock influence is the same since it does that and more.

The damage it does over time is an influence on a match, it slowly but does add % to a player. The random pop up of unapproachable situations, someone happens to be where the boxes are drawn in you can only jump out of and not pass through horizontally. Asking people to be wary of a ledge on one side, it's very unreasonable when this kind of effect can vary from match too match depending when it pops up, start of a match vs at the end.

Then the final taking/saving stock point, which is really similar to YI with being random, but it's full effect isn't the same when you consider the other Picto only qualities.

It's not reasonable to suggest a ban on YI as well when it isn't the same situation, yes they share a similar quality but it's not the same stage in the end.

 

[Arcansi]

While semantically there are parallels to the randomness of other stages like YI. I don't agree it's stock influence is the same since it does that and more.

I'm not saying the stock influence is the same. Would you say the planking/stalling influence/ability is the same with all legal characters? Assuming your logic, if not we would have a non-standard LGL.

The damage it does over time is an influence on a match, it slowly but does add % to a player. The random pop up of unapproachable situations, someone happens to be where the boxes are drawn in you can only jump out of and not pass through horizontally. Asking people to be wary of a ledge on one side, it's very unreasonable when this kind of effect can vary from match too match depending when it pops up, start of a match vs at the end.

1. It adds % to both players, this both lowers the effective damage added (if you add 10% damage to both players, you haven't effectively added any damage unfairly, considering that making deaths happen earlier is a CP quality.) and, as shown, is a CP quality.

2. You have 5 seconds per transformation where you need to be wary. Given the fact that we have an LGL, do you think it is unreasonable to ask the player who would want to hide during the transformation time to plank for a mere 5 seconds? That's 2 ledgegrabs, 3 max.

Then the final taking/saving stock point, which is really similar to YI with being random, but it's full effect isn't the same when you consider the other Picto only qualities.

Without proof I'm going to assume you mean the above, and then I'm going to say what I said above.

It's not reasonable to suggest a ban on YI as well when it isn't the same situation, yes they share a similar quality but it's not the same stage in the end.

No. In fact, the randomness is a lot MORE avoidable, played correctly.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

wtf, both players can't plank the right side of the stage. And yes, expecting someone to return to a specific part of the stage every 10-15 seconds is VERY unreasonable. You shouldn't have to do that just to make the stage bearable.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I'm not saying the stock influence is the same. Would you say the planking/stalling influence/ability is the same with all legal characters? Assuming your logic, if not we would have a non-standard LGL.

This has nothing to do with what I just said, and just brings up a random irrelevant point.

1. It adds % to both players, this both lowers the effective damage added (if you add 10% damage to both players, you haven't effectively added any damage unfairly, considering that making deaths happen earlier is a CP quality.) and, as shown, is a CP quality.

Yeah but I'm referring to how this adds to it being a stage itself and something YI doesn't have.

2. You have 5 seconds per transformation where you need to be wary. Given the fact that we have an LGL, do you think it is unreasonable to ask the player who would want to hide during the transformation time to plank for a mere 5 seconds? That's 2 ledgegrabs, 3 max.

You still need to deal with what gets made on stage, or even can't deal with because they are inside an object you can't pass through.

The sideways line I said I still remain is a feature that is similar to YI but worse. Planking doesn't necessarily solve some of the issues.

Without proof I'm going to assume you mean the above, and then I'm going to say what I said above.

You don't even need proof with this, it's just analyzing the stage itself.

Picto has a lot of random transformations that spawn in different locations and even if they don't kill you, they can still do damage.

YI shares the one quality where it can affect the stock count with random, Picto has that and then some.

This isn't something you need a video to analyze just look at the layout and how ti can change over the course of 8 minutes.

No. In fact, the randomness is a lot MORE avoidable, played correctly.

Again has nothing to do with what you quoted here.

And even then isn't comparable to YI even if it were true.