Prince Bistro Tournament Results!

[Zankoku]

I came up with the point system as well. In fact, I'm rewriting the SBR rules myself to provide an example of an air tight document.

If you really want a points system, here's one right now.

You start with 1000 points.

GENERAL RULES, DOUBLES RULES, and STAGES STARTER, COUNTER, BANNED

Changing any of these is worth 1000 points.

STARTER/COUNTER, COUNTER/BANNED, OPTIONAL RULES

Changing any of these is worth 0 points.

Easy enough, isn't it?

 

[Overswarm]

Thanks Yaj. Expect a nice bonus at the next PBT.

I came up with the point system as well. In fact, I'm rewriting the SBR rules myself to provide an example of an air tight document.

Reading skills and reading comprehension are always important. That's why I love/respect English so much.

Kirbykid, I've been an English major for quite some time. Here's the funny thing, and you'll think this hilarious, I didn't think that I had to write this as a legal document. But hey, you're trying to stop a chainsaw with your hands and removing things from a 400º over without pot holders or oven mitts, so I guess I'll have to be clearer for you.

The rules in the SBR rule list are clearly stated. How do I know this when kirbykid (AN ENGLISH MAJOR?!?!?!?!?!?) comes in and makes a fool out of himself in front of the entirety of smashboards and has him blacklisted by everyone in his region as a mindless, immature, and self-serving TO by getting the SBR list incorrect? Perhaps the rules aren't as simple to interpret as the SBR previously thought?

Well, no... that doesn't make sense. It's been quite some time since we've released the last ruleset and there is a grand total of one that has made the mistake. You. You are either being machiavellian in the nerdiest and lamest of ways, or you're not really someone that should be running tournaments.

Either way, I guess I'll have to look at the SBR rulelist wording to rewrite sections to make it idiot proof when we released the second version. Congrats, kirby. With the exception of your sperm somehow meeting the egg first, this may have been the only time you've done something first!


Edit: I'm currently contemplating punishment procedures for situations such as this, because this person used the SBR rulelist for his own benefit and the detriment of others. If you have any suggestions, let me know.

 

[Inui]

Just somehow force him into some usergroup that says he sucks at hosting tournaments or give him an icon saying to avoid his events.

 

[Yaj]

I don't know how many times the mods have to spell it out for you guys. The parts that TO's can tailor are clearly indicated. The stage lists HAVE to be tailored, they can't just be copied and pasted. Other parts say things like "Grands finals will be AT LEAST 3/5." I don't see how that could be more clear.

A drastic, potentially match altering change like banning MK or allowing truly ridiculous stages like Summit or Skyworld not only flies in the face of competitive gaming, but is nowhere indicated as being an option in the SBR ruleset.

If KirbyKid wants to run a tourney with the warped rules he's come up with, he's free to do that. The SBR is not a fascist regime that forces you to run tournaments their way. However, if you're going to say it's "SBR certified," your tournament has to follow their rules.

I'll leave the whole post in, because there are things I need to adress.

First off, seeing as how the rules being unclear is my entire argument, I cannot accept what you said. However, I can go one step further than you, and clarify my argument. Hopefully this will make you see things my way.

But before I do that, I need to discuss what you said. First, you state that the stage list has to be tailored. This is true, the list clearly states its up to the TO to move the iffy stages to a home. Secondly you say "Grands finals will be AT LEAST 3/5". I searched the rule list for that exact quote, didn't find it. I will however list some quotes I did find on the subject.

"best of 5 and above is recommended for any "finals" matches"
"The semi-final and championship sets should be in at least best of 5 format"

Are you sure they need to be best of 5? Can you not see where a TO could make an honest mistake?

Thirdly, you mention character banning. The SBR rule list doesn't mention it. This as close as it gets to a "Stopping chain saws with your hands" argument though. Banning a character in a fighting game is a big deal, but kirby kid only banned him in doubles. The much more competitive (at PBT anyway) and larger paying singles is still good to go. Sounds like "closely" to me. Also, heres a tourney that banned MK

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=204685

Looks like a lot of Dallas players traveled for that one..

Next up, I need to adress your stage problem. Skyworld is counter/banned. The summit is banned. That's about all that really needs to be said there, except that Skyworld is "somewhere indicated as being an option in the SBR ruleset."

So, lets talk about why the SBR rule set is weak, the basis of my argument. Lets start early.

"we recommend these rules be used as a base guideline"

That's right above the general rules. The word general itself has a connotation that makes it sound lenient, yet we're apparently not supposed to change these. The title of the tread, SBR Recommended Rule list gives us the impression that all rules in the list are only recommended. Then there's that famous "closely" statement at the bottom.

If there is a chance a TO could be accidentally confused by this rule set, then kirby kid has done nothing wrong.

 

[Zankoku]

Indeed, he has done nothing wrong - in fact, he's the first one to have done something right, by (whether intentionally or unintentionally I'm not sure) testing the limits of words like "closely," "recommended," and "should." And we all know that we should test limits of everything.

 

[8AngeL8]

I'll leave the whole post in, because there are things I need to adress.
But before I do that, I need to discuss what you said. First, you state that the stage list has to be tailored. This is true, the list clearly states its up to the TO to move the iffy stages to a home. Secondly you say "Grands finals will be AT LEAST 3/5". I searched the rule list for that exact quote, didn't find it. I will however list some quotes I did find on the subject.

"best of 5 and above is recommended for any "finals" matches"
"The semi-final and championship sets should be in at least best of 5 format"

Are you sure they need to be best of 5? Can you not see where a TO could make an honest mistake?

Everything in the entire ruleset is a recommendation. However, if you're going to say that your tournament is approved by the SBR, you have to follow their recommendations. I.E., best of 5 or above for any finals.

Thirdly, you mention character banning. The SBR rule list doesn't mention it. This as close as it gets to a "Stopping chain saws with your hands" argument though. Banning a character in a fighting game is a big deal, but kirby kid only banned him in doubles. The much more competitive (at PBT anyway) and larger paying singles is still good to go. Sounds like "closely" to me. Also, heres a tourney that banned MK

They don't mention it because it shouldn't be taking place in an SBR certified tourney. If it's not otherwised mentioned, the game doesn't get changed. The SBR ruleset also doesn't specify if the TO can mandate a hack that completely rebalances the game. If that was a part of your tourney, it wouldn't be SBR certified. Changing the fundamental nature of the game is WELL outside the boundaries of "closely," whether it's in doubles or not. Now that KirbyKid is starting to restrict his use in singles, I think this clearly is out of bounds of what the SBR intended.

Next up, I need to adress your stage problem. Skyworld is counter/banned. The summit is banned. That's about all that really needs to be said there, except that Skyworld is "somewhere indicated as being an option in the SBR ruleset."

THE SUMMIT IS BANNED. If it's allowed at your tournament, it's automatically no longer SBR certified. Skyworld, while allowed, is completely ridiculous and is obviously an attempt to put in stages that favor the TO's main. If it were just Skyworld, you'd have an argument. However, when Summit is there too, it's over the line.

So, lets talk about why the SBR rule set is weak, the basis of my argument. Lets start early.

"we recommend these rules be used as a base guideline"

That's right above the general rules. The word general itself has a connotation that makes it sound lenient, yet we're apparently not supposed to change these. The title of the tread, SBR Recommended Rule list gives us the impression that all rules in the list are only recommended. Then there's that famous "closely" statement at the bottom.

If there is a chance a TO could be accidentally confused by this rule set, then kirby kid has done nothing wrong.

Yes, they recommend they be used as a base guideline. They're recommending those rules to you. You're free to use something else. However, if you use something else, you're not following their recommendations. Therefore, you aren't SBR approved.

The use of the word recommended does NOT mean you can change things, it means that the list is not a law that must be followed or the police will show up. They're stressing that there are other ways to play tournaments. That doesn't mean they certify those other methods, but they're acknowledging their existence.

 

[Yaj]

"That doesn't mean they certify those other methods, but they're acknowledging their existence."

Now if only that were in the rule list.

 

[Zankoku]

Now if only people were able to think for themselves on what is "reasonable," rather than only on how to change the rules while still staying within their own judgment of "closely."

 

[8AngeL8]

It's implied, but I guess KirbyKid needs it completely spelled out for him.

Why is KKid so hung up on having the term SBR certified? There really is nothing wrong with wanting to run a tournament by his rules, the only issue is with the use of that term. Everyone in Dallas who goes would still go, and he could change ANY rules he wanted.

 

[Yaj]

Now if only people were able to think for themselves on what is "reasonable," rather than only on how to change the rules while still staying within their own judgment of "closely."

What is reasonable is an opinion everyone will have.....

 

[Overswarm]

If there is a chance a TO could be accidentally confused by this rule set, then kirby kid has done nothing wrong.

Anyone who reads his posts knows that he's just being pompous and manipulative. Punishment will be given.

 

[Zankoku]

What is reasonable is an opinion everyone will have.....

Just as much of an opinion as on "should," "recommended," and "closely," apparently. It's like, hey, if you make 500 miniscule changes to the original work, then it's like you changed nothing at all!

 

[Inui]

I completely agree with...Overswarm! :D

 

[Infinitysmash]

Yaj, you're posting very clearly and understandably without directly insulting anyone, very respectful for someone your age so keep that **** up dude.

However, you're not clear on the original point. The reason this is an issue is because several knowledgeable, respectable players who have a large amount of experience playing the game were all under the same impression going into the tournament. During the course of the tournament they discovered that they were misinformed, specifically with the largest change being at the end of the tournament and that's when everyone lost their cool. Everyone has explained to KirbyKid what went wrong, including the rules being vague and appearing to change on a whim, and yet KirbyKid not only refuses to hear our side of the argument but instead blames it on us and says we're responsible when it's his responsibility as the TO to make sure everything is clear beforehand; including any and all changes to the 'normal' (see: SBR certified) rules which he did not do.

It's not just the misunderstanding over the rules; KirbyKid is adding fuel to the fire by attempting to blame everyone else for it rather than take any kind of responsibility.