If we are going to buy another ride on the merry-go-round, can I make a suggestion of where to sit? Coexistence was brought up once or twice by Capps and I, but it was never really a subject of debate.
The reason coexistence is not a subject of debate is because there are people trying to change the status quo instead of creating their own "liberal" division. That's what this entire debate has been out: People trying to objectively show that the way they want to play is a skillfull/the valid way to play (items and stage hippies) vs. people just wanting to play the way they want to with minimal interference.
We don't want to change how we play the game for the sake of a few unorganized, uninvolved, uninterested players. Every attempt at creating their own play has produced zero results. If they're so vocal on the boards, then where are all the tournament listings for their style of play that aren't side events? They're a lazy minority. You will find virtually zero serious tournaments that feature items and most/all the stages. Sure, "liberal" tournaments will pop up after the release of Smash, but they die out because they aren't interested in the competition, just socializing through the game until they burn out on it like every other casual buyer.
I even made a thread suggesting these people be allowed some space on the boards to develop their own scene and ruleset, but has anyone, in the past, then, or since taken any significant initiative to create their own scene?
This is the frustrating outcome to most of the threads so far: The people arguing for a ruleset that doesn't involve only player to player interaction throw their hands up, finally stop trying to change how people run their tournaments, and suggest co-existence when in truth no traditional competitive player cared to change anything about their virtually non-existent scene in the first place.
My point was that people should have standards of what they agree with and what they give support to. Meaning a respected debater shouldn't be as likely to like "Ban dem dumb gay stages cause yolo!" as a well structured and realistic argument for why X stage should be banned.
I knew fully well what you were implying. What good are standards to what we agree with if we consistently agree to the same things? Also, I haven't seen a single person person like a post that says anything like "Ban dem dumb gay stages cause yolo!" anywhere, ever. This is, however, the most insignificant talking point I have seen anyone suggest anywhere, ever. There's nothing to learn from here and it's something with no value.
When something is well defined it can be identified, subsequently we avoid much unneeded capricious or arbitrary bans. I think anyone interested in a trued argument should ask exactly what the principle elements of a competitive standard is.... What are the elemental principles on which a ruleset which adheres to a competitive standard is composed of?
Wouldn't the elemental principals compose the "competitive standard" itself? Anyway, I'll humor you with a response that
Capps didn't bother to answer:
If the ruleset is always going to boil down to what we prefer in a game, what good is setting a standard? How can you possibly get unanimous consent on what that standard should be? If you did, how could you distinguish between standards and mutual preferences? Even if you did define a set of principals for a competitive standard, how can you adequately show when the standard is met? If you illustrate your elements or standards with in-game examples (and all good models for anything have to), at some point the lines are going to get blurred between the standards and a ruleset itself
All one can do is say what one prefers, rationalize the preference, and try to keep it consistent with the game's rules.
There's your ticket off the merry-go-round; you've got a voice the Backroom will have to reckon with. Go for it.
It's working out so well for you, isn't it?
![[Corn]](/data/avatars/l/219/219175.jpg?1363907352){kind=avatar}
, 
and 
