Ruleset Changes V1.1

[roboticphish]

Hello to all!

I am Roboticphish, acting project manager for the rules and at-large committees, and it's my job to push this project along. To remind you all, every six months there will be a maximum of ten amendments submitted for analysis by the rules committee (the '5'). They individually vote on each of those submitted amendments, and any amendments which pass are then passed onto the members of the at-large committee (the '25'). That is the stage we are currently at with our first three submitted amendments. This thread will function as the discussion grounds for the changes, which I have outlined here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZpKbo4AKXOh3H51k4HDgg4_rXUoTm2rBi9VgubAWwvI/edit?usp=sharing

Please review it. There are three submitted amendments. The first is a coaching clause, allowing coaching between sets of grand finals. The second amendment concerns clerical changes to wording of the original document, and it is broken up into three sections. When you submit your vote for this section, please note that each of the sections of this amendment must pass separately. All three need not pass, but any section which does not have the required number of votes will not be adopted. Finally, the third amendment includes a colorblindness clause, allowing players to request that their opponent change colors in order to accommodate colorblindness (most frequently red/green).

The 5 opted to go with easy and simple amendments for the first time through the process, just to get everyone's feet wet with how it works. The next amendments under discussion are going to be the 7 minute timer and UCF, so we take a big chomp at the big questions soon. For now, please follow the link below and make sure to cast your vote. You will be given two weeks maximum, and I will start hounding you down after one week, to get your votes submitted. Please be punctual and timely to save everyone trouble. Thank you all for your efforts, and let me know if there's any other way I can help facilitate your discussion.

VOTE HERE:

https://goo.gl/forms/FI2406LXVWN7cLcK2

 

[roboticphish]

For your reference, the current and full text of the rules can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14MtvwnEGWXcRytFaTnTtT8ASfojicArU1sveFaXeMmA/edit?usp=sharing

 

[emilywaves]

Just to be clear - the new amendment for coaching is to allow for coaching in the case of a GF reset? Can you outline the rationale behind that?

Outside of the reasons coaching shouldn't be allowed in general, this doesn't seem very consistent to allow it only for a reset.

 

[roboticphish]

Just to be clear - the new amendment for coaching is to allow for coaching in the case of a GF reset? Can you outline the rationale behind that?

Outside of the reasons coaching shouldn't be allowed in general, this doesn't seem very consistent to allow it only for a reset.

The rationale is that mid-set coaching shouldn't be allowed under any circumstances, but even though both players are playing back-to-back sets in a GF situation, they should still be treated as though they are separate sets. Coaching is still allowed between tournament sets in all other parts of the bracket, so the rationale is based on keeping consistent.

 

[SleepyK]

i guess since you technically couldn't avoid someone coaching between two other sets in a double jeopardy case?

 

[roboticphish]

i guess since you technically couldn't avoid someone coaching between two other sets in a double jeopardy case?

That's right.

 

[emilywaves]

The rationale is that mid-set coaching shouldn't be allowed under any circumstances, but even though both players are playing back-to-back sets in a GF situation, they should still be treated as though they are separate sets. Coaching is still allowed between tournament sets in all other parts of the bracket, so the rationale is based on keeping consistent.

Ah got it thanks

 

[Nihonjin]

Change the rule to "No coaching during matches.".

I don't see any reason why third party interference somehow becomes acceptable just because there's more than one set. That's as irrelevant as the amount of games being played. It's still a single match between two competitors that signed up for a tournament where they're compete on their own.

I'm not necessarily expecting people to try and use semantics to circumvent the spirit of the no coaching rule. But it's probably better to make it loophole free and to be clear with the terminology.

I suggest we stick with these terms:

Game ~ A single fight between two competitors
Set ~ All games within a best of 3, 5, 7 etc. between two competitors
Match ~ The entirety of games and sets between two competitors in one sitting until one player moves on to the next round/wins the tournament


[edit]

On a more general note, I want to encourage all of the 25 to not just silently vote what you think is best, but to engage in a conversation with all of us and explain the reasoning behind your vote.

The whole point of having all of us together like this is so that we can share viewpoints and come to a consensus. Or at the very least, so we can make an informed decision after having our thoughts and reasoning challenged by our fellow members.

I suggest we have all post what votes we're leaning towards with our reasoning and have discussion over the next few days before we submit anything. Anyone else in favor of that?

 

[emilywaves]

Change the rule to "No coaching during matches.".

I don't see any reason why third party interference somehow becomes acceptable just because there's more than one set. That's as irrelevant as the amount of games being played. It's still a single match between two competitors that signed up for a tournament where they're compete on their own.

I'm not necessarily expecting people to try and use semantics to circumvent the spirit of the no coaching rule. But it's probably better to make it loophole free and to be clear with the terminology.

I originally agreed with the spirit of your argument, especially since this seemed like a technicality. Overall I don't think there is a clear answer since allowing 'mid-match' coaching goes against banning 'mid-set/game' coaching. But given that there are breaks between GF sets at national tournaments, it seems the coaching piece is back into play. People are allowed coaching after a winners/before a losers set even if they're playing the same person, and the only difference is the amount of time between sets in this case.

 

[PracticalTAS]

Amendment 1: Coaching between sets of grand finals

• Yes. Players are already allowed to take a bathroom break, water break, recollect themselves, etc. Either we eliminate that or we allow mid-GFs coaching.

Amendment 2: Clerical changes

• Yes. Honestly probably should not need to be discussed, but I can see us wasting time argiung about the match/set distinction.

Amendment 3: Colorblind clause

• Yes. Should be a no-brainer.

When are we going to get to the good stuff (7 minute timer and UCF)?


(Also roboticphish it's "Yea" not "Yay" lol)

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

We (the 5) have a meeting scheduled for tomorrow evening to discuss further amendments. Expect a lot more to be coming down the pipeline in the coming weeks.

These first 3 were some of the easiest to get consensus on, and good tests for the system at large.

Having said that, I don't think coaching between GFs is clear-cut at all. I'd love to see active discussion on that amendment in particular.

 

[Dr Peepee]

I don't like the idea of someone else coaching between both sets of GFs for the same reason as I don't like it other times when two players are sitting down together. I want sets to be 1v1 at that point. But I do have to admit that it's a different case where we can allow breaks between GFs, though in my experience the breaks aren't always the same length if any so that feels difficult to weigh accurately to me. I'm not very sure of my position on the issue and I'd certainly welcome any discussion there.

 

[Nintendude]

I think Amsah brings up an interesting point with the concept of a "Match" with Grand Finals being a case where a Match and a Set are not necessarily the same thing. The question I'd then ask is when are players entitled to breaks? Is it between sets or between matches? How long of a break is a player entitled to?

A non-GFs example would be when a player loses in winners and then is asked immediately to play again in losers. A player could reasonably argue that they are entitled to a break to refresh themselves and receive coaching before the upcoming set. If we treat sets in GF the same way then I think coaching should definitely be allowed between sets, but if we expect that players must play both sets of GFs without getting up then that suggests to me that it should be banned.

Personally, given the possibility that a set can last 30+ minutes, I think players should be entitled to a short break just as they would between other sets in bracket, and that they may choose to use this break to receive coaching.

 

[R3N0]

I never thought about the GF coaching rule.

I think I am in favor of allowing coaching in between sets of GF (if there is a reset).

My reasoning would reflect the same as some others in the thread: You are allowed to take a break, gather yourself etc after each MATCH. Despite the matches being sequential they are separate matches. You have to go through all the motions in the reset, character / double blind / stage etc. etc. Things can possibly change between GF matches.

In between match coaching is YAY.
Mid set coaching is NAY
Mid game coaching is a HARD NAY.

Clerical Amendments + Color Blind Amendment is a YAY from me.

 

[Vro]

Reno highlights a good point. Because a reset is also a new set, out of game decisions get a new cycle (character select, stage striking, set game plan). It seems to me these are critical decisions that coaches have the most influence on (I can walk thru a set game plan with my player before they walk up, but I cannot coach them anymore after that).
I don't think many of us argue against coaching with these types of tips. Most people get miffed at coaching when it affects play style from game to game in a noticeable way. In this way we can all understand the frustration of set reset + coaching when it changes gameplay from set 1 to set 2. But as a few explained before me, this type of coaching (after a set but before the next rematch) is allowed in all parts of bracket currently. The only difference is GF has a chance of being 2 sets.

 

[Nihonjin]

Being coached in between sets that aren't GF isn't a problem because you have no idea what their next opponents habits will be or what your coachee's weaknesses will be. So rather than tailor made advice on how to beat the person you'll be playing in the next 2 minutes, it's just general advice. Not to mention it's utterly impossible to monitor, let alone enforce.

If the main reasoning is that people can also get coached in between non-GF sets and it should thus be allowed, does that mean that we're allowing people's entire 20 men entourage on stage to coach? Because that's what they have available to them in between any other set. But if we're limiting them to an arbitrary number of coaches, then that defeats the argument entirely since we're now limiting the freedom in between sets of GF compared to other sets.

It seems a bit absurd to me.

Can someone explain something to me. If you're in favor of coaching inbetween GF sets, why not allow it in between games? What's the difference? Because to me it seems unfavorable for the exact same reasons.

1) Not everyone has a coach.
2) It fundamentally changes what should've been a 1 on 1 into a pseudo team effort.

Am I missing something?

 

[R3N0]

What about losing in winners finals -> coached -> go to losers finals -> win -> coached -> grand finals

Then you are getting coached vs the same person.

There are timers for when sets become DQ's (5-10mins leeway standard for most tournaments before DQ).

There is nothing stopping a legion of coaches to hop on stage because yeah, you can interact with a ton of different people.

We can say that if someone requests coaching they remove themselves from the stage and return within 5 minutes. It's the same courtesy afforded to anyone who needs to use the bathroom right?

1) Everyone could get a coach or ask a friend for advice before / after sets.
2) It is a 1on1 effort once a match starts.

It's about consistency. I think allowing mid GF coaching is consistent with largely unenforceable "no coaching at all"

 

[Marc]

For Syndicate we ended up including that coaching between sets of grand finals was allowed, as it seemed the most consistent to me if coaching between sets is allowed in general. Players are, or at least should be, allowed a break between tournament sets, including grand finals in case of a bracket reset. It's hard to enforce that they don't talk to anyone between sets.

Of course I do get the sentiment that, even with a bracket reset, grand finals feels like a single match as many players don't actually take a (significant) break and get right back into it. Technically there are two separate sets however and, as has been pointed out, the players could very well have played each other just a few sets earlier and received coaching between that set and grand finals.

If we end up considering two sets of grand finals as one match, then coaching shouldn't be allowed. That still leaves the question of players getting a break or not and it being virtually impossible to enforce that they don't talk to anyone for coaching if they do. Personally, I don't think it's practical and I don't view it as that problematic if players take some time gearing up for the second set as if it were any other upcoming set.

 

[Marc]

Separate post for a separate issue:

I think the colorblind clause indicates good sportsmanship, but is ill-defined otherwise.

- It doesn't specify what steps players are reasonably expected to take to accommodate the colorblind person.
- It doesn't specify the penalty for not indulging the request. Does someone get DQ'ed if they refuse to change their preferred color to something else?
- For team colors the colorblind person and their partner can just change their own color. No need to ask their opponent.
- How do we accommodate players with other handicaps? Can people with hearing problems demand a high volume?

The bottom line is that this gets dangerously close to code of conduct. If we want to enforce rules it should be more specific, if we trust people to not be jerks it probably shouldn't be in the ruleset.

 

[Nihonjin]

What about losing in winners finals -> coached -> go to losers finals -> win -> coached -> grand finals

Then you are getting coached vs the same person.

There are opponents in between and there's a ton of downtime in between, both players have time to mentally reset and switch up their gameplans, even review their own sets in some cases. It's not at all the same as coaching mid match.

We can say that if someone requests coaching they remove themselves from the stage and return within 5 minutes. It's the same courtesy afforded to anyone who needs to use the bathroom right?

Then we get the same problem I've pointed out 7 years ago. Not everybody has access to dedicated coaches. Do we want to endorse an unfair unearned competitive advantage when we have the ability to keep things equal?

1) Everyone could get a coach or ask a friend for advice before / after sets.

Not if you're foreign, don't speak English and/or are universally disliked for whatever reason (which happens).

2) It is a 1on1 effort once a match starts.

The match never ended. When a bracket gets reset you don't move on to the next round, you're still in Grand Finals playing against the same opponent.

It's about consistency. I think allowing mid GF coaching is consistent with largely unenforceable "no coaching at all"

Coaching is either favorable or unfavorable. Whether we can completely enforce it isn't really relevant. There are plenty of rules we can't entirely enforce throughout the tournament.

Should we compromise our values and explicitly allow certain kinds of cheating in Grand Finals because people are able to cheat at earlier stages of a tournament and not get caught, for the sake of consistency? How is that any different from what you're arguing?

By the way, "No coaching during matches" given the terms I laid out earlier is actually consistent. It allows for coaching between matches, not sets. It's not at all ambiguous or contradictory.

 

[Nihonjin]

As for the color blindness issue, is it possible for people to have conflicting preferences for their color blindness?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

As for the color blindness issue, is it possible for people to have conflicting preferences for their color blindness?

There are multiple kinds of color blindness, and in theory they could conflict with one another. I think in that case we'd just have to work that out case by case or have them wear tags (although if they play Sheik/Zelda/M2 that's also a problem).

 

[emilywaves]

Separate post for a separate issue:

I think the colorblind clause indicates good sportsmanship, but is ill-defined otherwise.

- It doesn't specify what steps players are reasonably expected to take to accommodate the colorblind person.
- It doesn't specify the penalty for not indulging the request. Does someone get DQ'ed if they refuse to change their preferred color to something else?
- For team colors the colorblind person and their partner can just change their own color. No need to ask their opponent.
- How do we accommodate players with other handicaps? Can people with hearing problems demand a high volume?

The bottom line is that this gets dangerously close to code of conduct. If we want to enforce rules it should be more specific, if we trust people to not be jerks it probably shouldn't be in the ruleset.

Agreed on most of your points which is why I wanted to vote no on this one. The amendment itself outlines what players can request but has no action items set. In most cases, the color blind player can change their own color, whereas the amendment stressed putting the onus on the opponent. I've heard of only a single case where the color blind player needs their opponent to change and that's on dreamland and their opponent has to be blue (but this is what I've heard from a color blind player, uncertain if this is across the board).

 

[PracticalTAS]

Agreed on most of your points which is why I wanted to vote no on this one. The amendment itself outlines what players can request but has no action items set. In most cases, the color blind player can change their own color, whereas the amendment stressed putting the onus on the opponent. I've heard of only a single case where the color blind player needs their opponent to change and that's on dreamland and their opponent has to be blue (but this is what I've heard from a color blind player, uncertain if this is across the board).

For what it's worth, I submitted the colorblind clause amendment (written with the help of r/smashbros), and it's much shorter now than when I submitted it. Here's my original wording:

A player may request that their opponent(s) take steps to make their character(s) distinct in order to accommodate color blindness, or if their color is indistinguishable from either the other team color or the stage background. The following steps should be considered, and individually executed if they would aid in accommodating the requesting player:

• If their opponent’s color is difficult to see on a given stage background, a player may request that they switch to a clearly visible color.
  
  
• If in Doubles, a player may request that the opposing team switch colors so that they may distinguish between teams. (in the case of colorblindness this will usually result in the two teams wearing the Red and Blue colors).
  
  
• If their opponent is playing Ice Climbers, a player may request that their opponent wear a tag in order to be able to distinguish between the primary and secondary Ice Climbers.
  
  
• If their opponents on a Doubles team are both playing Sheik/Zelda or are both playing Mewtwo, a player may request that their opponents switch colors to allow the player to distinguish between them. If the player cannot distinguish between his opponents with any team color, they may request that one of their opponents wear a tag.
  
  
• If their opponents on a Doubles team are playing the same character (which is neither Zelda/Sheik nor Mewtwo), a player may request that one of them wear a tag in order to be able to distinguish between them.

Perhaps it should have used stronger language, but the "action items" were in the original proposal and subsequently removed.

If UCF passes, we could also add a code in to hide tags during Sheik/Zelda upb, which would dodge that issue.

 

[roboticphish]

For what it's worth, I submitted the colorblind clause amendment (written with the help of r/smashbros), and it's much shorter now than when I submitted it. Here's my original wording:



Perhaps it should have used stronger language, but the "action items" were in the original proposal and subsequently removed.

If UCF passes, we could also add a code in to hide tags during Sheik/Zelda upb, which would dodge that issue.

One of the biggest issues the 5 had with the full wording of the amendment was that several of the bullet points had nothing to do with the condition of colorblindness. In the case of the ICs, the darker colored climber is always the player-controlled climber, and colorblindness would not take away from the ability to distinguish the two. In addition, the inclusion of tags does not help to solve issues stemming from colorblindness, as one of the characters is always a lighter shade. Asking one of the players to wear a tag does not solve the issue of being able to distinguish between colors, only between players. Finally, if a character is difficult to see on a given background, that is not an issue stemming from colorblindness, any more than wearing camouflage to blend in with your surroundings could be taking advantage of colorblindness. If the intention of the amendment is to allow a provision wherein someone suffering from clinical colorblindness needs to be able to distinguish between friend and foe, the currently submitted wording covers that. Giving the amendment more teeth was seen as interfering with the metagame too much.

 

[Gtown_Tom]

Guess I'll chime in on everything. Given what's already been discussed, the circumstances which occur and our allowance of coaching between other sets leads me to believe that allowing coaching between match 1 and match 2 of grand finals (which I believe should be treated as different matches instead of one longer, continuous match) should be permitted, though I won't rehash what's already been combed over above.

The clerical adjustments to the sections on match procedure are no-brainers imo and should be supported.

On the colorblindness issue, the wording I have some reservations about (also for reasons listed above) but I think in those rare cases adding this new section to accommodate these players is fine.

 

[GimR]

Coaching between sets of grand finals

Players should most definitely be allowed to be coached between grand finals sets. They count as completely separate wins in rankings and all other in between set coaching is allowed. If the 2 sets aren't treated differently in any other regard they shouldn't be treated differently here. I do think there should be a time limit (Unless there is another specified time limit between sets already in the ruleset. Might be good to at least reference the timer or where it is in the rules).

clerical changes

Can we just call it round? lol. Either way I'm For a change.

color blind clause

I'm all for helping color blind people out. Totally fair.

 

[TaFoKiNtS]

I'm fine with coaching between grand finals sets. It's hard to regulate people who want to take a breather or go to the bathroom to see whether they are getting advice on their phone or talking to random people. I'm a proponent of allowing people coach between sets.