shadowlink luvs theorycraft
perfect shielding both hits of pits fsmash is easy, while punishing lucarios is impossible?
Last I remember, Lucario's f-smash doesn't have cooldown.
You want me to define reasonable? I will. 30 seconds and over is unreasonable. Going past 30 seconds is excessive. That is my personal view, so there you go.
We shouldn't even be arguing about this. Just because the definitions are left up to the discretion of the individual at hand, no one in this board with half a brain would even argue that a technique that easily takes control away from a character past thirty seconds at a time is unreasonable. It simply isn't. You're playing with words to win an argument, rather than arguing the topic directly.
If you post again with this same strategy to debate, I will completely ignore your post. Actually address the points being made.
Playing with words? Great argument...
I'm sorry but you're missing a VERY FUNDAMENTAL POINT, we're dealing with the creation of a rule and/or the commentary on a standing rule.
If the rule is poorly worded then it's a bad rule because it becomes arbitrary.
The semantics of a rule are EVERYTHING, you can't just make ad hoc distinctions like that.
I can see 30 seconds as a possibility, I disagree with it, because it guts the tech and has enforcement issues (judges need to watch with a stopwatch, unclear definitions of when the "tech" is being used), but at least it's a hard rule, it tells players precisely what is allowed and precisely what isn't, unlike "excessive stalling", which gives no player a clear line, it establishes an extremely large area which a player may be called on, and may not.
You can't make that argument. No tournament organizer would ever allow it to happen. I was pointing out the flaw in your logic, and using your statement to coexist with the example I gave. I was not making a mockery of the SBR rules.
No tournament organizer would allow that to happen?
And what happens if the tournament group gets sued for breach of contract? You could easily make the argument in a court of law that it's not illegal under the the tournament rules and you were unfairly disqualified, on the basis that what you did was not "stalling" because stalling was not explicitly defined.
Extreme example, sure. But the competitive mindset is to use any tournament legal means to win. Very explicit rules are established to eliminate grey area, so people know exactly what is allowed and what isn't, and therefore can do everything that is legal without doing anything illegal.
I certainly would take objection to being DQ'd based on that rule, as would quite a number of other people.
You're assuming what the player is going to do and using it as an argument. You can't assume the player won't use this to stall. You also can't argue that while accumulating damage, King Dedede isn't stalling, even if the intent for stalling is not present with the player performing the infinite.
I'm not assuming that, I'm arguing that as long as the damage is useful to DDD, it's achieving something, it's not stalling.
Once it is established by testing what percentage accumulation of damage no longer helps him kill, then anything beyond that point is stalling. It's easy enough to see when it's being used as stalling, he downthrows past that percent. Otherwise, he's accomplishing something.
Sure, we don't know what that percent is, but that's easy enough to fix.
Basically, we should only ban something because infinite stalls if we don't have a way to impose a rule on it so it can't be used in that manner. Here we have a discrete, enforceable, and warranted rule that will deal with the potential for infinite-stalling without gutting the tech.
As such, we need to argue based on whether the technique is warranted in banning for being "too good" or "over-centralizing".
What qualifies as stalling isn't just the amount of time you stall for. It is the method as well. In order to stall, you need to be avoiding conflict of any kind, and be in a position where your opponent either cannot harm you, or cannot do so without serious risk. The amount of time is debatable, but the rest of the criteria is clear cut and concise.
King Dedede's infinite meets those criteria. This isn't a combo that ends. This is an infinite that King Dedede ends whenever the **** he wants. You have no argument here at all.
The criteria may be clear and concise, but that's not the problem, the problem is that "excessive stalling" is totally subjective. When you have subjectivity being applied to a group that's modius operendi is to skirt the limits as much as possible without actually crossing the line, you run into problems. Don't believe me, read Sirlin, that's the core of "playing to win", using any tournament legal option to win.
Because of this, "stalling" is a useless criteria, it's too subjective. Techniques must be dealt with on a case by case basis, as they develop. If they have the potential for an infinite stall, then explicit rules must be applied to prevent their usage in that manner that are as unintrusive as possible. However, if the least intrusive method is a ban of the technique in general (for example, IDK), then that is required.
Realistically any methodology other then banning usage of dthrow (or require dashgrabs prior to dthrow under the same conditions) when the opponent is over a certain percent for the effected characters is the suggested rule that prevents infinite stalling, and is both enforcable and discrete.
If we wanna ban the infinite in general we just use a far lower threshold, or again require dashgrabs to use dthrows (which I disagree with, for the reasons I stated, but we don't run into the soft rule issue at least), but merely having "excessive stalling" as our criteria just invites arbitrary removals.
