Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Hive]

No.
Primarily since you aren't forced to abandon your main entirely.
For example first match is double blind.
Lets say its DDD vs DK.
i lose causes its so terrible so its my CP.
I announce stage.
my opponent announces their character. if they stay as DDD I go Olimar, f the choose anyone but DDD I can use my main.

yes but the way i see it, you lose the first game ddd vs. dk, and announce the stage....

if my opponent announces ddd the dk will announce say... mk...
if they announce mk, ddd will probably want to switch as well... probably mk...
if you switch again then the whole thing will just recycle...
the problem isn't that counterpicking can produce a winnable matchup for either (mk vs. mk)
the problem is that there should be no reason for both players to play an mk ditto when it could easily be changed to allow both people to stick with there mains...
its an opinion i guess again, having to fight each other at the character select screen just seems lame when it can be easily changed without relative harm to either character.

@xyro- yea good point ^^ i've actually already brought it up with one of the TOs for wcsl too ^^ and they are going to discuss it asap he said so with any luck, it will at least be banned locally

 

[Luigi player]

I'd say don't ban it. Basically it gives DDD an advantage
against those characters but not to the point where the
match becomes 100-0, or at least close to it.

Wrong.

For example, I versed a falco 4 times and they CGed me
but I still won 3 out of 4 times w/fox.

Yeah but that's FALCO and not Dedede.

Falco can CHAINGRAB you but not INFINITE you.

The Dedede can easily dthrow you all the time until you're at 999 % and you can't do ANYTHING.

 

[bobson]

DDD outclases Mario, Luigi, Samus, and Bowser in every way too (maybe even DK).

That could be why I said "It's not comparable to DK VS Dedede" instead of "It's not comparable to Mario/Luigi/Samus/Bowser VS Dedede."

 

[Dark Sonic]

yes but the way i see it, you lose the first game ddd vs. dk, and announce the stage....

if my opponent announces ddd the dk will announce say... mk...
if they announce mk, ddd will probably want to switch as well... probably mk...

But they are not allowed to switch after they announce their character. If you pick the stage and they pick their character, they are stuck with it no matter who you pick.

Heck, you guys should be glad we have advance slob picks. A lot of fighting games do not allow the winner to change characters at all (so if their main has a large disadvantage they really are stuck with it).

That could be why I said "It's not comparable to DK VS Dedede" instead of "It's not comparable to Mario/Luigi/Samus/Bowser VS Dedede."

Well I don't know. DDD still has his chaingrab, still has massive grab range, still edgeguards DK really well, still forces DK to approach, ect.

Looks like he still outclasses DK even without the infinite, it's just more like 6-4 instead of 9-1. In the same way that Pikachu outclasses Fox, but wouldn't do as well without the 0-80% chaingrab on every stock.

Yeah but that's FALCO and not Dedede.

Falco can CHAINGRAB you but not INFINITE you.

The Dedede can easily dthrow you all the time until you're at 999 % and you can't do ANYTHING.

What makes an infinite bad? I have yet to see this defined.
There are multiple games that have a lot of infinites (I know that people like to cite MvC2, but the Naruto Ultimate Ninja series has numerous infinites as well). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRUHPu97_hw
Here's the kicker. Neji, with his rediculously safe strings, chakra draining awakening, easily comboable Ouji, multiple ways of comboing into his infinite, ect....is a mid tier character.

The best arguement I've seen so far is "it can be used to stall," but that problem is very easily fixed. You just put a damage cap.

 

[Master Raven]

Bum beats Atomsk's DDD a lot. If anything, at worst it's probably 60/40 DDD's favor.

 

[bobson]

Well I don't know. DDD still has his chaingrab, still has massive grab range, still edgeguards DK really well, still forces DK to approach, ect.

Like I said, though, it can't be too bad of a disadvantage without the infinite, or Bum wouldn't be able to place as high as he does. It's probably something like 65:35 or 60:40.

 

[Hive]

But they are not allowed to switch after they announce their character. If you pick the stage and they pick their character, they are stuck with it no matter who you pick.

ok true, but then wouldn't the point still stand that it would be a (probably) mk ditto when it could easily be otherwise with a ban?

 

[ShadowLink84]

yes but the way i see it, you lose the first game ddd vs. dk, and announce the stage....

if my opponent announces ddd the dk will announce say... mk...
if they announce mk, ddd will probably want to switch as well... probably mk...
if you switch again then the whole thing will just recycle...
the problem isn't that counterpicking can produce a winnable matchup for either (mk vs. mk)
the problem is that there should be no reason for both players to play an mk ditto when it could easily be changed to allow both people to stick with there mains...
its an opinion i guess again, having to fight each other at the character select screen just seems lame when it can be easily changed without relative harm to either character.

@xyro- yea good point ^^ i've actually already brought it up with one of the TOs for wcsl too ^^ and they are going to discuss it asap he said so with any luck, it will at least be banned locally

You're actually wrong.
I announce stage. Opponent announces character. I announce character, we play.
there is no cycling.

saw your post above. No, because I can choose Snake/Dk/Diddy if my opponent goes MK. You have diversity and retain viability.

 

[Xzax Kasrani]

Hi Shadowlink Remember Me Xzax From Allisbrawl?

 

[BrawlLover]

i'd say it's 60/40

 

[Hive]

@master_raven- yes but isn't that also because infinites are banned where he plays?
if it weren't i don't think bum would be able to beat atomsk's ddd at all...

 

[The Halloween Captain]

@master_raven- yes but isn't that also because infinites are banned where he plays?
if it weren't i don't think bum would be able to beat atomsk's ddd at all...

Yea, In fact, I think he's the one that banned them.

 

[da K.I.D.]

No, it's not irrational; it just seems like it to you because, again, you have not one inkling of how to handle these types of situations with a competitive mindset.

you are assuming, and therefore this is subjective and therefore meaningless.

The purpose of the SBR is not to stick its filthy hand into the proverbial cookie jar and fix every little thing that's wrong with the game (in this case, ****ty matchups). If something threatens the overall viability of the roster, I.E. overcentralization, then action should be taken. The mentality of "who gives a ****" should be applied here, especially when so few characters are involved.

if you are not in the SBR than, this is subjective.

And the fact that you think poor reasoning was involved in the creation of these precedents again is testament to just how little you know about the subject. It's not a **** standard; it works, and there's no reason to fix it.

this is your opinion, i.e. subjective.

You're honestly so ******** right now I can't even believe it. If the infinite is useless, hated, and frowned upon at virtually every level of play, then why are we even having this discussion? Why should it even be up for debate? It should be moot at this point.

Sirlin, *****.

this is not fact, this is your opinion and is therefore useless in this discussion

 

[da K.I.D.]

You're actually wrong.
I announce stage. Opponent announces character. I announce character, we play.
there is no cycling.

saw your post above. No, because I can choose Snake/Dk/Diddy if my opponent goes MK. You have diversity and retain viability.

your belief that diddy and DK do well against MK is opinion and
opinion=subjectivity=meaningless

 

[ShadowLink84]

Hi Shadowlink Remember Me Xzax From Allisbrawl?

yep The late night RR. Was fun

your belief that diddy and DK do well against MK is opinion and
opinion=subjectivity=meaningless

If both characters go 60:40 against MK, (disadvantaged)that is doing well because that is not even a soft counter.
That is good.

Considering we have data pushing it toward being at best, neutral, it is far from being subjective.
Your inability to pull your head out of your *** is getting irksome Kid.

 

[Hive]

You're actually wrong.
I announce stage. Opponent announces character. I announce character, we play.
there is no cycling.

saw your post above. No, because I can choose Snake/Dk/Diddy if my opponent goes MK. You have diversity and retain viability.

doesn't the opponent retain the ability to change once also?? i thought that's what you said above...
anyways, my point is that you can make a situation where both characters don't need to drop their mains in counterpicking if you remove this 1 lame tactic...
its relevant to bowser's suicide ruling bc sbr didn't want to allow this bc fighting over controller ports is lame and could be avoided.... in a similar way imo having to make both characters fight over the character select screen because of a tactic that prevents the opponent from doing anything is also ******** when it could be avoided...
both characters could play their mains, their would be more actual fighting during the match, and as a result skill would matter more, when in the other case any scrub ddd can win against a character main of those 5 at any level bc of one tactic. Its not just bc its a bad tactic though... its bc the benefits from it i think clearly outweigh any negative impact... which is not the case with other bans...

 

[The Halloween Captain]

stuff

Yeah, I know your quote has nothing to do with the D3 infinite ban in AN, but I can't help but wonder why you are opposed to the TO's decision to ban the technique. It is completely different than a general ban in that it does not set a precident, nor is there any need for it to be based on past decisions. We all think it kills 5 matchups, and as far as I can tell, you don't main D3. What rational reason could cause you to oppose this decision which entirely benefits the metagame for others, does not affect you except to maybe add variety to your matchups, and in no way damages our competitive standards?

 

[BrawlLover]

it's mainly with the stages, that's gotta be considered i mean cm0n!

 

[adumbrodeus]

if you are not in the SBR than, this is subjective.

A competitive gaming government body is intended to promoted the overall ideals of competitive gaming.

Again, a subjective goal that was chosen at the group's founding.

They do that by releasing tier lists, rulesets, etc that they recommend.

this is not fact, this is your opinion and is therefore useless in this discussion

You nailed this one perfectly. The fact that you bolded the subjective portion helps.





Overall, explain how it's not objective and give a logical counter-point.


Also that the reasoning was poor is not subjective, it wasn't logically sound, therefore, it was objectively poor reasoning.


edit:

Yeah, I know your quote has nothing to do with the D3 infinite ban in AN, but I can't help but wonder why you are opposed to the TO's decision to ban the technique. It is completely different than a general ban in that it does not set a precident, nor is there any need for it to be based on past decisions. We all think it kills 5 matchups, and as far as I can tell, you don't main D3. What rational reason could cause you to oppose this decision which entirely benefits the metagame for others, does not affect you except to maybe add variety to your matchups, and in no way damages our competitive standards?

It DOES set a precedent, just for that area, not the community as a whole.

Again, I'm more worried about the general smash community and our attitude towards how we deal with these things then any one particular technique.

My reasoning is, and always has been that it was a shortsighted decision on Ninjalink's part (I'm sorry dude if you happen to read this, I've got a lot of respect for you, but I do disagree with you) and it had a trickle-down effect to the rest of North Atlantic's TOs. The attitude caught on.


I'm not saying they CAN'T do it, ultimately a TO ALWAYS has discretion (which is why my weeklies, when I get them off the ground, won't ban infinites except for stalling purposes), but that doesn't mean that their decision was a good one.

Again, lots of respect for most of the Atlantic North TOs, but I disagree with their decision to ban.

 

[ShadowLink84]

doesn't the opponent retain the ability to change once also?? i thought that's what you said above...

They change after I announce my stage and then I change.

anyways, my point is that you can make a situation where both characters don't need to drop their mains in counterpicking if you remove this 1 lame tactic...

it happens to Fox mains al the time with Pika, they can still win tournaments by CPing. it sucks but the Cping solves the issue.

its relevant to bowser's suicide ruling bc sbr didn't want to allow this bc fighting over controller ports is lame and could be avoided.... in a similar way imo having to make both characters fight over the character select screen because of a tactic that prevents the opponent from doing anything is also ******** when it could be avoided...

It was also something that needd to be decided upon because Bows'er kamikaze is randomly seeded and would fix issues concerning who wins or losses which is important. Not just fighting over ports.

both characters could play their mains, their would be more actual fighting during the match, and as a result skill would matter more, when in the other case any scrub ddd can win against a character main of those 5 at any level bc of one tactic. Its not just bc its a bad tactic though... its bc the benefits from it i think clearly outweigh any negative impact... which is not the case with other bans...

This happens to me when I use Sonic. A scrubby MK gives my Sonic a hard time even though I am that much better. A good Mk will wreck me everytime.
We can't cater to my character just because I want to stay with my main. It would be nice but would be arbitrary and is unsupported.

 

[RDK]

You nailed this one perfectly. The fact that you bolded the subjective portion helps.

Overall, explain how it's not objective and give a logical counter-point.

Also that the reasoning was poor is not subjective, it wasn't logically sound, therefore, it was objectively poor reasoning.

WTF? Did you guys not even read the post I was responding to?

That wasn't my opinion, it was THC's. No **** it sounds ********, because that's what he said about the infinite. I was trying to show him how fallacious his argument was.

 

[da K.I.D.]

A competitive gaming government body is intended to promoted the overall ideals of competitive gaming.

How would you know that, the SBR is the only gaming government that i can really think of... i dont think street fighter has a government. this is mostly because the game is set up to be used in a competitive envioronment, so they dont have to change any thing in the standards before jumping to the game. Brawl is not like that. If anything, the government for SF would be capcom

Overall, explain how it's not objective and give a logical counter-point.

sory, i dont hold burden of proof on this one,

check.

 

[adumbrodeus]

WTF? Did you guys not even read the post I was responding to?

That wasn't my opinion, it was THC's. No **** it sounds ********, because that's what he said about the infinite. I was trying to show him how fallacious his argument was.

Lol, the last point wasn't yours. I mainly disagreed with his points (note what I said), but the last one was a THC point. Which was COMPLETELY subjective.


My "overall" was so he'd improve his debate style and be more objective.

How would you know that, the SBR is the only gaming government that i can really think of... i dont think street fighter has a government. this is mostly because the game is set up to be used in a competitive envioronment, so they dont have to change any thing in the standards before jumping to the game. Brawl is not like that. If anything, the government for SF would be capcom

The community can have any government structure it likes, the fact that a company put out a game doesn't change that.

We chose the SBR.

sory, i dont hold burden of proof on this one,

check.

When declaring reasoning fallacious, yes you do.

Bolding a section works very well (as you did earlier).

Also, a counterpoint adds to the discussion.

 

[ShadowLink84]

How would you know that, the SBR is the only gaming government that i can really think of... i dont think street fighter has a government. this is mostly because the game is set up to be used in a competitive envioronment, so they dont have to change any thing in the standards before jumping to the game. Brawl is not like that. If anything, the government for SF would be capcom

Gaming government?
laughable, government have power.
The SBR doesn't.

konami who makes the rules for Yu-gi-oh do. big difference.

 

[RDK]

How would you know that, the SBR is the only gaming government that i can really think of... i dont think street fighter has a government. this is mostly because the game is set up to be used in a competitive envioronment, so they dont have to change any thing in the standards before jumping to the game. Brawl is not like that. If anything, the government for SF would be capcom

sory, i dont hold burden of proof on this one,

check.

I love how you guys consistently show your ignorance of any knowledge of other fighting game communities. Ever hear of SRK?

Lol, the last point wasn't yours. I mainly disagreed with his points (note what I said), but the last one was a THC point. Which was COMPLETELY subjective.


My "overall" was so he'd improve his debate style and be more objective.

My bad then; misunderstanding.

 

[Dark Sonic]

doesn't the opponent retain the ability to change once also?? i thought that's what you said above...

Nope. You pick the stage, they pick their character, you pick your character. In that order.

anyways, my point is that you can make a situation where both characters don't need to drop their mains in counterpicking if you remove this 1 lame tactic...

But people already have to drop their mains in counterpicking with other characters. You don't honestly expect Fox players to stay Fox if their opponent counterpicks Pikachu do you?

its relevant to bowser's suicide ruling bc sbr didn't want to allow this bc fighting over controller ports is lame and could be avoided.... in a similar way imo having to make both characters fight over the character select screen because of a tactic that prevents the opponent from doing anything is also ******** when it could be avoided...

No, you misunderstand why the ruling was made. It was made because in one situation the player playing Bowser would be displayed as the winner and officially win the match, but in the other situation it would go to sudden death. Since this was determined by controller ports, and controller ports are determined by rock paper scissors (if there's a dispute), then essentially the outcome of the match would've been determined by the winner of the rock paper scissors.

Since it's unfair to penalize bowser by forcing him to play the sudden death where he would've otherwise won the match, the ruling simply extended that win to lower controller ports.

In the DDD situation you would call a double blind pick, where you would tell who your are going to play to a third party (you could also write it down on a piece of paper), and then both you and your opponent would be stuck with whoever they had picked. If they had picked DDD trying to counter you and you had picked...Olimar, then they'd be kinda screwed. Especially if they aren't that good with DDD and were tying to get a free win.

both characters could play their mains, their would be more actual fighting during the match, and as a result skill would matter more, when in the other case any scrub ddd can win against a character main of those 5 at any level bc of one tactic. Its not just bc its a bad tactic though... its bc the benefits from it i think clearly outweigh any negative impact... which is not the case with other bans...

Just call a double blind on the first match. They'll probably pick DDD since you called a double blind and you can just wreck their terrible DDD with your secondary. Or, just pick your character second. People rarely call double blinds, and I doubt they'd call it on you if you wait for them to pick and then pick DK.

ok true, but then wouldn't the point still stand that it would be a (probably) mk ditto when it could easily be otherwise with a ban?

Could I not say the same about every other uneven matchup?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Gaming government?
laughable, government have power.
The SBR doesn't.

konami who makes the rules for Yu-gi-oh do. big difference.

Actually, governments tend to rule by assent, it's the assent that gives them power.

In smash, we generally ascend to the SBR, that gives them power, that's why their decisions are a big deal.


And if people chose not to go to Konami tournaments and instead went to their own with different rulesets, they would have no power beyond printing the cards. It's all on community assent.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

It DOES set a precedent, just for that area, not the community as a whole.

Again, I'm more worried about the general smash community and our attitude towards how we deal with these things then any one particular technique.

My reasoning is, and always has been that it was a shortsighted decision on Ninjalink's part (I'm sorry dude if you happen to read this, I've got a lot of respect for you, but I do disagree with you) and it had a trickle-down effect to the rest of North Atlantic's TOs. The attitude caught on.


I'm not saying they CAN'T do it, ultimately a TO ALWAYS has discretion (which is why my weeklies, when I get them off the ground, won't ban infinites except for stalling purposes), but that doesn't mean that their decision was a good one.

Again, lots of respect for most of the Atlantic North TOs, but I disagree with their decision to ban.

I'm sorry that I don't understand your mindset. They were perfectly in the right to do so, there is precident for TO's selecting their own rulesets to a degree within the smash community.

How was the decision to ban a tactic that they felt is broken but to do so at a level that does not force the decision, wrong? And how was the decision of the other TO's to agree with NinjaLink the wrong decision? For the ban to spread like that, it signifies that many TO's (often smart smashers), after careful consideration of a tourney rule, choose that the rule had more positive effects than negative effects, and decided to implement in within their own tourneys.

Within the competitive realm of logic you have been using, they had every right to do so; they had precident (wobbling), the act benefits the metagame, and they did not set a standard for the future that would aid in the banning of non-broken things, as every decision still needs to be weighed one TO at a time.

What about their actions do you oppose?

 

[da K.I.D.]

This happens to me when I use Sonic. A scrubby MK gives my Sonic a hard time even though I am that much better. A good Mk will wreck me everytime.
We can't cater to my character just because I want to stay with my main. It would be nice but would be arbitrary and is unsupported.

this is a lie, you suck and you know it. you lose to scrubby mks cause your scrubby

lolololololololol

p.s. your post was subjective, because you assumed the pika fox match up

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'm sorry that I don't understand your mindset. They were perfectly in the right to do so, there is precident for TO's selecting their own rulesets to a degree within the smash community.

How was the decision to ban a tactic that they felt is broken but to do so at a level that does not force the decision, wrong? And how was the decision of the other TO's to agree with NinjaLink the wrong decision? For the ban to spread like that, it signifies that many TO's (often smart smashers), after careful consideration of a tourney rule, choose that the rule had more positive effects than negative effects, and decided to implement in within their own tourneys.

Within the competitive realm of logic you have been using, they had every right to do so; they had precident (wobbling), the act benefits the metagame, and they did not set a standard for the future that would aid in the banning of non-broken things, as every decision still needs to be weighed one TO at a time.

What about their actions do you oppose?

Actually banning it.

Again, they have every right, but just because somebody has a right to do something doesn't make it the right decision. I have a right to skip my next class, doesn't make it the right decision. Speaking of which... *goes to class*

 

[Dark Sonic]

I'm sorry that I don't understand your mindset. They were perfectly in the right to do so, there is precident for TO's selecting their own rulesets to a degree within the smash community.

How was the decision to ban a tactic that they felt is broken but to do so at a level that does not force the decision, wrong? And how was the decision of the other TO's to agree with NinjaLink the wrong decision? For the ban to spread like that, it signifies that many TO's (often smart smashers), after careful consideration of a tourney rule, choose that the rule had more positive effects than negative effects, and decided to implement in within their own tourneys.

Within the competitive realm of logic you have been using, they had every right to do so; they had precident (wobbling), the act benefits the metagame, and they did not set a standard for the future that would aid in the banning of non-broken things, as every decision still needs to be weighed one TO at a time.

What about their actions do you oppose?

He does not think that the DDD infinite is ban worthy, therefore he disagrees with the TO's decisions to ban it. He openly said that they have every right to do so, and he is expressing his disagreement with their decision by hosting his own tourneys, rather than speaking out against theirs. He is not disagreeing with their rights to ban things at their own discretion, he is personally disagreeing with one of the individual bans.

Nothing wrong with that.

 

[da K.I.D.]

I love how you guys consistently show your ignorance of any knowledge of other fighting game communities. Ever hear of SRK?

my bad you got me on that one. now that i think about it, every game must have a government, or else who would make the tier lists...

When declaring reasoning fallacious, yes you do.

Bolding a section works very well (as you did earlier).

Also, a counterpoint adds to the discussion.

not really you make a statement, i state that its wrong because its subjective, you have burden of proof.

and who the hell gave you teh incredibly misguided notion that im trying to add to discussion...

im just stating subjection and clarifying misconceptions. you said yourself that thats the only way to win.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I propose we make an optional ruleset for all the things that may not be banworthy for which there is a large call to ban.

Legal stages are not set in stone, TO's are given options between legal stages concerning which counterpicks they want to ban, and are allowed to use certain counterpicks as neutral stages.

Likewise, there can be an optional ruleset, which clarifies and consolidates all the bans TO's can reasonably make. Thus, all bans will still be TO decisions, but TO's will have a guide for their decisions.

Under optional character bans,
MK

Under optional tactic bans,
IDC
D3 infinite
IC ICG
D3 shortstep

We can simply add anything we have doubt about into an "optional ruleset," sort them into general order of most to least broken, and allow TO's to decide the most beneficial rulesets for the metagame. Thus, the D3 infinite is not banned, nor is it necesarily a part of tournaments, and the decision is left entirely up to Tournament organizers.

There are two precidents for this: one is the legal stage system, and the other is wobble banning.

 

[RDK]

You're just now making an objective standard?

Well at least we'll actually be able to move the debate somewhere.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

You're just now making an objective standard?

Well at least we'll actually be able to move the debate somewhere.

It took me a super long time to come up with a compromise. Before I was too uncompromising, but after seeing how important a lot of people view precident, it seemed like it would harm the metagame to have an outright ban. I still dislike precident, but I can live with a compromise.

EDIT: but I don't think this is objective at all, personally. In fact, it's the flexibility of this that I applaud, things that are broken get banned, and things that are not get unbanned.

 

[ShadowLink84]

this is a lie, you suck and you know it. you lose to scrubby mks cause your scrubby

lolololololololol

p.s. your post was subjective, because you assumed the pika fox match up

You're just tossing the word subjective around aimlessly let alone that your assumption is false.
Oh and I said give a hard time not that I lose to scrubby MK's.
You done trolling Kid?

Actually, governments tend to rule by assent, it's the assent that gives them power.

In smash, we generally ascend to the SBR, that gives them power, that's why their decisions are a big deal.

I don't believe this is necessarily true. Primarily because the TO's have often done things differently form the SBR. most notably TO's in the AN region who often ban infinites.

I think its more like an advisory rather than actual power given to them.

And if people chose not to go to Konami tournaments and instead went to their own with different rulesets, they would have no power beyond printing the cards. It's all on community assent.

I would have to say when it comes to yu-gi-oh they're lazy *******s for going to Konami's tournaments when they know cards that should be banned are allowed -_-;
Friggin disc commander.

 

[Xzax Kasrani]

Shadow: Diddy beats meta on FD, and the match up is about 55/45 in meta favor. DK vs meta is 65/35 in meta favor, if that meta is agressive its 55/45.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Shadow: Diddy beats meta on FD, and the match up is about 55/45 in meta favor. DK vs meta is 65/35 in meta favor, if that meta is agressive its 55/45.

Thankie xzax.
Iwas wondering about Dk though since it sounds like they haven't really set anything down as an overall for the matchup.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Simple answer -

If a decision in no way effects you, it's sometimes wisest to stay out, as the remaining people know what they are discussing, rather than simply having heard of it and making calculations off a matchup chart. Technically it does not effect you because - like it or not - you are an individual who does not use an involved character. It simply cannot effect you if it cannot effect your matches.

While it may not be broken enough, what are you defending? You are defending the six most broken matchups in the game caused by a physics exploit which is always broken whenever used, but has an extremely effective, simple, and tested (by Bum) remedy.

I'm sorry, but I can't change sides. It doesn't make sense divorced of the rules for a ban to do so.

Well, just an FYI - you are never going to get anything through my thick skull - without an answer that addresses my thinking on the subject

and that is exactly your problem.
the whole point of debates is to convince the other side that your side is correct and their's is wrong, is it not. and since you openly admitted that you WILL NOT change sides regardless of my reasoning, there is no more point of an argument. i have stated my side of the argument, which are backed by FACTS, not OPINIONS, numerous times, and since you won't even CONSIDER what i wrote as right, there is no more point to the debate. seriously, this just shows how little you know about debating, on every point you and the pro-bans make, i WILL consider it as right IF i can't find any flaws with their reasoning. however, i always do.

anyways, im defending my position because most of you still don't get WHAT CONSITUTES A BAN AND WHAT DOESN'T. there's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to defend your princinples. by your reasoning, you should just gfto too because apparently you main lucario, so why don't we let D3 mains and affected character main settle this? BECAUSE THEY MAY BE BIASED OR WRONG. in the end, people's OPINIONS don't really matter. what matters is does that tactic break the game as a whole or over-centralizes so much that SSBB is no longer playable competitively....and the answer is clearly no.

EDIT: the first part was a response to THC btw, the 2nd part applies to all of you pro-bans.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

and that is exactly your problem.
the whole point of debates is to convince the other side that your side is correct and their's is wrong, is it not. and since you openly admitted that you WILL NOT change sides regardless of my reasoning, there is no more point of an argument. i have stated my side of the argument, which are backed by FACTS, not OPINIONS, numerous times, and since you won't even CONSIDER what i wrote as right, there is no more point to the debate. seriously, this just shows how little you know about debating, on every point you and the pro-bans make, i WILL consider it as right IF i can't find any flaws with their reasoning. however, i always do.

anyways, im defending my position because most of you still don't get WHAT CONSITUTES A BAN AND WHAT DOESN'T. there's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to defend your princinples. by your reasoning, you should just gfto too because apparently you main lucario, so why don't we let D3 mains and affected character main settle this? BECAUSE THEY MAY BE BIASED OR WRONG. in the end, people's OPINIONS don't really matter. what matters is does that tactic break the game as a whole or over-centralizes so much that SSBB is no longer playable competitively....and the answer is clearly no.

EDIT: the first part was a response to THC btw, the 2nd part applies to all of you pro-bans.

I simply cannot change sides unless you address my biggest issue with the infinite, that it is broken. Disprove that, and we can get somewhere. It is my priciple of guiding logic that is driving me nuts - you call a tactic broken, and refuse to fix it, while still admitting the tactic is broken. I cannot be satisfied with that.