Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[XxBlackxX]

772/780 is broken, lmao.
I think you have the number wrong.
If ANYTHING broke THAT many character match ups, it should definitely be banned.
Luckily, DDD breaks about, 7 match ups, lol.

oh **** you're right. i meant 774/780 UNBROKEN MATCHUPS.
thanks.
fix'd.

 

[da K.I.D.]

woosle is now my hero, thank you for doing that so i didnt have to

 

[aeghrur]

False. o.o

You mind trying to prove that to me.
Because right now, your argument is pure opinion as well about my opinion, lmao.
So, as of the moment, true, because you proved it for me.

 

[XxBlackxX]

@Wozzle

first, stop discrediting everyone else just because they don't agree with you, and offer your own take on this >_>

second, the fact that ICG's don't break brawl as a WHOLE is NOT my opinion. >_> (6/31 character or 6/780 matchups, either way you look at it, not universal)

the fact that what i said is how competitive gaming communities (and rulesets) work is NOT my opinion.

 

[aeghrur]

Woozle, tell me a strong competitive community that doesn't ban out of necessity but rather bans because 6 characters are debate-ably unviable.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Woozle, tell me a strong competitive community that doesn't ban out of necessity but rather bans because 6 characters are debate-ably unviable.

tell me a strong game community THAT EVEN HAS THIS PROBLEM.

 

[BrawlLover]

I think the game is more enjoyable with a standing infinite chain grab removed. You want to infinite? Just do a fancy d-tilt wall infinite or what not. DDD's chain grab is just something I don't see fitting with the brawl competitive play style and I think the game as a whole functions better with it removed.

I agree with this.

 

[aeghrur]

tell me a strong game community THAT EVEN HAS THIS PROBLEM.

Melee:
Characters were made unviable by Shiek.
Shiek wasn't banned.

 

[XxBlackxX]

I agree with this.

that reasoning has so many flaws it's not even funny
enjoyability is subjective. i can say MK makes brawl not "enjoyable", does that mean he deserves a ban? no.
and competitive games aren't played to "have fun". banning is a LAST RESORT, you shouldn't want a ban just because it's "not fun". you only want a ban if it breaks the game.

tell me a strong game community THAT EVEN HAS THIS PROBLEM.

have you even played melee? o_o

 

[Kirio]

banning is a LAST RESORT, you shouldn't want a ban just because it's "not fun". you only want a ban if it breaks the game.

No? Soul Calibur 4 was patched when infinites were discovered as well as 'overpowered' tactics. The game wasn't broken in almost any sense of the word, but they still rid the game of them in order to help maintain a balance.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Melee:
Characters were made unviable by Shiek.
Shiek wasn't banned.

those same characters were made unviable by fox, marth and sheik as well.
what did shiek do to bowser that marth or falco didnt do to bowser as well?
dont say CGs cause marth CGd him just as hard
and falco pillared him even harder

everyone below ganon on the tier list was completely unusable in that game

 

[BrawlLover]

that reasoning has so many flaws it's not even funny
enjoyability is subjective. i can say MK makes brawl not "enjoyable", does that mean he deserves a ban? no.
and competitive games aren't played to "have fun". banning is a LAST RESORT, you shouldn't want a ban just because it's "not fun". you only want a ban if it breaks the game.


have you even played melee? o_o

dood no way, i don't agree with tat, if any of it! people want a game where stupid crap like the standing infinite and other gay things doesn't happen, YOU ARE STANDING THERE AND JUST HITTING AND THEN DOING IT OVER AND OVER, the opponent can't even get out of it, what's wrong with you man? talk some sense into yourself!

 

[Kirio]

dood no way, i don't agree with tat, if any of it! people want a game where stupid crap like the standing infinite and other gay things doesn't happen, YOU ARE STANDING THERE AND JUST HITTING AND THEN DOING IT OVER AND OVER, the opponent can't even get out of it, what's wrong with you man? talk some sense into yourself!

Saying "People do not want this", then explaining what the tactic is and telling him he is being foolish does absolutely nothing..

 

[XxBlackxX]

No? Soul Calibur 4 was patched when infinites were discovered as well as 'overpowered' tactics. The game wasn't broken in almost any sense of the word, but they still rid the game of them in order to help maintain a balance.

irrelevant. nintendo COULD chose to patch this if they want to, and get of infinites. fine. but do you see the DIFFERENCE between a ban imposed by the ruleset and a patch? i stand by my word, a BAN is the absolute last resort.

dood no way, i don't agree with tat, if any of it! people want a game where stupid crap like the standing infinite and other gay things doesn't happen, YOU ARE STANDING THERE AND JUST HITTING AND THEN DOING IT OVER AND OVER, the opponent can't even get out of it, what's wrong with you man? talk some sense into yourself!

holy ****ing ****. first of all, when arguing in the TD, USE ****ING GRAMMER. I had to read this twice to understand you. and second of all, IT DOESN'T ****ING MATTER IF SOMETHING IS "CHEAP" AS LONG AS IT ISN'T UNIVERSAL AND DOESN'T BREAK THE GAME AS A WHOLE. HAVING YOUR BAN-HAPPY ATTITUDE IS STUPID and it hurts the metagame more than it will help it.

 

[XxBlackxX]

those same characters were made unviable by fox, marth and sheik as well.
what did shiek do to bowser that marth or falco didnt do to bowser as well?
dont say CGs cause marth CGd him just as hard
and falco pillared him even harder

everyone below ganon on the tier list was completely unusable in that game

and yet melee ended with a heathy metagame, with many people feeling it's more balanced than brawl. why should we not go with what rulesets that have been proven to work and be ban-happy?


EDIT: oops, double post sry >_>

EDIT #2: the "character become unviable" is a flawed argument. there are characters in almost all fighting games become unviable. many characters were "unviable" in melee. many more are "unviable" in brawl. as long as the tactic/character that makes them "unviable" isn't universal, there is always CP. as i said, banning is the LAST RESORT.

 

[aeghrur]

those same characters were made unviable by fox, marth and sheik as well.

everyone below ganon on the tier list was completely unusable in that game

Does it matter if there were more characters that those below Ganon sucked against?
The ICG 5 have bad match ups aside from DDD.
Melee characters had bad match ups aside from Shiek.
The point is not that, look, these also made them unviable, the point is, look, this one character makes these characters unviable, same as the situation here in melee.
There are always going to be counterpicks. It just happens DDD is a better counterpick against these than others.

 

[Kirio]

irrelevant. nintendo COULD chose to patch this if they want to, and get of infinites. fine. but do you see the DIFFERENCE between a ban imposed by the ruleset and a patch? i stand by my word, a BAN is the absolute last resort.



holy ****ing ****. first of all, when arguing in the TD, USE ****ING GRAMMER. I had to read this twice to understand you. and second of all, IT DOESN'T ****ING MATTER IF SOMETHING IS "CHEAP" AS LONG AS IT ISN'T UNIVERSAL AND DOESN'T BREAK THE GAME AS A WHOLE. HAVING YOUR BAN-HAPPY ATTITUDE IS STUPID and it hurts the metagame more than it will help it.

Yes, I see the difference. A ban is actually a lesser extent of what could be done (patching). Patching physically removes it whereas a ban prohibits people from using it in a tournament environment. Just because one actually removes the ability to do it doesn't change the fact that games WITH the capability to be patched (and producers that actually care) DO get rid of these things in cases other than a last resort. Since we don't have the ability to tweak coefficients to make infinites impossible, we should only do it in cases where removing it would take nothing but the thing itself from the game in attempts at a more balanced roster. And it would need to be able to be removed simply, like in this case.

And I reported BrawlLover (again) and I'm about to contact a mod about him because he's very irritating.

 

[aeghrur]

Why would we take away things from a game to try to reach a more "balanced" roster?
We're not banning for balance, we're banning over the controversy of rather:
A. It makes these 6 characters unviable
B. Are 6 characters enough to warrant a ban.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Yes, I see the difference. A ban is actually a lesser extent of what could be done (patching). Patching physically removes it whereas a ban prohibits people from using it in a tournament environment. Just because one actually removes the ability to do it doesn't change the fact that games WITH the capability to be patched (and producers that actually care) DO get rid of these things in cases other than a last resort. Since we don't have the ability to tweak coefficients to make infinites impossible, we should only do it in cases where removing it would take nothing but the thing itself from the game in attempts at a more balanced roster, and is simply done, like in this case.

And I reported BrawlLover (again) and I'm about to contact a mod about him because he's very irritating.

agreed on the BrawlLover part xD
but as for "because nintendo won't patch, we should ban it" is wrong.
why? because it doesn't warrant a ban. so sure, it WOULD make the game a bit more balanced if this was patched and removed, but as long as it doesn't warrant a ban in the first place, there is no point of banning it.

 

[MorphedChaos]

DK is still fine to play as, just if you know they'll pick D3, pick Falco or something.

 

[Woozle]

Woozle, tell me a strong competitive community that doesn't ban out of necessity but rather bans because 6 characters are debate-ably unviable.

I would, but I've tried.

I get a face full of "YOU CAN'T COMPARE LIFE/SPORTS/EXPERIENCE/ANYTHING TO BRAWL".

 

[Kirio]

agreed on the BrawlLover part xD
but as for "because nintendo won't patch, we should ban it" is wrong.
why? because it doesn't warrant a ban. so sure, it WOULD make the game a bit more balanced if this was patched and removed, but as long as it doesn't warrant a ban in the first place, there is no point of banning it.

Hehahah. Just keep reporting his posts is the response I got :]

Well no, I just feel that the argument for the anti side has been mostly that in the past things have not been banned and the community worked out fine. And while that is true, there are also instances of games being patched (StarCraft) which are continuing to work great and have ongoing competitive tournaments. Just because games such as street fighter weren't able to be patched due to lack of an online component does not mean they wouldn't have been.

Besides, what warrants a ban doesn't have a set criteria. You argue that it is something that ruins the game, but in the case of patching, the actual developers didso in much less 'threatening' circumstances. They did it to improve the balance and longetivity of the game. So what warrants a 'ban' so-to-speak seems to differ drastically.

Also, can you point out something that is harming the tournaments that Bum attends? The ICG is banned there, seemingly to no downfall.

 

[Panix]

Why would we take away things from a game to try to reach a more "balanced" roster?
We're not banning for balance, we're banning over the controversy of rather:
A. It makes these 6 characters unviable
B. Are 6 characters enough to warrant a ban.

It makes mario unaviable. B1tchs love mario.

 

[aeghrur]

I would, but I've tried.

I get a face full of "YOU CAN'T COMPARE LIFE/SPORTS/EXPERIENCE/ANYTHING TO BRAWL".

You can compare to it if it truly makes a good analogy.
Just don't be upset should we, the anti-ban side, decide to try and punch holes through your analogy and discredit it. =/ It is a debate after all... lol.
Of course, I'm not going to be there cuz I gtg to sleep now. Dx

 

[XxBlackxX]

Hehahah. Just keep reporting his posts is the response I got :]

Well no, I just feel that the argument for the anti side has been mostly that in the past things have not been banned and the community worked out fine. And while that is true, there are also instances of games being patched (StarCraft) which are continuing to work great and have ongoing competitive tournaments. Just because games such as street fighter weren't able to be patched due to lack of an online component does not mean they wouldn't have been.

Besides, what warrants a ban doesn't have a set criteria. You argue that it is something that ruins the game, but in the case of patching, the actual developers didso in much less 'threatening' circumstances. They did it to improve the balance and longetivity of the game. So what warrants a 'ban' so-to-speak seems to differ drastically.

Also, can you point out something that is harming the tournaments that Bum attends? The ICG is banned there, seemingly to no downfall.

first of all, understand patching=/=banning
patching=developer's choice to improve game
banning=last resort to to keep game as a whole playable

just because there's no downsides doesn't mean it should be banned.
and actually, banning DOES have a criteria: something that over-centralizes, breaks the game as a whole and makes it unplayable competitively.

@Wozzle, compare it to OTHER COMPETITIVE GAME COMMUNITIES, of course real life can't be compared to brawl. seriously, you gave me an example that contained cutting someone's leg off >_>

 

[BrawlLover]

irrelevant. nintendo COULD chose to patch this if they want to, and get of infinites. fine. but do you see the DIFFERENCE between a ban imposed by the ruleset and a patch? i stand by my word, a BAN is the absolute last resort.



holy ****ing ****. first of all, when arguing in the TD, USE ****ING GRAMMER. I had to read this twice to understand you. and second of all, IT DOESN'T ****ING MATTER IF SOMETHING IS "CHEAP" AS LONG AS IT ISN'T UNIVERSAL AND DOESN'T BREAK THE GAME AS A WHOLE. HAVING YOUR BAN-HAPPY ATTITUDE IS STUPID and it hurts the metagame more than it will help it.

lmao, you are taking this subject way too seriously bra, go and look hard at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself the question i asked you, do i like being in a standing infinite? then tell me something bra:embarrassUGH!

 

[aeghrur]

Kirio, it's not that what warrants a ban is the set criteria.
it's that the only set criteria always agreed upon is that something should be banned if:
If it overcentralizes the metagame or breaks the metagame.
This is the only ban criteria EVERY competitive community agrees upon.
There are other situations, such as with items though, but then you must establish a ban criteria first.
The only alternative route for a ban criteria here would be stalling, but... it's already capped.
So, you must ban because it overcentralizes or breaks the metagame, yet in this case, it clearly does not.
You say it makes characters unviable, yet I say there will always be unviable characters.

 

[fox219]

if you say he is cheap, you are scared of losing.

 

[Woozle]

Here's an analogy that I think is fair.

Olympic Water Polo.

Let's pretend that the Hungarian team wore a certain brand of deodorant to their match against the American team. Now, the Hungarian's usually beat the Americans: However, they discover that wearing this brand of deodorant causes allergic reactions in Americans as well, and that that makes the match almost impossible for the Americans to win, but they can still play.

In situation A, they protest the allowance of the Hungarian team to wear the deodorant and the judges agree. The match is still difficult for the Americans to play, but without threat of hives, they are able to make the best of their situation.

In situation B, the judges disagree because the Americans probably weren't going to win anyway, and on top of that, there are plenty of other teams in the Olympics who could beat the Hungarians. The Americans try to play, but find that any time they try to guard the Hungarians, their skin burns. The Hungarians win with little resistance.

The Americans also have the option, if the deodorant is not banned, to use new, less experienced players who have immunity to the allergy against the Hungarians. However, they feel as though the best match would result from the fully trained team they have now.

 

[BrawlLover]

to be honest, i'd hold patching far above banning, however, patching is not something we can control, but banning is, whatever, it's not like my life's over if ddd's infinite isn't banned, but i do think it's oober dooper lame

 

[Grunt]

It makes mario unaviable. B1tchs love mario.

this comment wins.

We have to ban ICG now.

 

[Kirio]

it's that the only set criteria always agreed upon is that something should be banned if:
If it overcentralizes the metagame or breaks the metagame.
This is the only ban criteria EVERY competitive community agrees upon.

No. The fact that things were patched shows that the developers sought to remove things for reasons other than what you gave. Patching is the developers way of banning.

first of all, understand patching=/=banning
patching=developer's choice to improve game
banning=last resort to to keep game as a whole playable

Not necessarily. That's my point. I'm sure if the developers had the ability to ban things and not to patch, they would still ban things in an effort to balance things.

Also, your definition for each is off. Patching can also be done to keep the game as a whole playable, therefore making it banning in a sense (by your definition). Banning is simply prohibiting something. Your definition is simply your opinion on why it should be done. My opinion is that banning is, in essence, the same as patching, just a more rudimentary way of going about it.

just because there's no downsides doesn't mean it should be banned.

It doesn't? Something that offers benefit for nothing poor in return should not be done? Then your only reason to not do it is because it doesn't fit the criteria that you made up (by you I mean the people claiming this is the criteria), because there is no preset criteria of what constitutes a ban. To keep that criteria simply so that something that will improve the game is not instantiated is illogical. The criteria should be changed so that it encompasses this tactic as well since there is no perceivable negative effect. Then we can ban it and nothing else and there will be no harm done.

Sorry for such long winded posts. I'm not too great at compacting my thoughts I guess.

EDIT: @Woozle: I feel your analogy is quite good.

 

[da K.I.D.]

the last 4 comment have been amazing and full of win

 

[BrawlLover]

da K.I.D.
your post is amazing and full of win too!

Kirio
it's alright bud, you should always speak your mind, regardless of how long your posts are

 

[XxBlackxX]

No. The fact that things were patched shows that the developers sought to remove things for reasons other than what you gave. Patching is the developers way of banning.


Not necessarily. That's my point. I'm sure if the developers had the ability to ban things and not to patch, they would still ban things in an effort to balance things.

Also, your definition for each is off. Patching can also be done to keep the game as a whole playable, therefore making it banning in a sense (by your definition). Banning is simply prohibiting something. Your definition is simply your opinion on why it should be done. My opinion is that banning is, in essence, the same as patching, just a more rudimentary way of going about it.


It doesn't? Something that offers benefit for nothing poor in return should not be done? Then your only reason to not do it is because it doesn't fit the criteria that you made up
(by you I mean the people claiming this is the criteria), because there is no preset criteria of what constitutes a ban. To keep that criteria simply so that something that will improve the game is not instantiated is illogical. The criteria should be changed so that it encompasses this tactic as well since there is no perceivable negative effect. Then we can ban it and nothing else and there will be no harm done.

Sorry for such long winded posts. I'm not too great at compacting my thoughts I guess.

EDIT: @Woozle: I feel your analogy is quite good.

i guess first i'll have to concede that yes, my definition for ban was indeed why things are banned, and not the real definition.

it doesn't really matter what developers THINK. they haven't put out a patch, we as a community must deal with it. complaining about banning something that COULD have be solved by a patch even though it doesn't warrant a ban...i just don't see the reasoning.

and second of all, i just don't see why EVERY single pro-ban supporter seems to think i pulled the so-called criteria for banning out of my ***.
guys, have you guys been a part of competitive melee or any other competitive fighting game?
because,

If it overcentralizes the metagame or breaks the metagame.
This is the only ban criteria EVERY competitive community agrees upon.

this is how it's run. and it WORKS. in the end, the metagame might hurt a little from a bit less characters, but overall it is healthy because people aren't ban-happy and learn to deal with their own matchup problems instead of complaining for a ban. seriously, banning something that doesn't warrant one is just like telling the community "we'll give you guys the easy way out, instead of dealing with your own problems by thinking, we'll just ban it so your lives are easier". and you know what happens then? since we discouraged thinking and dealing with your own problems, OTHER groups (again, fox comes to mind) will come and complain: hey, you guys banned a tactic for a 9:1 matchups, why not a 85:15, realistic, there is still very minimal chance of winning. soon, all we'll see is BAN, BAN, BAN because people have forgotten to think themselves before asking for a ban.
^and all this HURTS the metagame. that's why the ban criteria HAS to be met before banning something. and trust me, if you HAVE been a part of some other competitive gaming community, you'll know, the ruleset that has the least restrictions while keeping the game as a whole playable is a ruletset that WORKS, and works well.

 

[da K.I.D.]

the thing is, though, that what you think D3s infinite does to the metagame is subjective

 

[XxBlackxX]

the thing is, though, that what you think D3s infinite does to the metagame is subjective

no, in fact, i gave you numbers, it affects exactly 6 characters, leaving 31/37 usable, and 6/780 matchups, leaving 774/780 matchups unaffected. this is definitely NOT over-centralizing. i think if you can finally understand how the ruleset works, the rest is just asking
is it over-centralizing?
and because of the numbers i provided, and the answer is "no".

lmao, you are taking this subject way too seriously bra, go and look hard at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself the question i asked you, do i like being in a standing infinite? then tell me something bra:embarrassUGH!

no i don't, but my opinion doesn't matter, in fact, it doesn't matter if people LIKE or DON'T LIKE to be in a infinite, the only thing that matters is SHOULD IT BE BANNED, and saying "people won't like the game anymore" is the stupidest argument ive ever heard. like seriously. go lurk for a couple months like i did before posting and making yourself look like an idiot who knows nothing about smash and why things are banned.

btw, i have to go now so eh..ill respond to your responses later

 

[Kirio]

it doesn't really matter what developers THINK. they haven't put out a patch, we as a community must deal with it. complaining about banning something that COULD have be solved by a patch even though it doesn't warrant a ban...i just don't see the reasoning.

Well, as I said, I don't like your criteria for a ban, but I'm pretty sure you addressed that below, so, I guess I'll get to that

and second of all, i just don't see why EVERY single pro-ban supporter seems to think i pulled the so-called criteria for banning out of my ***.
guys, have you guys been a part of competitive melee or any other competitive fighting game?

Well, I guess I did kinda point the finger at you. I meant more at everyone in general, and that wasn't my point. I only went to mention it in order to attempt to counter it with my 'it doesn't have to be the criteria because of patching, blah blah blah' argument. Sorry if that came off the wrong way, I apologize for that and how I wasn't clear as to what I meant. I think my points aren't sticking cause our disagreements about the relationship between patching and banning. I'll think about this some more, maybe a new way to approach it for clarity.

in the end, the metagame might hurt a little from a bit less characters, but overall it is healthy because people aren't ban-happy and learn to deal with their own matchup problems instead of complaining for a ban[ etc]

Well, the people at Bum's tourneys aren't ban happy. They don't ban ftilt lock or pika dthrow. My proposition was that we change the criteria to encompass JUST this tactic. I don't want to go around banning everything. Just, this, really. Maybe the IC's infinite if it becomes a problem, but that's it. And I did throw DK to my secondary for this. I can use a multitude of characters, that's not the problem, learning more characters to deal with it.

The problem is there's a tactic that takes away control from you til death, but with an easy fix. There's not much of a reason that I can see to NOT repair these matchups, besides it might make people 'ban-happy'. People already wanna gut MK, so I don't see how this could make them more ridiculous than that. Besides, they're mostly non-competitive players, so it doesn't matter.

and trust me, if you HAVE been a part of some other competitive gaming community, you'll know, the ruleset that has the least restrictions while keeping the game as a whole playable is a ruletset that WORKS, and works well.

I have and I understand this, but the whole patching thing alters the game, and yet those communities live on. They 'ban' things by removing them completely for the sake of balance.. They don't need to have the least restrictions to work, they can have more than that and still work well, but with more balanced matchups to boot. I don't see why we can't ban this and say 'we will not be banning the ftilt lock etc'. People will complain and ask for bans regardless, so using that as a downside is moot.

EDIT:

btw, i have to go now so eh..ill respond to your responses later

Whoops, didn't see that. I'll link you back here later if you can't find it Good chattin' with ya.

 

[adumbrodeus]

In regards to the whole banning/patching debate: Ultimately patching is accepted because we cannot control it. If the game-maker decides that a new version is standard, we have no choice in the matter. That's the reason that we really don't worry about whether a patch is justified.

Originally Posted by XxBlackxX

Opinion.


Opinion.


Opinion.


Opinion.


Opinion. FACT.


Opinion.


Opinion.


Opinion.




Nice facts.

Well, actually a good amount of that were arguments, not premises. Only premises can be facts or opinions.

Opinions are an assumption about the way things are without evidence, arguments are extrapolations of premises.

Arguments can have a truth value, they are either fallacious or valid, but they are fundamentally not opinions simply because they are not premises.

I would, but I've tried.

I get a face full of "YOU CAN'T COMPARE LIFE/SPORTS/EXPERIENCE/ANYTHING TO BRAWL".

Erm, don't worry about the people who say that.

There are differences and people will alert you when you have a false analogy, but a lot of competitive gaming principals are compatible whatever the game.

Including the ban criteria.

So feel free.

Here's an analogy that I think is fair.

Olympic Water Polo.

Let's pretend that the Hungarian team wore a certain brand of deodorant to their match against the American team. Now, the Hungarian's usually beat the Americans: However, they discover that wearing this brand of deodorant causes allergic reactions in Americans as well, and that that makes the match almost impossible for the Americans to win, but they can still play.

In situation A, they protest the allowance of the Hungarian team to wear the deodorant and the judges agree. The match is still difficult for the Americans to play, but without threat of hives, they are able to make the best of their situation.

In situation B, the judges disagree because the Americans probably weren't going to win anyway, and on top of that, there are plenty of other teams in the Olympics who could beat the Hungarians. The Americans try to play, but find that any time they try to guard the Hungarians, their skin burns. The Hungarians win with little resistance.

The Americans also have the option, if the deodorant is not banned, to use new, less experienced players who have immunity to the allergy against the Hungarians. However, they feel as though the best match would result from the fully trained team they have now.

Actually, the equivalent would be banned in smash, you see it breaks not one, not two, but THREE fundamental principals of competitive gaming.

1. Outside interference, basically the player gains something for doing something outside the scope of the competition. Examples include map hacks and other types of hacks. This is part of the default ruleset of competitive gaming, and unless rescinded, exists in all games.

2. Attacking the opposing player: Unlike in smash, the player and the character are one and the same. Therefore any action taken against the character outside the scope of gameplay (of which, causing hives on purpose, or murdering a member of the team) is the same as taking an action against the player. This is equivalent to kicking your opponent in the shin to break a sheik tilt-lock in smash. Again, taking direct action against a player outside of the scope of competition is part of the default rules of competitive gaming and merits an auto-ban.

3. Tactic is not equally available to all players. Simply on the basis that a tactic is not available to all players (not all characters) for some arbitrary reason, for example controller port, if it is discrete and enforceable a ban is warranted (which is why we established bowsercide always wins on last stock vs. last stock). Not all characters mind you, all characters. The game must be balanced between players. Now unless the American team has something equivalent that they can do to the other team, the tactic is ban-worthy.


So yes, under the principals we are purposing, the action would fail on multiple counts.

 

[Kirio]

Adumbrodeus, you're taking his analogy way too literally and missing his point.

****, I gotta go, I'd explain otherwise.. I'm sure woozle will try and elaboratee