Does this mean you're against the ban now?
Yes. I'll remind you I was against it for a few pages (more like I was withholding assent to the claim of the side with burden of proof). That 'now' should be an 'again'.
Presently I'm rather certain it's the correct view. I voted.
(However meaningless this poll is, the thread was
created by SamuraiPanda.)
Sorry, you misread me due to my unclear language.
I was totally aware of that you meant diversifying the game in general. And I talking about just that. What I meant is that how much "diversifying" should we do? Should we "diversify" the game so that all characters are viable?
And if so, what would "viable" mean? 70-30 at worst? But that's still a 70-30. So 60-40? How about 50-50? That would be the most diverse metagame. Every single character could in essence be viable against every single character, enjoying 50-50 odds.
Yes, okay. I thought we could increase diversity without limiting something else, but yes I see clearly now that increasing diversity comes about in that the character's matchups become better - in
some sense - which implies that the characters on the other end get worse matchups, plus there's possibly indirect effects caused by interacting tier dynamics.
And yes, all of this is undue interference. It's too "meddling." And since it's *inseparable* from the increase in diversity, there's no objective gain I can even point to.
So, if we really wanted to maximize diversity, we'd ban one jillion things per match-up to artifically mold them. Against Captain Falcon, Marth cannot do this thing which is totally legal against Peach (as Marth). Wham, bam, 90210 bans later, everyone has 50-50 match-ups (only) and the game is super-diverse.
I didn't want to maximize diversity, not as the ultimate goal, not if there's costs. Again, I just thought it was something that, all else being equal, would improve things. But this is either a vacuously true statement, or a meaningless statement: either it's impossible for all else to be equal if you increase diversity, making the statement vacuously true, or it's meaningless, for some reason I don't know but it never hurts to acknowledge the possibility when apparent vacuous truth shows up.
Either way, the statement is uninteresting, so being principally what got me behind the ban, I have no reason to perseverate.
That's not a word? Okay, jargon then: It means persevere in a belief.
It is my view that we should not ban a whole bunch of things to maximize diversity. It is my view. And it is shared by many a Competitive gamer.
Just quoting this because it quotes where I directly said I viewed diversity as a means to an end. That means I didn't believe it was an end. An immediate relevancy of that statement is that you know I, neither, wanted to ban anything *to* maximize diversity.
It was a
means to an
end (competitive field) for me. The competitive field is all I cared about and I thought I wanted the ban because it got that. Since diversity doesn't get that, I don't care about it.
And we can't do this with the infinite in place?
No, we can. Probably unnecessary to reply to this given that I've said I'm anti-ban now, but no, we can do this with the infinite in place
('this' being 'seek competition' or something close).
(Actually, I would have said we could have "that" with or without the infinite. But of course I can't be anti-ban now and say that we could have 'that' with the ban.
Not without a bad-taste-in-your-mouth, anyway, playing under a bad ban.)
And the question becomes: What does this have to do with the infinite?
Nothing. I'm trying to establish I am not and was never (since. . . let's say April) a scrub.
It came up when I was trying to talk about the reason I thought could motivate/justify the ban. I thought what we did was to increase "something", since the "something" is what we're after, and so, bans to get at "it" would be warranted.
You then took this to be some scrubby whiner's pleading, or other condemning thing (I'd have used the word '****ing', but, you know, Nazi censor), so I was forced to defend myself.
Apparently, I was mistaken as to what embracing competition and 'The game as it is' means. It's about minimizing 'improper' influence*. I understand and can get behind that.
EDIT: You know I was probably just forgetting too much of the principle of "The game as it is." x_x
*again, improper is likely a vastly mistaken word, but it's better than 'bad'.
But the rules are not written to maximize anything. They are only written to minimize influence (over-centralization)(plus a few exceptions).
Ayup.
Because I thought you were one of the La La Yutzes who advocate "total diversity" and "fun". Apparently, I was wrong?
Yes. Drastically. Please understand that.
EDIT: Something I noticed and thought I'd let you know.
Yuna, a note: It seems that another cause of excess argumentation with you can be attributed to this: You don't have quite an eye for alternative interpretations of your words as would be helpful.
For example, a quibble fest went on for tens of pages about how 5/760 (yeargh don't nitpick the exactness now) is not 754/760. It was pretty clear to me that the issue was because you were referring to a count of something out of a class of 760 elements, whereas the other guy thought you were talking about probabilities (and accounting for obviously non-uniform distribution of characters in tourney play).
I didn't mention it because (a) I kept forgetting, and (b) my posts were huge enough without putting something I thought wouldn't get noticed.
. . . yeah neither of those are good reasons. But still something
you could have corrected.
Similarly, you are either unable or unwilling to call up even a handful of alternative ways of getting the same point across. When X is put forward, and the other guy asserts not-X and leaves it at that, sure, it
could be bad form, begging the question, or just sheer illogicality, but maybe it's just because there hasn't been communication. If one is so very right, one should be able to put forward a view that is disarming in its simplicity and soundness.
As well, if you thought more about why someone is saying something and tried to get under that, try to get right to denying some false belief they have
giving rise to the one they're stating, that could cut shouting matches short too. This doesn't always apply, though.
~~
