Should Metaknight be Banned? **Take 2** (Post-podcast)

[Rain(ame)]

Plank....I know quite a bit about smash myself, and I think my opinion matters. HOWEVER, some people might disagree and just ignore, even if valid points are being brought up. Guess what? Brawl has been out for what...? 8 months? Guess what, bro? EVERYONE'S opinion matters. Even if they are "no-named" as you put it. You don't have to put people down to get your point across. You could just take their opinion, and if it TRULY is off, just point it out with facts. In Brawl, it's still early, and also Elitists don't = truth. They just equal some truth with their head stuck so far up their own butts that they can't be humble about their experience/victories. People who have been around forever feel as if they should be worshipped. Not everyone, mind you, but there are some. The funny part, is that when someone who has been to hundreds of tournaments gets beat by someone who's been 3 or 4. Someone who had that "Pro" reaction, suddenly doesn't seem so great anymore. Still, even if they have proven themselves, the "Elitists" will tear into them tooth and nail. So I hate to say it, but your little evaluation of Elitists = truth is wrong.


Edit: No I'm not trying to argue with you, just...I don't know....some of the stuff you said seemed a bit cruel

 

[Deleted member]

plank has a point. the only people that voted on the MK ban had a credible reputation for smash, either as a player or a TO, but requires tons of experience regardless.


2008 guys can't possibly have that yet.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Awww, are you in psych 101 right now? That's cute. I'm a psych major actually, it's pretty interesting isn't it?

You would sound funnier if it were true ^_^
it would also be sexy if you actually, you know, replied to it and attempted to debunk it.
Repeating that your opinion is more valid than someone else's doesn't make it any more true.

Also, sorry i've not read through 300 pages of these threads, it's just too much to handle. I'd like to know how the Sheik argument was debunked though, seeing as it is literally the exact same situation as it was in melee.

Ah yes lets just go and make an assumption on what the pro ban argument is. its totally okay.

I shall translate for people.



We are the pro players. it is due to our ahrd work that much of your argument is based upon. you newbies dont mean anything since you don't play professionally. Clearly you cannot learn anything about the game from our behavior. We are just too awesome.
Unless you play the game professionally, you're just a newbie, you don't know anything!



**** those newbies! Surely us acting like jers and acting as if our opinions were fact is far from being wrong. they call us elitist just because they don't like it that we are better than them.
We are totally not arrogant and rude and have a superiority complex.


yeah, lets mock the newbies. They totally have NEVER shown tht they know anything about the game.
You know what? If a newbe says Sonic is bottom tier it isn't true! Its only true when we say it!

Same for e=mc^2
Only when einstein says it can it be considered fact.
he totally made no argument to prove it.


yadda yadda yadda.
Sorry dude but no one gives a **** about your accomplishments.
You make your opinion, get ready to be criticized.
its great t be proud that you are really good at the game.
Are you allowed to act as if it is something to allow you to deem someone's argument is crap?
No.
Elitist behavior is basically s you display. You are s good but anyone lesser than you does not have any reason to disagree with you because you are better than them in the game.
It does not matter how logic, how knowledgeable they may be because at the end of the day, skill is what makes an argument.


Funny. I thought actually proving your argument was considering "truth".
Screw it then, the Bible>arguments criticizing it. its been around much longer.

Proof please?
Really, show where all this bias is, show where all the stupidity is in those arguments.
Show that what has been said is false.
Prove it.

N wait you don't need to because you are good at the game. That automatically means your argument is right.
Its totally not a self defeating argument.
When two people are equally skiled, they are BOTH right. N wait they are both wrong.

yeah this argument has not totally been debunked already. It has totally been used by the likes of adumbrodeus to further the pro ban argument.

this may have been true originally when you had n00bs going. "He's too good." but this surely is not true now.
Again I ask you, prove that the arguments made by others have been completely biased. I want you to go through all of adumbrodeus' argument, and pint out where he has been stupid or biased when he made any argument.



yeah. Everyone here has no clue about melee history. Inf act, they don't know anything about competitive gaming at all.
someone who is good at the game can NEVER be wrong.
Scientists who are better than other scientists are always right when they are criticized by those with less experience.
Kohlberg's study about morality surely should not have been criticized for being sexist.
Freud's argument about the Oedipus complex shouldn't have been criticized.
Oh and his argument about women being less developed morally is true!

The Earth is flat because I can't see past the horizon.
The sky rains because it is sad.
The water is blue because it reflects the sky.
The Sun is as big as the moon.
Wh? i observed it, I experienced it, you have not so what I said must be true!



What? you're saying if you have all the knowledge and strategy you can't play if you don't have prowess? What does that have to do with the argument at hand when we are discussing knowledge and opinions?
Ah but wait! If they don't have prowess, that means they don't have experience and skill which you said is what separates everyone.
lets follow that logic.

Sports announcers don't have the physical prowess.
Oh, wait lets not forget, neither do the coaches!
kick the coaches out.
Ah but wait, the referees don't have the physical prowess either! Kick them out!
Only the players can dictate what to do. They have physical prowess to enact that knowledge and strategy

If they have knowledge and mindset but no skill and experience, does that mean what they say is true but they cannot enact it? Does that mean that their argument was correct when proven logically but they just couldn't do it themselves?
So this would mean if you say A then B, and I say A then B, then what I say is just as valid as yours!

@umbreon: That's not necessarily true since a good amount of people lurked and we have seen that a number of 2008 members are intelligent. I mean most people are dumb, but that can be said for most populations.

Oh and the reason I quoted myself was because I made several changes to the edit and wanted to make sure it was seen since people don't often like to search.

 

[Atomsk_92]

This thread is nothing but a collection of no-names who think their opinions matter (az excluded, since he's only trying to refute the stupidity of the no-names who think their opinions matter).

Our opinions do matter, because we are the competitive scene of the game. We are the elite players who have proven ourselves time and time again by placing well. Whether 49th place reads "bobson" or "shadowlink" nobody gives a ****, you newbies are completely interchangeable.

"Elitist" I love that word. It's like a cop-out for all newbies across the country.

"My opinions do matter!! Who cares if I have never placed well in a tournament or if I have no experience in truly high level play? I know just as much as those who place well, so I should be listened to and respected! Why are all those high level players so ELITIST??"

Do you know why I am "elitist"? Because I am allowed to be. Because I've earned it. Because i've gone to hundreds of tournaments and put enough effort in smash games to be able to reach pro status. (Granted some of you have probably gone to hundreds of tournaments and are still horrible, I have no idea how you guys manage that.. probably your overwhelmingly scrubby attitude or something)

Sorry to break it to you, but "elitism" is the truth. You newbies can go ahead and argue in circles, but in the end it's going to be the opinion of the pros which determine the results of this ongoing argument. Do you know why? Because your arguments are all absolutely stupid and biased, since you have no real experience against good players.

MK is just like Sheik in melee. Sheik was by FAR the best at low levels. She ***** everyone else until you got to a much higher level, and all the newbies cried about it. And here you newbies are - not learning from the mistakes already made in melee - and crying about Metaknight. Metaknight completely dominates at low levels and is definitely easy to pick up, but rather than getting better and you know, leaving low level play, you just cry about metaknight and scream "BAN! BAN!"

But hey, how would you guys know about Sheik in melee since you've all played competitive smash for what, 3 months? I think before people post in this topic they should put links to tournaments where there were good players that they placed well at. That would be a lot less stupidity to sift through.

Wow are you really using this argument? Like, really? Sports are completely physical. It doesn't matter how much you know about the game or how much strategy you have learned, if you do not have the physical prowess, you will not play on the team. Smash is a mental game, sure there are a few sort-of technical things in brawl, but these do not hold back the people in this thread from doing well. It's the KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, and MINDSET of the newbies in this thread that limit them, not the physical button pressing.

Also, have you realized that a LOT of MLB/NFL commentators are FORMER pros, and that they will get the job before anyone else will? Do you know why? Because they HAVE EXPERIENCE actually playing the game at a competitive level.

WOW, you basically made an argument that made mine for me. Thank you, you really are smart.

Yes, facts are indeed facts. But the interpretation of the facts (tournament results are the only thing that can indeed be "fact" in this situation) are completely opinion, and that is what I'm saying is going to only be relevant to what the pros think. Although I do believe there are a few intelligent people in here with opinions that could be respected, there are far too many people like ShadowLink and D.A KID who's stupidity just overshadows everything and forces players like myself to just dismiss anything anyone has to say by default. One human can only handle so much idiocy in one place before they generalize.

Awww, are you in psych 101 right now? That's cute. I'm a psych major actually, it's pretty interesting isn't it?

Also, sorry i've not read through 300 pages of these threads, it's just too much to handle. I'd like to know how the Sheik argument was debunked though, seeing as it is literally the exact same situation as it was in melee.

You've earned hero status in my book XD good **** dude

 

[LinkStrifeLeonhart]

plank has a point. the only people that voted on the MK ban had a credible reputation for smash, either as a player or a TO, but requires tons of experience regardless.


2008 guys can't possibly have that yet.

This has to be sarcasm. But sometimes it's just so hard to tell on these forums.

 

[Plairnkk]

Plank....I know quite a bit about smash myself, and I think my opinion matters. HOWEVER, some people might disagree and just ignore, even if valid points are being brought up. Guess what? Brawl has been out for what...? 8 months? Guess what, bro? EVERYONE'S opinion matters. Even if they are "no-named" as you put it. You don't have to put people down to get your point across. You could just take their opinion, and if it TRULY is off, just point it out with facts. In Brawl, it's still early, and also Elitists don't = truth. They just equal some truth with their head stuck so far up their own butts that they can't be humble about their experience/victories. People who have been around forever feel as if they should be worshipped. Not everyone, mind you, but there are some. The funny part, is that when someone who has been to hundreds of tournaments gets beat by someone who's been 3 or 4. Someone who had that "Pro" reaction, suddenly doesn't seem so great anymore. Still, even if they have proven themselves, the "Elitists" will tear into them tooth and nail. So I hate to say it, but your little evaluation of Elitists = truth is wrong.

But on an argument of whether or not a character should be banned. What really is FACT? Everything except tournament results are debatable. Those are the only way to truly see if a character warrants banning. However, too many other factors come into play when that comes up. What is TOO many Metaknights placing high? At what point does it go from "well he's the best, it should be like that" to "okay that's just ridiculous, there are too many MK's"?

That, again, is up to debate. Not only that, though, think about the other factors that come into tournament placings. Overall skill of players using the character, amount of players using the character, etc. Everything is subjective to ones own opinion and all i'm saying is - in the end - these things need to be determined by much more experienced players, not the players who are posting in threads like this.

 

[Deleted member]

This has to be sarcasm. But sometimes it's just so hard to tell on these forums.

The newest member to vote on the SBR MK ban poll was JesiahTEG who registered in january 2007.

 

[LinkStrifeLeonhart]

The newest member to vote on the SBR MK ban poll was JesiahTEG who registered in january 2007.

Ah, you were talking about the SBR. I didn't catch that.

Though I'm still perplexed about how a date when a person registered for these forums equates to tournament experience.

 

[BrawlLover]

omygosh, that's a ridiculous amount of posts arguing about this topic, all started from the plank

 

[Deleted member]

Ah, you were talking about the SBR. I didn't catch that.

Though I'm still perplexed about how a date when a person registered for these forums equates to tournament experience.

smashboards is essentially a grassroots and a closed community. that is to say, your level of tournament experience is directly proportional to the level of smashboards hosted tournaments you have attended. so unless we can see a given player winning tournaments often or hosting high level tournaments often, we can generally (and accurately) assume that player to have relatively low experience. it has worked so well traditionally that its never really thought of otherwise.

 

[HeroMystic]

Though I'm still perplexed about how a date when a person registered for these forums equates to tournament experience.

It doesn't. However your contributions to the Smash Community is what matters the most. Fact is 08ers generally come here fresh due to Brawl. We may have the knowledge, just not the experience.

 

[Rain(ame)]

But on an argument of whether or not a character should be banned. What really is FACT? Everything except tournament results are debatable. Those are the only way to truly see if a character warrants banning. However, too many other factors come into play when that comes up. What is TOO many Metaknights placing high? At what point does it go from "well he's the best, it should be like that" to "okay that's just ridiculous, there are too many MK's"?

That, again, is up to debate. Not only that, though, think about the other factors that come into tournament placings. Overall skill of players using the character, amount of players using the character, etc. Everything is subjective to ones own opinion and all i'm saying is - in the end - these things need to be determined by much more experienced players, not the players who are posting in threads like this.

Well, thank you for the kind response.^_^

I do agree that it should be left up to more experienced players for the final decision. I also, however, feel that the opinions of other players should be taken into account with their decision. Ultimately, yes, it IS up to the more experienced players. I would trust them to make a completely fair and comprehensive decision.

 

[Atomsk_92]

smashboards is essentially a grassroots and a closed community. that is to say, your level of tournament experience is directly proportional to the level of smashboards hosted tournaments you have attended. so unless we can see a given player winning tournaments often or hosting high level tournaments often, we can generally (and accurately) assume that player to have relatively low experience. it has worked so well traditionally that its never really thought of otherwise.

OMG i am 3rd in NJ, i go to lots of tournys, and i joined in 2006 XD

see the pattern XD

 

[ShadowLink84]

hmm i missed a few things that plank said.

Yes, facts are indeed facts. But the interpretation of the facts (tournament results are the only thing that can indeed be "fact" in this situation) are completely opinion, and that is what I'm saying is going to only be relevant to what the pros think. Although I do believe there are a few intelligent people in here with opinions that could be respected, there are far too many people like ShadowLink and D.A KID who's stupidity just overshadows everything and forces players like myself to just dismiss anything anyone has to say by default. One human can only handle so much idiocy in one place before they generalize.

I love that you add in little ad hominem's and then do nothing to justify what you've said.
The interpretation is not purely opinion, that is a big lie to say such a thing.
The interpretation of that turnament data is also based upon the arguments at hand.

For example AZ shows data showing marth had 33% dominance in tournaments.
He then shows MK has 32%.
looking at the data a number of lgical conclusions were made.

MK is actually more dominant since his results need to be padded. this is due to the fact that there are less tournaments for him to place in and because of the fact that he took up more places than MK.

opinion plays asmall role and one cannot justify what they have said without creating a logical argument.

Also, have you realized that a LOT of MLB/NFL commentators are FORMER pros, and that they will get the job before anyone else will? Do you know why? Because they HAVE EXPERIENCE actually playing the game at a competitive level.

There are a significant number of commentators who have not played in the MLB/NFL/NBA professionally. Let alone that was what my argument was talking about. less skimming more reading.

WOW, you basically made an argument that made mine for me. Thank you, you really are smart.

This is why skimming is bad. Go back and read it fully.

smashboards is essentially a grassroots and a closed community. that is to say, your level of tournament experience is directly proportional to the level of smashboards hosted tournaments you have attended. so unless we can see a given player winning tournaments often or hosting high level tournaments often, we can generally (and accurately) assume that player to have relatively low experience. it has worked so well traditionally that its never really thought of otherwise.

Which i think is actually an issue. People's words are often completely ignored simply on the fact that their join date is 2007/2008.
obviously cases such as jesiah break this idea and people should be evaluated based on what they have said and whether it is well supported. Not just the fact that they are 2008.

 

[LinkStrifeLeonhart]

smashboards is essentially a grassroots and a closed community. that is to say, your level of tournament experience is directly proportional to the level of smashboards hosted tournaments you have attended. so unless we can see a given player winning tournaments often or hosting high level tournaments often, we can generally (and accurately) assume that player to have relatively low experience. it has worked so well traditionally that its never really thought of otherwise.

But does that mean the registration is what matters or the player? Even if there was a person that did well in tournaments but never registered for these forums until this year, would that make all their experience go to waste? Would that mean they aren't knowledgeable at all?

It does sound like there are further factors going into what, I assume, the SBR takes as experience.

OMG i am 3rd in NJ, i go to lots of tournys, and i joined in 2006 XD

see the pattern XD

But what if you were 3rd in NJ, go to lots of tourneys, but didn't join until 08? Does that automatically mean your experience is null?

Also to clarify: I'm not talking about myself nor anyone I can think of. I have admitted to no Smash tourney experience.

 

[Ulevo]

But on an argument of whether or not a character should be banned. What really is FACT? Everything except tournament results are debatable. Those are the only way to truly see if a character warrants banning. However, too many other factors come into play when that comes up. What is TOO many Metaknights placing high? At what point does it go from "well he's the best, it should be like that" to "okay that's just ridiculous, there are too many MK's"?

That, again, is up to debate. Not only that, though, think about the other factors that come into tournament placings. Overall skill of players using the character, amount of players using the character, etc. Everything is subjective to ones own opinion and all i'm saying is - in the end - these things need to be determined by much more experienced players, not the players who are posting in threads like this.

On a note as to what Plank has quoted: it is completely irrelevant if the game has been only around for 8 months. That alone does not mean that everyones opinion is equally credible. That is utter idiocy.

For one, despite Melee and Smash 64 being very different games in their own respective areas, they are still Smash related, and the only games even remotely similar to Brawl. If you were good at either of those, you are likely to have the mind set, experience, and skill level in order to compete well in tournaments. Look at who we have at the top? Mew2King, Azen, Chu, Neo... players that were known as the best of the best in Melee are currently considered the best in Brawl by a majority. Sure, you have other new players like Forte who do very well, but that is a given with a new game. It attracts new players. That does not mean that you should discredit other professional players who will obviously have more experience than you to a sequel of a similar game.

Also, lets assume for arguments sake that everyone on this site did in fact start playing Brawl on the release date (as that isn't the case obviously, since some played the japanese version upon the japanese release date, as well as other members playing after march). Lets also ignore for arguments sake that there were no previously experience Smash players, and everyone was new, meaning no professional players or tournament organizers from Melee or Smash 64. Not everyone who started playing since March's release date has:

1) Gone to tournaments frequently
2) Placed well in tournaments frequently
3) Continuously played Brawl consistently

There are many, many members here who have never been to a single tournament. There are even more who have only entered a few Brawl tournaments, and even some with no previous Smash experience at all prior to Brawl. This isn't even taking in to consideration that most of the members on these boards don't place well, or at least place well consistently, and at well known, high level tournaments.

How the hell does someone who has never been to a smash tournament have an equal professional opinion on the game itself than to those who have spent hundred, if not thousands of dollars, traveled, played significantly more, attended more tournaments and consistently placed well? I'll tell you. They simply don't. This entire site is based around one thing: high level play Smash bros. If you haven't been to, experienced, or witnessed extensively high level play Smash bros., then your opinion does not matter. Seriously?

I mean, there are people in the debate of Meta Knight who have used Ankoku's list as a reference as to why Meta Knight should be banned, who have never attended a tournament in their life, when that exact data reflects tournament records alone. How does one expect to form a proper opinion with no experience to fall back on? You can theory craft bros. all you want. I do it all the time, and it has really helped me to come to proper conclusions about the game as far as testing and studying the game is concerned. But you don't go flaunting your opinion in a debate over it and claim it as fact, especially pertaining to banned a **** character.

Try watching the NFL, NBA, or NHL on a regular basis, and then having a debate about the game with a professional player or commentator. You'll look like a rude, ignorant, stupid moron with no respect to those better or more experienced than yourself, and will not know how to argue the facts accordingly.

That is how these threads have turned sour.

 

[Marsu]

I don't agree that MetaKnight should be banned.....

 

[Atomsk_92]

omg lets wait for the random flame XD

 

[Plairnkk]

Oh, I just read that the SBR voted and a 3:1 non-ban result came out of it, whereas the poll on this thread is winning in favor of banning.

Im actually done posting in this thread, the comparison of polls proves my entire point in this thread.

 

[Atomsk_92]

post in here for the lulz like i do XD

 

[ShadowLink84]

For one, despite Melee and Smash 64 being very different games in their own respective areas, they are still Smash related, and the only games even remotely similar to Brawl. If you were good at either of those, you are likely to have the mind set, experience, and skill level in order to compete well in tournaments. Look at who we have at the top? Mew2King, Azen, Chu, Neo... players that were known as the best of the best in Melee are currently considered the best in Brawl by a majority. Sure, you have other new players like Forte who do very well, but that is a given with a new game. It attracts new players. That does not mean that you should discredit other professional players who will obviously have more experience than you to a sequel of a similar game.

No one is discrediting the pro players.
what is being discredited is the idea that an opinion made y a pro is is greater than someone who is not a pro but then proves their argument and supports it with evidence.
No one is saying, oh well no one listen to m2k.
What is being said is that their opinion is not the final word is by no means, justifies the act f simply ignoring someone purely on the idea that they are less experienced.

it is a terrible idea to do in general.

rest of argument

There are several exceptions to the rule. There are several commentators who have have no experience or skill when it comes t the NBA/NFL etc etc but have proven that they have the knowledge and understanding of the game.
in spite of the fact they would probably get owned in a game, they udnerstand the strategy that is involved.

Your argument is purely ont he idea that the person with no experience or skill has no knowledge of the game. This is not necessarily true because there are people who have little experience or skill within a game but have the knowledge and understanding.

Knowledge, experience and skill do not go hand in hand. You can have knowledge without the other two. We have seen so in many areas such as math, and we have seen it when it comes to sports commentators. We have also seen it in the smash community where several members have shown that great knowledge and understanding.

What is being argued by plank is that you need to have experience and skill to have knowledge which is just not true.
let alone that pros justify their opinion and give the reasoning to that opinion, they do not assume that their opinion automatically justifies their argument.

In a war of opinions no one wins. One can be considered over the other in some cases, but in a debate , such a thing does not become a major factor. Experience and skill may mean ou are closer to what is correct but it does not mean you are correct. You still must justify what you have said.


@plank: how does that prove that in a war of opinions that one is right while the other is wrong? I highly doubt that the SBR simply tossed their opinions out there rather than support what they have said.

 

[XienZo]

Oh, I just read that the SBR voted and a 3:1 non-ban result came out of it, whereas the poll on this thread is winning in favor of banning.

Im actually done posting in this thread, the comparison of polls proves my entire point in this thread.

I already told you guys, cake skews the results.


Anyhow, does this mean SBR isn't going to do anything? Is that vote the actual decision? Have all of Overswarm's efforts gone to waste?

 

[HeroMystic]

Have all of Overswarm's efforts gone to waste?

If anything Overswarm's efforts actually helped the anti-ban side.

 

[Atomsk_92]

"OMG MAN I LIVED AT 180% FROM SNAKE'S UP AIR WITH MK xD"

that helped us so much XD

 

[LinkStrifeLeonhart]

Thanks Ulevo, that helped a great deal.

*clipped*

Try watching the NFL, NBA, or NHL, and then having a debate about the game with a professional player or commentator. You'll look like a rude, ignorant, stupid moron with no respect to those better or more experienced than yourself, and will not know how to argue the facts accordingly.

That is how these threads have turned sour.

While not the same, I'd like to bring up something. Let's say that Mr. so-and-so reviews a book that is in the media spotlight. Let's take Twilight as an example. Let's say that Mr. so-and-so reviews the book and gives it a poor score, giving different reasons. There will obviously be a backlash. So Mr. so-and-so gets mail telling him that he can't criticize the book since he hasn't written a book in the genre or aimed at the same demographic.

Does that make his review less true?


During my short stay outside of the Luigi boards, I've seen pros and those that have a lot of experience talk down to those that are new to the game and generalize. Why? I know you don't want to encourage wrong information, but does it really help to be spiteful? Does it really help to have such an attitude that could drive new players away from the competitive Smash scene and thus hinder it?

There are some 08ers... No, there are some that are new to these forums that talk as if their opinion means everything. Does that mean it's the same for all of those that joined the forums in the same year? Does that mean that the default view should be one that discourages rather than encourages? It's obviously hard and you've more than likely had to put up with the same type of people over the years, but is it really worth it?

This "elitism," whether it is founded or not based on the player, is it really worth it to the competitive scene?

An aside: Sorry if I offended anyone as that wasn't my intention.

 

[ShadowLink84]

"OMG MAN I LIVED AT 180% FROM SNAKE'S UP AIR WITH MK xD"

that helped us so much XD

He never did explain how he did it.

I t was shown that using a Uair~jump does help you live longer as MK. Not sure what the cap is.

 

[BrawlLover]

Oh, I just read that the SBR voted and a 3:1 non-ban result came out of it, whereas the poll on this thread is winning in favor of banning.

Im actually done posting in this thread, the comparison of polls proves my entire point in this thread.

yo come to spoc in december, and bring slikvik

 

[brinboy789]

He never did explain how he did it.

I t was shown that using a Uair~jump does help you live longer as MK. Not sure what the cap is.

even with uair + godly DI + FF, i dont think you can survive a snake uair @ 180, unless its like disgustingly decayedin which im not sure if MK can survive. but that probably isnt the case. since when is uair overused? lol

 

[ShadowLink84]

Who knows. Maybe it was a Uair~shuttle loop?
I want chocolate

 

[HeroMystic]

Maybe it was 80% instead of 180%....

 

[Deleted member]

But does that mean the registration is what matters or the player? Even if there was a person that did well in tournaments but never registered for these forums until this year, would that make all their experience go to waste? Would that mean they aren't knowledgeable at all?

It does sound like there are further factors going into what, I assume, the SBR takes as experience.

honestly, it hasn't come up yet. The only exception I can think of is Caveman from the pro melee scene, who was so far removed from the community that he didn't really share his views on smash at all.

It hasn't come up yet, so I don't have a good answer for you.

 

[ShadowLink84]

honestly, it hasn't come up yet. The only exception I can think of is Caveman from the pro melee scene, who was so far removed from the community that he didn't really share his views on smash at all.

It hasn't come up yet, so I don't have a good answer for you.

What about in cases where they were involved in other competitive games rather than Smash?
Just curious.

 

[BrawlLover]

Maybe it was 80% instead of 180%....

dood lool that's a huge differenece!

 

[gantrain05]

oh well, MK is still ghey, get rid of him already.

 

[BrawlLover]

he's not gonna be banned it seems like

 

[ShadowLink84]

MK is far from banworthy though.

 

[JesiahTEG]

I just want to say, anyone that hasn't played M2K for at least an hour has no reason to ever want MK banned, and you really have no idea what the character is capable of. So if you want him banned and you haven't played M2K a lot, you really have no reason to want him banned at all.

 

[Overswarm]

Maybe it was 80% instead of 180%....

No, it was 180% on Lylat against Noodles' Snake via wifi.

The point was to show that no, MK is not as light as you'd like to believe.

 

[BentoBox]

Here we go again. *locks thread*

edit: why is this thread still moving so fast :<

 

[Ulevo]

No one is discrediting the pro players.
what is being discredited is the idea that an opinion made y a pro is is greater than someone who is not a pro but then proves their argument and supports it with evidence.
No one is saying, oh well no one listen to m2k.
What is being said is that their opinion is not the final word is by no means, justifies the act f simply ignoring someone purely on the idea that they are less experienced.

it is a terrible idea to do in general.

That's the problem. There are members here who discredit pro players. There are members who don't listen to M2K, or even accuse him of lying and relaying false information.

I do not deny that there are intelligent yet less experienced posters here, and I do not deny that a majority of the experienced players shun them out simply because of generalizations (mostly due to the fact that most less experienced posters are not that intelligent). I do not agree with it over all. It's just the reality. I also do not deny that if a less intelligent member presents proper evidence to support an argument, even a pro player should acknowledge that.

The problem lands in where the inexperienced players do not listen to the more experienced players, which has happened extensively since this whole ban Meta Knight garbaged started. You can't deny this.

There are several exceptions to the rule. There are several commentators who have have no experience or skill when it comes t the NBA/NFL etc etc but have proven that they have the knowledge and understanding of the game.
in spite of the fact they would probably get owned in a game, they udnerstand the strategy that is involved.

It isn't just about being a good player who consistently places well. A lot of SBR members are also tournament organizers, or members who have had extensive involvement in the Smash community. I'd be willing to bet that a fair majority of those members could be beaten by some of the better members here who not part of the SBR. That still does not mean they aren't experienced-- they've been there and done that. You cannot equate a tournament organizer who has no significant tournament records who has been hosting since Melee 2006 to someone who just entered the Brawl scene. That's totally silly.

Your argument is purely ont he idea that the person with no experience or skill has no knowledge of the game. This is not necessarily true because there are people who have little experience or skill within a game but have the knowledge and understanding.

Arguement and debate is all about knowledge and understanding. The idea that some less experience members have that is very good. However, because they are less experienced, they simply do not have as much knowledge or understanding of the game as TO's or professional players. There opinion isn't as grounded properly as theirs, even if they understand the concepts of the game well.

Knowledge, experience and skill do not go hand in hand. You can have knowledge without the other two.

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that experienced players have more merit, understanding, and intelligent opinions then that of user123 who joined in March and who has never attended tournaments. Why? Because he lacks experience. Experience doesn't mean the date in which you started playing to the date you stopped, or until the present. It's how much involvement you've had as a player or TO.

We have seen so in many areas such as math, and we have seen it when it comes to sports commentators. We have also seen it in the smash community where several members have shown that great knowledge and understanding.

That's fine and dandy. It does not merit discrediting players with more knowledge, experience, or skill than yourself (in general, not you personally), which has happened extensively.

M2K previously (I believe it was M2K, correct me if I am wrong here) stated that Snake's DTilt beats Meta Knights DTilt. There was also an argument about how Snake's FTilt beats Meta Knights DTilt. I don't remember the specifics, but basically, M2K was wrong on that regard (again assuming if it was him, I can't exactly recall). He simply was. Meta Knights DTilt is longer, and that's that. That is an example of having knowledge and understanding, and how a less experienced player (the member(s) arguing this) can provide factual statements to a professional player, in particular when the professional player is in the wrong.

Does this mean that they can go "No M2K, you're wrong, Snake doesn't have an advantage on Meta Knight" when he has stated otherwise? Not reliably, and not on a very convincing front. The only reason one could be arguing with M2K in that matter appropriately is if they had the tournament experience to relate to his. 9/10 posters who did argue with him, or with other professional players that have contributed to this entire shpeal, didn't have anywhere near their experience (and thus knowledge or understanding overall on the subject). They just argued with him because they thought they were right.

What is being argued by plank is that you need to have experience and skill to have knowledge which is just not true.

No, it isn't true. But you can't expect to have more knowledge on a majority than those with both experience and skill, with which all the professional players have a significant abundance of.

In a war of opinions no one wins. One can be considered over the other in some cases, but in a debate , such a thing does not become a major factor. Experience and skill may mean ou are closer to what is correct but it does not mean you are correct. You still must justify what you have said.

You cannot properly justify what you have said without the experience of what is being said to back up what it is you are saying. I cannot tell you that Marths Fair outranges Meta Knights Fair without first experiencing that. Now, the topic of Meta Knight is not one attack versus another, it is a topic as a whole that involved the competitive community, with which the pros are entirely responsible for producing. A single member with little experience might be able to argue things here and there with their knowledge they have, but they cannot be expected to state that a character cannot be banned when the conditions for making such a decision involve many aspects, of which the professional players know better than anyone.