Most of them are intelligent posters from the Melee era. You can't understand something like the MK issue simply by reading text.
Actually... you really SHOULD.
No individual match can illustrate MK's overall dominance so personal expirience is relatively speaking, moot.
Granted individuals who are more skilled TEND to have a better understanding of the overall metagame, but when we're dealing with the SBR the primary qualification for continued membership seems to be intellectual ability, which when dealing with calculating large-scale effects on the metagame, is what you need.
The only exception is TO expirience, which is still very limited in applying to a scale as massive as the overall metagame.
When the discussion focuses on individual match-ups, more experienced players do however, have a decided advantage in understanding. However, that is not an insurmountable obstacle because a high enough level of logical ability can trump understanding gained through more expirience, and there are correct shots in the dark. That's why appeals to authority don't work in reality.
Overall however, there's no way to judge this overall other then theorycraft, and if MK isn't a big enough issue that text cannot convey it... well that puts his ban-worthiness in serious doubt.
then how do you explain losing the poll =/
Average player tends to have a knee-jerk reaction, and banning MK is a knee-jerk reaction to losing a lot.
Hahaha, they kicked me out of the SBR today for posting the info about how there are hardly any tournament players in the anti-ban side. The Smash community has awesome leadership
That's because you broke the rules dude.
I'm sorry but the backroom is private for a very good reason, and aside from official releases, and maybe generalities ("here's why it didn't work out", "I didn't vote like this(and only I, outing others is a no-no)", etc.) discussions in the backroom should REMAIN THERE.
It's like the supreme court, if they are to be held personally liable for their decisions, that might make them choose differently. That's why the discussions are always private in both forums.
Furthermore to maintain legitimacy, I would argue that the SBR requires privacy, because their methods of arriving at conclusions might seem to the average tournament goer, wrong. Being able to pick apart the process in such a way definitely will hurt their legitimacy and might compromise their position as a governing body. I didn't realize this before, but after studying the US Supreme Court, now I do.
So please Lee, you are in the wrong here. Don't compound the issue.
lol Overswarm I won't deny that I'm a jacka
ss sometimes, but I've done a lot in tournaments and earned a bit of arrogance.
Arrogance is never earned because it blinds you to the truth, not in any specific case but in general it hurts your ability to make logical decisions.
I would think it impossible to "argue" frame data considering it never changes.
Argue BASED ON frame data, I'm pretty sure he meant that.
I do agree, one of the major issues is that no one really knows what is going on within the SBR unless we are told which is rather rare.
I think it would help to ease the tension that goes on in smashboards if they give their opinion more often on those issues.
*shrug*
I can't really understand why they wish to be incredibly quiet about what hey discuss. Some things I can understand, other things I would like them to be more open about.
I understand why you'd want that.
But realistically speaking, it wouldn't be a good thing. The loss of legitimacy would be too fracturing to the community and it would make the members to vulnerable to being influenced by the mob mentality that these issues bring up.
Having elected reps participate in discussions MIGHT help ease the situation without compromising the legitimacy and independence of the SBR, but transparency is a BAD idea.
