WE DON'T CARE!
I demand you do it. And that I get pics *goes to otakon yearly*
Were you at Otakon 2006? Because I was.
You come off as more than antagonistic.
You seem to read through his post at top speed, not even taking time to see what it says, never mind thinking about what it means.
He says that he is not asking you the correct questions AND WILL DROP IT.
You don't read the part where he says he will drop it and say that you wish he would drop it. Well guess what, he's already done being all "cryptical".
You jump into the middle of a discussion and assume you know everything about what transpired before. He's spent a good 4 or so posts being all cryptical and finally just giving up. I told him to stop being cryptical (as in "Don't go it ever again") and trying to get me to answer questions the way he wants me to and instead just come straight out and say things.
He doesn't care about what your opinion is now, he's trying to get you to think about your own opinion. I don't care if you think you're right, you clearly haven't given the matter of whether or not we ban for diversity (or rather to maximize diversity) more than a minute's thought after you read it. It astounds me how you can respond to such a well mannered post asking for some discussion in such a negative manner. Regardless of the logic in your post, the way you go about it is shameful.
Who
are you and what gives you the right to be so santicmoneous? How long have
you been a part of this debate? I've been debating the Diversity Argument and the Maximization argument since
January 2008 when the first ban thread ("Ban D3's infinites!") was created.
How could you possibly say I haven't given it more than a minute's thought when I provided factual and logical reasoning for why we do not ban things to maximize anything, especially not diversity?
I'm coming off as antagonistic because
this is my 5th or so post in response to Eyada where he hasn't really made any progress in the debate whatsoever. He writes seemingly well-thought out and eloquent posts, but for 5 posts now, he hasn't really replied to me with anything but cryptic questions he espects me to answer the way he wants me to answer and he's just rewording his argument over and over and over again instead of addressing my arguments which refute the Maximization and Diversity Arguments.
5 posts later, we're still at the starting point. He is still saying "It's a logical evolution of Sirlin's ban criteria". The very fact that he has deemed certain threads of discussion (threads
he originally broguht up) irrelevant (at least for the moment) should tell you something. For the past 5 posts, it's pretty much been circular debate culminating in almost every single thread of discussion eventually getting deemed "irrelevant" and put away for later discussion.
The debate has been stagnated for a few days because he's writing a lot without really saying much (new stuff).
"Please dig me up the rule set of a single Competitive fighting game which was writtenm to maximize Competitive viability. A single one."
The fact that competitive communities don't ban things to maximize diversity or "Competitive viability" (as you put it) is irrelevant. He's arguing for something different. Saying that it is not the norm doesn't matter.
He specifically asked whether or not I believe the goal of a Competitive ruleset is to maximize Competitive viability.
This implies one or both of the following two things:
* He believes the goal is already to maximize Competitive viability
* He believes that
should be the goal
I managed to refute both suppositions with my reply.
Different games can use different methods of banning as it suits them. Pokemon has a completely different method of determining what should be banned. They check each Pokemon against an Offensive, Defensive, and Support Characteristic that makes them Uber. The system works very well for the game.
Yes, and why does Pokémon ban characters which are über? Because they are
over-centralizing the metagame, one of the main reasons to ban in Competitive gaming.
Having said this, there is nothing to suggest that the common way is not inferior to this one, new ideas can be superior.
Did you even read what I write. It would be
stupid to ban things and shape the ruleset to
maximize diversity and/or Competitive viability.
What you should do is argue against his criteria while actually thinking about whether or not you agree with the logical proof. You've actually managed do this a few times, but with a complete lack of civility.
I was perfectly civil up until that post you quoted where I had just had enough of me giving him valid arguments time and time again and he giving me nothing but a rewording of his original argument in return.
And what logical proof? He hasn't really provided much logical proof whatsoever, just his opinion and a few cryptic questions. Which lead me to, after more than an entire day of repetivive inaness, tell him to quit repeating himself. Because, really, eloquent or not, that's not good debating manners.
very well stated twin scimitar. i feel that whenever i post something to yuna he doesnt even take time to sit back and think about what i wrote, even when im asking him to just further explain cuz im interested in what hes trying to say. i feel he just assumes the worst and feels that he needs to post something to show his 'superiority' in knowledge or what not.
This is because you most probably don't even bother looking at what I say but simply concentrate on how I say it.
My cold, take-no-prisoners logical approach to debate can sound antagonistic even when it's just neutral debate without sugar-coating. And even when I'm not being entirely curteous, I'm at least countering your arguments with valid proof, evidence, facts and logic.
But people stare themselves blind at what they perceive to be anything but 100% amicable posting. I
always read what people say and think about how to refute them before replying. I did so especially with
Eyada and gave him the benefit of
a lot of patience because he seems like an intelligent debater.
However, after 5 or so posts of
nothing, I had enough and gave him a rough wake-up call: Start providing new arguments in response to me instead of repeating your old tired ones ad nauseum and not even attempting to refute the opposition.
Because intelligent or not, that's not good debating manners. When debating someone, you should address their points, not ignore them.
yuna, you are very knowledgeable and are very good at arguing. i give you that. i can totally agree with you when someone is obviously an idiot and trying to argue with invalid points. i wouldnt listen to them either. but, when someone does argue with you and they do have well thought out points that do seem to follow a logical order, just try and consider what they are saying. just try to have a more open mind. most people are not out to make you look bad. they just wanna try to get you to understand their point and get it acknowledged.
Read
Eyada's posts. Read mine in response to his. Read his in response to mine.
Whenever he brings up new points, I address them and at least attempt to counter them. Most of the time when I do it, he eventually declares the thread of discussion "irrelevant" or just repeats what he said earlier.
i think everyone should have an open mind when it comes to the MK being banned discussion. personally, i dont think MK should be banned. but, i still read what everyone has to say and acknowledge it when they do have a good reason.
That's like asking me to have an open mind when some bigots want to ban gay marriage. I'm not going to have an open mind to every argument. I'm going to stand by my beliefs and my convinctions until
proven wrong. That's how I approach debating.
Which was what, really? Lies and exaggeration? The other Top Tiers do not have plenty of Counters nor is Marth "unsafe" without MK around. Minorly disadvantageous match-ups =/= counters/renders characters unsafe.
He was discussing the fact that there aren't any successful competitive games with only one viable option. Why mention 3S? Yun isn't the only viable character in 3S, so mentioning that game doesn't refute his point. You mentioned Chun-Li in your refutation, so it's clear that you know that 3S isn't just Yun.
3S is
all Chun-Li. If you look at the EVO results, it's pretty much Chun, Chun, Chun, maybe Yun, Chun, Chun, maybe Ken, Chun Chun. 3S is
all about a single character.
In 3S, Yun has zero disadvantageous match-ups and his worst match-up, I believe a single one, is a 50-50. He's literally the MK of 3S. The reason why Chun-Li wins tournaments more is because she only suffers a 40-60 against Yun whilst the rest of her match-ups are generally
better than Yun's, so overall, she has an easier path to victory. It's the equivalent of if Snake had zero disadvantageous match-ups besides against MK, a 55:45, with the rest being much better than MK's overall.
So, 3S,
one of the successfull Competitive fighting games in the history of Competitive fighting games is
all about a single character. 3S is in exactly the same boat as Brawl. It's a perfectly valid example.
Just because there is a small difference doesn't mean Yun isn't the theoretical MK while Chun-Li is the practical MK.
While I agree that community health is important, I'm hesitant to accept that something making the game boring is a valid reason for a ban. I strongly agree that one option dominating the game is a dire situation that can lead to the death of the community, and I strongly agree that a ban is needed; but I don't think it is acceptable to attribute the ban to the metagame being "boring". "Boring" is too subjective. Moreover, any time some random scrub started complaining that something made the game "boring", what justification would we have to refute his argument? "Well, uh, the difference is...., uh, Akuma made the game extremely boring, you stupid Scrub. You're complaining about fireball spamming? That's not boring, that's fun. Your opinion is stupid, and our opinion is right." Using opinions as justification seems like a very untenable position.
You're strawmanning or at least not reading the word "boring" in context. Let me use a different word:
The metagame becomes
exceptionally tedious. So tedious, in fact, that people quit en masse.
The tediousness is not what makes an over-centralization faction ban-worthy,
I never said that. Simply being "boring" is not enough. However, if something is so boredom-inducing that the vast majority of the community quits the game and the scene
dies, it needs to be banned.
This is flat-out intellectual dishonesty; and it is needlessly vitriolic.
How is this dishonest? I was replying to something you said. And what part of "Overall, I don't see why you would think I was arguing for an IC-ban." is "needlessly vitriolic", really?
"abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will"
Please point out which part of the sentence "Overall, I don't see why you would think I was arguing for an IC-ban." is vitriolic.
This is dishonesty.
I made a post claiming that, according to the diversity argument, all Infinites in Brawl except for the IC Infinites should be banned.
This is what you said:
It helps if you list which characters you mean, but
I'll address the characters I think you're talking about.
First, Ganondorf and Captain Falcon. Both of whom are ***** by a vast number of characters.
So they wouldn't be viable even if IC's were banned.
Next, Bowser. The various character boards disagree on this match-up. The IC and Bowser boards agree that
the IC's **** him, but the Diddy boards and ZSS boards also apparently think that they **** Bowser. I don't really agree that Sheik ***** him, but Zelda/Sheik probably has an advantage. D3 obviously ruins him if the Infinite is legal. (Which it shouldn't be.) Regardless, this isn't a clear cut case,
so it is difficult to say that banning the IC's would make Bowser viable.
Next, Sheik and Fox. As to Fox, Sheik, Pikachu, and ZSS **** him. As to Sheik, yeah, it's a hard match-up, but I think 80-20 and perhaps even 70-30 is pushing it a bit. This is even less relevant given that one of Sheik's moves causes her to turn into Zelda, and Zelda
can handle the IC's.
Edit: Forgot the good King. D3 hates life
when he has to face IC's, but he hates life even more when he has to face Falco.
Overall,
I fail to see how banning the IC's would result in increased diversity.
You wrote an entire mini-essay about addressing the characters you thought I was talking about and spent most of the essay talking about IC's. That was your response.
To my claim that according to the dishonesty argument, several characters need to be banned. How,
how,
how could you then go on to chastise me and accuse me of intellectual dishonesty and vitriol when I simply state that I was never talking about ICs being banned?
Your refutation is that you were simply expressing how according to the Diversity Argument, all infinites besides IC's infinites need to be banned. Well guess what,
we were never talking about infinites in the first place. We were talking about
characters.
You
misread my post and then went on to argue
something else completely.
You are saying that, according to diversity argument, the IC's would need to be banned. In other words, you are "arguing for an IC-ban" as a result of the diversity argument.
So not only are you being dishonest, you are doing so in a condescending and rude fashion, when I've been nothing but extremely courteous to you.
Could that be because you were arguing something else entirely from what I originally brought up, either misreading me or intentionally strawmanning me? I was just perplexed that you thought I was addressing the ICs at all, which lead me to say that I didn't see what could make you think I was talking about them.
I'm not here for a competition, Yuna. I'm not here to prove you wrong, make you look bad, or try to tear you down as some sort of demented means of bloating my sense of self-worth. I'm not looking to keep a tally of who said what, who was proven wrong, or right, or even if someone needs to retract a statement because discussion has shown it to be invalid. I don't care. I really don't. I'm not here to "win", I'm here to find the best solution to the problem.
I've already written why my latest post randomly went antagonistic:
Because after 5 or so posts (each), we haven't gotten anywhere because you're not providing me with any new material. You're just repeating yourself at this point.
And the whole IC-debacle arose from you
misreading my post and then acting all sanctimoneous when I went "Wait, what?"
I'm here to try to find a resolution to this problem that will help the community move past this damaging, divisive discussion.
Here's the solution:
Shut up and play the **** game. Stop whining, if you want diversity, provide it
yourself. There are plenty of viable characters besides Meta Knight.
No, really, that's the solution. The only reason why there is a problem is because people think Brawl should be about maximizing diversity and whatnot. The game is perfectly playable with MK legal.
I'm here to have an honest, academic discussion; I am not here to prove anyone wrong.
Your language has been perfectly academic. Your arguments have been repeated ad nauseum without the provision of any new material for quite some time (in your responses to me) + the fact that you keep bringing up discussion threads and later declaring them "irrelevant", further wasting my time.
Our debate insofar has yielded
zero despite the fact that I provided you with a lot of facts, evidence, logical statements and proof. Now I don't know if you're aware of it, but you
have been going in circles for these past few days.
My goal is simply to try to find the truth so that the community can make the best decision possible. I am not trying to warp Sirlin's criteria in some sinister, underhanded fashion in order to justify an "idiotic" system as a means of forwarding some sort of agenda. I do not have any hidden agenda. I am neither pro-ban nor anti-ban. All I have is an open mind and a desire to amicably debate so that, together, we can reach a better solution to this problem.
Your "agenda" is the Diversity Argument and the Maximization Argument, both of which I vehemently disagree with and both of which I have soundly refuted. In response, you have given me nothing. Which is what lead to my previous outburst.
Right now, I believe that the diversity argument could be helpful to the community, so I am working on proofs for it. I'm not interested in doing so to earn any sort of acclaim; again, I just want to find the truth.
The Diversity Argument
could helpful...
if you didn't argue that we should maximize diversity. I'd still disagree with it, but at least then it wouldn't be almost entirely fallacious.
If that's really the case, then further discussion between us is a waste of time. If you are going to simply refuse to give any sort of serious consideration to my argument regardless of any proof I might present, then you aren't actually interested in debating.
What proof, really?! What proof have you provided besides what you originally provided and then repeating yourself ad nauseum and pretty much
ignoringmy proof?!
I was perfectly curteous to you. I gave you several chances to respond to my arguments. You
didn't.
As such, I'll just focus on getting my argument up on Sirlin's forums and having a discussion there.
To anyone here who is interested, I'll post any conclusions garnered during my discussions on Sirlin's forums later if they are helpful to moving this discussion forward.
I will bet you good money Sirlin will reject your argument as well.
Edit: As a final note, Yuna, I think it would do you some good to re-read the section in Playing to Win where Sirlin discusses what should or should not be banned. In particular, look at the Old Sagat example. Read through it carefully, and then think. Sirlin never comes right out and says it, but he is talking about banning for diversity in that section. While he doesn't unconditionally embrace the idea, he admits that the Japanese decision to soft-ban Old Sagat in order to increase diversity has merit.
Has
some merit. And it's a
soft ban. And he says he's not
sure where or not it has merit. Also, that was only with
several (5?) years of data to back it up.
The situation is entirely different. Also,
what he says does not support the argument that we should ban to maximize diversity.
If you want to argue for
soft bans,
be my guest. I'll just
ignore any such bans if I deem them illogical.
I'm not claiming that that constitutes some sort of complete endorsement of the diversity argument by Sirlin. I don't think Sirlin is aware of or endorses the diversity argument. However, it is very telling that he mentions the idea of banning to increase diversity as part of discussing his criteria for a ban. It is a subtle sign that there might be more to his ideas than he discusses in the book.
No one is arguing that we should never ban to increase diversity. The entire point of banning because of over-centralization is to prevent too great a loss of diversity. I.e., we ban for diversity.
However,
we do not and should never ban to maximize diversity.
That is what I think is idiotic with your criteria. I've
bolded the word
maximize (and any words from the same word family) every time I've used it to make sure that it was emphasized enough that no one would think I was arguing that we should never ban for the sake of diversity, ever, only that we shouldn't ban to
maximize diversty.
Banning to maximize anything is stupid, IMO.
I don't know if you're aware of it, but you spent a lot of this post strawmanning or misreading my previous posts. This is what ticked me off. Because while you are eloquent, intelligent and can write valid arguments, you misread and strawman me and argue in circles a lot.
And a person who is intelligent and a good debater should know better than to do this. I make no judgments on your person. I do not wish to attack your character. I'm just ticked off at the way you've debated for the past few posts.
If you go back and re-read my posts, you'll see how you missed a lot of what I was saying, even when I was staying perfectly civil with you. Which lead me to lose patient and stop giving you more leeway than I give any run-of-the-mill poster.
I wanted to have meaningful debate with you, I really did. And we still can. Please go back and re-read my posts with an open mind, especially the ones before I had enough and stopped being curteous. And please address the points you have yet to address. Because I feel like we can still have very meaningful and mutually beneficial debate.
Honest question.
does any character utilise planking to anywhere close to the effectiveness of MK?
As far as I can tell, no other character planks NEARLY as well as MK. The only one I can really think of is Pit, and personally, I think MK is leagues better at it.
So, in my mind, planking was banned specifically to deal with MK.
IDC was also a Meta-only factor that was banned in tournament.
So from my personal point of view, it seems to me that we already have two bans exclusively in the rules to deal with MK yet he is still winning aby far the most tourneys.
It may not to everyone, but to me, that = broken character. Just imagine if we really played to win and let people plank and IDC with MK to their heart's content
Planking and IDC were banned because they are
stalling tactics. At least the IDC was. Planking isn't even universally banned.
We banned a jillion stages in Melee because Fox could auto-win on them through walk-off shine comboing or running away. Are you saying we should just ban Fox straight off in Melee?
Also, didn't you already bring this up several times in the past and didn't I refute you with these very same arguments every single one of those times? How quickly the young forget.
