Should Metaknight be Banned? ***Take 3***

[salaboB]

4. I think you completely missed Yuna's point. I'll put it in different terms for you. Tier ****** (if they indeed exist) will always be tier ******. If the only reason they are playing Metaknight is because he is the best, then they will flock to the next best character, whoever that turns out to be regardless of how difficult it may end up being to determine. It also holds nothing to the argument at hand, because it is more popularity based than not. If there is more than one viable character, then there is no real reason other than popularity for them to exhibit this behavior.

Yuna's point was aimed at me, based on past discussions we've had.

I haven't actually bothered with that argument in ages so as I said it wasn't really related, but I still believe he's incorrect about what will happen as far as character selection goes - his point needs proving that there will in fact be one best character if MK is gone, and he did not provide this evidence (I don't blame him, it's pretty much theory on both sides so neither of us will be able to prove it unless the ban happens). If nothing else though, I believe that Marth losing his worst matchup should noticably shake things up since the rest of his matchups are quite solid.

 

[Sawdust]

Bowser is probably 60:40 in Meta Knights disadvantage, tyvm.

Edit:
Or are you speaking of bad matchups in the sense of hard counter matchups? If so, then we'd have to ban:
Meta Knight
Snake
Wario
Kirby
Marth (since Meta Knight is his only hard matchup, and with Meta Knight gone, he has no more bad matchups)
Peach (since with Meta Knight, Snake and Marth gone, her hard counters have disappeared)
Pikachu (with Marth gone, his only hard counter is, too!)
Mr. Game & Watch (with Marth and Snake gone, his hard counters have vanished)
Falco (with Kirby and G&W gone, he has no more hard counters)


and probably some more I've forgotten or can't tell the matchups off of my head. But I think you see the trend.

MK-Bowser is at least a 55-45 in MK's favor look it up on either bowser or MK's matchup thread, i have no idea where you're getting your data from other than personal opinion. Also every other character in your hypothetical ban list has at least 1 40:60 matchup.

And his lack of bad matchups is not the only reason to support the ban, albeit it is the primary one and that is why everyone is always screaming it. Metaknight is capable of punishing somewhat quick attacks with a killing downsmash (or a number of other options that I'm not about to list), forcing players to limit their moveset to solely their fastest moves, or be taking extreme risks on any slower attack they try to preform.

 

[adumbrodeus]

EDIT: @RK Joker being a smash debater doesn't mean that much,it's really just a cool title

Not true, it means that you're reasonably proficent at debating in theory.

This is true of most of the Smash Debaters who I've seen participating in the MK ban discussion threads. While there are obviously exceptions (A couple I do really respect) it seems to be more standard that they can't handle a debate in a forum like these threads present.

Ok, I can't speak for the ones that were grandfathered in, but currently the debate hall has REALLY STRICT admission policies, so the people who got through the proving grounds really deserve it.

If you check the newer debate hall members, you'll notice that they all have good understandings of how to debate including a good grasp of how to properly structure arguments and generally how to cite needed sources, in other words, the basics of debate.



That said, just because they have the skills doesn't mean they necessarily use them all the time. Darxmarth23 is actually pretty good at debating.

@salaboB:Yeah it's truly a shame. I remember when I used to think that Smash Directors were all really smart. Disproven. I figured at least Smash Debaters, but some of them were here before the Proving Grounds.

You have my personal guarentee that every single smash debator that went through the proving grounds at least is able to debate well. They can't get through unless nominated by debate hall members and approved by the 3 debate hall mods.

Yeah, we're REALLY harsh on the new debators, and accept only a few.

 

[Pez55]

Not true, it means that you're reasonably proficent at debating in theory.

Sorry, I didn't mean to generalize.

 

[swordgard]

I guess this is the sort of disconnect between "theorycrafters" and "empiracists" in smash, but the fact is while empirical knowledge does help, theoretical knowledge (like frame data) and sufficent intelligence can replace them.

You see, empirical knowledge always has the problem of induction to contend with, so we can never be sure that we're not missing something that simply hasn't come up.

Theory technically has that issue, but since it's not limited to first-hand expirience you can theorize possibilities and test them using the technical details of the game.

Ultimately, I'd take the word of a genius who knows all the technical details of the game over M2K's.



Frame data tells us what is actually humanly possible, with sufficent practice people CAN be frame perfect. How else could people do things like the JC shine infinite at all (keeping it up indefinately is not humanly possible, but the fact that it can be done at all illustrates my point)? What about frame-perfect wavedashing (hold the screw attack and wavedash next to a character to check if you're frame perfect, it hits on frame 1 of the jump)?


There's a LOT people can do with enough practice, including percision down to 1/60 of a second.



Pretty much.

But no, it will ALWAYS be more offensive, period. How much depends on the level of latency.

The reason is because latency causes moves to be safer, take for example Marth's foreward smash. In offline brawl, it has 32 net frames of lag on shield (untippered). At the top of the metagame, we have 7 frames to react, and the average brawl player requires about 10 frames, we'll use the average for this example because it's online. 22 frames, plenty of tiny to use a start-up heavy attack, and even walk foreward, but what about with latency? What if we have 22 frames of latency? Suddenly you'd have to react exactly when the shield was hit in order to punish.

What about 25? Net frame advantage to Marth, now the move is effectively unpunishable.


And that's only if you predict the move, after 3 frames, you have to predict the foreward smash at the top of the metagame because it takes 10 frames to come out.



That's what it comes down to, the more lag, the more moves become safe and it becomes a lot harder to react to and defend against moves.

That makes the game more offensive, because latency gives the attacker an advantage, the greater the latency, the more the advantage.





Sorry Yuna, you'll have to drop by the states and play me to see my sexiness.




He plays a lot like MK except more defensive instead of offensive, but MK totally outclasses him.

If MK were gone he'd be an amazing character, but MK totally negates his influence on the metagame.

Oh, but you cant do the grab to become inescapable for so many reasons.

You need to know exactly how much time the grab has been on for AND know how many inputs the other has done(some people go by sound, but some people mash buttons silently and sound wont tell you exactly how many input there was). The grab is not infinite even if done perfectly because it requires knowledge that you do not have(how many inputs the other did) and of course the inhuman math knowledge with frames and stuff.


Oh and your post about online is true, and online makes you have to find simple and fast solutions to overpowering moves(Nado=hard to punish online, so you need to find easier ways, meaning offline it becomes a joke, same for many of MKs move, due to his long range and speed, he can attack and you often cant react, so you gotta learn new stuff)

 

[salaboB]

That said, just because they have the skills doesn't mean they necessarily use them all the time.

I'd even say that, unfortunately, they often seem to use having the title of "Smash Debater" as justification for not fully supporting their statements. This leads to points slipping through that often are even more pure-opinion than the people they're arguing with (In these not-official debate threads, I'm not speaking at all of the official places where the received the title.)

 

[thrillagorilla]

Yuna's point was aimed at me, based on past discussions we've had.

I haven't actually bothered with that argument in ages so as I said it wasn't really related, but I still believe he's incorrect about what will happen as far as character selection goes - his point needs proving that there will in fact be one best character if MK is gone, and he did not provide this evidence (I don't blame him, it's pretty much theory on both sides so neither of us will be able to prove it unless the ban happens). If nothing else though, I believe that Marth losing his worst matchup should noticably shake things up since the rest of his matchups are quite solid.

I apologize, I should have been more clear in my statement. I meant popularity based in that there are other viable characters. There is nothing forcing these players to pick the best character in order to win, therefore it is a popularity based decision rather than a necessitated one. That was what I meant, and I apologize if it does miss-represent what Yuna was trying to say.

As to predicting the future; we can only speculate what will happen until it happens, so nothing to really argue there. IDK about Marth. It could also be that his match-ups would become worse due to more experience in the community without Metaknight. We don't know, and likely won't unless there is a major shift in the meta-game or Metaknight gets banned.

 

[|RK|]

You have my personal guarentee that every single smash debator that went through the proving grounds at least is able to debate well. They can't get through unless nominated by debate hall members and approved by the 3 debate hall mods.

Yeah, we're REALLY harsh on the new debators, and accept only a few.

I know. I'm currently a temp debater.

 

[Yuna]

um no very few characters are as easy and quick to pick up and learn than metaknight look at melee there was no universal character that everyone complained about do you know why no one cared if marth or fox got banned? because marth and fox had his neutral and bad matchups and bad stages also because of the extra hitstun and the combos that melee had punishing 1 mistake in melee is like punishing 5 mistakes in brawl

1) How easy a character is to pick up has no bearing on this discussion.
2) Brawl is not Melee. There are characters who, with MK gone, will all vie for the spot of "Easiest path to victory" in certain ways.
3) Obviously match-up ratios and character viability have hitstun in mind.

I haven't argued that for a long time.

To respond anyway, the new "Easiest Path to Victory" may not be as clear cut a choice as MK currently is. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it won't be so easily determined. Was it so obvious whether you should main Marth, Fox, or Sheik in Melee? (I know Marth won the most tournaments, but is that due to him being so obviously the best choice or simply the most popular among the best players?)

Then what the hell are you arguing, really? You say MK must be banned. OK... why?

Because MK is the easiest path to victory. People flock to him. There is no need to flock to anyone else since he has no bad match-ups. Well, with MK gone, there'd be a new easiest path to victory, one people would flock to. This path would maybe have one or two 40-60s or 45-55s, so if people really wanted to, they could also pick up secondary. So the best you can hope for by banning MK is people flocking to X character while wielding someone else as a counterpick. Yay!

^How on Earth did you become a Smash Debater? Your posts hold no real structure and your arguments are obviously baseless conjecture via bias.

Is there some way to tell if someone is a Debater or did he actually lose his Debater rights between the time you wrote this post and the time I read it?

This is true of most of the Smash Debaters who I've seen participating in the MK ban discussion threads. While there are obviously exceptions (A couple I do really respect) it seems to be more standard that they can't handle a debate in a forum like these threads present.

Basically your excuse is "Well, everyone else is doing it!"?

MK-Bowser is at least a 55-45 in MK's favor look it up on either bowser or MK's matchup thread, i have no idea where you're getting your data from other than personal opinion. Also every other character in your hypothetical ban list has at least 1 40:60 matchup.

Old, outdated threads that do not take into mind discoveries made a few days ago, among other things.

And his lack of bad matchups is not the only reason to support the ban, albeit it is the primary one and that is why everyone is always screaming it.

It's an idiotic reason.

Metaknight is capable of punishing somewhat quick attacks with a killing downsmash (or a number of other options that I'm not about to list), forcing players to limit their moveset to solely their fastest moves, or be taking extreme risks on any slower attack they try to preform.

Wow, how horrible! You need to be safe and play smart against him! Say it ain't so!

 

[Darxmarth23]

^How on Earth did you become a Smash Debater? Your posts hold no real structure and your arguments are obviously baseless conjecture via bias.

Because, sir:
We debaters posses interests in morals, philosophy, and policy outside of brawl and have the mental capacity to argue upon them. If I wanted to put my sentence in a way of which someone would expect a debater to, i would have. But then I recall that I argued my *** off, like a debater, 200 pages ago. I simple put in this sentence to summarize, once again, what my arguments were basically about.
Even though I did not go through the proving grounds, I did survive months of purging, in which the mods cut loose all of the inactive and crappy debaters. You simply judged me because of a few recent posts I made. In the debate hall, we are on fire, but out here we can post as we like.

Does that answer your question, sir?

I'd even say that, unfortunately, they often seem to use having the title of "Smash Debater" as justification for not fully supporting their statements. This leads to points slipping through that often are even more pure-opinion than the people they're arguing with (In these not-official debate threads, I'm not speaking at all of the official places where the received the title.)

If we wanted to debate out here just like how we do in the debate hall, we could. But its a waste of time when you can simple spit the words out and then type them up.

 

[|RK|]

Wasn't talking to salaboB. The debater above him. Figured since I said debater, it'd be easy enough to tell...

 

[Darxmarth23]

Wasn't talking to salaboB. The debater above him. Figured since I said debater, it'd be easy enough to tell...

My response is above.

 

[|RK|]

Why is it that the pro-bans end with the same excuse? "I was civil a couple hundred pages ago!" I don't care. Post sensibly as your rank would imply.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Sorry, I didn't mean to generalize.

No, it wasn't the generalization that I was taking issue with, it's actually the lack thereof.

Debators are held to a higher standard then the average smashboards member to achieve acess, and while I can't speak for the ones that were grandfathered in, as long as I've been a member, we've always had strong admission processes to cull out people who cannot debate.

So, on average, a smash debator SHOULD be a better debator then your average smashboards user, so yes generalize, the right way.

Oh, but you cant do the grab to become inescapable for so many reasons.

You need to know exactly how much time the grab has been on for AND know how many inputs the other has done(some people go by sound, but some people mash buttons silently and sound wont tell you exactly how many input there was). The grab is not infinite even if done perfectly because it requires knowledge that you do not have(how many inputs the other did) and of course the inhuman math knowledge with frames and stuff.

I'm sorry, that's incorrect because you can do it on reaction, you don't need to know when you'll break out because you've got plenty of time to react to the break-out itself.

You see, the 10 frame window is the difference between the time it takes Bowser to recover from an opponent breaking out of his grab, and an opponent breaking out of his grab to recover from the breakout (most of them anyway, DK is wierd, as is squirtle, lucas, and ness), for ground breaks of course.


However, Bowser still has 20 frames before he can move after the grab break, that's a good 7 more then the human average and 10 frames more then what seems to be the brawl average and 13 frames more then the aproximate top of the metagame. After that, it's all muscle memory.

I'd even say that, unfortunately, they often seem to use having the title of "Smash Debater" as justification for not fully supporting their statements. This leads to points slipping through that often are even more pure-opinion than the people they're arguing with (In these not-official debate threads, I'm not speaking at all of the official places where the received the title.)

...

Then crush them, people often do that when they think their opponent won't be able to respond to it. Crush them when they do that and they should respond with better points. Basically, it's being lazy, but it's understandable because the general quality of tactical discussion is rather low.

I know. I'm currently a temp debater.

I know, lol.

More for the benefit of everyone else then you personally, I do want to establish that debators are a cut above in general.

Even though I did not go through the proving grounds, I did survive months of purging, in which the mods cut loose all of the inactive and crappy debaters.

Oh crap, I totally forgot about purging.

Also probably should've bolded that you were good, but whatever.

 

[|RK|]

Ah. Well, I apologize for the generalizations.

 

[RDK]

People who have no idea about the rigors of Debate Hall admission should probably not be talking about whether or not Smash Debater is an empty title.

That being said, unless there is across-the-board tournament evidence that suggests, within reason, that MK warrants a ban, there's no point in making yet another MK-ban thread. Everybody knows what happened with the last 2. People who have no idea what they're talking about make ridiculous demands without realizing the implications of banning Metaknight. And then it just turns into a pissing match.

Also, glad to see Yuna's back.

 

[Darxmarth23]

Why is it that the pro-bans end with the same excuse? "I was civil a couple hundred pages ago!" I don't care. Post sensibly as your rank would imply.

Because I don't want to take pages of posts, and post the again, re edited or not. And you saw most, if not all of my posts back then. My rank implies that I can debate about real life, down to earth issues that i take interest in. Not this crap. I post like how I want. Everyone can.

Ah. Well, I apologize for the generalizations.

Don't do it again.

People who have no idea about the rigors of Debate Hall admission should probably not be talking about whether or not Smash Debater is an empty title.

That being said, unless there is across-the-board tournament evidence that suggests, within reason, that MK warrants a ban, there's no point in making yet another MK-ban thread. Everybody knows what happened with the last 2. People who have no idea what they're talking about make ridiculous demands without realizing the implications of banning Metaknight. And then it just turns into a pissing match.

Also, glad to see Yuna's back.

I want this thread to be locked. We pro bans are waiting for another thesis.

I too am glad Yuna is back.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Its official, close the topic. RDK laid out everything that needed to be said.

*packs up bags*
LETS GO!

hey RDK, I don't want to have to fight for smash debater rights. Can I just hae the pink title so I can act happy and gay?

 

[|RK|]

Well you aren't actually helping yourself by posting ignorantly when you happen to be capable of otherwise. 'Tis laziness. But, heh, I'm one to talk. I stopped debating a while back, myself.

 

[Darxmarth23]

Oh crap, I totally forgot about purging.

Also probably should've bolded that you were good, but whatever.

Lol. You have a problem with me?

I know I don't post as often, but the hall isn't that fun to post in.

I like politics, and such.

 

[betterthanbonds9]

MK won't be banned because there's a large view that "people that suck" dont want him. Meanwhile "skilled" players will just view him as the best, but not TOO good.

that's just my view of this, it seems that most of the SBR is against the ban and other people are requiring super obvious proof before a ban ever happens....

But the real reason why i posted: Who the heck is Da-D-Mon-109 and why is he messaging me about this thread? I'm unable to vote again so it seems redundant....

 

[Darxmarth23]

Well you aren't actually helping yourself by posting ignorantly when you happen to be capable of otherwise. 'Tis laziness. But, heh, I'm one to talk. I stopped debating a while back, myself.

Then lets bury the hatchet here before you inch your self into being a hypocrite.

 

[|RK|]

Ah, geez. Is he still trying to gather all of those votes?

...anyways, Smash Debater isn't a post count thing. It's a Board Usergroup.

 

[Darxmarth23]

MK won't be banned because there's a large view that "people that suck" dont want him. Meanwhile "skilled" players will just view him as the best, but not TOO good.

that's just my view of this, it seems that most of the SBR is against the ban and other people are requiring super obvious proof before a ban ever happens....

But the real reason why i posted: Who the heck is Da-D-Mon-109 and why is he messaging me about this thread? I'm unable to vote again so it seems redundant....

I've seen someone with just 300 posts become a debater. And I have also seen someone with just 4 posts become a Broomer. Post counts don't mean a thing.

 

[mafain]

After seeing Ally rip M2K at apex, was it apex?, on utube, im gonna have to withdraw my previous comment. MK= shouldnt be banned

 

[RDK]

hey RDK, I don't want to have to fight for smash debater rights. Can I just hae the pink title so I can act happy and gay?

If we did let you in just for the name, that would A) be showing favoritism, and would B) tarnish the spotless reputation of the DH members.

 

[ShadowLink84]

After seeing Ally rip M2K at apex, was it apex?, on utube, im gonna have to withdraw my previous comment. MK= shouldnt be banned

So you believe that one match, in a game where the MK user was doing unsatisfactory, is valid proof? Rather than looking at a trend?

 

[Darxmarth23]

So you believe that one match, in a game where the MK user was doing unsatisfactory, is valid proof? Rather than looking at a trend?

This. Now that there has been a bump in the graph, we need to see where, why, and how it happened, as well as how limited these bumps are.

 

[|RK|]

A trend, you say? That doesn't help at all. Think about it. M2K has won every national tournament, except for a few exceptions. Would a trend really help anything? We know that MK has won most national tournaments; what's the point?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Ah. Well, I apologize for the generalizations.

What generalization, what you should be apoligizing is the lack of generalization, you are suggesting that a generalization about debate hall members as being better on average at debating then the average smashboards user is unwarranted.


The newer members went through a rigourious admissions process, the older ones survived the purge. In both cases, it was based on their debating abilities.


Therefore I believe it's fair to say that the debate hall members are better on average at debating then the average smasher and I strongly oppose your assertions to the contrary.

People who have no idea about the rigors of Debate Hall admission should probably not be talking about whether or not Smash Debater is an empty title.

That being said, unless there is across-the-board tournament evidence that suggests, within reason, that MK warrants a ban, there's no point in making yet another MK-ban thread. Everybody knows what happened with the last 2. People who have no idea what they're talking about make ridiculous demands without realizing the implications of banning Metaknight. And then it just turns into a pissing match.

Also, glad to see Yuna's back.

The ironic thing is, RK's a temp debator.


Regardless, I disagree, it's not tournament evidence that's needed, it's much clearer understanding of the match-ups and what MK actually renders non-viable so we can tell whether or not he actually overcentralizes the metagame. Until then, the null hypothesis is the only justified position.

Tournament data doesn't work because popularity and centralization of talented players influence it too much.

Because I don't want to take pages of posts, and post the again, re edited or not. And you saw most, if not all of my posts back then. My rank implies that I can debate about real life, down to earth issues that i take interest in. Not this crap. I post like how I want. Everyone can.

Well, I think the point is that you're not convincing anyone. I've convinced a couple of people to take up my standard of required evidence to be pro-ban and I'm trying to get more.

Though realistically, pro-bans time would be better spent examining theoretical models for match-ups and trying to fix them, while examining MK's match-ups with them in mind.

hey RDK, I don't want to have to fight for smash debater rights. Can I just hae the pink title so I can act happy and gay?

No, you don't have to fight, but, all who would enter the Debate Hall must answer me these questions three, 'ere the other side he see.

What is your name?

What is your quest?

What... is the capital of Assyria


No, but seriously, you gotta go through the proving ground.

Basically, you apply for temp debator status and when you get accepted, you can debate in the proving grounds. If you're good enough, you'll get noticed, and the mods will let you into the main debate hall.

Lol. You have a problem with me?

I know I don't post as often, but the hall isn't that fun to post in.

I like politics, and such.

No, not at all.

I just didn't like how they were trashing the debate hall and you. That's why I went into that rant and also noted that, "just because debators are good at debate doesn't mean they always use it" and then noted that you're actually a pretty good debator, which is true.

It is my personal opinion from what I know of your posts from the debate hall and related groups that you are a good debator, and I said so. I just realized it got lost in the wall of text.


So yeah, I was defending you, I obviously have no problem with you.

 

[betterthanbonds9]

Ah, geez. Is he still trying to gather all of those votes?

...anyways, Smash Debater isn't a post count thing. It's a Board Usergroup.

thought you were talking about "smash lord" or whatever, not the usergroups, that's why i editted it with that part changed when i realized you were talkign about debaters and not posts

 

[|RK|]

Again, my apologies. I did generalize based on a single example who was currently uninterested in debating to his full potential and I do acknowledge the superior debating abilities of Smash Debaters.

Darxmarth, I apologize. I simply fail to notice how decreasing your usage of debate abilities can help to sway the debate in your favor.

 

[RDK]

A trend, you say? That doesn't help at all. Think about it. M2K has won every national tournament, except for a few exceptions. Would a trend really help anything? We know that MK has won most national tournaments; what's the point?

Unless it becomes "play MK or lose", there's no reason he should require a ban. This is always how it's been in competitive fighters, and we have these rules for a reason.

Regardless, I disagree, it's not tournament evidence that's needed, it's much clearer understanding of the match-ups and what MK actually renders non-viable so we can tell whether or not he actually overcentralizes the metagame. Until then, the null hypothesis is the only justified position.

Tournament data doesn't work because popularity and centralization of talented players influence it too much.

Banning him without direct tournament evidence would be arbitrary and whimsical. If there's no practical example of why we should ban him, then you have to ask yourself why you're considering banning him.

If it turned into a "play MK or lose" situation, then yes, that would constitute overcentralization. But, deeper understanding of matchups or not, until such a thing happens in a tournament setting--with testable, reproducable results--there's no reason for a ban.

Besides: how do you expect we gain a deeper understanding of his viable and non-viable matchups without tournament evidence?

 

[ShadowLink84]

No, you don't have to fight,

YES

but, all who would enter the Debate Hall must answer me these questions three, 'ere the other side he see.

NO!

What is your name?

Shadowlink84

What is your quest?

To seek the holy grail

What... is the capital of Assyria.

Which one?

No, but seriously, you gotta go through the proving ground.

Basically, you apply for temp debator status and when you get accepted, you can debate in the proving grounds. If you're good enough, you'll get noticed, and the mods will let you into the main debate hall.

Cant i just type up a mega,goliath paper on why homosexuality is not a sin according to the bible?

 

[salaboB]

Why is it that the pro-bans end with the same excuse? "I was civil a couple hundred pages ago!" I don't care. Post sensibly as your rank would imply.

I've seen that from both sides, please don't generalize so inaccurately.

 

[Gates]

omg, why is this still going on?

I'M RUNNING OUT OF BOOZE GUYS.
YOU'RE ALL GONNA MAKE ME GO BROKE.
OR KILL ME.

 

[salaboB]

Then crush them, people often do that when they think their opponent won't be able to respond to it. Crush them when they do that and they should respond with better points. Basically, it's being lazy, but it's understandable because the general quality of tactical discussion is rather low.

If only they didn't continue to respond with unarguable opinion when the facts were pointed out to them, you'd have a point.

But the debaters who post in these threads and are lazy do, so I've stopped bothering trying to disagree with them most of the time.

 

[Yuna]

Tournament data doesn't work because popularity and centralization of talented players influence it too much.

I've been saying this since the 1st thread.

If only they didn't continue to respond with unarguable opinion when the facts were pointed out to them, you'd have a point.

But the debaters who post in these threads and are lazy do, so I've stopped bothering trying to disagree with them most of the time.

No, you just got tired of not "winning" arguments and thus have resorted to outright ignoring the vast majority of valid arguments instead.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Banning him without direct tournament evidence would be arbitrary and whimsical. If there's no practical example of why we should ban him, then you have to ask yourself why you're considering banning him.

If it turned into a "play MK or lose" situation, then yes, that would constitute overcentralization. But, deeper understanding of matchups or not, until that happens in a tournament setting--with testable, reproducable results--there's no reason for a ban.

Again, here's where we disagree, the technical specifics of a character ARE direct evidence, remember, they don't have the problem of induction, nor are they influenced by centralization of skill in popular characters, and this is especially an issue when certain characters become "taboo" so effects are almost impossible to really pin down.


That said, I would object to banning MK based ONLY on technical data, if only because of the possibility that we're missing something. But banning based solely on tournament results is short-sighted.


At this point I would say that there's enough tournament evidence to attest to his ability given a sufficently strong level of technical dominance as well as legitimate proof that there is some outside factor that's bringing down MK's level of dominance.


You can gain a deeper understanding of MK's viable and nonviable match-ups through discussing his match-ups in terms of technical data, provided your theoretical model for discussing the match-ups is good enough, because while tournament evidence tells you what has happened in the past, having two people of totally equal skill is impossible and therefore humanity itself skews the match-ups. Add that to the fact that just about nobody really plays at the top of the metagame and you've got the fact that tournament results give you clues on how to go about match-ups, but technical data is the only thing that can truly establish it.

Which is by the way, the first thing pro-ban needs to improve.

Which one?

Huh? I... I don't know that... Auuuuuuuugh!

Cant i just type up a mega,goliath paper on why homosexuality is not a sin according to the bible?

Sorry, no, we don't do that anymore, you missed your chance. That's what got me admitted, I think... maybe it was the trial period in the debate hall itself, and the essay was before, or maybe the essay was after.

Anyway, sorry, you gotta go through it like everyone else.

If only they didn't continue to respond with unarguable opinion when the facts were pointed out to them, you'd have a point.

But the debaters who post in these threads and are lazy do, so I've stopped bothering trying to disagree with them most of the time.

Well, personally I see no issue with quoting your old post if nobody bothers to respond, but really I haven't seen it, at least with the majority of the debators in this thread.

If people aren't willing to back up their opinions, make a short note, then move on.

I've been saying this since the 1st thread.

So have I, I've also talked about this extensively in terms of why "theorycraft" is extremely important.

 

[RDK]

Again, here's where we disagree, the technical specifics of a character ARE direct evidence, remember, they don't have the problem of induction, nor are they influenced by centralization of skill in popular characters, and this is especially an issue when certain characters become "taboo" so effects are almost impossible to really pin down.

That said, I would object to banning MK based ONLY on technical data, if only because of the possibility that we're missing something. But banning based solely on tournament results is short-sighted.

I never said it should be based solely on tournament evidence; I said tournament evidence is required, or else it's pure speculation. If you can't demonstrate that what you're saying in theory can actually happen--and has been shown to happen--then your theory is bunk and has no place in a practical tournament setting.

That is, until it's been shown to happen.

You can gain a deeper understanding of MK's viable and nonviable match-ups through discussing his match-ups in terms of technical data, provided your theoretical model for discussing the match-ups is good enough, because while tournament evidence tells you what has happened in the past, having two people of totally equal skill is impossible and therefore humanity itself skews the match-ups. Add that to the fact that just about nobody really plays at the top of the metagame and you've got the fact that tournament results give you clues on how to go about match-ups, but technical data is the only thing that can truly establish it.

Everybody accepts that the roster is not 100% balanced--nobody's arguing that it's not (at least I'm not). In cases where both players are of equal skill and are both playing at the top of the metagame (a thoroughly impossible situation), character choice will decide the match. That's just the way it is.

Because of this, bans are sometimes necessary, but only in extreme circumstances; I.E., overcentralization.

If you can prove, via tournament data, that MK objectively overcentralizes the game to the point where he warrants a ban, then the pro-ban camp has a valid argument. Up until then, they have yet to come up with any sort of substance to support their side.

Theory is not everything; there has to be practical data involved.

Which is by the way, the first thing pro-ban needs to improve.

I agree.

Sorry, no, we don't do that anymore, you missed your chance. That's what got me admitted, I think... maybe it was the trial period in the debate hall itself, and the essay was before, or maybe the essay was after.

Anyway, sorry, you gotta go through it like everyone else.

Yeah, the essay question was a looongggg time ago; and even before that they made you have an interview with senior debaters over AIM. You had to pick a topic, argue your view, and hope that your interviewer thought you were a good enough debater.

That was really old school

I've been saying this since the 1st thread.

So have I, I've also talked about this extensively in terms of why "theorycraft" is extremely important.

Maybe if you provided some sort of tangible example for this? Which is of course what I've been saying along. If you don't have real evidence, where is the practicality? You can't base a game around theory that hasn't been practiced. Hence, the importance of tournament data.

I.E., don't fix what's not broken.