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

[|RK|]

You seem to be reasonable enough. Once people explain something to you and it is clear your position is not as good as theirs you admit defeat. It's fine if you weren't being serious and you were just joking with him, however I'm confused as to how you can be so black and white about his brokenness (if you are serious).

If you say that once Meta knight becomes 50.1% of the brawl population you consider him worthy for a ban, why is it ridiculous for someone else to draw the line at 40%? Or whatever percent they are under the impression it is right now? Does the majority really have some magical quality to it, when the thing at stake is the diversity of brawl? You can't state as a fact that he is not broken just because someone else draws a line at a different point than you do. That's opinion sir.

Well... for me broken and overcentralized are kinda separate.

When it reaches 50.1%, then it would be overcentralized, but I see how 40% would work as well.

However, Meta-Knight isn't broken. Since it has been brought up multiple times, I pose Akuma. Akuma was broken, as it wasn't possible to defeat him with any other character but himself.

Meta-Knight is beatable. He actually has near-even matchups, which many people believe as even. If he doesn't break the game to the point where it's impossible to win against him, then he is not broken.

Here, let's use urban dictionary for a second:

1. broken

1. (General) Something/Someone that is so good in a particular context that it eclipses saecond place.

2. (Games) A game object or facility that is too good to exist. It is so powerful that it is unbalancing and hence breaks the game. Every winning player has to use this to be competitive.

Entymology: The power cards from Magic The Gathering (Black Lotus, Time Walk, Ancestral Recall, all Moxen, etc) were so powerful and unbalancing that they were eventually banned from tournament play because they BROKE the game.

Look at the bolded area, for this is what applies. Meta-Knight does NOT meet this criteria. Akuma did, however MK does not. Therefore MK is NOT broken.

 

[thrillagorilla]

AvaricePanda stated what I was going to. We don't really know what about the cp system to change to make it fair, or if any change needs to be made.

@ Deathcarter: The suggestions you made earlier looked liked banning most of the odd stages and leaving in the more neutral ones. That doesn't help the cp system, that either renders it moot or at best limits its purpose.

@ AvaricePanda: I wish I could comment on your assertions about mk not breaking the stage aspect of the cp system because of other characters advantages, but I don't know all character's good and bad stages. I will say, though, that the claim being made wasn't that he had advantages on all stages, but that mk had no bad stages. This would in turn eliminate the cp system's point. If it is true he would be breaking the system. Is it true? IDK, but I haven't seen any arguments not based on opinion or empirical evidence to suggest that it isn't. Is it enough to make mk ban worthy? Again, idk, but I would lean towards no if this is all the pro-ban side has.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Opinions are fine, but they shouldn't be used for ban criteria, or for debate. Let your opinions be expressed in the poll.

It's not an opinion that I can't do as well with Meta Knight as I could with others. It's pretty much an objective fact. Any argument that states that everyone could do better by using Meta Knight is wrong because it discounts me; that is the simple and objective point my post was making. Also, opinions necessarily HAVE to be used for debate; facts seldom speak for themselves. In fact, what ban criteria constitute in the first place is inescapably opinion.

Also, I strongly disagree that changing the counterpick system to ban even more stages would do anything but make Meta Knight even better. I know that as Mr. Game & Watch I'd never, ever want to play Meta Knight on Final Destination, and really the only one of the uncontroversial starter stages I'd even dream of wanting to play him on is Battlefield, and even then frankly I have tons of better stages. If you want to see Meta Knight lose to counterpicks, try not banning Green Greens and look at what Mr. Game & Watch does to him there. I also like Norfair here; banning it is certainly not doing me any favors against Meta Knight. Everyone was talking about how Yoshi's Island (Melee) was a great anti-Meta Knight stage months ago, but then with almost no actual evidence decided "no it isn't" and banned it (in most regions at least). Really, what's the evidence that Meta Knight somehow massively benefits from counterpick stages? He's good on Rainbow Cruise and Luigi's Mansion, but otherwise, I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Kewkky]

If stage counterpicking issues means a step towards MK's banning, then fixing it is easy.

Whenever player A chooses MK and Player B chooses a different character, player B will be able to choose a stage AFTER the character choices, be it the first, second or third match of the whole set, winner or loser. Player A wouldn't be allowed to strike stages, although stages which player B wins in cannot be repeated. MK's shouldn't have a problem with this suggestion, because MK doesn't have any bad stages, or disadvantages in any matchup at all, regardless of whatever stage they ultimately choose. It is also a great way of regulating MK usage... If player A would suck on a stage and player B would have knowledge of this, player A would not like player B choosing that stage, therefore he would choose a different character. See how it works?

If both player A and player B choose MK, then the best way to pick stages is with our current formula: random first, then loser picks. It'll just be determined by skill, same as dittos.

Can't get easier than that. And look, no stage counterpicking system problems!

 

[tehf1r3]

What if we banned shiek in melee? where would that get us?
listen, he won't be top forever. give brawl some TIME.

 

[Woozle]

What if we banned shiek in melee? where would that get us?
listen, he won't be top forever. give brawl some TIME.

What if fish could fly?

 

[GirugaMarc]

What if we banned shiek in melee? where would that get us?
listen, he won't be top forever. give brawl some TIME.

lololol.

isn't that what they said last poll?

 

[AvaricePanda]

@ AvaricePanda: I wish I could comment on your assertions about mk not breaking the stage aspect of the cp system because of other characters advantages, but I don't know all character's good and bad stages. I will say, though, that the claim being made wasn't that he had advantages on all stages, but that mk had no bad stages. This would in turn eliminate the cp system's point. If it is true he would be breaking the system. Is it true? IDK, but I haven't seen any arguments not based on opinion or empirical evidence to suggest that it isn't. Is it enough to make mk ban worthy? Again, idk, but I would lean towards no if this is all the pro-ban side has.

What I've been trying to say though is while MK has no bad stages, neither do Snake, Diddy, and Wario really.

Wario's worst stage, Luigi's Mansion (I'm assuming from what people have been saying on this thread) isn't that bad for him and shouldn't be legal regardless. Snake's worst stage, RC, can simply be banned with your one ban per set. Same with Diddy, although he really doesn't have any bad stages, just bad stages against certain opponents.

RC is a bad stage for Diddy against an MK. FD is a bad stage for MK against a Diddy. Honestly though, none of these stages are stand-alone bad for any of these characters.

 

[Luur3]

As much as I hate to say it, he shouldnt be banned. He's a serious pain in the arse, but that doesnt qualify him for a ban. Just gotta learn to counter him and his play style

 

[thrillagorilla]

It's not an opinion that I can't do as well with Meta Knight as I could with others. It's pretty much an objective fact. Any argument that states that everyone could do better by using Meta Knight is wrong because it discounts me; that is the simple and objective point my post was making. Also, opinions necessarily HAVE to be used for debate; facts seldom speak for themselves. In fact, what ban criteria constitute in the first place is inescapably opinion.

But what about all the people who can simply pick up mk and start playing better? The argument doesn't hold fast for either side, and winds up being a relativist argument that goes in circles. That's why it shouldn't be used in this debate.

I agree with you that facts seldom speak for themselves, but if you don't use them to support your arguments than nothing can ever be accomplished. This is especially true when talking about things on an individual basis. If all you take into consideration is your own personal interest and experience, then the debate will devolve to the point of "my opinion matters more than yours does." Ironically, that seems to be the case with this whole banning issue to begin with anyways.

Edit:

What I've been trying to say though is while MK has no bad stages, neither do Snake, Diddy, and Wario really.

Wario's worst stage, Luigi's Mansion (I'm assuming from what people have been saying on this thread) isn't that bad for him and shouldn't be legal regardless. Snake's worst stage, RC, can simply be banned with your one ban per set. Same with Diddy, although he really doesn't have any bad stages, just bad stages against certain opponents.

RC is a bad stage for Diddy against an MK. FD is a bad stage for MK against a Diddy. Honestly though, none of these stages are stand-alone bad for any of these characters.

See, now this makes sense to me. If it is true that other characters break the stage cp system, then the cp system is a fault, not mk.

 

[Minwu]

What if we banned shiek in melee? where would that get us?
listen, he won't be top forever. give brawl some TIME.

In the even shorter time that Sheik dominated, there were less players in a game that had more payout for technical skill, and less technical skill among players. And as of now there isn't even a best Melee character.

 

[Kewkky]

Thrilla, he's clearly saying that any generalized argument about 'everyone' is not in itself true, because as soon as one person is found that counterstates what is stated in the said argument, it immediately stops being an 'everyone' and turns into an 'almost everyone'... And obviously speaking the truth, in this world there is no such thing as an 'absolute truth' based on humanity's own 'facts and opinions'.

Opinions are needed in order to create facts, and that's a fact. Of course you need conclusive data that always ends in the same result in order for it to be a fact too. That's why science is ever-changing, because facts are always being modified thanks to other people's opinions that HELP in finding the truths that would've been otherwise passed as unimportant.

Let me give you an example, completely hypothetical... What if a camper suddenly tried a rushing-type of character, such as MK? How could he camp? You can't possibly tell me mashing B and planking are far better skillwise than a general TL or Samus battle strategy. If the same person who finds his preference in those two characters would've used MK from the beginning, because he's not their 'type of character', their output wouldn't exceed the limits they have with that same strategy. A camper is better off with a campy character, than a rushing character. That's just how it works, nothing else to it. NOW! If the camper decides to stop being a camper and decide to learn how to rush AND IS DETERMINED TO LEARN, then that's a whole different situation. So, it all also has to do with your psychological point of view: not just opinions, but willpower and mental comfort are needed also!

He says he feel he will be better with G&W, and I believe him, because uit's his opinion, and he knows who he is, how he acts, how he feels comfortable, and how he plays. All of this has to do with who can use MK or whatever character better. A camper who counterpicks MK in a tourney will NOT do better than a rusher that counterpicks MK in a tourney, it's just common sociological sense.

 

[Vulcan55]

See, now this makes sense to me. If it is true that other characters break the stage cp system, then the cp system is a fault, not mk.

Or maybe it's the game, itself?

 

[|RK|]

No, the CP system. We made the CP system, so if something breaks it, the CP system is at fault.

 

[Kewkky]

No, the CP system. We made the CP system, so if something breaks it, the CP system is at fault.

Then I'm guessing a more viable option than banning MK is remodeling the CP system.

 

[thrillagorilla]

Thrilla, he's clearly saying that any generalized argument about 'everyone' is not in itself true, because as soon as one person is found that counterstates what is stated in the said argument, it immediately stops being an 'everyone' and turns into an 'almost everyone'... And obviously speaking the truth, in this world there is no such thing as an 'absolute truth' based on humanity's own 'facts and opinions'.


If this were true, then the only truth would be majority, and mk would have been banned twice already. This is the epitome of a relativist argument, which doesn't belong in debate. Why? because it has the capacity to ignore facts. There wasn't enough evidence to support a mk ban in the previous two discussions, so there was no ban. Is there now? That's what the debate is about.

Opinions are needed in order to create facts, and that's a fact. Of course you need conclusive data that always ends in the same result in order for it to be a fact too. That's why science is ever-changing, because facts are always being modified thanks to other people's opinions that HELP in finding the truths that would've been otherwise passed as unimportant.

Opinions aren't needed to create facts, theories are. Then you discover truth by trial, error and documentation. This is the basis for the scientific method, which is more reliable than philosophy, which is what you are using for your previous assertion.

Let me give you an example, completely hypothetical... What if a camper suddenly tried a rushing-type of character, such as MK? How could he camp? You can't possibly tell me mashing B and planking are far better skillwise than a general TL or Samus battle strategy. If the same person who finds his preference in those two characters would've used MK from the beginning, because he's not their 'type of character', their output wouldn't exceed the limits they have with that same strategy. A camper is better off with a campy character, than a rushing character. That's just how it works, nothing else to it. NOW! If the camper decides to stop being a camper and decide to learn how to rush AND IS DETERMINED TO LEARN, then that's a whole different situation. So, it all also has to do with your psychological point of view: not just opinions, but willpower and mental comfort are needed also!

He says he feel he will be better with G&W, and I believe him, because uit's his opinion, and he knows who he is, how he acts, how he feels comfortable, and how he plays. All of this has to do with who can use MK or whatever character better. A camper who counterpicks MK in a tourney will NOT do better than a rusher that counterpicks MK in a tourney, it's just common sociological sense.

I don't refute this, I only ask its validity as an argument for or against the ban. It has nothing to do with whether or not mk has superior tools with which to do his job, it simply states that some people can't play him well. You could almost twist this into being a pro-ban argument. If there is no other way to win other than playing mk (I doubt this to be even remotely true) then it is unfair to all the people who don't have the correct mind-set to play this single character.

Comments in yellow.

Edit:

Then I'm guessing a more viable option than banning MK is remodeling the CP system.

This also makes sense to me.

 

[sMexy-Blu]

Do you have any suggestion to replacing the CP system?

It was hard making the first one... how do you think we'll be able to make another one thats even more balanced than the last one...

 

[Kewkky]

If stage counterpicking issues means a step towards MK's banning, then fixing it is easy.

Whenever player A chooses MK and Player B chooses a different character, player B will be able to choose a stage AFTER the character choices, be it the first, second or third match of the whole set, winner or loser. Player A wouldn't be allowed to strike stages, although stages which player B wins in cannot be repeated. MK's shouldn't have a problem with this suggestion, because MK doesn't have any bad stages, or disadvantages in any matchup at all, regardless of whatever stage they ultimately choose. It is also a great way of regulating MK usage... If player A would suck on a stage and player B would have knowledge of this, player A would not like player B choosing that stage, therefore he would choose a different character. See how it works?

If both player A and player B choose MK, then the best way to pick stages is with our current formula: random first, then loser picks. It'll just be determined by skill, same as dittos.

Can't get easier than that. And look, no stage counterpicking system problems!

Ahem... I do have a suggestion, but whether people decide to let a low-posting 'smash journeyman' help in such arguments is up to the community.

EDIT: And if it's not too much to add, and the community so wishes it... Player B could also re-choose a character, since according to the pro-banners, MK has the advantage against everyone, everywhere, so it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Twin_Scimitar]

No, the CP system. We made the CP system, so if something breaks it, the CP system is at fault.

That is only if you start with the premise that our CP system is not perfect (I don't believe it is perfect). However what you have stated is a logical fallacy, because it is entirely reasonable that the game is at fault and not the CP system. Just because we made it doesn't mean it can be perfect for our competitive environment. In this case the problem with the game would be meta knight. We are modeling the rules to ideally simulate what the smash community wants for competitive gaming, we are not trying to simulate the game, thus it is possible the game is at fault.

Also Joker, I respect your opinion, as far as considering broken being different from over centralization. It makes sense, it is an important distinction.

This being said, remodeling the counter pick system is a valid point and one that we should probably try before we go through with a ban. So yeah sry to step on toes, but stuff is logically right and logically wrong.

If the game continues as I and many others think it will, even if we do fix the counter pick system, MK will continue to dominate and eventually be an over centralizing factor. Still waiting for this to actually happen, or at least until Genisis might be a good idea.

 

[thrillagorilla]

Ahem... I do have a suggestion, but whether people decide to let a low-posting 'smash journeyman' help in such arguments is up to the community.

My low post count strikes against me again.

 

[|RK|]

Ahem... I do have a suggestion, but whether people decide to let a low-posting 'smash journeyman' help in such arguments is up to the community.

Come now, that's rude. Thrillagorilla is an active member and has proved his brilliance on many occasions. He also has helped in bringing useful topics to the Kirby boards and furthering his metagame. Post count is irrelevant.

 

[Kewkky]

Come now, that's rude. Thrillagorilla is an active member and has proved his brilliance on many occasions. He also has helped in bringing useful topics to the Kirby boards and furthering his metagame. Post count is irrelevant.

It was supposed to be a crappy joke... >_>

jaja's? D:

EDIT: Oh NOW I see what you mean! thrilla, I didn't direct that comment towards you! I was talking about myself! Sorry if it seemed like I was dissing you for no reason, wasn't my intention.

 

[BIGM1994]

if metaknight got banned then nj would go from top tier to low tier

 

[|RK|]

That is only if you start with the premise that our CP system is not perfect (I don't believe it is perfect). However what you have stated is a logical fallacy, because it is entirely reasonable that the game is at fault and not the CP system. Just because we made it doesn't mean it can be perfect for our competitive environment. In this case the problem with the game would be meta knight. We are modeling the rules to ideally simulate what the smash community wants for competitive gaming, we are not trying to simulate the game, thus it is possible the game is at fault.

Also Joker, I respect your opinion, as far as considering broken being different from over centralization. It makes sense, it is an important distinction.

This being said, remodeling the counter pick system is a valid point and one that we should probably try before we go through with a ban. So yeah sry to step on toes, but stuff is logically right and logically wrong.

If the game continues as I and many others think it will, even if we do fix the counter pick system, MK will continue to dominate and eventually be an over centralizing factor. Still waiting for this to actually happen, or at least until Genisis might be a good idea.

Let us wait until "The Beginning", indeed. Fixing the counterpick system could do the boards a lot of good. As well as making a centralized agreement on matchups rather than two separate ones.

 

[SSJ5Goku8932]

I wonder if custom stages can help. Of course I am just throwing out ideas, so do not take me seriously.

 

[:mad:]

We're men, we don't use custom stages.

 

[Tony_]

To all the people using over centralization: Thinf SF3 third strike, where the metagame is all Chun-Li and Yun. Neither of those characters are banned, and MK falls under the same catagory. To ban a character simply because their game is revolving around him is stupid and does nothing but prove that the Brawl community if full of whining people who could careless about skill being in this game.

 

[1048576]

I'd be fine if it was just MK and Snake, but it's not, because Snake has bad matchups.

 

[Cirno]

No, we've had the same counnterpick system since Melee ( and 64 for those of you who played it competitive). The system is fine and serves its purpose well.


There's often talk that this is a game that depends on the counterpick system, and I think that is where alot of people's problems come from with MK and matchups in general.

The system we have is only a support method to the competitive scene we've created: Recommendations, suggestions and the like.

Peach can do all kinds of stuff to Wario, but it is definitely a winnable matchup despite matchup charts calling it a 30:70 -- same goes for Mario v Marth(35:65 I think though).

Our numbers are always all over the place because as someone stated earlier, in Brawl every character is Roy (are boy lol), despite whatever advantages another character may have over your own, being forced to a reset after every other hit means you are given an opportunity to change the end result of a stock given that you can outsmart you opponent. The difference between having Marth upthrow chain into an Fsmash because he caught you with Falco, and dodging that shuttle loop from MK after an uair chain.

Having a disadvantaged matchup does not mean you have to counterpick, at best it's a suggestion which is why I don't think this game depends on one. It get pretty obvious in fact, when you look at other fighters and how often they win matchups of the same numbers. This is saying something too, since the hitstun other fighters have let punishment a 'worse character' can give much worse than that of a character in Brawl. (Think Sakura v Sagat SF4 ;-; )

All you should take the numbers we throw around for are " amount of known options".


After conversing with Praxis a bit I can say that MK certainly does break the counterpick system (as for as I know for right now, still waiting to see how Pika with his buffered chain grab fairs) as the way we have it you are often given atleast the option to choose a character with more options which verse MK you do not.

But if the game does not depend on this system, is he worthy of a ban? When you have the best players of MK losing and going to final stock high percentage against other characters, are his matchups really as good for him as some people make it seem?

It might all come down to preference. Some people feel it is necessity to have this option in a fighter to ensure balance and prevent dominance. Some would prefer it be there to have a 'safe' option in tournament to fall back on in worst cases but could care less. And some believe in personal counterpicks they do better with (not necessarily against) as they feel every high level match comes down to player skill and who ever utilizes their knowledge better will be the victor.

Of course if we don't generalize there can be more types, but for the most part,
which type of mindset do any of you think is best for a thriving metagame in a competitive environment ?


(BTW-- I don't really see any of these as points or anything similar since I'm not really trying to debate, I'm just throwing what I think around and curious as to where the rest of the community's head is at...)

 

[sMexy-Blu]

Real men use Metaknight.

 

[|RK|]

We're men, we don't use custom stages.

I think it would work if the SBR threw out a specified criteria for making custom stages. That's mean that each tournament that you go to there's a different legal stage to fight on. Neither player could have had practice on this stage (provided Smash Service is OFF), and therefore the battle is about which player adapts faster/better. Battles would be more competitive and skills would be tested. I think it's cool.

 

[|RK|]

No, we've had the same counnterpick system since Melee ( and 64 for those of you who played it competitive). The system is fine and serves its purpose well.

Obviously not for Brawl. Brawl is not 64 or Melee, mind you. If a child breaks the radiator, what are you going to want to fix? First you remodel the radiator system. Then you have a shrink analyze the child. Why did you break it?

If you get the metaphors, awesome.

Your name is Cirno. Do I know you... >:/

 

[thrillagorilla]

It was supposed to be a crappy joke... >_>

jaja's? D:

EDIT: Oh NOW I see what you mean! thrilla, I didn't direct that comment towards you! I was talking about myself! Sorry if it seemed like I was dissing you for no reason, wasn't my intention.

lol. No problem, my bad.

@SSJ5Goku8932: How would it be determined which custom stages were viable and which weren't? How could directors be sure that the stages allowed aren't altered in some way before or during the tourney? How could all the wii providers be expected to have the correct stages for tourney play? There are too many variables for custom stages to be regular tournament viable. Great idea in theory, though.

 

[|RK|]

My sincerest apologies as well, Kewkky.

 

[Kewkky]

No, we've had the same counnterpick system since Melee ( and 64 for those of you who played it competitive). The system is fine and serves its purpose well.

Maybe the changes Brawl brought to the Smash world warrant a change for Brawl?

Of course if we don't generalize there can be more types, but for the most part,
which type of mindset do any of you think is best for a thriving metagame in a competitive environment ?

I believe that MK's metagame should be given a rest, but NOT the way the pro-ban community wishes it! He is a character, part of the whole "variety" of characters people keep on bickering about, and like you said, the mains lose from time to time against other players, just like other character mains. If the pro-ban community TRULY believes the CP system is at fault, then I guess it's time to try a change for once, and NOT try to destroy the way the metagame has developed by removing a vital character from the competitive scene!

So, if MK breaks the CP system... Change the CP system so it can help against MK. And when proven that MK does NOT break the CP system, we change back. What's a few months of experimentation, if we'll ultimately show the world MK is NOT broken? Isn't that what the anti-ban community is trying to do? And if MK is actually broken and can handle his own in any stage against any character because of 'even' and 'advantage' matchups according to everyone (including MK AND pro-ban communities), then the MK mains wouldn't have a problem with this answer, now, would they? It would balance the game more, giving other characters the option of re-choosing their characters and stages if they learn their opponent just chose the best character in the game because their skill was not enough to defeat their opponent in the first round!

MK mains will win no matter what situation they're under. That's what I've been reading over and over and over again. Let's put it to the test then.

 

[|RK|]

Oh geez, MK is NOT broken. I gave the definition for broken a while back in a gaming sense. MK doesn't meet the criteria.

 

[AvaricePanda]

I'd be fine if it was just MK and Snake, but it's not, because Snake has bad matchups.

I could argue that MK has bad match-ups too. There are quite a bit of match-ups MK has that are possibly even or in MKs disadvantage. And even is very winnable, and player skill is the main determining factor of winning even match-ups. Why is this a problem?

Also, I know this isn't what you said but some others have said or implied it in this thread; don't act like you know every matchup. It's tiring when people who don't main Snake or MK, or Wario or MK, or Diddy or MK, or Pika or MK, or whatever, say, "(insert char here) vs. MK is 55-45 in MKs favor." Not only is that ratio arguably even to a lot of people (ratios are subjective, remember), but saying this ratio implies that you actually know said match-up.

I can honestly only speak for the Diddy vs. MK match-up, which I think is pretty even. I can guess that Snake, Wario, and Pikas MUs against MK are all close to even, but I can't say whose favour either of those are because I don't actually know the match-up or have match-up experience.

 

[SSJ5Goku8932]

Well, maybe we can make a standard custom ruleset.

As in like....

"No Large custom stages"

Of course, It may be quite the thing to work out, but I see it has pontential to do something.
It really should be given more thought in my opioion.

Like I said, its just an idea <_<.

 

[Twin_Scimitar]

I don't think there's anything wrong with citing commonly accepted match ups if you don't main the character. For instance it's commonly accepted that falco>DDD, or DDD>Snake. A few people may feel differently, however in the majority of cases these are CPs.

Some matchups like the Wario, Diddy, and Snake Match up with Meta knight are arguable. If you want to call people out on these match ups in particular then that is your perogative, see what evidence they have to back up their opinion. If I were to say something about the Diddy matchup, you could call me on it, and I could cite Le Thien's essay about it. I don't play the matchup, but I have evidence that I believe in.

Basically I'm trying to say that people should be able to spout match up numbers as they wish, if you have a problem with a specific instance than say that to that person.

 

[BentoBox]

Green Greens please.