I have a rather serious post here; this line is to make it more readable.
There is a problem with stating one needs to say "the best people of other characters show up" to some tourney. For one, the marginalization of said characters, causing underrepresentation, causing sparser representation, causing more chance-prone difficulties* in congregation, can cause the lack of aforementioned turnout. This is a confound for what you hope to conclude, since it entangles dependent and independent variables.
Two, there's the issue of, some character boards just don't have anyone good.
It is said that MK's meta game hurries along toward infinity, as so many, and such amazing, players use him, including the never-less-relevant-than-a-force-of-nature-all-its-own player, Mew2King. Other characters are just being dwarfed. Here's the crucial point I need to get across: If you let the nonproduction of significant new development
(+ notable tournament application thereof) from other characters, count in this situation
(of exponentially-developing MK strategery), for "well we haven't seen the
best of X character, here at set of Y high-profile tournaments, so
'it's to be expected', that the MKs dominate the placing spots", then you're *never* going to be able to say Meta Knight ought to be banned.
You'd have a requirement on what needs to be established which, in the fact of that skepticized claim
being right (if it is), can never be observed.
Put another way, you'd have a requirement on what needs to be established that, through the fact of
the defended position being wrong, causally closes the world from ever manifesting it.
It would, in effect, be a question-begging defense.
In so doing, you'd be casting your gaze over the very offending thing: That MK just grows without end. We know that: we never know if our meta game knowledge is complete, or how 'close' it is to the "true game". In that sense, every ban decision that ever would be warranted, would be on incomplete information. A character could be banned and then, just as a divine joke, something could be found and published the next Thursday to change the game in one shot, reordering the tiers, and
making that brokenness you established mundane in comparison. You *don't know*.
But what you do know is when your Z character's domination is (i) domination, (ii) [that it's] gone on for yea so long, and (iii) you only project it to be such as bad in all foreseeable consequence.
And on that, you decide to ban.
So I
really want to believe, that those who are considering this matter gravely with all their expertise, remember that if it comes to MK becoming a phenomenon unto itself - all other characters scrapping in the dust for chance against
him - with only more and more people joining it, no one leaving it, and all their information being pumped into the ever-enlarging overbrain of it, that
this just is the beginning, if not the
middle, of what it is for the game to degenerate around him.
That's all.
*By this I mean just the fact that, for a smaller population, small, chance events mean dramatically greater proportional difference to that population. In particular, things preventing
just the one man Xyro, from showing up to some big,
particular tourney, pretty much axe Samus representation right there
(if we just take the acclaim of Xyro to be based in fact for the sake of argument). No one Falco, by contrast, means anything near as much.
It would even appear that some characters have only their best players
on other continents.
*~*~*~
One other thing:
There is no "anti-ban argument". No one has to argue "that MK should not be banned" as some kind of position that might or might not become appealing to onlookers. EDIT: No one need even argue "that: not: MK should be banned."
They simply need to
defend the negation - or, non-acceptance - of the claim that MK should be banned, by refuting all arguments to its effect.
It's up to one side to provide a sound argument that MK should be banned; and "the other side" is just the crucible of skepticism and logic that keeps the unsound arguments in check, 'burning' away the volatiles (untruth) to be left with pure, precious metal (truth).
Burden of Proof is laid down for us in clear terms: "Nothing should be banned without a reason."
Continually summarising this thread under these bivalent headers shows only
another lingering misunderstanding in this debate: one of the debate itself.
Anti-ban needs only to 'argue' one thing:
"I have no reason for that belief."
