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

[Mortimer]

You ignored thrilla's post. Which contained your ban criteria. Which MK does not fit.

I mean, if your opinion has changed, then you should state that rather than ignoring the post.

Which was directed at you.

My search-fu owns thrilla's weak search-fu.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=5504966#post5504966

If he'd have checked the thread for context, he'd have noticed that it was locked and discovered the subsequent posting in the MK ban take 1 thread.

 

[thrillagorilla]

My search-fu owns thrilla's weak search-fu.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=5504966#post5504966

If he'd have checked the thread for context, he'd have noticed that it was locked and discovered the subsequent posting in the MK ban take 2 thread.

What does that have to do with my point?

I applaud you for finding that post, but I don't know why it matters that the other was in a closed thread seeing as it is the exact same thing...

I'll look at the responses in the thread and see if there is something new there, but otherwise my point still stands.

 

[salaboB]

You ignored thrilla's post. Which contained your ban criteria. Which MK does not fit.

I mean, if your opinion has changed, then you should state that rather than ignoring the post.

Which was directed at you.

This is going to sound interesting, but maybe you'll understand.

I still support my previous ban criteria, in that I feel if someone met it they would deserve banning. However, I also support banning for an entirely different reason. Since in this thread I had stated my criteria before thrilla asked, in my final response to him, and after my last response to him have re-stated my currently defended ban criteria there was no point to me replying to him -- I acknowledged MK did not meet the "broken" ban criteria ages ago, including to thrilla. Thus bringing up ancient history and attempting to make me defend it when I've already acknowledged it doesn't work for this situation is ... well, pointless.

The reason I ignored the post is that I said I wasn't going to talk to him again after he started ranting at me about responding to him and how he was going to harass me until I answered his question, when I had been attempting to before -- though apparently never in the manner he expected. You expect me to make empty threats when someone is being that rude? I meant what I said, as I usually do. Reference to thrillagorilla's threat if you need it:

I think I've been reasonable up until this point, but I can't help but begin to feel a bit insulted at your constant attempts to avoid answering my questions. If this issue is important enough for you to post arguments in, it should be important enough for you to explain the reasoning behind your opinions (which you have claimed are the basis for your arguments). I've stated that at least three times and I will continue to state it until you will at least acknowledge what I am asking you and make some sort of attempt to answer.

Also, I'd point this out: thrillagorilla believed I was attempting to lay out a set of ban criteria in my responses to him - eg, "if a character has nothing worse than a neutral then they must be banned" sort of thing. But I was never trying to accomplish that, I was saying "There should be at least two characters you can choose from without putting yourself at a disadvantage for blind picks." He never did understand that I was not laying out a fixed criteria, because I don't believe using a fixed criteria is an intelligent way to go about banning a character - it is indeed too serious to just leave up to some arbitrary rules. Hence his "trap", proving me "wrong", and his whole walls of text entirely missed the point and I had no response to them because I was never trying to defend that in the first place.

My search-fu owns thrilla's weak search-fu.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=5504966#post5504966

If he'd have checked the thread for context, he'd have noticed that it was locked and discovered the subsequent posting in the MK ban take 2 thread.

Wow, I forgot I'd posted that.

Um. Yeah...well, it's actually not that far off from how things stand now, just that MK may have a few more neutrals than when I posted that. But on the other hand, does MK have more than one actual 50:50? (Which is debatably Snake. Who else? Don't you dare say Bowser, that one is so unproven it's not even funny.)

I do think my current stance is more realistic -- it actually has a more solid "why" for the banning (thrilla's accusations that it's just bias aside, because that's incorrect) but I'm not entirely sure MK doesn't meet those requirements I laid out so long ago to catch him and nobody else.

 

[Mortimer]

What does that have to do with my point?

I applaud you for finding that post, but I don't know why it matters that the other was in a closed thread seeing as it is the exact same thing...

I'll look at the responses in the thread and see if there is something new there, but otherwise my point still stands.

I was merely pointing out your lack of search-fu. If I was addressing your point, I'd have made sure to quote you to give some context

I didn't find any responses to that post in the main thread. It does give a better reference to the other arguments going on at the time it was posted, though.

 

[Masmasher@]

Comparing cheating in sports to ban a team and banning a character in a video game is stupid.......

 

[Kewkky]

And we can all see what good use you're putting yours to.

That whole post was completely worth making and didn't say anything that hadn't already been said over and over again.

Same goes for pro-banners/anti-banners/whoever keeps bringing up arguments. Their posts are ultimately irrelevant, since MK is not going to be banned. The use of my post is to remind, something you apparently can't even comprehend, like the oh-so-many posts I see people claim to your not answering them, because you think you're being clear when you're not. So either change your way of phrasing thoughts and point of views, or keep being argued against by the same exact reason you were being argued when I stopped posting last time in this topic.

It's up to you.

EDIT: Even though it means nothing, seeing the gap in the poll between "yes" and "no" shortening makes me smile.

 

[salaboB]

I was merely pointing out your lack of search-fu. If I was addressing your point, I'd have made sure to quote you to give some context

I didn't find any responses to that post in the main thread. It does give a better reference to the other arguments going on at the time it was posted, though.

If you want context, I was specifically addressing "Any requirements that will ban MK will ban Marth as well."

The post itself refers to that fact, it is not necessarily my true ban requirements.

Same goes for pro-banners/anti-banners/whoever keeps bringing up arguments. Their posts are ultimately irrelevant, since MK is not going to be banned. The use of my post is to remind, something you apparently can't even comprehend, like the oh-so-many posts I see people claim to your not answering them, because you think you're being clear when you're not. So either change your way of phrasing thoughts and point of views, or keep being argued against by the same exact reason you were being argued when I stopped posting last time in this topic.

It's up to you.

I'm okay seeing if anyone will figure out how to comprehend what they read. There are a couple people around that actually know how to parse the english language, sadly a minority but still...

And I think we didn't need the reminder, as I believe I already said about 30 pages ago that MK wasn't going to get banned because the "broken" criteria doesn't fit him...but you may feel free to carry on making pointless posts that don't even stimulate discussion if that's what you enjoy doing.

 

[Masmasher@]

Same goes for pro-banners/anti-banners/whoever keeps bringing up arguments. Their posts are ultimately irrelevant, since MK is not going to be banned. The use of my post is to remind, something you apparently can't even comprehend, like the oh-so-many posts I see people claim to your not answering them, because you think you're being clear when you're not. So either change your way of phrasing thoughts and point of views, or keep being argued against by the same exact reason you were being argued when I stopped posting last time in this topic.

It's up to you.

EDIT: Even though it means nothing, seeing the gap in the poll between "yes" and "no" shortening makes me smile.

I'm not saying hes going to be eventually banned but who are you? Also like some of the ban MK votes hold ignorance some of the people that vote no to this poll hold ignorance too..

some voted yes because of ignorant reasons I.e my character will do better and hes haxorz!>

Its like someone said earlier some people dont play mk because of the stigmas of cheapness/easy to use/broken attached on to him. Just like that some people might vote not to ban mk because they are simply on the bandwagon and just want to seem like they arent complaining to much. it makes them look cool/feel superior.

 

[e__]

You know what, as gay as I think the character is, I don't think he should be banned anymore. Too bad I can't change my vote.

 

[DRaGZ]

What a hot debate.

 

[Kewkky]

I'm not saying hes going to be eventually banned but who are you? Also like some of the ban MK votes hold ignorance some of the people that vote no to this poll hold ignorance too..

some voted yes because of ignorant reasons I.e my character will do better and hes haxorz!>

Its like someone said earlier some people dont play mk because of the stigmas of cheapness/easy to use/broken attached on to him. Just like that some people might vote not to ban mk because they are simply on the bandwagon and just want to seem like they arent complaining to much. it makes them look cool/feel superior.

I know about all this. I'm well informed by the entire thread.

And salaBob, keep thinking that the original post was directed at you. Unless you find your name in the first post I made, it's YOU who is wrong here. So you know about what I said and it's pointless to you, big deal! Now... Do other people know that?

 

[ndayday]

So, do you guys think the new Shiek infinite will affect the decision? Do you think that it will even help the matchup, making Shiek a good MK counterpick? This is the thread.

Discuss.

 

[cutter]

^

That could be the final nail in the coffin for wanting to ban MK. If the infinite can be executed reliably (apparently you need one Ftilt at 37% and up), then I think MK could seriously have a bad matchup against Sheik.

 

[thrillagorilla]

This is going to sound interesting, but maybe you'll understand.

I still support my previous ban criteria, in that I feel if someone met it they would deserve banning. However, I also support banning for an entirely different reason. Since in this thread I had stated my criteria before thrilla asked, in my final response to him, and after my last response to him have re-stated my currently defended ban criteria there was no point to me replying to him -- I acknowledged MK did not meet the "broken" ban criteria ages ago, including to thrilla. Thus bringing up ancient history and attempting to make me defend it when I've already acknowledged it doesn't work for this situation is ... well, pointless.

The reason I ignored the post is that I said I wasn't going to talk to him again after he started ranting at me about responding to him and how he was going to harass me until I answered his question, when I had been attempting to before -- though apparently never in the manner he expected. You expect me to make empty threats when someone is being that rude? I meant what I said, as I usually do. Reference to thrillagorilla's threat if you need it:


Also, I'd point this out: thrillagorilla believed I was attempting to lay out a set of ban criteria in my responses to him - eg, "if a character has nothing worse than a neutral then they must be banned" sort of thing. But I was never trying to accomplish that, I was saying "There should be at least two characters you can choose from without putting yourself at a disadvantage for blind picks."

I'd just like to point out to you that this is what I was asking you for in the first place. I wasn't making the assumption that you were going to give me "if a character has nothing worse than a neutral then they must be banned" (which, ironically, is still exactly what you have done due to blind pick advantage being based on MUs), I flat out had no idea what you were talking about and tried to make no assumptions. If this is all you have, though, then you really don't have anything.

He never did understand that I was not laying out a fixed criteria, because I don't believe using a fixed criteria is an intelligent way to go about banning a character - it is indeed too serious to just leave up to some arbitrary rules. Hence his "trap", proving me "wrong", and his whole walls of text entirely missed the point and I had no response to them because I was never trying to defend that in the first place.

I asked you very early on if the ban criteria was centered around Metaknight in the previous threads. You stated you didn't know when it appears you did, seeing as you were an active member in the debate. This doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of our conversation (arguments might be a better term now) but at the very least it would have saved us time, by which point I would not have felt compelled to make that statement in the first place.

It would seem I had it backwards. You were trying to make universal ban criteria then, which didn't have the desired result and now you are trying to create ban criteria centered around Metaknight, which I have already stated causes problems with in the community due to setting a precedent. Slippery slopes are no longer fallacy, because there is no universal standard by which to go by. Anything is fair game, as long as someone can come up with some arbitrary reason for the ban. Its the reason we have universal ban criteria.

By the way, why isn't universal "fixed" ban criteria a smart way to go about banning a character? What in the world makes is arbitrary?

Wow, I forgot I'd posted that.

Um. Yeah...well, it's actually not that far off from how things stand now, just that MK may have a few more neutrals than when I posted that. But on the other hand, does MK have more than one actual 50:50? (Which is debatably Snake. Who else? Don't you dare say Bowser, that one is so unproven it's not even funny.)

I do think my current stance is more realistic -- it actually has a more solid "why" for the banning (thrilla's accusations that it's just bias aside, because that's incorrect) but I'm not entirely sure MK doesn't meet those requirements I laid out so long ago to catch him and nobody else.

Diddy Wario and Snake all might as well be even by your own standards (you posted as much a few pages back. Read your response to my hypothetical situation), and both Snake and Diddy have stages that break the "even-ness" of stage influence (aka, they gain the advantage on the stage). Its been posted in the thread before, but if a few Diddy, Wario or Snake mains are willing to correct me, I am willing to retract the statements (meaning the character goes worse than 45-55 with Metaknight, or that none of them have the advantage on any stage).

Of course your current criteria is more solid for banning Metaknight. Its based on Metaknight. I can say "Hey look, the ice climbers are actually two characters playing at the same time, and no other character can do that. I am of the opinion that is ban worthy" with relatively the same result. All you have done is state your own personal biases as to why things should be a particular way and tried to tote it around as an argument. I honestly don't mind you posting your opinions at all. Everyone is entitled to do it. Just don't try and use them as the basis for an argument if you are unwilling to listen to other points of view. Its like I already said, you have the power to change your own personal surroundings. Do not try to force everyone else to see things from you own point of view.

@RKJoker: Don't bother. I have the answers I was looking for. If nothing else, anyone that's been reading should too. He can say what he wants to now, I really don't care. In the end, its just like he said. He has an opinion, nothing more.

Edit: *looks at info in post before his*

...? hmm... yet another character that might go even. Don't know if they will or not for sure, but we'll see.

 

[salaboB]

I know about all this. I'm well informed by the entire thread.

And salaBob, keep thinking that the original post was directed at you. Unless you find your name in the first post I made, it's YOU who is wrong here. So you know about what I said and it's pointless to you, big deal! Now... Do other people know that?

I didn't think the first post was directed at me, I was just trolling a troll.

The second post though...that was just a poor attempt at covering yourself to try to provide a reason for posting initially.

Face it, a post saying (In effect) "MK will never be banned you're just idiots holding on to false hopes" is trolling.

^

That could be the final nail in the coffin for wanting to ban MK. If the infinite can be executed reliably (apparently you need one Ftilt at 37% and up), then I think MK could seriously have a bad matchup against Sheik.

I'm interested in waiting for it to be proven to
a) Work and
b) Be tournament usable

before it gets plastered everywhere. We've seen things like this before.

 

[Kamikaze*]

So, do you guys think the new Shiek infinite will affect the decision? Do you think that it will even help the matchup, making Shiek a good MK counterpick? This is the thread.

Discuss.

If it's actually tested on a player with god DI and it works, the we can party our azzes off and put an end to this thread.

If not, then we still have to put up with the *****ing and this 480 page piece of crap thread. Dx

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

If it's actually tested on a player with god DI and it works, the we can party our azzes off and put an end to this thread.

If not, then we still have to put up with the *****ing and this 480 page piece of crap thread. Dx

You realize that if it does work, Shiek could potentially make 13+ characters unviable.

 

[Brinzy]

I would laugh so hard if she did it again in this game.

Yeah, but that will only matter if he actually gets banned then unbanned -- and if he did get unbanned after being banned, people will recall how to fight him fast enough. I don't really find this point much stronger for a reason to not ban him than the other.

There will be new players. There will be players who are here now but do not fight MKs often enough. There will be players that can do friendlies with great MKs but that's it.

Regardless of how valid it is or not, I'm just saying that the refutation you were making, while fine, was for an argument that's pretty fallacious already, and this one isn't as fallacious as that.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I would laugh so hard if she did it again in this game.

Great...

Now when I play her I'm going to feel ******** for infiniting people instead of chain grabbing them.

But still, if Shiek did it again...wow, just wow.

 

[Kamikaze*]

According to hotgarbage the frame tester, this can be escaped.

Feel free to whine some more pro-bans

 

[salaboB]

tl;dr edit: I agree that it is less fallacious but I still don't see it as a significant enough issue to warrant it counting for either side of whether to ban MK or not. On with the wall of text!

There will be new players. There will be players who are here now but do not fight MKs often enough. There will be players that can do friendlies with great MKs but that's it.

Regardless of how valid it is or not, I'm just saying that the refutation you were making, while fine, was for an argument that's pretty fallacious already, and this one isn't as fallacious as that.

The new players will learn after they fight MK. The players here now that don't fight enough MKs won't be any worse off than they are now - they'll still barely know the matchup. The players that can only do friendlies with great MKs are unlikely to suffer from not fighting against him in tournaments. Everyone who was unused to MK will possibly lose a tournament they would have won, but there will be warning before he got unbanned -- you'd see the furor over the new tech, if nothing else.

MK would likely lose the stigma associated with playing as him if he were banned and then a strong enough counter were found to unban him. New players will then be encouraged to pick him up if they like how he plays, rather than discouraged by everyone calling them noobs for picking the best character in the game. There may be more MKs around to practice against afterwards. If he isn't ever banned, that stigma will likely stay just because that's how things are -- it's the status quo.

Finally, it's very unlikely that every tournament would ban MK even if the SBR recommended it and most did. So people will still encounter him there, and likely still money match or friendly play with him at tournies because they enjoy playing as him or want to test themselves against "the banned MK". However it worked out, the damage caused would be negligable and there are potential benefits (One I didn't mention already -- increased advancement of other character's metagames as the focus would likely shift off of "How do I beat MK" to "How do I make my character better?") from even a mid-duration temp ban on MK. I still don't see how this is much less of a fallacy than that no new techs would get tested on MK while he was banned, they both seem like they won't happen enough to sway the decision either way. (I do see how it's a bit less, but ... still, it's not something that seems like it would cause a lot of trouble)

...yay wall of text for a tiny, pretty much irrelevant point. Oh well, these things happen.

 

[demonictoonlink]

I would laugh so hard if she did it again in this game.
.

That would be so ****ing funny!

 

[adumbrodeus]

Apparently we don't actually have it, or none of these "Should MK be banned" threads should have popped up seriously in the first place - if it automatically applied, then every time one was started someone would just go, "No he doesn't meet X, Y, and/or Z" and that would be it.

No... just because a criteria is neutral doesn't mean we always have the data to recognize whether a character falls under the criteria... You realize that anti-ban has been pointing out there was no proof that MK meets the criteria from day 1, right?

*points to my to-do list*

That's where the criteria is, combined with the steps we must take as a community to get the data needed to apply it.


Beyond that, it's just whining by people who want to make smash a special case.

 

[P. O. F.]

I always thought that Sheik was extremely underrated in Brawl. She has so much potential.

I remember when I first picked up Brawl at 12AM on its release. Sheik was the first character I chose and I remember saying to myself, "Well, Sheiks pretty bad now....there has to be something I am missing here. A glitch? Something?" lol

 

[salaboB]

No... just because a criteria is neutral doesn't mean we always have the data to recognize whether a character falls under the criteria... You realize that anti-ban has been pointing out there was no proof that MK meets the criteria from day 1, right?

*points to my to-do list*

That's where the criteria is, combined with the steps we must take as a community to get the data needed to apply it.


Beyond that, it's just whining by people who want to make smash a special case.

Imo, there's been proof MK doesn't meet Sirlin's requirements from day 1. Not just lack of proof, but reasonable proof that he doesn't qualify.

So I'd still argue that we do not have a criteria for banning that is globally accepted for video games -- at the very least, this community in particular has not accepted it.

 

[demonictoonlink]

So have you reached a conclusion yet? Ban or no ban?

lol

 

[adumbrodeus]

Imo, there's been proof MK doesn't meet Sirlin's requirements from day 1. Not just lack of proof, but reasonable proof that he doesn't qualify.

So I'd still argue that we do not have a criteria for banning that is globally accepted for video games -- at the very least, this community in particular has not accepted it.

Ah, but I'm not arguing that it's globally ACCEPTED, I'm arguing that it's globally ACCEPTABLE (at least for almost all competitive video game communities) and furthermore that other criteria is unacceptable.


Furthermore, a lot of your pro-ban friends would disagree about MK meeting the criteria.

 

[salaboB]

Ah, but I'm not arguing that it's globally ACCEPTED, I'm arguing that it's globally ACCEPTABLE (at least for almost all competitive video game communities) and furthermore that other criteria is unacceptable.

The latter statement is entirely unfounded - other criteria could be significantly better for the health of a competitive video game community. There is no guarantee at all that Sirlin has somehow stumbled on the holy grail of when to ban characters.

I might give you that this is the best we currently know of, but not at all that other criteria is unacceptable.

Furthermore, a lot of your pro-ban friends would disagree about MK meeting the criteria.

Odd, any that I'd accept being labelled as a friend of mine would be smart enough to recognize reality.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The latter statement is entirely unfounded - other criteria could be significantly better for the health of a competitive video game community. There is no guarantee at all that Sirlin has somehow stumbled on the holy grail of when to ban characters.

How do you know that? Really, because all that we know for sure is that it will make the community more ROB, Marth, and DDD-friendly.

And to ban something with that low a standard, how many other reactionary bans will we need to maintain consistency? Again, remember the "ban marth" discussion?

Odd, any that I'd accept being labelled as a friend of mine would be smart enough to recognize reality.

You do realize that "friend" can also refer to associates, business partners, party members, members of the same side, etc. right?

 

[salaboB]

How do you know that? Really, because all that we know for sure is that it will make the community more ROB, Marth, and DDD-friendly.

And to ban something with that low a standard, how many other reactionary bans will we need to maintain consistency? Again, remember the "ban marth" discussion?

How do I know this isn't the best criteria? I don't. But it's extremely unlikely that the first major ban criteria is the ideal iteration of it. I also didn't say the ideal one would be more or less lax, I simply said that your statement of "other criteria is unacceptable" was an unsupportable stance given our current knowledge. It's just too general, the best you can accurately say right now is that "other currently proposed criteria is unacceptable" -- and even that is up for debate for whether it would have better results than the current globally available criteria. I have no evidence for or against it, I was just pointing out the problem with that absolute statement.

You do realize that "friend" can also refer to associates, business partners, party members, members of the same side, etc. right?

It certainly can, but usually it implies either extreme un-friendliness (ie, you sneak it in on someone you're threatening), attempts at being buddy-buddy (Hello there friend, can I interest you in a used car?) or actually friends. Since they aren't actually friends and you didn't put quotes around it to imply you were using it oddly, I'm going to stick to objecting to that label being applied to a lot of the pro-ban people based on their arguments. (I'm sure they're fine as people)

I'm fairly sure that you don't want to identify yourself as a friend of a lot of the anti-ban people based on their arguments, either.

 

[Mortimer]

You do realize that "friend" can also refer to associates, business partners, party members, members of the same side, etc. right?

McCain? Is that you?!

 

[adumbrodeus]

How do I know this isn't the best criteria? I don't. But it's extremely unlikely that the first major ban criteria is the ideal iteration of it. I also didn't say the ideal one would be more or less lax, I simply said that your statement of "other criteria is unacceptable" was an unsupportable stance given our current knowledge. It's just too general, the best you can accurately say right now is that "other currently proposed criteria is unacceptable" -- and even that is up for debate for whether it would have better results than the current globally available criteria. I have no evidence for or against it, I was just pointing out the problem with that absolute statement.

Possibly, but it's been found to be effective in many cases, so it remains the null hypothesis until supplanted by another standard or proven to be degenerate in and of itself.

As of yet, you have not proven either, so it remains the competitive gaming standard.


Basically, the ball's in your court to prove positively that your standards are objectively superior, so do so.

It certainly can, but usually it implies either extreme un-friendliness (ie, you sneak it in on someone you're threatening), attempts at being buddy-buddy (Hello there friend, can I interest you in a used car?) or actually friends. Since they aren't actually friends and you didn't put quotes around it to imply you were using it oddly, I'm going to stick to objecting to that label being applied to a lot of the pro-ban people based on their arguments. (I'm sure they're fine as people)

I'm fairly sure that you don't want to identify yourself as a friend of a lot of the anti-ban people based on their arguments, either.

Not at all, being bound together by a common goal or purpose has always been enough to qualify for that label when described as a group regardless of the personal relationships with individuals within it, you're comletely eliminating at least one definition of the word.

 

[salaboB]

Possibly, but it's been found to be effective in many cases, so it remains the null hypothesis until supplanted by another standard or proven to be degenerate in and of itself.

As of yet, you have not proven either, so it remains the competitive gaming standard.


Basically, the ball's in your court to prove positively that your standards are objectively superior, so do so.

I have no interest in that, or enough experience to do so (And I recognize that my ideals for a competitive game do not line up with the majority's, so as such will never be an accepted ban criteria for a large portion of the playerbase -- including a majority of people on these boards). As I specifically said, I was simply not allowing your claim of no other standard being acceptable to stand as an absolute -- you have no evidence there is nothing better, and only one standard that's even been identified to base this off of.

If you had just not tacked that on I'd have been in agreement with your statement.

Not at all, being bound together by a common goal or purpose has always been enough to qualify for that label when described as a group regardless of the personal relationships with individuals within it, you're comletely eliminating at least one definition of the word.

I would certainly not label all the people I went to high school with as "friends", but they all shared a common goal with me while we were there. There's a point where the group becomes too loosely bound for it, and a side of a debate that can't even reach consensus on what ban criteria to use is not tight knit by any means.

 

[Mortimer]

Not at all, being bound together by a common goal or purpose has always been enough to qualify for that label when described as a group regardless of the personal relationships with individuals within it, you're comletely eliminating at least one definition of the word.

I'm not sure you're using that definition of the word correctly. I could refer to a group of people by saying, "Friends, blah blah blah," but that wouldn't mean that they're my friends. They're just "friends" for the purpose of my address.

Besides, if you check wiktionary, that definition's already been eliminated.

 

[Red Arremer]

Is it really that necessary to gang up on adumbrodeus for using aword in a context that is usually used in slang for what he explained but not "officially" accepted?

Since he explained what he meant with it, I doubt you really have to bite him further about this.

 

[salaboB]

Is it really that necessary to gang up on adumbrodeus for using aword in a context that is usually used in slang for what he explained but not "officially" accepted?

Since he explained what he meant with it, I doubt you really have to bite him further about this.

There was no ganging up on my part, I was simply responding to him.

Was it that necessary that he defend applying the label to a group of people after I simply stated I did not wish them to be labelled as my "friends"? All that was needed was "Okay, that's your preference." (To make it even more unexpected for me, I'd been half joking. It didn't bother me but they aren't people I consider myself "friends" of at all, hence my comment.)

 

[adumbrodeus]

I have no interest in that, or enough experience to do so (And I recognize that my ideals for a competitive game do not line up with the majority's, so as such will never be an accepted ban criteria for a large portion of the playerbase -- including a majority of people on these boards). As I specifically said, I was simply not allowing your claim of no other standard being acceptable to stand as an absolute -- you have no evidence there is nothing better, and only one standard that's even been identified to base this off of.

If you had just not tacked that on I'd have been in agreement with your statement.

Ah, but nothing's ever totally absolute, all carries the basic assumption that "so long as evidence holds".

For that reason, it is absolute, unless you have enough evidence to the contrary, and a standard that deals with the objection.

I would certainly not label all the people I went to high school with as "friends", but they all shared a common goal with me while we were there. There's a point where the group becomes too loosely bound for it, and a side of a debate that can't even reach consensus on what ban criteria to use is not tight knit by any means.

The ultimate assumption you're making here is that to qualify as a "friend" in the group sense, you have to be closely bound.

Friend is nowhere near as selective as you imply.

I'm not sure you're using that definition of the word correctly. I could refer to a group of people by saying, "Friends, blah blah blah," but that wouldn't mean that they're my friends. They're just "friends" for the purpose of my address.

Besides, if you check wiktionary, that definition's already been eliminated.

Wiki-anything can only serve as an informational, not a source, because it is open source by nature.

Check out an actual dictionary, you may find definition 2b especially enlightening.

The term friend(s) can apply to members of the same group.

Is it really that necessary to gang up on adumbrodeus for using aword in a context that is usually used in slang for what he explained but not "officially" accepted?

Since he explained what he meant with it, I doubt you really have to bite him further about this.

While I appreciate the sentiment, they are incorrect. They seem to have some illusions about the word friend actually requiring closeness, I wish to correct them. You may check out an actual dictionary to confirm this if you wish.

 

[salaboB]

Ah, but nothing's ever totally absolute, all carries the basic assumption that "so long as evidence holds".

For that reason, it is absolute, unless you have enough evidence to the contrary, and a standard that deals with the objection.

It does not require evidence to be able to identify that other ban criteria can be acceptable.

What happens if you shift the required matchup ratios by 5 against the character to be banned (So they'll get banned for 85:15 rather than 90:10)? Right, pretty much nothing. No new characters become banned, no banned characters become unbanned. But it's a different ban criteria. So is it not acceptable? Could it even be better, in a game that's not released or not been taken competitive yet? Edit: How can it not be acceptable, when the current results are exactly the same with either criteria?

The values are arbitrary, there simply aren't that many games available to apply them to with enough borderline characters to see where the line for them needs to be drawn. That of course assumes you can accurately enough judge the matchups to even have those numbers have relevance, but if you can't do that you can't justify a ban using that criteria anyway.

 

[Mortimer]

Wiki-anything can only serve as an informational, not a source, because it is open source by nature.

Check out an actual dictionary, you may find definition 2b especially enlightening.

The term friend(s) can apply to members of the same group.

Exactly. It's in the dictionary, but that doesn't mean it's current.

Have you never heard the phrase "They may be with me, but they aren't my friends," used as a common response to that definition of friend? The "friendly" definition of friend trumps "associate" when you refer to a group of people as "your friends," as you did with salaboB.

 

[adumbrodeus]

It does not require evidence to be able to identify that other ban criteria can be acceptable.

What happens if you shift the required matchup ratios by 5 against the character to be banned (So they'll get banned for 85:15 rather than 90:10)? Right, pretty much nothing. No new characters become banned, no banned characters become unbanned. But it's a different ban criteria. So is it not acceptable? Could it even be better, in a game that's not released or not been taken competitive yet? Edit: How can it not be acceptable, when the current results are exactly the same with either criteria?

The values are arbitrary, there simply aren't that many games available to apply them to with enough borderline characters to see where the line for them needs to be drawn. That of course assumes you can accurately enough judge the matchups to even have those numbers have relevance, but if you can't do that you can't justify a ban using that criteria anyway.

Actually, a great deal, because this criteria is applicable to tactics as well. While the number of characters might be quite few, the number of TACTICS is certainly enough. Furthermore, the difference is easily discernable, given a large enough number of games.


Again, the clear distinction here is that banning is a last resort, whereas your suggestion moves it considerably closer to being a first option.

Especially because it deals with cast size inconsistently, for example, you'd be hard pressed to find a game with a cast of 12 that doesn't fit your new criteria.



And actually, it's quite easy for something to be unacceptable when the results are the same. What if, for example, if I was asked to compute 2+2, and I use the mechanism for 2*2? I still get 4, don't I? But isn't my methodology wrong?

Oh, you could always say that if I use different values the issue will be revealed, but that just brings up the core point here, the problem of induction. Basically, you can never be sure you're not correct about something if you are basing your understanding on "it usually works", if you don't have some sort of deductive background to derive your standard from, you can never be sure that you won't come across a case where you have that one case.

Which is why we have a mechanism known as "falsifying the null hypothesis", where we take the null and subject it to continuous testing, if the testing disproves it, we discard it for the new null.

Ultimately, in Sirlin's philosophy there are both elements of placing the null and deduction. The actual percentage is changeable (and is a null hypothesis for our use), but it is drawing a line based on deduction.


So, again, ultimately, like all null hypothesizes, the burden is on the person intending to make the change.

Exactly. It's in the dictionary, but that doesn't mean it's current.

Have you never heard the phrase "They may be with me, but they aren't my friends," used as a common response to that definition of friend? The "friendly" definition of friend trumps "associate" when you refer to a group of people as "your friends," as you did with salaboB.

Actually, quite the opposite, your view is outdated.



The weakening of the word "friend" has been occurring for quite some time now, and is a known psycholinguistic fact. Part of it has to do with social networking (facebook especially plays a role, along with other sites that refer to all contacts as "friends"), but there's a general move towards expanding friend to mean well beyond what "friend" used to mean, and this fact is expounded in the dictionary.

However, I will note that Merriam-Webster is updated on a consistent basis to reflect changes in language, which is why you'll find "google" and other similar terms there.

Generally speaking, a group of people who you have close personal relationships with are "close friends", whereas "friends" can include a wide variety of relationships beyond that scope.


So yes, your views on what the word "friend" means are a bit old-fashioned.