Stage Information Database and Q&A

[WindMajor]

He's not really trolling, he's just being really sarcastic.

 

[T-block]

Interesting... so 6-10 seconds, average of 8 seconds, between when the platform starts to descend and when it next appears. Which side it appears on is completely random. It stays up for 2-5 seconds. Pretty much what you were seeing, right?

I'll have to think this over.

I know my main point isn't going to change (although I fully admit it is weaker ) when it's not uncommon for it to appear on the same side 4+ times in a row, meaning the amount of time a side goes without seeing the ghost easily ranges from 6 seconds to a full minute.

 

[san.]

My goal is to make you not hate YI: B that much. YI is pretty much my second worst neutral, mostly because of how to deal against camping the center.

About Picto, I'd totally accept it if you can just react to each transformation. Just the whole walls thing appearing before the drawing begins really ruins an already "iffy" stage. The actual hitboxes of transformations gives a pretty decent time to react but the walls...

I'd accept Pirate Ship, Japes, Norfair, maybe Green Greens before Picto.

 

[T-block]

I don't actually hate YI:B all that much lol... I just think that if we follow the logic that a lot of people use to say Pictochat should be banned, we should also arrive at the conclusion that YI:B should be banned.

 

[WindMajor]

Following that train of logic even further, I'm of the opinion that if YI:B is still legal, then Green Greens should be legal too, since major randomness on both stages are isolated to just two areas.

 

[T-block]

Absolutely.

And I brought that up once.

Then everyone suddenly said GG wasn't banned because of randomness x.x

And I'm sure I could find hundreds of examples of people whining about GG randomness.

 

[WindMajor]

Well... the bomb blocks are random....

Not like I care though, after playing on that stage for literally HOURS at a time doing my super secret research thing, I'm certain that the randomness in this stage isn't bad enough for the stage to be banned. People just need to learn about the stage and play on it more, instead of complain about it.

 

[theunabletable]

My definition of random is pretty standard. If something isn't 100% certain, it has a degree of randomness, that's... well, universally accepted.

no it isn't lol. i hate to post dictionary definitions, but that's a meaning that causes ****ing EVERYTHING to be random, and is not true to the actual definition, either

"proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern"

My example was intentionally extreme so there was no way you could say "No, this isn't random". However, in your Rock-Paper-Scissors games, you lost 10% of the time, right? That's because it was RANDOM. You simply increased your odds by being intelligent, you can do that with any kind of random-ness.

if this is the definition of random you'd like to use, then fine. however we then need a different word for true randomness, the kind of thing that is ACTUALLY random, that you cannot effect, such as pictochat, or tripping.

the issue i have isn't necessarily semantics, it's that pictochat is commonly accepted to be random, and you're comparing things that aren't ACTUALLY random, but using the word random to describe them in a barely acceptable way, which causes your RPS to pictochat comparison to seem valid.

i'm fine with accepting that we could every single decision we ever make in the game random, but then we NEED another word to describe the true randomness that's present in things like pictochat. we have to have that distinction, so that you can't just lump them both together, as if they're the same thing. (and then tell the other person that they're just using semantics when they call you on it)

because that distinction is necessary, and you're intent on using the word random for EVERYTHING, instead of just accounting for player skill, i propose we call the kind of randomness that TRULY has no order, or predictability to it, the kind where the game itself essentially uses RNG to decide, true-randomness, or TR for short (pronounced like "turr).

The way you are putting it, NOTHING is random. I mean, flipping a coin isn't random, as long as you can calculate what face it will land on by looking at the angle it was flipped at, how heavy each side is due to dust, how high it was flipped, etc...

nah the way i'm putting it, some things are random, and some things are not. your use of the word random makes the word itself almost completely ubiquitous, because everything is random.

my definition (which is probably closer to the actual definition than yours) means that some things are random, and some are not, we don't boil down every single thing in the universe to being random, and compare them all to stages that are far more random and that we have absolutely no control over.

He's not really trolling, he's just being really sarcastic.

oOooOOoOoO maybe i'm trolling, maybe i'm not!

the world may never know!

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Anyone with a little free time should go troll Atomsk's AiB blog. He basically recommended **** that we've been going against for ages, so I asked "please define 'neutral'" (in literally as many words) and he blocked me.

Also, great success @ new unity ruleset.

 

[theunabletable]

man i hate the unity ruleset, brinstar and rainbow shouldn't both be legal on the same ruleset, and atomsk's stagelist is cool.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Atomsk's stagelist is the same kind of convoluted, backwards-facing bull**** that we have been fighting (and, in the meanwhile, winning) against. Especially the starter list.

 

[theunabletable]

you make it sound so hype lmao. christ you all are way too full of yourselves

we should all use TKD's ruleset anyways http://smashclubs.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/set-de-reglas-ssbb/

oh and could you guys critique my friend and i's brand new compelling webcomic, konkey dong? here's part 1

 

[John12346]

That reminds me to check to see if "sweet bro and hella jeff" has been updated...

 

[WindMajor]

Anyone with a little free time should go troll Atomsk's AiB blog. He basically recommended **** that we've been going against for ages, so I asked "please define 'neutral'" (in literally as many words) and he blocked me.

Also, great success @ new unity ruleset.

Funny story actually

I tried to help you out, but instead of linking him to something useful, I accidentally posted a link to something completely irrelevant, and I can't find a ****ing edit button anywhere in that ****ing AiB blog.

Sorry bro!

 

[ぱみゅ]

meh, I want to reply to table's post -and everything Picto-related-, I just don't feel like...

I probably reply tomorrow....


Oh, and I'll check that blog ruleset thing later.

 

[WindMajor]

Just for added hype, and to make sure I have to go through with this, I'm doing something that might help Norfair get legal.

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[T-block]

You got me. Send me a PM or something?

 

[WindMajor]

Actually, I just went ahead and made a thread in our group.

 

[MK26]

http://www.smashboards.com/group.php?groupid=2557

^^

that group

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Just for added hype, and to make sure I have to go through with this, I'm doing something that might help Norfair get legal.

Any help would be appreciated.

As much as I love Norfair, I can't really support it anymore. :<

 

[T-block]

It's invite-only? Or am I just being stupid?

Tesh invite me x.x

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

We could always just abuse our mod powers and post anyways.

 

[T-block]

Mods can view, but not post?

Stupid SMods >=(

 

[san.]

Well... the bomb blocks are random....

Not like I care though, after playing on that stage for literally HOURS at a time doing my super secret research thing, I'm certain that the randomness in this stage isn't bad enough for the stage to be banned. People just need to learn about the stage and play on it more, instead of complain about it.

True, GGs isn't that random. I think there is some trick with falling blocks and bomb blocks, too.
Every character can attack bomb blocks (some need perfect spacing). Camping is very strong, hiding behind the block wall or falling blocks very close near the blastzone.

The windbox from the tree helps prevent wall infinites, I believe.

But yeah, GGs isn't that bad. It's just there are enough people that don't like the stage to keep it banned. That's the reason BBR-RC was formed.

I don't have any qualms with Norfair. Some characters really like this stage due to their camping abilities, but the stage hazards help prevent this.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Mods can view, but not post?

Stupid SMods >=(

Smods can post in it. ^_^

I won't since I want to respect the private nature of the group, stupid morals ruining my fun.

 

[Tesh]

Actually I thought I invited you a while ago. I guess you aren't RedRyukin Rose.....

T-block I will invite you as well.

 

[Raziek]

meh i beat ranked 8 in socal the other day. and the ranked players here are considerably better than the ranked players elsewhere (raziek is ranked 3rd in nova scotia, and he's not very good. or atleast he's bad enough to have lost to the me who only had a few months of experience with the game competitively).

i'm not saying i'm a good player yet, i'm saying that most of you are bad and shouldn't have any part in how good players have to play the game lol

Just because my ego has been offended, I'm going to say this again.

1) That was 8 months ago. I have plenty of more recent videos, I've improved, and I'm ranked first in my region currently.

2) You play Meta Knight. And I happen to suck at that matchup. Especially then, since he was banned at the time. Even then, I'm still bad at the matchup even now haven gotten plenty of practice.

3) I was sick as a dog that entire tournament, just ask San Antonio, I got half of them sick from rooming with them.

And I still almost beat you. I'm not a top player, I'm not that delusional. But I'm not bad. I'm the one of the best in a mid-level scene. It's hard to grow past that without having better players around you to challenge you further.

Even outside of that, stop trying to discredit my opinions just because you think I'm not that good at the game. Even if you were right, it's still a huge fallacy.

Yes, obviously Joe Q. Scrub who thinks Link is the best should have nothing to do with anything.

Someone with a very deep understanding of the game can happen to be not all that skilled. Pierce is a good example of this. He's not a TERRIBLE player, by any means, but he's not as good as his knowledge would suggest he should be.

However, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have input. I'll bring up the football analyst comparison again. The people who make and tweak the rules for football aren't the ones who are playing the game. They're people with a very deep understanding of the game who interpret data, make judgement calls, and make decisions. They aren't on the field tackling people, but they know what they're talking about.

Saying you have to be GOOD to be SMART is an awful fallacy.

You can be extremely skilled at this game, but have unbelievably biased viewpoints, and logically misguided ideals.

Likewise, you can have exceptional ideals and viewpoints, but suck balls.

Then there are people in the middle.

 

[sunshade]

Mind if I snag an invite to the SRC?

 

[theunabletable]

1) That was 8 months ago. I have plenty of more recent videos, I've improved, and I'm ranked first in my region currently.

yeah i haven't improved at all in 8 months, i'm the exact same skill level

although being frozen in ice since then, that would make sense

2) You play Meta Knight. And I happen to suck at that matchup. Especially then, since he was banned at the time. Even then, I'm still bad at the matchup even now haven gotten plenty of practice.

and you must know that i definitely only play against marths all day every day, and that it happens to be my personal best matchup, so clearly it was very unfair that you didn't know much about the game, and you're secretly better than i am.

3) I was sick as a dog that entire tournament, just ask San Antonio, I got half of them sick from rooming with them.

okay, and to be fair, i had gotten 3 hours of sleep the night before, and felt like ****, and, in fact, spent 2 hours on the floor of the venue trying to get some extra sleep, only to get constantly shaken up by passing halo players yelling loud noises in my ears to make sure i didn't fall asleep.

i had actually contemplated not playing my matches with you because i was not only playing the worst i'd played since picking up the game, but i also felt absolutely awful due to having a headache, and trouble keeping my eyes open.

oh and not to mention i was depressed because my girlfriend was out of the country for 3 weeks, and i didn't have her to talk to.

you might have noticed that i was playing bad, because it took me up until the last stock of the last match (which was on FD, because I was confident I'd outplay you anywhere here when I didn't have bull**** pictochat stuff going on, even while i was struggling to keep my eyes open) to adapt to the fact that i could just tornado you whenever you were in the air, and you were completely inadequate at stopping it. even the people who watched me play noticed how bad i was doing throughout that entire day

not that i'd expect you to care, because you really shouldn't. just as i shouldn't have to give a **** about whatever johns you throw out.

i won the set

you lost the set

stop *****ing especially when you know NOTHING about my side of the story at all. it's not like you're mango and you have legitimate johns and everyone can still believe you're the best in the world despite losing. you're a terribad from nova scotia who lost in tournament to a meta knight.

i don't care if you're better than me, or if you're worse than me, i have nothing to prove skill-wise, and am not insecure enough about my skill because i know i'm mediocre at the game. i also know that if i was able to beat you, you really should have no place in a discussion about something that is closely related to game knowledge.

And I still almost beat you. I'm not a top player, I'm not that delusional. But I'm not bad. I'm the one of the best in a mid-level scene. It's hard to grow past that without having better players around you to challenge you further.

maybe my standards are too high, but you were worse than the other socal random marth's, like soren or even SFH

i think that i'm bad at the game, and shouldn't have really any power in deciding the ruleset, apart from pointing out when there are other people who shouldn't either.

Even outside of that, stop trying to discredit my opinions just because you think I'm not that good at the game. Even if you were right, it's still a huge fallacy.

depends on at what level you understand what ad hominem is. i'm not saying that you're wrong because you're bad. i'm saying that in something as knowledge based as brawl, and with as low of a tech skill barrier as brawl, if you understood the game and had lots of real, practical knowledge you'd be good at it.

i'm not attacking you personally, and saying that you're automatically wrong simply because you're bad. the being bad isn't causation for you being wrong.

what being bad tells me is that i need not waste time trying to argue with you, because i know that if you actually understood the game, you WOULDN'T be bad. there is very much a difference. and i very much understand that difference. i used to be just like you. trash, confident that i was smart, and even though i was bad, it didn't matter because, though, hella liberal-stage-wise, said that good players didn't know anything, and that bad players can know what they're talking about, and was an ******* about it, just like most people who argue stages but are bad tend to be.

then i beat you in tournament, while playing close to the worst i'd played since entering the tournament scene. it got me thinking about why all stage arguers tend to be AWFUL at the game itself.

have you ever heard of the dunning kruger effect?

However, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have input. I'll bring up the football analyst comparison again. The people who make and tweak the rules for football aren't the ones who are playing the game. They're people with a very deep understanding of the game who interpret data, make judgement calls, and make decisions. They aren't on the field tackling people, but they know what they're talking about.

false analogy, btw, for a variety of reasons

for one, football is full of arbitrary rules. i mean unless you think we should penalize if they celebrate, or violate a very strict dress code.

i mean, from reading your posts, you seem to be pretty much against all the methods that they use for rules in football. almost all of them are entirely subjective lol. it's a bad analogy because the way we make rules in brawl is completely different from in football.

and two, it's hardly applicable because brawl is a low-tech skill game. if you know a lot, you're probably good, because, well, knowledge really is power in this game. in football, if you're not the right size, or have the correct physical attributes, you really can't play well. so you can have a smart person football-wise, who also cannot play football. unless your thumbs are broken, you're about as good as you are smart in this game, with a few exceptions (maybe one or two lol)

and lastly, that's a team sport, this is a singles game. player's intelligence in football isn't as important as their physical abilities. i probably wouldn't trust quite as much (although it'd still be important) how players in football think the game should be played, because being good at football isn't as closely correlated with deep, intricate knowledge of the game, but often knowledge of how your position is played (although some positions aren't like that (well no pro is really quite like that, atleast in the simple way i put it, but i trust you understand the point i'm trying to make))

Someone with a very deep understanding of the game can happen to be not all that skilled. Pierce is a good example of this. He's not a TERRIBLE player, by any means, but he's not as good as his knowledge would suggest he should be.

yeah, pierce is pretty smart at the game.

you're not pierce, you're not the exception. i haven't seen pierce write 4 paragraphs of johns over why he lost to a bad meta knight player, and I haven't seen pierce talk about what's most fair in-game, and the way the game should be played, rules-wise.

However, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have input. I'll bring up the football analyst comparison again. The people who make and tweak the rules for football aren't the ones who are playing the game. They're people with a very deep understanding of the game who interpret data, make judgement calls, and make decisions. They aren't on the field tackling people, but they know what they're talking about.

i wouldn't trust pierce to make decisions regarding how the metagame should be played, when he's not a person who represents how the metagame actually is played

Saying you have to be GOOD to be SMART is an awful fallacy.

when have i said that you need to be good to be smart?

Likewise, you can have exceptional ideals and viewpoints, but suck balls.

how can you know how the game should be played (as in how the rules should be made), when you don't know how it is played?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Because knowledge about how to craft a competitive rule-set doesn't directly relate to skill.

It's not like we are debating frame data and match-ups here.

 

[theunabletable]

Because knowledge about how to craft a competitive rule-set doesn't directly relate to skill.

theoretically, no. if we were all robots, you'd be right.

however ability to make a ruleset that results in the best, and healthiest metagame tends to be related to knowledge of the game itself.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Let's say this was an MK-ban argument, and I was saying he should be banned based on tournament results and amount of money won.

I'm also an awful player.

I guess that anything I say will be wrong, right?

But hey, if ADHD comes in and says the exact same thing, he is suddenly right?

Base arguments off of their content, not the person who made them.

 

[theunabletable]

i have not said that anything someone bad says is wrong inherently, i am saying that there are some flaws with arguments that only become apparent with experience on what the actual game is like.

you're missing my point. someone who does not have enough knowledge of the game could make a good argument, or have a good opinion on stagelists, but it would be by near luck that he would, as he does not have the knowledge of the game necessary to know what would be best for the metagame from all sources of information.

okay as an example. spartanmarth941351309531 on youtube says that tiers are 4 queers, and that ganon is a good character, but that captain falcon is a bad character.

this person isn't wrong inherently because they're bad at the game, but they are bad at the game. they are bad at the game because they know very little about the game. he was correct about captain falcon, but not because he knows a lot about the game. his statement about ganon is clearly enough to come to the conclusion that he doesn't really know much. his statement about falcon is NOT based on high level information.

however no matter how hard you try and convince this person that ganon is bad, he simply will not get it because he has not had the tournament experiences where he sees how bad ganon is. he might acknowledge that he's not as good as a lot of other people, but being good doesn't mean that you're correct.

there will be no winning a debate against this person, because he's so convinced that he's using logic, that there's no way to prove to him that you're correct. the only way this kind of person could ever realize that ganon is bad is if he were to have the experiences where he realizes the error of his ways.

of course we should base our opinions on an argument from the content of said argument, however since most debates don't have a definite end, or win criteria, both sides think they're winning the whole time. if one side is wrong, the only way they can really come out of that is to have an experience, or experience a lot of things, that shows them why they are wrong.

i have trouble believing that raziek, or budget player cadet, or grim tuesday (all of whom no one would ever know of unless they were to read anything related to stage discussion) possesses some hidden knowledge that the vast majority of top players have never heard of, or can comprehend, that makes having yoshi's island on, and pictochat off, suddenly objectively incorrect.

the main issue probably boils down to the fact that you people claim to have the objectively superior opinions on stagelists, but they all start with a subjective criteria, usually stolen near ver****ingbatim from sirlin because he's the authority on super smash brothers.

this clear disregard for care of the metagame, or the people aspect of the game, is probably one of the clear differences, however i can't be sure of its importance because i frankly don't possess enough knowledge to be sure. what i can be sure of is that the vast majority of top players have conservative views on stages, and that the vast majority of theorycrafters and stage debaters are absolutely terrible at the game. and that given my experiences of growing out of the mindset i used to have when being a liberal stagelist debater, this is the only reason i have so far come up with for the disparity between the average theorycrafter/stage debaters and the average pro player, and the realization that it seems most rational, when the criteria we choose really is subjective when we get down to it, the one in which the the goal itself is to achieve the healthiest metgame.

atleast in comparison to making arguments like "well yoshi's has random stuff, therefore it is identical to pictochat. so you are a moron for banning pictochat and not yoshi's, because no line could ever be objective" (which for some reason doesn't lead to warioware being legitimate, but i digress) which we can see immediately are just silly. but we can't pinpoint why because it's based so much in specific wording that makes it look rational, that you need to dissect every word, thus committing the sin of semantics (the only tactic (for lack of a better word) around here that's to find something politically/objectively correct that is apparently the wrong way to go about things).

TL;DR: the criteria for stagelists ultimately is subjective, as there's no way to decide what is the objectively best criteria to use. people who don't understand the importance of the fact that we are people, and thus shaping our ruleset around what makes the healthiest metagame for the community in question is a perfectly rational way to go often don't understand because of a lack of experience in the related subjects. they are not inherently wrong because they are bad at the related subjects, but being good, or knowing a lot, about the related subjects gives you a higher likelihood of being correct. people who don't know much are not wrong automatically because they don't know much, they just happen to be wrong very often, stemming from the fact that they don't know much. however these people tend to think they know a lot, because they don't have the self-assessment skills necessary to know how much they truly know regarding the subject, and thus have a tendency to think what they say has more merit than it really does (because the statement judge from content of argument, not from person making the argument, can easily lead to the wrong mental idea that all people have the same amount of knowledge regarding the subject). this is similar to the dunning kruger effect afaik, which would partly explain why all of you think you have the objectively right answer, despite mostly being **** at the actual game

man even the TL;DR was too long lol

TL;DR for those who thought the TL;DR was too long, so they didn't read: when someone who doesn't know anything says something wrong, what they said isn't wrong because they don't know anything, they just have a high likelihood of saying things that are wrong, and that high likelihood is due to not knowing much. but because they don't know much, they don't have the self-assessment skills necessary to realize that they don't know much, or that they're wrong.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Only read the tl;dr tl;dr

But... Why does it matter if there is a higher chance of them being wrong? That might be important when guaging whether to read what they are saying or not, but not to judge the content of their post after you've read it.

 

[theunabletable]

man i knew i couldn't cover everything in the tl;dr*2. you should give the first tl;dr a read, as that explains the stuff a little more thoroughly (or perhaps maybe reading my whole post lol)

it's important to note, because people who don't know things are much more likely to not ever realize that they don't know things. this is why i keep bringing up the dunning kruger effect.

ever tried to convince a crazy person that they're crazy? they don't have the self assessment skills to know that they are crazy, you will NEVER get through to them.

the idea that we should be able to ban stages for reasons related only to how positively it effects our metagame, and having things that look like double standards initially is one that looks subjective, and is then usually decreed to be inherently inferior to something as objective as the standard opinions around here. the people here, however, do not have the assessment skills necessary (the kind that usually accompanies player skill, and having lots of applicable, real knowledge of the game) to realize that their "objective" opinions stem from something equally subjective, and is actually potentially more subjective.

when we have two decisions that are equally subjective, going with the one that seems to get better results (IE the one that results in the better mindset, which top level players seem to have), and frankly makes more sense for everyone's general benefit, looks to me to be the best option.

i'm not even communicating this correctly, though, and that's the issue. it's a hard thing to communicate to the other side, when the other side basically operates off a flowchart that goes like this:
does the concept use my criteria for banning (ie whatever their interpretation of Playing to Win was)? yes: continue to step 2. no: disregard whole concept because it's subjective and competitively inferior to my model, and then call the person a subjective scrub.

does the concept contain anything that's related to opinion? yes: disregard and call them a scrub who needs to learn sirlin's principles more. no: continue to step 3.

does the person point out that your criteria starts from somewhere as subjective? yes: disregard concept, and point out to them that it's objectively best to use whatever has the least amount of subjectivity, and therefore the most amount of objectivity. continue to step 4 if you care to, but it doesn't matter because you've obviously won the debate at this point. no: continue to step 4.

does the person point out that you're not good at the game, or mention anything related to player skill, or people in general (IE anything that's not about theoretical robots, if we were all ideal people)? yes: point out, preferably in all caps, that they're committing the greatest fallacy of all, ad hominem, and that makes them incorrect, because knowledge of a subject, or skill in a subject, have no bearing on whether that person has considered all of the information before making their opinion, or actually is correct. no: continue to step 5

does the person contain any inconsistencies with their stated stagelist criteria? yes: point out that their stagelist is objectively wrong, and don't forget to use the word objectively as much as possible, because it's really convincing if you do. then celebrate for winning a debate. no: pat them on the back for a ruleset well made!

if i believe in anything subjective, it has to be incorrect, there is absolutely zero merit to be had to anything that contains subjective opinion. unless someone points out that everything starts with a subjective distinction. then it's said that that one subjective distinction doesn't matter, because it exists on both sides, and it is quantifiably, and objectively, better to have fewer subjective opinions, therefore the criteria that has the fewest subjective opinions is the objectively correct one.

which ends in the conclusion that because you only make one subjective assumption in the creation of your criteria (because we don't judge subjective assumptions on the merit of the assumption themselves, they are all equal in reason no matter what, apparently), then you have the undeniably correct position, and everyone else is a scrub.

noting player skill is important, it makes a big difference for me to be able to say "this is what i think, and i may be completely wrong, as i do not possess the experience or knowledge necessary to come to a clear, reasonable conclusion". it helps mindset-wise, as it causes us to change our goals. instead of having an opinion, and coming up with and argument to fit that opinion (which is what ****ing ALL of you do, because you're all biased as ****), we get to arrive at the opinion that simply works the best.

i can debate anything provided i'm motivated enough to come up with a million arguments and responses, and i have more patience than you. the quality of one's argument does not necessarily represent the quality of one's position.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Strange, upon glancing over both your posts I suddenly lost all interest in debating the subject. xD

 

[theunabletable]

thank god.

i'm pretty worn out with this too lol. it's stressful because there's no adequate way to communicate what i'm thinking right now, since it's so heavily based on experiences i've had, that are unique to me, and would only be taken the way they were from me, and trying to explain the reasons behind the experiences, instead of giving flawed anecdotal evidence, which is what is usually done by people when they debate this haha

 

[Life]

I'm going to be honest and say even I tl;dr'd table's posts and I never tl;dr.

Question though. Hypothetically, let's say I'm missing a hand or something like that. I have M2K levels of knowledge, however. I'm terrible at Brawl (having one hand does that to you) but I know a lot. Are my opinions still valid?

 

[T-block]

I think it's implied that that sort of situation is not what he's talking about -_-

Anyways, this discussion is kinda silly. Your stances differ because of a difference in ideals (essentially what we should be testing in tournament), not because one of you is better than the other -_-

To say that liberals tend to be bad at the game isnt' even accurate. First of all, we're not divided into two camps - it's a spectrum. Also, PLENTY of top players support more than just static stages. I could list you examples if you really wanted.

Correlation (fairly weak correlation at that) does not imply causation, etc. etc.

I completely agree that none of us have the right to label our philosphy as objectively correct, though.

 

[theunabletable]

I'm going to be honest and say even I tl;dr'd table's posts and I never tl;dr.

Question though. Hypothetically, let's say I'm missing a hand or something like that. I have M2K levels of knowledge, however. I'm terrible at Brawl (having one hand does that to you) but I know a lot. Are my opinions still valid?

once again, i've never said that being bad MEANS that your opinions are invalid. the only thing i've said, and i've worked really hard to get this point across, is that generally if you are bad, your opinions are invalid anyways, because the things that cause you to be bad are very much related to the things that cause you to have invalid, or unjustified opinions (a lack of full knowledge).

although i'll answer your question, and say that likely the person in your hypothetical question knows what he's talking about, however i have no way of knowing, because i haven't lived through that situation, or know every detail i can about it.

To say that liberals tend to be bad at the game isnt' even accurate. First of all, we're not divided into two camps - it's a spectrum. Also, PLENTY of top players support more than just static stages. I could list you examples if you really wanted.

i haven't said that there aren't a lot of top players who are fine with non-japanese stages. however i've met very few, although my perception might be skewed because i'm in socal, who are nearly as liberal as the stage debaters here (BPC, raziek, grim tuesday, etc), and i think that that difference in game knowledge is part of what sets their opinions apart to some extent, anyways.