Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[crush]

u never actually talk about the game you just complain about stuff from tronaments you didn't even go to

 

[Beat!]

Thread title should be changed to "crush vs Strife" imo

 

[Kal]

I demand that attention shift back to me. No more of this Crush vs. Strife discussion. Besides, both of them are bad posters.

 

[Strife]

I demand that attention shift back to me. No more of this Crush vs. Strife discussion. Besides, both of them are bad posters.

Then define what it means to be a good poster. You saying that I am a ''bad poster'' sounds like an entirely arbitrary concept to me.

 

[Kal]

Are we nearing the start of that awkward, semantic-riddled road where we bicker over whether your posts are worth reading?

 

[Beat!]

Yeah Kal it sounds like you just use your own subjective criteria to support your definition of a bad poster because you want to push the forum metagame in a direction you like.

 

[Strife]

Are we nearing the start of that awkward, semantic-riddled road where we bicker over whether your posts are worth reading?

You said I was a bad poster and I'm asking you to explain that statement, what about my posts make qualify me as a bad poster and what is a bad poster to begin with? If you can't answer these questions then you shouldn't be calling anyone a bad poster to begin with.

 

[crush]

How about at apex me and strife play a best of 5 set where the loser has to delete their smashboards account and never post again?

 

[Beat!]

Do it.

My money's on crush.

 

[Kal]

Yeah Kal it sounds like you just use your own subjective criteria to support your definition of a bad poster because you want to push the forum metagame in a direction you like.

I propose that my criteria is right because I am the one who has it. Similar to Divine Command Theory, minus the morality. Kal Command Theory.

You said I was a bad poster and I'm asking you to explain that statement, what about my posts make qualify me as a bad poster and what is a bad poster to begin with? If you can't answer these questions then you shouldn't be calling anyone a bad poster to begin with.

If it wasn't totally obvious that I was merely making a joke in reference to my facetious desire for more attention, then you're not just a bad poster. You're a bad reader.

Seriously, unwind a bit. I was only kidding. Though I found an instance here where you said "less" but should have said "fewer." Tiss tiss.

 

[Strife]

How about at apex me and strife play a best of 5 set where the loser has to delete their smashboards account and never post again?

The risk reward of this money match is dumb. I hardly care if you keep posting but I'd be bothered if I could never post again. It seems like a dumb challenge to take.

More importantly, I don't know or trust you and if I won the money match I'm pretty sure you'd ignore the stipulations of our match and you'd just keep posting anyways.

I propose that my criteria is right because I am the one who has it. Similar to Divine Command Theory, minus the morality. Kal Command Theory.



If it wasn't totally obvious that I was merely making a joke in reference to my facetious desire for more attention, then you're not just a bad poster. You're a bad reader.

Seriously, unwind a bit. I was only kidding. Though I found an instance here where you said "less" but should have said "fewer." Tiss tiss.

And if it wasn't totally obvious to you that I was joking this entire time, then not only are you a bad reader, but you are also an idiot.

And I don't see the relevance of your last sentence. Unless you're making the claim that making occasional negligible mistakes in grammar usage qualifies someone as a bad poster.

 

[crush]

Strife just knows he's going to lose because he doesn't play melee and he's only been to like 3 tronaments

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Are we nearing the start of that awkward, semantic-riddled road where we bicker over whether your posts are worth reading?

I love you, Kal. You took the words right out of my, uh, fingers.

Smooth Criminal

 

[The Star King]

This Strife guy needs to learn to not take everything so seriously, unless he wants to be the prime target of the various trolls on Smashboards.

Here's a hint to help you get started: Don't get mad at this post

 

[Strife]

This Strife guy needs to learn to not take everything so seriously, unless he wants to be the prime target of the various trolls on Smashboarfs.

Here's a hint to help you get started: Don't get mad at this post

People tend to read into my posts a lot. Usually when I complain(quite a bit) I'm not upset, I am simply making an observation on something I am against. Unless I'm cussing in the post then I'm usually not angry.

Moving on: Does anyone else really dislike Cactuar? The guy comes off as such an *** in this thread. I don't think people like him should never have an influential position in our or any community.

 

[Luma]

and there he goes again

 

[Divinokage]

People tend to read into my posts a lot. Usually when I complain(quite a bit) I'm not upset, I am simply making an observation on something I am against. Unless I'm cussing in the post then I'm usually not angry.

Moving on: Does anyone else really dislike Cactuar? The guy comes off as such an *** in this thread. I don't think people like him should never have an influential position in our or any community.

What is this? Contributing? Ya.. ok keep your illusions to yourself and STFU.

 

[Strife]

What is this? Contributing? Ya.. ok keep your illusions to yourself and STFU.

Yes, it is contributing. This is a thread about the new rule set so I'm trying to ascertain if people like the guy who is making the rules to begin with, because I personally think he is an ***.

Instead of being dumb, and making such aggressive posts why don't you answer my question, or tell me what about my question you have a problem with. Geesh, you're a bad poster Kage.

Edit: Sometimes I feel like Kage name searches me for my posts. It's I feel like I'm being harassed, it's like he's in love with me or something.

 

[Divinokage]

I can do aggressive posts because I feel like it just like you who's trying to attack a fellow smasher who I know kinda well. This is about the ruleset where everyone had their own contributions to make, it's not only one guy. That's stupid.

 

[Kal]

And if it wasn't totally obvious to you that I was joking this entire time, then not only are you a bad reader, but you are also an idiot.

Unless your posts are sardonic and I am simply unable to tell (which I doubt is the case), I really don't believe you were joking. This post right here provides no indication that you are kidding. Unless "arbitrary" is one of your key joke-words.

And I don't see the relevance of your last sentence. Unless you're making the claim that making occasional negligible mistakes in grammar usage qualifies someone as a bad poster.

It was a joke. Do you need like, a hug, or something?

Moving on: Does anyone else really dislike Cactuar? The guy comes off as such an *** in this thread. I don't think people like him should never have an influential position in our or any community.

Whether we like him doesn't matter much (nor is it on topic), though I do feel his need to constantly flex his authority to be kind of annoying. I don't have any authority in the MBR, I get it, but there's no need to bring things like this:

I'm also the dude defining which way it goes, which is unfortunate for you.

up all the time. It's insulting to those of us with dissenting view points. Other than that, and his quick dismissal of opposing views (frequently done with said authority-flexing), I think his posts are pretty well-written and that he is well-spoken.

Really, the point of this thread isn't to bash any individual (especially a moderator, hint-hint), so I don't see where you're going with this. You're not contributing by throwing personal attacks at someone, even if he is the guy in charge of the ruleset.

And, after all of this, I am able to provide real justification for you being a bad poster. Thanks for the ammunition, Strife.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Kal, I don't think cactuar or really any MBR member takes non-MBR discussions too seriously. Theres a reason cactus puts a troll face in like every other post.

 

[Kal]

That doesn't make it less insulting, honestly, and it just cements my distaste for the MBR. We don't need an elitist group-think with private discussions going around telling us what rules they think are best, and it's not made any better when they take discussions outside of their group-think circle-jerk less than seriously.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

So you think the best football players in the world should play with the little leaguers?


I think having the best debaters, highest level players, important TOs, knowledgeable people about the game, and combinations of them all in a group where they can discuss without being bogged down with having to explain why fox is so good on rainbow cruise to some random guy who read the conversation or something similar.

 

[Varist]

if kal were in the mbr he would feel quite differently. ho ho ho. merry kalmas

 

[The Star King]

So you think the best football players in the world should play with the little leaguers?


I think having the best debaters, highest level players, important TOs, knowledgeable people about the game, and combinations of them all in a group where they can discuss without being bogged down with having to explain why fox is so good on rainbow cruise to some random guy who read the conversation or something similar.

We're not expecting you to cater to every noob out there - just not dismiss a good point solely because it was posted by someone who isn't in the MBR. Nobody is going to give you **** for ignoring the obviously uninformed posters, as long as you listen to constructive posters (such as Kal) regardless of their status.

 

[Kal]

So you think the best football players in the world should play with the little leaguers?

I'm not going to waste time addressing this analogy.

I think having the best debaters, highest level players, important TOs, knowledgeable people about the game, and combinations of them all in a group where they can discuss without being bogged down with having to explain why fox is so good on rainbow cruise to some random guy who read the conversation or something similar.

And I think that's elitist nonsense. We shouldn't be dismissing players because they lack knowledge, and if you are unable to actually explain why Fox is too good on Rainbow Cruise, the random guy is in the right. In other words, open discussion will naturally filter out that sort of nonsense. It's not difficult for people to note who makes good posts and worry about addressing those. When a noob comes into a thread and asks why Hyrule is banned, we should not dismiss him because he lacks knowledge. Such a trend can lead to a ban of anything.

The fact that the MBR is not even open for us to read, so that we can't even discover what goes into your decision making, is a huge issue.

The application process seems pretty absurd to me. What makes someone qualified? The people who are in there, who have declared themselves to be qualified, decide that these people are qualified.

And finally, my biggest issue: the MBR allows for too much group-think. We don't need a group of players telling us "we've agreed, through private discussion, on this ruleset." What we need is an open discussion which allows for TOs to create their own informed decision on what ruleset to use. I'll dig up some other posts addressing other issues I have with the MBR.

inb4 MBR doesn't force you to use their ruleset

if kal were in the mbr he would feel quite differently. ho ho ho. merry kalmas

There's a reason I have not applied, nor ever will apply, to be in the MBR, despite being more than "qualified."

We're not expecting you to cater to every noob out there - just not dismiss a good point solely because it was posted by someone who isn't in the MBR. Nobody is going to give you **** for ignoring the obviously uninformed posters, as long as you listen to constructive posters (such as Kal) regardless of their status.

I have an issue with dismissing posters solely because they are uninformed. Their points should be addressed, not ignored. If you are unable to address a point, then that is a good thing. It creates further discussion and debate. On the other hand, if you dismiss someone as uninformed without actually addressing what they say, you haven't proven to anyone that your stance is worth having. For all we know, the random dissenter is right.

 

[Varist]

But Kal, if the MBR were visible to non-MBR members, you'd have a whole flood of mirror threads in Melee Discussion saying things like, "@what that ****ing cactus said in the tier thread"

We don't need that to happen. However, I do believe that when the MBR plans to post something like this, they should take care to archive the most important/constructive posts as they happen, and release the bundle to the public once the decisions have been made. In this way, non-MBR posters could challenge something more "tangible" than they otherwise would be.

 

[Kal]

But Kal, if the MBR were visible to non-MBR members, you'd have a whole flood of mirror threads in Melee Discussion saying things like, "@what that ****ing cactus said in the tier thread"

That's what moderators are for. This also just cements my belief that open discussion is better in the first place. We don't need a faux-authority going around telling us what they've privately surmised is the "right" ruleset.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

And thats why you are here, explaining to all the small guys

Sorry, but some people are more qualified than others. 5th graders don't sit in congress. A high school dropout doesn't teach calculus.

You're a smart guy Kal, but i really don't get where your anti-MBR sentiment comes from.

 

[Kal]

Your presence in the MBR just reinforces my position, Sveet. You've done nothing but dismiss my claims and make bad analogies. And prefacing it all with another insult. Stay classy.

 

[The Star King]

@Kal Maybe a better way I could have worded it is "people won't give you **** for dismissing those who are uninformed AND don't make any attempt to make constructive posts, ignorantly assuming they know better". You know the type of poster I'm talking about, right?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I swear ur pulling me insulting u out of thin air. I didn't insult u at all...

 

[Kal]

@Kal Maybe a better way I could have worded it is "people won't give you **** for dismissing those who are uninformed AND don't make any attempt to make constructive posts, ignorantly assuming they know better". You know the type of poster I'm talking about, right?

Yeah, of course. When some noob with a Naruto-alias comes in and starts saying that Hyrule should be legal because he's played with his friends, condescends to everyone in disagreement, and ignores every point you've made against the inclusion of the stage, that guy should be on your ignore list. There are people you can't work with.

I was just worried you meant ignoring the uninformed, politely inquisitive person. There's nothing wrong with being uninformed; you've got to start somewhere.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I guess time goes at a different speed in Europe. Sort of like how the water in the toilet spins the other way in Australia.

Epic win. As in, expect to see this in my signature in the near future.

Highlights from previous posts:

the mbr should ultimately pay attention to the best arguments. Those belong to ferrish snd kal.

Nice to know I'm appreciated lol. In all seriousness, though, thanks for taking the time to read my posts, comprehend them, and spoon-feed them to Sveet.

Ferrish got caught up in a technical error (likely because your "model" is presented some four pages back), and it was perhaps an embarrassing moment for him.

It actually wasn't so much an embarrassing moment for me as it was a strawman moment for Sveet. The statement I disagreed with was:

If are you trying to say that increasing the number of games in a tournament also doesn't increase directly the length of the tournament, then you are stupid still.

Sveet, I tried to make my previous post clear by saying "your math" rather than "your model." Apparently this is where "quote-mining" comes into play, because you play Mr. Strawman and purposely twist my words from "your math" into "your model." The only possible interpretation of "your math" is:

y = ax

where y = length of tournament, x = number of games, a = length of one game. I gave you a ****ing counterexample: If you have 100 TVs, then running 100 bo5 sets all at once (400 games by your estimate and 1200 minutes = 20 hours by "your math") takes no more time than running 1 bo5 set (4 games by your estimate and 12 minutes = 0.2 hours by "your math"). Obviously, "your math" is incorrect.

LOL at you becoming the "tragic hero" and talking about people "slandering" you after posting:[COLLAPSE="Slander"]

[Y]ou are stupid.

[Y]ou are stupid still.

Ferrish are you ********?

You obviously don't understand math.

i think most middle schoolers could have followed my math LOL

[/COLLAPSE]on the same ****ing page. Yeah, you probably ought to think about "wording your view smoother" LMAO.

 

[Kal]

Increasing the number of games at a tournament "directly" probably did not mean "in direct proportion." I doubt Sveet was being that technical. Though I understand now how this difference in understanding arose. Sveet is absolutely correct in his statement, and what he meant, without any mathematical precision, is "an increase in the number of games will lead to an increase in the duration of the tournament."

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Increasing the number of games as a tournament "directly" probably did not mean "in direct proportion." I doubt Sveet was being that technical.

Hey, if he gets to bash me for technicalities, I get to bash him back. Maybe that's not what he meant, but that's what it sounded like he meant and therefore that is what I responded to.

 

[Kal]

It sounded like that to you because you have a mathematical background. Consider that he likely does not and try to avoid interpreting his posts as such in the future.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

It sounded like that to you because you have a mathematical background. Consider that he likely does not and try to avoid interpreting his posts as such in the future.

LOL I'll try. But my counterexample still proves that increasing the number of games in a tournament does not necessarily increase the length of said tournament.

 

[Kal]

It will necessarily increase the duration of the tournament, because the sets will necessarily take longer. Unless every set at best of three is 2-1 and every set at best of five is 3-0, more games will be run in a best of five tournament. The increase in duration may be negligible or worthwhile, but it will surely be present.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

It will necessarily increase the duration of the tournament, because the sets will necessarily take longer. Unless every set at best of three is 2-1 and every set at best of five is 3-0, more games will be run in a best of five tournament. The increase in duration may be negligible or worthwhile, but it will surely be present.

I can see this becoming a case of bickering between two guys who honestly agree on a lot of things, so how about we just drop this ...