Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Ripple]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hF8nLnz0ys&feature=related&t=8m24s

 

[Geenareeno]

What is wrong with coaching? MLG allowed each player to have 1 and only 1 coach as well.

There are multiple arguements around here against coaching, i'm not going to dig them up. Basically the just of it is that a player could win a match because his coach told him something to do. That means that he didn't win the match himself. Also some players don't have coaches, some coaches are better than others, etc, etc. I didn't reiterate the argument very well so before you reply try to find the thread.

It's meta because it doesn't concern Melee specifically. It's about tournament etiquette or conduct, which I don't think the MBR should worry about.

Okay when you said meta I thought you meant meta game. That's a new definition i've never seen. Also I don't think it's tournament etiquette because it directly affects what happens in the game, and can change the course of a match.

 

[Kal]

There are multiple arguements around here against coaching, i'm not going to dig them up. Basically the just of it is that a player could win a match because his coach told him something to do. That means that he didn't win the match himself. Also some players don't have coaches, some coaches are better than others, etc, etc. I didn't reiterate the argument very well so before you reply try to find the thread.

While I agree with these arguments, keep in mind that it falls down to subjective preference. For every con you can list about coaching, you can list a corresponding pro. For every "unfair" aspect of coaching, you can point out a corresponding increase in depth.

Again, I'm totally against coaching, because I personally think 1v1 should strictly be one player against another. But let's not act like coaching is universally or obviously bad.

Okay when you said meta I thought you meant meta game. That's a new definition i've never seen.

Meta is a word that has been used long before fighting game communities attached it to "game" to make "metagame." In fact, "metagame" is derived from how it has been used. The way I used it was to mention rules outside of Melee; rules of conduct, for example.

Also I don't think it's tournament etiquette because it directly affects what happens in the game, and can change the course of a match.

So does grabbing the opponent's controller mid-match and beating him to death with it. This doesn't mean we need the MBR to make a rule for it.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

If a coach says to you "hey calm down" or "hes taking advantage of you like ___" that doesn't change the fact that you are the only person playing the game and you must implement it into the battle. I agree with what Kal says, every con as an appropriate pro. In essence, it should be left wholly up to the person running the tournament.

 

[Geenareeno]

While I agree with these arguments, keep in mind that it falls down to subjective preference. For every con you can list about coaching, you can list a corresponding pro. For every "unfair" aspect of coaching, you can point out a corresponding increase in depth.

Agreed, but if the melee community agrees that coaching shouldn't be allowed, we should include something in the TO seciton.

Again, I'm totally against coaching, because I personally think 1v1 should strictly be one player against another. But let's not act like coaching is universally or obviously bad.

Sure.

Meta is a word that has been used long before fighting game communities attached it to "game" to make "metagame." In fact, "metagame" is derived from how it has been used. The way I used it was to mention rules outside of Melee; rules of conduct, for example.

Interesting.

So does grabbing the opponent's controller mid-match and beating him to death with it. This doesn't mean we need the MBR to make a rule for it.

You know, I actually thought about a counter arguement to my point in my head after my post, and this is what I thought of. And I could have sworn there was something about physical contact during a match being banned but I guess not. Needless to say, good point.

If a coach says to you "hey calm down" or "hes taking advantage of you like ___" that doesn't change the fact that you are the only person playing the game and you must implement it into the battle. I agree with what Kal says, every con as an appropriate pro. In essence, it should be left wholly up to the person running the tournament.

Sure you must implement that knowledge, but you didn't come up with it yourself. We're kind of beating a dead horse here, and pretty much everyone agrees that it's a TO thing.


But I mean, what if Hungrybox had won Apex because of Seibrik? That would be pretty dumb imo.

 

[Beat!]

If a coach says to you "hey calm down" or "hes taking advantage of you like ___" that doesn't change the fact that you are the only person playing the game and you must implement it into the battle. I agree with what Kal says, every con as an appropriate pro. In essence, it should be left wholly up to the person running the tournament.

Amsah has refuted all these arguments over and over again.

 

[Kal]

I call bull ****, Beat, since what Sveet has written is tautological. Sveet didn't say that it was inherently good or fair (though, if you take "fairness" to mean "equally available to everyone," then it clearly is fair, as the game just shifts from player vs. player to player + coach vs. player + coach), and he's not advocating for coaching. But let's not pretend that coaching is inherently unfair. It's not. Amsah has posted great arguments against it, and these are arguments I largely agree with, but they aren't anything more than "I think singles should not have coaches."

Agreed, but if the melee community agrees that coaching shouldn't be allowed, we should include something in the TO seciton.

Truthfully, I'm against an MBR ruleset altogether, since I believe that any "agreement" the Melee community reaches will automatically trump whatever the MBR decides. This is especially true with little things: people ban Wobbling even though the MBR takes no stance.

In other words, if the community agrees on something, that's even less of a reason for the MBR to take a stance. The rule will come into effect on its own. Though you could argue this eliminates the need for the MBR altogether.

Sure you must implement that knowledge, but you didn't come up with it yourself. We're kind of beating a dead horse here, and pretty much everyone agrees that it's a TO thing.

Of course, we'll just return to Sveet's point by citing an example of two players with the same coach, one of whom is unable to utilize the coach's help, and one who is. To convince someone that likes coaching that it should be banned, you must provide arguments outside of subjective preference, or they will simply disagree and nothing will be solved. However, whether coaching should be banned will always fall down to subjective preference, and the MBR doesn't need to take a stance on it.

But I mean, what if Hungrybox had won Apex because of Seibrik? That would be pretty dumb imo.

Any argument in this vein has no real backing. How can you actually know the exact cause of who has won and who has lost, even given coaching?

If Hungrybox had won because of his coach, and Armada did not have one, this would be an indicator of skill: "sorry Armada, should've had a better coach." It's rough, but this the way team games work. As I've said, I don't like coaching because I think singles should be strictly one versus one, but this is just preference.

And, to anyone who argues about unfairness, answer me the following: what is the difference between me winning doubles because I teamed with M2K and me winning singles because M2K coached me? In other words, what makes it ok to have a huge advantage according to your location by having better players near you to team with, but not by having better players near you to be coached by?

 

[Luma]

because you didnt win teams, the team of Kal + M2K won

and since when do people have to live close to you for teams? =P

 

[Kal]

because you didnt win teams, the team of Kal + M2K won

Why is this different than being coached? I didn't win, I + my coach won. In such a case, I would expect coaching to be made more rigorous (i.e., when you register, you register with your coach, and your coach does not enter the event), but it doesn't seem like there is any real difference. Players just want singles to emphasize a single player, which is fine (and something I agree with). It's just not going to convince anybody who thinks coaching is a worthwhile aspect to keep.

and since when do people have to live close to you for teams? =P

You don't need them to live closer to have them coach either. This is mostly in response to people who make claims that players living close to better players will have better coaches. They will have better teammates too.

 

[Beat!]

Why is this different than being coached?

Because in teams, both you and M2K enter the tournament as participating players. Your coach doesn't enter the tournament as "your coach" in singles.

 

[Strong Badam]

are we seriously having a coaching argument here? there was a thread where amsah murdered any pro-coaching arguments. go find it.

 

[Kal]

I agree that that is an issue, which is why I would expect coaching to be done in a reasonable way, e.g. to have a player and his coach register together, and to not allow the coach to register for the same event as a player. Having a problem with coaching being done frivolously is not the same as having a problem with coaching.

are we seriously having a coaching argument here?

Sort of. I'm against coaching, but I'm making the case that it's not something the MBR should take a stance on either way.

 

[Luma]

if they would put a SUGGESTION in their RECOMMENDED i really dont see how this affects you at all, srsly i just dont get your problem

 

[Kal]

Nothing affects me at all. I just don't think it makes sense for the MBR to take a stance on an issue that isn't actually Melee-related. It's about conduct. I also think a player should not yell in the ear of his opponent to try and force a mistake, but I wouldn't expect the MBR to put a SUGGESTION in their RECOMMENDED about that. Leave it to the TOs.

 

[King5280]

im a fan of coaching between games. but really it should be up to individual to's.

 

[Mew2King]

it's pretty obvious that coaching shouldn't be allowed once a set starts. Unfair advantages.

 

[twizzlerj]

it's pretty obvious that coaching shouldn't be allowed once a set starts. Unfair advantages.

its is obvious but the odds of stopping a friend or a fan of someone from giving them advice during or in between a match is slim what you gonna do make the player wear ear plugs?

 

[Gea]

im a fan of coaching between games. but really it should be up to individual to's.

It's pretty annoying to have to sit there and wait for the next stage because your opponent wants to have a conversation with someone else about how to beat you.

 

[Mew2King]

MLG had players (at least do this late in the bracket) sit back a certain distance, just make that a RULE

 

[Kal]

And bring a tonfa to beat anybody who shouts advice.

 

[King5280]

It's pretty annoying to have to sit there and wait for the next stage because your opponent wants to have a conversation with someone else about how to beat you.

i mean something limited like under a minute would be quite bearable.

 

[SonuvaBeach]

Disagree King Miles. You should get coached after the set on how to beat them next time, but not during the set. We all have fatal flaws and mistakes we make, if you aren't good enough to figure them out on your own then you deserve to lose. You are playing each other in the set, not each other and their coach.

I'd be really pissed if you consistently made a few key mistakes and didn't learn from them in game 1, then get coached, and game 2 I lose my first stock because you immediately correct those mistakes not because you actually learned, but because your coach pointed it out.

 

[King5280]

Disagree King Miles. You should get coached after the set on how to beat them next time, but not during the set. We all have fatal flaws and mistakes we make, if you aren't good enough to figure them out on your own then you deserve to lose. You are playing each other in the set, not each other and their coach.

I'd be really pissed if you consistently made a few key mistakes and didn't learn from them in game 1, then get coached, and game 2 I lose my first stock because you immediately correct those mistakes not because you actually learned, but because your coach pointed it out.

im hiring a coach for sweet.

edit: only between sets is completely fine too though for a gf or something

 

[ShroudedOne]

We all have fatal flaws and mistakes we make, if you aren't good enough to figure them out on your own then you deserve to lose.

This is why this argument should stop. This point is bulletproof. Though, I think it's a matter TOs should handle, not the MBR.

 

[Geenareeno]

im hiring a coach for sweet.

edit: only between sets is completely fine too though for a gf or something

Okay guys, only coaching in grand finals.

This is why this argument should stop. This point is bulletproof. Though, I think it's a matter TOs should handle, not the MBR.

Agreed.

 

[Kal]

This is why this argument should stop. This point is bulletproof. Though, I think it's a matter TOs should handle, not the MBR.

The point is hardly bulletproof. It's clearly an opinion. Why is it that the overwhelming majority of people on the anti-coaching side of the argument can't see that it falls down to preference?

I'm personally against coaching because I think singles should be 1v1, and I agree with the point you quoted. On the other hand, if someone thinks coaching is a valuable skill, and that finding a good coach is a worthwhile skill, and that it's better to focus on execution and to allow your coach to focus on analysis, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It's just something you disagree with.

tl;dr don't be fascists

 

[Strong Badam]

there is so much wrong with thinking that finding a good coach is a worthwhile skill that should be tested in tournament.

 

[Kal]

Well, "finding" is a more encompassing term than simply "looking for." You could consider "training a good coach" to be a way of finding one. It's not any different than "finding a good teams partner," really.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I just dont see a coach having that much effect on a set. If your coach sees something that you don't, you have to at least know how to use the information. Like if your coach tells you your opponent is doing a lot of late dair shine pressure, even if he told you how to beat it you still have to apply it and your opponent has plenty of time in game to adapt.

You can't stop the crowd from yelling mean things, so why can't you have your best friend there to help you keep a level head? Its not fair that some people can do a good combo and the whole crowd cheers and says "oh **** ___ is getting wrecked!" which really hurts a player's morale, but that player can't have someone say "its ok man, you're still in it. Keep playing to your strengths".

Seriously, this is all opinion based and should be left up to the TOs.

 

[Cactuar]

You are basing your argument for allowing someone to whisper advice into your ear on people yelling what is basically white noise in your general direction. Really?

We have extensively discussed the difference between a coach and a cheerleader. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to discern between the two when you are sitting right next to each other, and because of that, it is far easier to just assume that friend is coaching.

Singles is called singles because it is supposed to be about an individual vs another individual. Making it about anything more is like letting me use a smartphone while playing quizzo. The smartphone is giving me the information, but I'm the one executing the answer.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

The smartphone may be giving you the information, but you're the one who has to know how to look it up. And you have to know how to speak, too, otherwise you wouldn't be able to give the answer. That's why we should have coaching, because it requires those skills when you're giving the answer. Plus, if the country you're in is speaking a language that's foreign to you, you need your smartphone to help you know how to pronounce your answer.

 

[twizzlerj]

seriously couching is just unfair but it wont be stopped unless a tournament organizer does it which someone wouldn't want to come off as a **** even though its the right thing to do so coaching is wrong and wont be stopped because if someones a **** who will go back to their tournaments.

 

[ranmaru]

The smartphone may be giving you the information, but you're the one who has to know how to look it up. And you have to know how to speak, too, otherwise you wouldn't be able to give the answer. That's why we should have coaching, because it requires those skills when you're giving the answer. Plus, if the country you're in is speaking a language that's foreign to you, you need your smartphone to help you know how to pronounce your answer.

You can look it up before playing.

And we don't NEED smartphones. We WANT them.

 

[Cactuar]

The smartphone may be giving you the information, but you're the one who has to know how to look it up. And you have to know how to speak, too, otherwise you wouldn't be able to give the answer. That's why we should have coaching, because it requires those skills when you're giving the answer. Plus, if the country you're in is speaking a language that's foreign to you, you need your smartphone to help you know how to pronounce your answer.

...

...

I just...

Your post is just terrible.

You are saying that, because I know how ask for the information, and because I have the ability to physically give the answer, somehow that should make it legal for the coach/phone to give that information?

 

[RaphaelRobo]

What are you talking about? I thought it perfectly applied the "Coaching is good" argument to the cellphone situation.

 

[Cactuar]

You are incorrect.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

I just realized you interpreted that as my actual opinion. You weren't meant to do that.

 

[Cactuar]

Kay. I'll take your word for it. Internet and words and late night browsing. Etc.

 

[Anand]

[COLLAPSE=Edit: my post is obsolete.]

If a coach says to you "hey calm down" or "hes taking advantage of you like ___" that doesn't change the fact that you are the only person playing the game and you must implement it into the battle.

I just dont see a coach having that much effect on a set. If your coach sees something that you don't, you have to at least know how to use the information. Like if your coach tells you your opponent is doing a lot of late dair shine pressure, even if he told you how to beat it you still have to apply it and your opponent has plenty of time in game to adapt.

The smartphone may be giving you the information, but you're the one who has to know how to look it up. And you have to know how to speak, too, otherwise you wouldn't be able to give the answer. That's why we should have coaching, because it requires those skills when you're giving the answer. Plus, if the country you're in is speaking a language that's foreign to you, you need your smartphone to help you know how to pronounce your answer.

...

...

I just...

Your post is just terrible.

You are saying that, because I know how ask for the information, and because I have the ability to physically give the answer, somehow that should make it legal for the coach/phone to give that information?

What are you talking about? I thought it perfectly applied the "Coaching is good" argument to the cellphone situation.

You are incorrect.

I'm pretty sure RaphaelRobo is using "satire" (I think that's the right word) at the moment.
[/COLLAPSE]

 

[Cactuar]

Hey man, way to be late to the party. He and I already discussed this.