Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Divinokage]

You can't even understand your own feelings!? You kidding me!?!?

 

[Bing]

He's a warrior, he's just on his toes prepared for battle.

 

[Divinokage]

Ya but warriors do have feelings.. it can't be possible that someone is completely disconnected from the world that way.. that would be.. ****ing insane. lol.

 

[Bing]

Well then are you upset?

btw Sup _Eternal, I see you lurking

 

[FerrishTheFish]

It's that cornflower blue text. Get yourself noticed. Use transparent.

Fixed that for ya.

I'll answer your question with a question, have I ever refused to have a discussion with anyone?

Doesn't necessarily mean anything. Just last night I posted four or five comments/replies on a YouTube video with three people I didn't know and didn't consider worth having a discussion with. Granted, you probably spend a lot more time and energy on this thread than I did on that video, so I'll take that as your answer.

 

[Shai Hulud]

I said no such thing. Cactuar said no such thing. Again you misunderstand the meaning behind the words. For example, cactuar said he doesn't read your posts (or w/e he said) because of the way you presented your stuff. You could have told him the meaning of life and he wouldn't have read because of the way you presented your stuff, and thats his choice.

Again, please go back, look past the insults or w/e you perceive them to be, and look at the meaning of the words. That was the intent of that post and you seemed to miss it.

Here's what you and Cactuar do.

"Offensive or illogical statement"
I respond to this statement.
"Oh you misunderstood me!"

It's getting pretty old, and it's rather transparent. Stop making ridiculous statements without thinking about what you're saying and then blaming others for not reading your mind and determining what you actually meant. I know how to read. What you don't know how to do is say what you mean. Either that or you just claim you're being misinterpreted when people call you out on the offensive things you say. I'm really not sure which is worse.

the limited input from non-MBR members is because pretty much anyone who is worth having a discussion with is already in the MBR.

What exactly does this mean? It means "We [the ruleset makers] accept limited input from non-MBR members because nearly everyone with whom having a discussion is worthwhile is already in the MBR." This implies that almost all of the worthwhile people are MBR members. That's what "pretty much anyone" or "almost everyone" means. It also implies "If you are not in the MBR, then you are not worthwhile, with a few exceptions." This is just logic. So what did I attribute to you (through quotation or paraphrase) in my previous post that you didn't actually say or directly imply? Nothing.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

"Most people who are worth having a discussion with are in the MBR" is not the same as "If you are not in the MBR then you are not worthwhile". Again, I was just using this statement to explain the phenomenon you mentioned, where MBR members contribute more to the final product than non-members. I would say anyone who is contributing in this thread is an exception. You, Kal, Ferrish, etc.

 

[_eternal]

Well then are you upset?

btw Sup _Eternal, I see you lurking

Sup. I'm always around

Not to derail, but I played Super Metroid today and now I'm 100% sure it's acid and not lava.

 

[Bing]

It is acid. Just like most people I grew up saying lava lol

 

[FerrishTheFish]

You get ****ing lit on fire when you touch it, last I checked that doesn't happen to people who touch acid.

(Yeah, I know the official statement is that it's acid, but you really can't blame people for thinking it's lava.)

 

[Shai Hulud]

"Most people who are worth having a discussion with are in the MBR" is not the same as "If you are not in the MBR then you are not worthwhile".

You'll notice I actually said "If you are not in the MBR, then you are not worthwhile, with a few exceptions." And actually, it is logically equivalent to what you said. I could explain this to you in more detail, but if you don't see it already then you probably never will.

Again, I was just using this statement to explain the phenomenon you mentioned, where MBR members contribute more to the final product than non-members. I would say anyone who is contributing in this thread is an exception. You, Kal, Ferrish, etc.

This is nonsense. I was complaining about the way the ruleset was made, and that Cactuar didn't actually heed the input of non-MBR members in this thread, including ones who made excellent arguments for many pages, such as Kal. Then you say this:

Also the limited input from non-MBR members is because pretty much anyone who is worth having a discussion with is already in the MBR. Its not that he doesn't look at non-MBR members for input, its that they generally have less constructive content.

I was obviously talking about input in this thread, since I was talking about the ruleset, and that's what this thread is. And you say the reason for accepting limited input from non-MBR members (which, if your post is even slightly relevant to the thread, would refer to non-MBR members who are posting in this thread about the ruleset) is that pretty much anyone worth having a discussion with is in the MBR, and non-MBR members generally do not provide constructive content. Now you claim you were not referring to non-MBR members contributing to this thread. Like I said...nonsense.

I'm sure you'll claim I misunderstood you again, revise your opinion, etc., but what's the point? Why not just admit what you meant was what everyone knows you meant? It's not even that controversial an opinion. I imagine there are many MBR members who feel non-MBR members have little to offer. To actually come out and say this is a little brazen, however. Kudos, I guess.

 

[Cactuar]

Actually, I don't really feel the need to defend anything.

I don't feel that I ignored or dismissed Kal's opinions during those exchanges.

:shrug:

 

[Kal]

I would say that, earlier on, there was a tendency to ignore my posts. Like 69 pages ago or so. Though, in all fairness, I became rather hostile more than once. Shai isn't saying that you ignored my input or did not respond to my posts, though. He just observes that, after some 20 pages of me arguing in favor of ruleset alterations, that there were none. In which case, since he considers my arguments sound, he's right in saying that you did not "heed the input of non-MBR members in this thread."

I don't see why Sveet won't bite the bullet on this one and just apologize. We all say asinine things once in a while. Backpedaling is just making it worse.

And both Cactuar and Sveet should note that, given the information, Shai is probably right. The input you guys were looking for clearly conformed to your preferences already. If I recall, we had Jungle Japes legal in teams, initially. There was complaint, and it was removed. Why? I suspect it is because you were ok with the removal of a stage that did not look like Battlefield. However, when plenty of arguments in favor of adding additional stages are brought forward, we don't see the inclusion of any of these stages. This suggests that you aren't really looking for input from non-members, with the exception of input that confirms what you already believe. Anything that would be too "out there" is ignored.

I honestly don't mind the MBR not necessarily taking input from non-members. It actually would seem totally pointless for the MBR to actively search for input, since it's supposed to be a committee whose role is more than simply voting for what the community wants. It's supposed to be some special group of special people who are so special that they know what makes a better ruleset. In that case, I see no point in utilizing the input of non-members, at least past simply addressing their complaints. Because, if that were the case, simply polling players on the desired ruleset would seem a more logical alternative.

However, what I find problematic isn't really the lack of input from non-MBR members. It's the lack of transparency in the MBR and, more particularly, the fact that we have a group of self-proclaimed "experts" deciding who gets to be called a member. We notice a distinct lack of members who share the viewpoints of myself or Shai, save for maybe Kish, which is silly; what's the point in a discussion group if everyone agrees on everything? If we're just going to use the world's most popular ruleset, we could just use a poll.

 

[Strong Badam]

I agree, it's annoying that people that don't share our views haven't applied to the MBR and instead debate constantly in this thread about what's wrong with the MBR's circlejerk ideology.

 

[Kal]

Sorry, I don't think the MBR should exist in the first place. Having a more balanced panel of faux-authoritarians won't change this. This also just exemplifies how stupid the application process is.

 

[Bing]

But you get a purple name

A PURPLE NAME KAL

it must exist

 

[Kal]

I would rather have a pink name. Somebody prank me plox.

 

[Cactuar]

Lol fair enough. I think my behavior vs hostility is pretty consistent.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I just can't wait til I hit the MBR retirement home and get the Green Name

 

[KishPrime]

I agree, it's annoying that people that don't share our views haven't applied to the MBR and instead debate constantly in this thread about what's wrong with the MBR's circlejerk ideology.

What the? I'm pretty sure I had like a 1v10 argument about a year ago that was pretty awesome. In fact, that thread should be public. In lieu of that, I prefer seeing these debates conducted publicly. When I was in charge of the back room for like 6 months I made everything public.

People in the MBR have spent enough time in these debates that they've confirmed their own ideology and aren't really interested in alternative viewpoints. That includes me.

 

[Kal]

Kish is a terrible person. Too much of that conservative mindset in the back room. We need more liberals banning more stuff. Pokémon Stadium shouldn't even be legal.

 

[Strong Badam]

It just has such an inconsistent color scheme. Players should be able to expect the same colors throughout the game.

 

[KishPrime]

Have I mentioned that I really hate monkeys? Always have, always will.

 

[Cactuar]

I did ask for the MBR to be read-only for everyone at some point...

 

[Kal]

I like monkeys. Not sure what all the hate is about.

 

[The Star King]

Kish is a terrible person. Too much of that conservative mindset in the back room. We need more liberals banning more stuff. Pokémon Stadium shouldn't even be legal.

Wouldn't conservatives be the ones banning stuff? Aversion to stage hazards and platform layouts that aren't simple is something I would be more inclined to define as conservative. Not that it matters.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Who passes more laws: conservatives or liberals? Conservatives would take great care before altering the game from 2min Time Match, items on, all stages legal. Liberals would just do whatever.

 

[The Star King]

I didn't mean it in a real life politics context nerd

 

[Kal]

Why is there a thumb-down here? O_o

Wouldn't conservatives be the ones banning stuff? Aversion to stage hazards and platform layouts that aren't simple is something I would be more inclined to define as conservative. Not that it matters.

Depends on how you view it. I view it as how liberal you're willing to be with banning criteria. Whereas I want something to be provably broken or to have a really large impact on consistency, the MBR is willing to ban things for any randomness at all, or for even having a stage hazard. Who would you say is more conservative in that regard?

 

[Shai Hulud]

Who passes more laws: conservatives or liberals? Conservatives would take great care before altering the game from 2min Time Match, items on, all stages legal. Liberals would just do whatever.

This is nonsense. Conservatives, by which you probably mean Republicans, pass just as many laws and spend just as much money as liberals, by which you probably mean Democrats. At least modern Republicans do. Small-government conservatism is pretty much dead, aside from a few random Tea Party representatives. They're all neoconservatives now. Even the Democrats. The next president, and the next Congress, are going to spend massive amounts of money and pass all kinds of silly legislation, regardless of whether their names show an R or a D.

I consider myself far left and I am in favor of more legal stages. In my opinion political ideology has little to no relevance on the issue of stage legality. And if it has any at all, it would be in a libertarian vs. authoritarian sense, not conservative vs. liberal. Most Rs and Ds are highly authoritarian these days.

Kal, one could easily argue that a liberal mindset is required to embrace the diverse stage designs in this game, and that it is conservative to strip it down to its bare essentials, similarly to how paleoconservatives (formerly just conservatives) want to strip the government down to its bare essentials, removing the functions and features considered excessive.

One could also argue, as you have, that wanting to preserve the game as it is is conservative. I don't think either viewpoint is more valid, which is why this discussion is silly.

 

[Kal]

It's a matter of perspective. I note that every other fighting game community holds to the same default position as I do, which is "legal until given justification for a ban." So I consider the conservative position to ban as little as possible.

My phrasing this way is to try and remind others that this definitely should be the default position, if we don't want to start banning things left and right. People have a tendency to think that the "more liberal" ruleset is somehow "sillier" or "excessive." Which is why I aim to remind them that, to most fighting game communities, and specifically to anyone who shares a "minimalist banning" perspective, the ruleset present in this thread is actually quite liberal.

I also take issue with the idea of stripping a game down to its "bare essentials." The notion of "bare minimum Melee" just doesn't make sense.

 

[The Star King]

This is nonsense. Conservatives, by which you probably mean Republicans, pass just as many laws and spend just as much money as liberals, by which you probably mean Democrats. At least modern Republicans do. Small-government conservatism is pretty much dead, aside from a few random Tea Party representatives. They're all neoconservatives now. Even the Democrats. The next president, and the next Congress, are going to spend massive amounts of money and pass all kinds of silly legislation, regardless of whether their names show an R or a D.

I consider myself far left and I am in favor of more legal stages. In my opinion political ideology has little to no relevance on the issue of stage legality. And if it has any at all, it would be in a libertarian vs. authoritarian sense, not conservative vs. liberal. Most Rs and Ds are highly authoritarian these days.

Kal, one could easily argue that a liberal mindset is required to embrace the diverse stage designs in this game, and that it is conservative to strip it down to its bare essentials, similarly to how paleoconservatives (formerly just conservatives) want to strip the government down to its bare essentials, removing the functions and features considered excessive.

One could also argue, as you have, that wanting to preserve the game as it is is conservative. I don't think either viewpoint is more valid, which is why this discussion is silly.

I DIDN'T mean it in a real life politic context NERDS

I am oh so sorry for starting this and I apologize to everyone

 

[Morin0]

Whateva'

I'll play with whatever ruleset you throw at me

 

[The Star King]

Morino is the homie

 

[Shai Hulud]

It's a matter of perspective. I note that every other fighting game community holds to the same default position as I do, which is "legal until given justification for a ban." So I consider the conservative position to ban as little as possible.

My phrasing this way is to try and remind others that this definitely should be the default position, if we don't want to start banning things left and right. People have a tendency to think that the "more liberal" ruleset is somehow "sillier" or "excessive." Which is why I aim to remind them that, to most fighting game communities, and specifically to anyone who shares a "minimalist banning" perspective, the ruleset present in this thread is actually quite liberal.

I also take issue with the idea of stripping a game down to its "bare essentials." The notion of "bare minimum Melee" just doesn't make sense.

Obviously it's a matter of perspective. Here's another perspective: conservatives are the ones to generally ban behaviors and practices they don't like. Historically and presently, they have limited or outright forbidden homosexuality, various other consensual sexual activities, drug use, alcohol use, reproductive rights, etc. The liberal viewpoint, on the other hand, is permissive. Any behaviors that don't violate another person's rights are permitted.

Compare this to Melee. I could argue the conservative mindset is to ban practices and aspects of the game that they don't like, and the liberal mindset is to be permissive in allowable tactics and stages.

And I'm sure you could counter with why your perspective is correct, and then I could counter, and so on. But no perspective is "correct" here because "conservative" and "liberal" are relatively meaningless in this context. Besides, what is the point in insisting your opponents share a political mindset you ostensibly find disagreeable? It seems like you just want to score some cheap shots at "liberals" here.

And "Bare competitive Melee" does make sense, or at least it could to people in favor of banning stages, but as my argument doesn't rest on this point, I won't elaborate.

 

[Kal]

I would consider myself more liberal than I would conservative, so I would absolutely not consider it a cheap shot at liberals.

I'm not using the terms in a political context, at least not specifically referring to anything Republicans or Democrats are doing. The examples you've mentioned aren't really relevant. Yes, the American political party calling itself conservative has a tendency to not actually be conservative, at list with regards to some issues of civil and individual rights. I'm using the terms:

Liberal
favorable to progress or reform

Conservative
disposed to preserve existing conditions

as my basis for this "perspective." And I don't see why you're getting caught up on whose perspective is correct, as though I said my perspective was some sort of absolute. I specifically mention "most fighting game communities" to make it clear that, to a certain group of people, i.e., given a certain perspective, people will view this ruleset as quite liberal. Not to suggest "the way Kal sees it is the way it must be."

And, in my defense, my use of the word "conservative" was clearly in jest.

Semantic discussion is kind of silly. This is really argumentative, even for me.

And I maintain that, even if you're in favor of banning stages, "bare minimum Melee" just doesn't make sense. There is no bare minimum because, fundamentally, you can't start from the ground up. It just doesn't seem logically consistent. There is no "ground" to start from, outside of what people have arbitrarily deemed an appropriate starting place (in this case, the MBR says six special "neutral" stages are where we start). I don't see this as a matter of perspective. I see it as a matter of logical consistency, and short of arbitrarily declaring some subset of the game to be "the bare minimum," I have no idea how you could possibly claim anything is the bare minimum.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I didn't really mean to bring it into real-life politics either ... poor choice of words on my part, and I apologize. I was just trying to express basically the definitions that Kal handily supplied above in slightly different terms: in general, liberals prefer big gov't (e.g., MBR) and conservatives prefer small gov't (e.g., individual TOs). Shai kind of jumped on me and attached "Republican" and "Democrat" to my statements while I was temporarily staying in an apartment with no internet and was unable to correct him.

 

[Kal]

Yeah, I assumed you did not necessarily mean to refer to any real world political system when you used the words.

 

[Shai Hulud]

I would consider myself more liberal than I would conservative, so I would absolutely not consider it a cheap shot at liberals.

I'm not using the terms in a political context, at least not specifically referring to anything Republicans or Democrats are doing. The examples you've mentioned aren't really relevant. Yes, the American political party calling itself conservative has a tendency to not actually be conservative, at list with regards to some issues of civil and individual rights. I'm using the terms:

Liberal
favorable to progress or reform

Conservative
disposed to preserve existing conditions

as my basis for this "perspective." And I don't see why you're getting caught up on whose perspective is correct, as though I said my perspective was some sort of absolute. I specifically mention "most fighting game communities" to make it clear that, to a certain group of people, i.e., given a certain perspective, people will view this ruleset as quite liberal. Not to suggest "the way Kal sees it is the way it must be."

And, in my defense, my use of the word "conservative" was clearly in jest.

Semantic discussion is kind of silly. This is really argumentative, even for me.

And I maintain that, even if you're in favor of banning stages, "bare minimum Melee" just doesn't make sense. There is no bare minimum because, fundamentally, you can't start from the ground up. It just doesn't seem logically consistent. There is no "ground" to start from, outside of what people have arbitrarily deemed an appropriate starting place (in this case, the MBR says six special "neutral" stages are where we start). I don't see this as a matter of perspective. I see it as a matter of logical consistency, and short of arbitrarily declaring some subset of the game to be "the bare minimum," I have no idea how you could possibly claim anything is the bare minimum.

Yes it is a silly discussion, and no, it was not clear you were jesting. This is the internet. I can't tell if you're using sarcasm or joking or whatever. If people think you are serious then it was probably not "clear" you were jesting, except maybe to yourself.

I'm not particularly interested in arguing about the meaning of "conservative" or "liberal" anymore. I think it suffices to say these are politically charged words with many different meanings to different people, so trying to apply them to a video game ruleset makes no sense and will do nothing but engender pointless debate.

I am not caught up on anyone's perspective being correct. In fact my entire point is that the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are so meaningless that no one's perspective can be "correct," as the terms are applied to this discussion (SSBM rulesets).

And I am not claiming anything is "bare minimum melee." I am saying people who ban things could be motivated by a desire to make the game into their idea of "bare minimum melee." Whether their desire is logical, or whether their definition of "bare minimum melee" is arbitrary, it is irrelevant to whether their mindset is "conservative" or "liberal."

Please stop making straw men out of my replies.

I didn't really mean to bring it into real-life politics either ... poor choice of words on my part, and I apologize. I was just trying to express basically the definitions that Kal handily supplied above in slightly different terms: in general, liberals prefer big gov't (e.g., MBR) and conservatives prefer small gov't (e.g., individual TOs). Shai kind of jumped on me and attached "Republican" and "Democrat" to my statements while I was temporarily staying in an apartment with no internet and was unable to correct him.

Really? This is what you said.

Who passes more laws: conservatives or liberals? Conservatives would take great care before altering the game from 2min Time Match, items on, all stages legal. Liberals would just do whatever.

Who "passes laws" exactly? Could it be...politicians? Congressmen? Oh, and in your post where you claim not to be interpreting the terms politically, you then go on to say "liberals prefer big gov't" and "conservatives prefer small gov't," which is as hilarious as it is wrong.

People need to stop acting like I don't how to read or that I'm just mysteriously misinterpreting them. I respond to what people actually write. If they mean something else entirely than what they write, then I can hardly be faulted for "misinterpreting." I didn't bring up this conservative / liberal nonsense, and I wasn't the one who first used it in a political sense either.

 

[Kal]

Yes it is a silly discussion, and no, it was not clear you were jesting. This is the internet. I can't tell if you're using sarcasm or joking or whatever. If people think you are serious then it was probably not "clear" you were jesting, except maybe to yourself.

You're going to tell me:

Kish is a terrible person. Too much of that conservative mindset in the back room. We need more liberals banning more stuff. Pokémon Stadium shouldn't even be legal.

is not obviously a joke post? That the guy who has a count of over five-hundred posts in this thread, most of which are in defense of legalizing stages like Brinstar and Mute City, wants Pokémon Stadium banned?

I'm not particularly interested in arguing about the meaning of "conservative" or "liberal" anymore. I think it suffices to say these are politically charged words with many different meanings to different people, so trying to apply them to a video game ruleset makes no sense and will do nothing but engender pointless debate.

It's not fair to state "I'm not interested in semantics, but these words have definitions that only apply to politics." Yes, the words are politically charged. I did not use them in a political context. Surely context is relevant here. And, in the context they were used, it is clear the meaning inferred should be what I referred to in my previous post:

Liberal
favorable to progress or reform

Conservative
disposed to preserve existing conditions

In fact, the only "pointless debate" that has arisen has done so because of you. The rest of the thread seemed happy with a simple "isn't that backwards?" followed by "depends on how you look at it." Using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in a non-political discussion won't spontaneously create a political debate. I would argue we're more likely to see a fight spontaneously break out into a hockey game.

I am not caught up on anyone's perspective being correct. In fact my entire point is that the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are so meaningless that no one's perspective can be "correct," as the terms are applied to this discussion (SSBM rulesets).

The terms "conservative" and "liberal" aren't meaningless terms just because the context is no longer political. I don't think the terms are particularly useful in this discussion, because they just serve as identifiers for individuals (worse, the identifiers change as a matter of perspective, though convention would say that the current ruleset is "conservative"). But I wouldn't call them meaningless.

And I am not claiming anything is "bare minimum melee." I am saying people who ban things could be motivated by a desire to make the game into their idea of "bare minimum melee." Whether their desire is logical, or whether their definition of "bare minimum melee" is arbitrary, it is irrelevant to whether their mindset is "conservative" or "liberal."

I would agree, if you are using the terms "conservative" and "liberal" in a political context. Words vary in meaning. Obviously, it's nonsense to say that those in favor of the MBR ruleset are necessarily politically conservative. This doesn't suddenly mean one ruleset isn't using more conservative criteria for banning then another, hence "more conservative." Is it really so far-fetched to you that someone would refer to a ruleset which is more liberal with its banning criteria as "a more liberal ruleset?"

Please stop making straw men out of my replies.

Considering how terse your remark on "bare minimum Melee" was, and that you did not elaborate on what you meant at all, it's a little unfair to accuse me of making a straw man. It would be more fair to say that I did not understand what you really meant. Though really, it was just unclear, and could probably have used some elaboration.

People need to stop acting like I don't how to read or that I'm just mysteriously misinterpreting them. I respond to what people actually write. If they mean something else entirely than what they write, then I can hardly be faulted for "misinterpreting." I didn't bring up this conservative / liberal nonsense, and I wasn't the one who first used it in a political sense either.

This debate is, ironically, a result of you reading too much into Ferrish's post. Recall:

Conservatives, by which you probably mean Republicans, pass just as many laws and spend just as much money as liberals, by which you probably mean Democrats.

Before this post, no one was referring to any real-life political system. Yes, Ferrish probably could have been clearer by writing "who would you expect to pass more laws?" rather than "who passes more laws?" But he didn't say "Republicans" or "Democrats," and I see no reason to assume that is what he meant.