Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[KishPrime]

OH MY GOODNESS this thread went from 60 to 0 in 2.1 seconds.

I thought Kal liked me but I just found out that he thinks I'm a terrible person.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Kish, trolling is a bannable offense on smashboards

 

[KishPrime]

WHAT??!??!?

Man, this place has cchanged.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

2. No Flaming/Trolling
Respect other users. Flaming (insulting, heated arguing with) other members is not allowed. Demeaning or derogatory comments based on race, religion, sexual orientation, culture, ethnicity, handicap, nationality, or gender will not be tolerated. Physical threats against and repeated harassment of other members is strictly prohibited. If another user is flaming or harassing you, you should not retaliate--instead, report it to a moderator.

Trolling (intentionally instigating trouble or provoking others through outrageous statements) is not permitted.
Flaming, Minor - 1 point, 7 days
Flaming - 2 points, 14 days
Trolling - 2 points, 14 days
Harassment - Indefinite ban, subject to administrator's discretion

The moderators are watching you Mr. Kish.

 

[Bones0]

Not sure how I haven't been banned yet.

 

[KishPrime]

I was warned for a flagrant double-post in which I dared mods to warn me.

And I was warned for being old.

That is the sum total of my offenses, so far as anyone knows.

 

[Krynxe]

I'd be happy to distribute more infractions :3

 

[Kal]

I got an infraction from Drew for double posting in a thread titled "Drew is an Oppressive Mod: The Tourney," and once for "minor inappropriate content." *****es, all of my content is inappropriate. None of it is minor.

 

[Bing]

I've been warned once for mentioning Alcohol.

Once for a double post. I posted two days apart back to back on the same thread

And Something else in the Pokemon Thread.
Total Points:1

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

You guys make me look like such a badass. I once got an instant secret ban for spamming a wall tech video i made lol

 

[Bones0]

I got modded for trolling because I posted this in the thread announcing the Metaknight ban:

URC be mad.

 

[Shai Hulud]

You're going to tell me:



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?

"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."
The overall tone of this post is jocular, but it is not apparent you are using the words "conservative" and "liberals" in a jocular sense, and indeed I don't think you are, otherwise you would not be pursuing this pointless debate. And by the fact that several people commented on your usage of these words, it contradicts the notion that such usage was obviously not serious.

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:

I said nothing remotely similar to "these words have definitions that only apply to politics." I know you know how to read. Are you intentionally distorting what I say? I said the words are politically charged and have different meanings to different people. Not the same thing. The word "****" is sexually charged, yet it has meanings beyond sexual assault, such as the name of a plant.

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.

The reason you are causing pointless debate is because you are stubbornly clinging to an indefensible position, namely, that your narrow interpretation of "conservative" and "liberal" applies here and that everyone should just accept it. To the extent disagreeing with your intractable opinions is engendering pointless debate, I am indeed partially responsible. There would of course be no debate if everyone just agreed with you. As for the rest of the thread not pursuing this, it's not evidence they agree with you, and even if they did, it wouldn't matter unless you believe the prevalence of a position makes it correct, which I know you don't. Whether using these terms in a non-political discussion would normally create debate depends on the people involved and is not relevant.

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.

These terms have so many different meanings, meanings which are constantly changing, that using them in almost any context is at the least uninformative and confusing. Whether they are truly "meaningless" is admittedly hyperbolic, and immaterial. Perhaps "relatively meaningless" (which is how I described them earlier) is more accurate, but it makes little difference in this discussion.

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?"

I think "conservative" and "liberal" are usually political, and even when they aren't they have political undertones. I didn't really want to get into the semantic discussion but you've left me with little choice. This is what came up on dictionary.com under the first group of definitions.

[collapse="liberal"]adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, especially in politics or religion.
15. ( often initial capital letter ) a member of a liberal party in politics, especially of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

These are all political to various degrees, except 9 - 13. You initially used "liberal" as a noun, though, which is basically always political in meaning.[/collapse]

[collapse="conservative"]conservative
adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. ( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. ( initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics . (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
noun
8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
10. ( initial capital letter ) a member of a conservative political party, especially the Conservative party in Great Britain.
11. a preservative.

These are all political to some degree, or irrelevant, except 2.[/collapse]

You later said you are essentially using Definition 1. for each word, specifically "favorable to progress or reform" and "disposed to preserve existing conditions," but
A) How are we to know this when you use the terms initially with no clarification?
B) Neither definition is really apolitical. You left out the latter half of each definition to make them seem more apolitical. Your position makes no sense. Do you expect, when you say "a more liberal ruleset" people will just intuit exactly what you mean?
C) Your definitions, even if accepted, make little sense here. Is it progress to ban stages? It's arguably reformatory but adding stages would also be reformatory. The definition of conservative makes more sense. I think you can say something like "Let's be conservative with the banning criteria" but to simply refer to a ruleset as liberal or conservative is not very meaningful. I think it's also worth noting that conservative/liberal are not really polar opposites. It may make more sense to describe something as conservative than its antithesis as liberal, or vice versa.

I could propose other definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" such as "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." and "cautiously moderate or purposefully low." In this sense preferring a set of conventional (flat, Battlefield-esque, mostly) stages is conservative and allowing more varied, unusual stages like Rainbow Cruise or Poke Floats is liberal. This definition is no less valid than yours. But I'm not going to say "the new ruleset is conservative" because I realize there are other valid perspectives.

And it is not far-fetched someone would refer to a ruleset as liberal, but that doesn't make it accurate.

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.

Whether you misunderstood or deliberately distorted what I said has no bearing on whether you responded to a straw man.

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

Not true. Both The Star King and FerrishTheFish responded to your post. Star King disagreed with you. Ferrish disagreed with Star King. I initiated nothing. You also assume I wouldn't have responded to your original post if they hadn't. I would have objected to your usage of these terms regardless.

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.

Nonsense. Ferrish was clearly referring to real-life political system. At least, any reasonably intelligent person would interpret the post that way. Star King interpreted his post politically. How can you not? He said "Who passes more laws: conservatives or liberals?" Who passes laws exactly? Politicians. If he had said "Who would you expect to pass more laws?" there is no difference. Who do I expect to pass laws? Politicians.

"Conservative" in political discourse these days is used primarily to mean "having the values/beliefs of the Republican Party" and "liberal" is used primarily to mean "having the values/beliefs of the Democratic Party." Conservative/Republican and liberal/Democrat are often thrown around like they are synonyms. Moreover, lawmakers, particularly at the national level, are generally Republican or Democrats. Conservative/liberal does not refer to any actual political entities so saying something like "liberals pass more laws" is hard to quantify. I suspect "liberals pass more laws" is not exactly true, but it's difficult to refute due to "liberals" not referring to actual political entities, but the views of various political entities, which is why in my response I conflated conservative with Republican and liberal with Democrat.

Besides, what difference does it make whether Ferrish meant this politically? I'm debating you.

 

[Kal]

Not going to keep this going. Sorry Shai.

 

[Bones0]

It's okay Kal. I agreed with you from the very beginning that liberal means banning stages. I would have said something sooner, but I wanted to see how far this pointless debate would escalate. My lulz is thoroughly satisfied. This is why I always make it a point to make my responses smaller than the other person's. Otherwise an argument branches into like 100 different points being addressed at once (and none of them actually get addressed).

 

[Kal]

Oh jeeze, now you and Shai are going to start arguing. This argument has just gotten so far-fetched and irrelevant to the thread that I don't want to continue. In retrospect, using the noun (rather than the adjective) "liberal" clearly provides a potential political subtext to my post, so I understand Shai's point. In fact, if I hadn't starting defensively arguing, I would have said that comparing having liberal banning criteria with being politically liberal was part of the joke.

 

[Bones0]

I'm not going to start arguing because

Spoiler

I

Spoiler

D

Spoiler

G

Spoiler

A

Spoiler

F

Spoiler

 

[odinNJ]

Looks at title of website, thinks "oh yeah, this is about a fighting game that includes an electric rat and a plumber" looks at random thread, see people arguing about politics,
...wat

 

[Kal]

what means this "idgaf"

is it an initialism?

 

[Bones0]

Damn it Kal, it's a metaphor.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

You can give a ****...



Ifyouknowwhatimean

Smooth Criminal

 

[Bones0]

O_ o

 

[Kal]

r u sure its not a smile? where u use like or as, u no?

 

[Divinokage]

Yay for swf empty debates.. *sigh*

 

[RaphaelRobo]

Let's have a good debate now. I vote we debate about Kage's new avatar. Don't you think it's creepy?

 

[odinNJ]

no. just look at mine

 

[RaphaelRobo]

His is way creepier.

 

[odinNJ]

truth, but when you realize that mine is the devils messenger and is slowly leading all people to hell trhough money you start to feel the creep. Although i like that he looks condescending

 

[Kink-Link5]

I think it is pretty clear this thread is going no where anytime soon.

We're done here, folks.

 

[odinNJ]

Alright lets see what can i argue. Wobbling, lets argue about wobbling. I think that in the current world with such few IC mains to keep them viable we need wobbling.
Will anyone more experienced than me like to explain/argue

 

[Shai Hulud]

Not going to keep this going. Sorry Shai.

LOL, if you had made a reply I probably would have given up responding. I've wasted too much time on this thread.

On the other hand...victory by forfeit!

Come on people, give me some more nonsense to debate about. I'll debate anything <_<

Wobbling, sure, that will work. Not broken, therefore not banworthy. Wobbling might move ICs up a few spots on the tier list but it doesn't make them unbeatable or anything close. Most people just don't know how to fight ICs so they get wrecked by wobbling and then want to ban it.

 

[Kal]

Damnit, one more reply and I would have won? That's ****ing bull ****. You should place a countdown on your posts: "1 post remaining until I give up."

Let's debate something math related. -4^2 = -16.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

How is that a debate? All you did was post something that's correct.

 

[Beat!]

Putting brackets around 4^2 would've made any form of "debate" unnecessary.

Related comic:

 

[Grape Ape]

XKCD is always relevant.

 

[Kal]

How is that a debate? All you did was post something that's correct.

Because it inspires debate on just about every forum. Too many people seem to forget the order of operations.

Beat, I actually don't agree when people claim it's better to write -(4^2), or that it's somehow intentionally ambiguous to write -4^2. We wouldn't go out of our way to clarify that -x^2 is actually -(x^2) because it's a waste of time to be forced to write parentheses each time you want to place a negative in front of something. We have an order of operations for a reason, after all.

 

[Shai Hulud]

Because it inspires debate on just about every forum. Too many people seem to forget the order of operations.

Beat, I actually don't agree when people claim it's better to write -(4^2), or that it's somehow intentionally ambiguous to write -4^2. We wouldn't go out of our way to clarify that -x^2 is actually -(x^2) because it's a waste of time to be forced to write parentheses each time you want to place a negative in front of something. We have an order of operations for a reason, after all.

I agree...I didn't think it was ambiguous. The parentheses are unnecessary. A negative sign is essentially multiplication by -1 and exponentiation precedes multiplication in the order of operations.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

The parentheses are only necessary if it's (-4)^2.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

That was the shortest debate ever...


BORED

 

[Kal]

We'll just work in a ring of characteristic 2, then bam, -4^2 = 16.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

Alright, here's a debate that should go longer.

Gundam SEED Destiny: Amazingly Good, or So-Bad-You'd-Rather-Main-Kirby-Than-Watch-It?

Or, if that's not good enough.

Kaiba: Green hair or Brown hair?