The Final Nail: Why Brawl Can't Be Blamed for Melee's Problems

[Jack Kieser]

Because of this, the Melee scene tanked. In Europe, it's still kinda alive. But in the U.S. and (I think) Japan, it's slowly dying. Because the majority of tourneygoers jumped ship.

And that's all I need to quote from you because that's all I've ever been saying: that Melee tanked because people left it. You think you disagree with me, but you really don't if you're willing to admit this. The extent of your posts in here thus far has been attempts to defer blame, all the while explicitly admitting where the blame should be placed in the first place. They may have left to play Brawl, but Brawl never made them leave, and Brawl, without them, wouldn't have had the numbers necessary to topple Melee on its own.

I've been reading an excellent legal book by renowned prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi; when I get enough time, I'm going to append this thread (and the OP) with the legal reasons that, if Brawl was taken to trial for 'killing Melee', a sane jury would acquit. This legal framework is applicable because law is invariably logic-based, and thus if an argument is legally sound, it must be logically sound. By applying our 'Melee/Brawl blame game' to a legal 'murder analogy', I'll be able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, why Brawl/Brawlers are not to blame for Melee's sudden drop in popularity (Brawlers being defined as people who joined the community to play Brawl, not ones who existed during Melee's reign).

Look forward to that sometime either tonight or tomorrow.

 

[Reaver197]

Be careful with bringing in "legality" to this thread. You might attract lobbyists. ; P

 

[HoChiMinhTrail]

And that's all I need to quote from you because that's all I've ever been saying: that Melee tanked because people left it. You think you disagree with me, but you really don't if you're willing to admit this. The extent of your posts in here thus far has been attempts to defer blame, all the while explicitly admitting where the blame should be placed in the first place. They may have left to play Brawl, but Brawl never made them leave, and Brawl, without them, wouldn't have had the numbers necessary to topple Melee on its own.

I've been reading an excellent legal book by renowned prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi; when I get enough time, I'm going to append this thread (and the OP) with the legal reasons that, if Brawl was taken to trial for 'killing Melee', a sane jury would acquit. This legal framework is applicable because law is invariably logic-based, and thus if an argument is legally sound, it must be logically sound. By applying our 'Melee/Brawl blame game' to a legal 'murder analogy', I'll be able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, why Brawl/Brawlers are not to blame for Melee's sudden drop in popularity (Brawlers being defined as people who joined the community to play Brawl, not ones who existed during Melee's reign).

Look forward to that sometime either tonight or tomorrow.

please dont waste your time.... everyone gets the point....

 

[EvolveOrDie]

Oh I can't wait this should be something to read. :D

 

[Jack Kieser]

please dont waste your time.... everyone gets the point....

Obviously not. There are still people, like Yuna, who insist otherwise; I've even been PM'ed about continuing the debate (though in private, obviously). I've been hammered with, like, 5 requests for replies every time I say something in here; this should dispel that, so in all technicality I'll be saving time, not wasting it. Either way, don't worry about it; you don't have to read it if you don't want to, and I certainly don't mind stretching the mental muscle.

@EvolveOrDie: We'll see. The legal basis for what I'm trying to prove has surprising precedent, and to be honest, I'm almost (ALMOST) tempted to take law because of the book I've been reading... almost. I don't think I hate myself that much just yet.

 

[illboyzeus]

omg jack kleiser you try way too hard to sound intelligent and eloquent, just quits this ****. I think we all get the point your trying to make from the OP, and there is no need to create another thesis of your opinion.
Why does a mock trial about brawl killing melee even matter. Melee isn't dead.

 

[Proud_Smash_N00b]

And that's all I need to quote from you because that's all I've ever been saying: that Melee tanked because people left it. You think you disagree with me, but you really don't if you're willing to admit this. The extent of your posts in here thus far has been attempts to defer blame, all the while explicitly admitting where the blame should be placed in the first place. They may have left to play Brawl, but Brawl never made them leave, and Brawl, without them, wouldn't have had the numbers necessary to topple Melee on its own.

I've been reading an excellent legal book by renowned prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi; when I get enough time, I'm going to append this thread (and the OP) with the legal reasons that, if Brawl was taken to trial for 'killing Melee', a sane jury would acquit. This legal framework is applicable because law is invariably logic-based, and thus if an argument is legally sound, it must be logically sound. By applying our 'Melee/Brawl blame game' to a legal 'murder analogy', I'll be able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, why Brawl/Brawlers are not to blame for Melee's sudden drop in popularity (Brawlers being defined as people who joined the community to play Brawl, not ones who existed during Melee's reign).

Look forward to that sometime either tonight or tomorrow.

If Brawl didn't make people leave, then what did? People left the Melee scene because of BRAWL. BRAWL is the reason those people left the Melee scene in the first place. Brawl's release/existence is what caused people to abandon Melee.

if Brawl was taken to trial for 'killing Melee', a biased jury would acquit.

Edited. If that happened, then the jury wouldn't realize the fact that Brawl's existence is why Melee is dying.

How can you prove that Brawl can't be blamed for Melee's problem? Melee is dying because of Brawl's existence. If Brawl never existed, then Melee would be better than ever. Simple as that.

Why does a mock trial about brawl killing melee even matter. Melee isn't dead.

There can be one for defamation. (one count for defaming Melee, another one for defaming Smash's legacy, and another one for defaming Captain Falcon. lol)

 

[EvolveOrDie]

I thought about taking law once, it went a little something like this.

Me: So law seems pretty interesting...
Law: Do you have moral convictions?
Me: Yes
Law: Do you like to memorize endless amounts of information nearly verbatim?
Me: No
Law: Do you like to laugh?
Me: Yes
Law: Law isn't for you kid, have a cookie.
Me: Thank you
Law: That's a stolen cookie your going to jail.
Me: T.T

Moral of the story jail isn't cool and the darkside's cookies are a trap.

 

[Jack Kieser]

omg jack kleiser you try way too hard to sound intelligent and eloquent, just quits this ****. I think we all get the point your trying to make from the OP, and there is no need to create another thesis of your opinion.
Why does a mock trial about brawl killing melee even matter. Melee isn't dead.

Haha... sound intelligent? That assumes that I care about how people on an internet message board view me. Part of this upcoming post is honestly just for fun. It has the bonus of being right, but ultimately I was right from the get-go, so I know it doesn't matter.

@PSN: Again, Brawl didn't make anyone do anything. People stopped playing Melee to play Brawl because they wanted to. They had every right to abandon Brawl and go back to Melee, just as they had the right to abandon Melee to play Brawl. I understand that the problem is getting better and that in some places Melee is having a resurgence, but some people won't be happy until Melee is back to the place it was before Brawl, and those people will continue to blame Brawl for making them (and others) do something that they were given a choice to do at the basest level.

 

[Corigames]

Stop making these threads. They all boil down to the same thing and I'm just as tired of seeing this **** as I am every other debate out there. This isn't helping anything. Please stop.

 

[illboyzeus]

Jack Kleiser stop posting, play the game, you are not helping anyone

every point that can be made in these debates has been made, creating new threads will only create more arguments.
We have explored every angle possible, its now up to the people of the community to choose their own side

 

[Jack Kieser]

Jack Kleiser stop posting, play the game, you are not helping anyone

every point that can be made in these debates has been made, creating new threads will only create more arguments.
We have explored every angle possible, its now up to the people of the community to choose their own side

Actually, the reason I got behind in responding to people in this thread was because... *drumroll* I was playing Brawl. I even posted that. And I can guarantee you that no one has discussed what I'm going to write later. I doubt it will matter; the people who disagree with this thread likely aren't going to realize the holes in their logic anytime soon, but I can still post in my own thread for personal enjoyment, which is what I stated up there it will be for (partially).

 

[Corigames]

I doubt it will matter; the people who disagree with this thread likely aren't going to realize the holes in their logic anytime soon

Because, as we all know by now after countless posts in countless threads, Jack is infallible in logic and smarts. His amazing ability to only spit the truth with fiery justice is only surpassed by his nobility towards the cause of ending arguments by starting his own. He has the clairvoyance to see into the future and thwart anyone who would ever dare to go against what he says by counter pointing their statements in the op, and, if they still continue to try, they obviously didn't read the first post!

No no, Jack is greater than the Son of God, never wrong, always perfect. He cannot fail to succeed in the matter of opinions. He cannot be found in negativity when it comes to right and wrong. Praise Him!

 

[Jack Kieser]

I can only imagine what coreygames is saying up there; scathing sarcasm, no doubt. Am I right or wrong? Ooh, the suspense is killing me!

 

[Corigames]

Is it really? Is it really killing you? Can I start writing your will? May I notify your parents? Oh great day! I knew it. I knew it when I woke up this morning that it was going to be a good one.

 

[EvolveOrDie]

And coreygames wins the award for keeping the most argumentative styled threads alive lets give him a round of applause. All of this was mad possible by his inherent ability to claim that other people need to stop doing what he does. >_>

 

[Corigames]

Thank you thank you. I would like to accept this award on behalf of all the new people to the boards. Without your incessant ***********, I wouldn't have the strive I have today to remain actively strong in this community. I plan to push further into... wait. Was that sarcasm?

 

[EvolveOrDie]

nope not even close if I had a real physical version of the award I would send it to you.

 

[SHDW23]

please try to read the whole post before replying, it turned out a lot longer than i intended. i'm new to SWF and have tried not to take sides on the brawl/melee issue, personally i believe that the two must somehow coexist. i could not read all 17 pages of posts but i read as much as i could stand, if this post is completely repetitious i am sorry.

Finally, you can be responsible in part for something without being to blame for it. If a crime goes by in front of me, I am partially responsible for not stopping it personally, but am I to blame? No, because I was not the person actively committing the crime.

i would like to start by saying that this statement is just flat out wrong! it is in fact disgusting to me. forgetting it's application to this argument, if you have to ability to stop or prevent a crime and you choose not to do anything about you are (maybe not in the eyes of the law, but in every other way) fully to blame for the consequences of the crime. not to mention that i don't understand how you could be responsible without also being to blame.

as to the actual argument its self your so called logic is flawed. if brawl tournament pay more than melee tournaments then professionals (who by definition make at least part of a living on this) are indeed forced to participate, because the need the money.

read the next part carefully. from what i understand brawl was made to be a less competitive game. the removal of l-cancel and other more technical moves was intentional and aimed at making the game less competitive. this means that the amount of skill required to reach a high level of play is less in brawl than it is in melee. thus the possibility that any given player will place well (and thus earn money) is greatly increased. and because of that players are more inclined to enter a brawl tournament. the argument of melee players is, that because of the lower skill threshold of brawl, more people are able to compete making it a more popular (though not better) competitive game.

Are we honestly expected to believe that these people, who have little to no knowledge of competitive Smash lore or culture, are single-handedly responsible for not only the frankly embarrassing amount of Brawl tournaments popping up, but also for the decline of competitive Melee and Melee tournaments?

you're right, no we are not. BUT if you are organizing a tournament on a large scale, such as an MLG or EVO event would you rather host brawl, which is going to draw everyone and there mother because of this influx, or melee, which will draw a much smaller crowd? the answer is obvious: brawl, it provides more opportunity for advertising and more entry fees to collect, in short more money and more entertainment. but you cannot blame TO's for picking brawl.

this is the sad but true reality: brawl is a less competitive game BY DESIGN. but because of that there are more competitors and therefore a larger tournament scene. how this situation can be resolved, i don't know, but the rather unreasonable elimination of brawl from the competitive scene or the equally dismaying slow demise of melee are the only suggestions that i have heard (if there are others, please point me to them)

 

[illboyzeus]

Stuff

I wish more 08'ers had the ability to see things this way

 

[Jack Kieser]

@SHDW23: First of all, don't worry about length. Walls of text are ok if they say meaningful things.

Secondly, you must not have read my post about orders of causation. I'll re-post some of it here because you are new, and I'm such a nice guy.

Basically, in my crime example, I would be considered a second order causation. Yes, my actions could have had an effect on stopping the crime; however, my actions would not be necessary if the crime wasn't being committed at all. Furthermore, my actions only carry the potential to stop the crime; if the robber (assuming it is a robbery) has a gun, my actions may be meaningless because he might shoot me when I interject. Even if I am shot and I die, I'm still responsible, in some way, because of my failure. However, did my standing there on a street corner directly cause the store to be robbed, inaction or not?

Of course it didn't!

I didn't go to the store and rob it, so I can't be called to blame for the robbery. The person waltzing into the store to demand money at gunpoint, however, is directly responsible for the robbery, and thus takes the blame and the majority of the responsibility. He is the first order causation of the robbery. (Note: neither his mere existence, nor my mere existence, caused anything. Action must be taken place for causation to occur, so my inaction is even more reason I am not to blame, although inaction could also be argued to be an action. Also, as an aside, law is based in logic; if something is sound logic in a court of law, it's probably sound logic in the outside world as well.[/tangent])

Let's apply this to coreygames' tourney (and Brawl's existence, by correlation). Coreygames decides to hold a tournament, and people decide to go. Atomic Comics decides to hold a tournament the same day. Atomic Comics' only action, as of now, is to announce something. They have not overtly done anything to coreygames' or to his tournament, and vice versa. The players that have already decided to go to coreygames' tournament now have a decision to make. They can either go to one or the other, but not to both. Many decide to go to Atomic Comic's tournament. As of now, AC and coreygames have still only performed one action (announcing a tournament). The players go to AC's tournament and abandon coreygames' tournament; this directly causes a low player attendance rate (which in interpreted as a failed tournament). Therefore, AC's announcement of a Brawl tournament had an effect on the players, but not an overt one as the ultimate decision to go to either tournament was the player's decisions to make alone. AC's tournament is a second order causation, and shares responsibility for coreygames' bad turnout, but is not the ultimate reason it failed, as the mere existence of the AC tournament didn't foretell the failing of coreygames tournament. Ultimately, the players, the people who made the conscious decision to choose the AC tournament, are the first order causation of the coreygames' failed tournament because their decision (and subsequent actions) directly caused the tournament to fail.

Next, money as a reason to play either game is only applicable to professional players who make a living playing Smash, not to people who like the money of tournaments, but make a living doing something else. That's all that needs to be said about that excuse.

Thirdly, which game is better is irrelevant to the discussion. Brawl could have been leaps and bounds above Melee, and Melee's decline would still be the fault of the players that left it. Blame is blame, justified or not. The robber could have been robbing that store to feed his family; doesn't mean he is exempt from the consequences of his actions.

Lastly, TO's rarely make money off of their tournaments. Most tournaments end up even at the end of the day (if successful). Either way, as said above, blame is blame regardless of justification. This applies to pros as well. If they make the decision to forgo Melee for Brawl because they have to (TOs or pros), that's fine, but they aren't exempt from blame for their actions.

 

[-Linko-]

I've heard Azen likes Brawl better, but I've never actually seen him state it. *searches

=^_^=
All these Brawl/Melee arguments are funny, such a massive clash of opinions. As for me, I like Brawl more than Melee. I think Brawl is better than Melee. I like playing smart than being technical. And some people like playing technical and flashy. A lot say Melee is 'better' than Brawl because of technical skill; well, that's nice, I honor your opinion. I think Brawl is 'better' than Melee because of how much more thinking is involved.

As for which game is more competitive, depends how you define it. A lot more people now are competing in Brawl than in Melee, so Brawl is more competitive. But defining it by which game is better is harder to do since its just the opinion of what people's favorite quality of smash is.

Just play whatever game you like better and have fun

__________________

10AzenZageniteslovingBrawlinsteadofMelee

 

[EvolveOrDie]

i would like to start by saying that this statement is just flat out wrong! it is in fact disgusting to me. forgetting it's application to this argument, if you have to ability to stop or prevent a crime and you choose not to do anything about you are (maybe not in the eyes of the law, but in every other way) fully to blame for the consequences of the crime. not to mention that i don't understand how you could be responsible without also being to blame.

Not it's not wrong, if I unintentionally spilled water on a person, that for some reason was deathly allergic to it, and they died I would be responsible for their death. Legally I may be charged with negligence or manslaughter but not murder because I couldn't be blamed for it, additionally who would blame me logically for a mistake I had no foreknowledge that I was committing. Now revise that scenario your there and you know that water would kill said person and you don't jump in front of the water or in some other way play the hero and save that person. You know the consequences of my unintentional actions are you responsible then for them, no; can you be blamed for the result, not logically.

as to the actual argument its self your so called logic is flawed. if brawl tournament pay more than melee tournaments then professionals (who by definition make at least part of a living on this) are indeed forced to participate, because the need the money.

I think this one was actually already covered that if SSB is your source of income then going to the tournaments that will earn you money is not your fault. I could be wrong about this one being covered but I think it has.

read the next part carefully. from what i understand brawl was made to be a less competitive game. the removal of l-cancel and other more technical moves was intentional and aimed at making the game less competitive. this means that the amount of skill required to reach a high level of play is less in brawl than it is in melee. thus the possibility that any given player will place well (and thus earn money) is greatly increased. and because of that players are more inclined to enter a brawl tournament. the argument of melee players is, that because of the lower skill threshold of brawl, more people are able to compete making it a more popular (though not better) competitive game.

First technicality does not inherently equal competitiveness, the application of said technicality is what can give rise to or increase competitiveness. Skill is also very subjective, if I shot nothing but lasers as falco and chaingrab you for the win, did I have more skill than you or was it my character, was the application of my skill better than yours. Skill is great in all but it can't be measure, it's not consistent, and it doesn't necessarily follow logically conjectures. Also from what your saying the lower cap means that there are more people competing and that somehow because it was easier to get there they don't deserve to be there in the place of a person that has played the previous game, which they insist is better, at a higher level . Basically your saying more people playing at high levels is bad and it's unfair because I could have beat you at this other game. This may not be your intention but this is how it comes across at least to me and the usual response to statements like those are no johns.


Edit: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Somehow as if ordained by time itself you beat me to this Jack you made my entire post irrelevant. ):
Now I feel just a little more useless *sniffle*

 

[SHDW23]

Most tournaments end up even at the end of the day (if successful)

this only makes my point more relevant. there are few people with the resources and kind heart needed to host an event that they know is going to lose money, such as an foreseeably poorly attended melee tournament.

As to the crime analogy, the robber with a gun is a bad one (imo), but i understand what you're saying. the way i see it a better analogy would be this: let's say that you're walking down the street and see some kid beating up another kid (for the purposes of this example assume that you are much older than either kid). you can either keep walking and let the little kid get beat up or you can (with very little risk to yourself) go over and save (for lack of a better word) the kid. in this example i'll bet that you, being the nice guy that you are, you'll go over and stop the beating, right? but if you didn't wouldn't you say that you were (although indirectly) responsible from any injury suffered by that small child?

i feel that this analogy is more relevant for this reason: a brawler that decides to support and/or attend melee events is putting themselves at little risk (they won't die if they do, right?). i am not suggesting that they skip a brawl tournament for a melee one, merely that they attend (even if they don't play/pay) a melee event when/if they can. there is no reason that melee TO should have to fight for every person that attends their event. lets apply this to your example of the AC/coreygames tournament conflict. it is my personal opinion that AC should not have schedule a conflicting tournament in the first place, but as i don't know the details i can't put them at fault. but the people who chose to attend the brawl tournament could, when/if they were eliminated, go and support the melee event. how you ask? coreygame's tournament isn't going to last very long because there are only about 10 people attending, right. but if more people are going to show up throughout the day, maybe after the original tournament is over other smaller competitions can be held, money matches and the like. maybe even some more unorthodox things, like a "can you infinite" challenge, for example. don't know how to play melee? well, i'd bet that if you were willing to throw some support behind future melee events you could find ample meleers to teach you the basics and get you started.

in this way the brawl community could actively help out the melee community with little risk to themselves. if you decide you don't like melee, then you can go back to brawl. but i think the multitude of bizarre and challenging moves that melee provides and the satisfaction that you get when you master a particularly difficult maneuver will draw even some of the most hard core brawls to challenge their limits with melee.

I also believe that joint melee/brawl event need to be hosted in more abundance. each game has its own draw: brawl draws the newer crowd while melee's main pull is with experienced veterans. put the two together and you're going to bring in the largest possible crowd and thus have the most successful possible event.

i am not placing all of the blame on the brawl community. both the brawl and melee communities are equally at fault for the current problem. but i am saying that the brawl community has the greatest capacity to fix the problem. (again not that there is nothing meleers, their rejection of the brawl community is a huge problem)

another long post, but i feel that this is a very important issue that needs to be discussed in a calm and objective way on SWF

 

[Jack Kieser]

****it! Of all the timing... I have to leave now, and I won't have net access for another 30 minutes, so I'll respond to this when I get a chance.

 

[SHDW23]

after reading evolveordie's post:
i am not saying that people don't deserve to be where they are, merely that more people are there because more people have the ability required, i can't think of an apt analogy but if i come up with one i'll let you know. for you point on skill: skill and application of skill are very closely related, you need both the tech skill and the metagame skill to win, when i think of competitive skill, the two are one. if you did nothing but shot lasers and tried to chaingrab someone with more skill, they would kick your ***. and if that's not the case then something's wrong imo. as to the crime analogy, i specified that if you had the ability, you should, i see no reason that you should not be to blame if you choose not to at least try to save the person from deadly water, since doing so poses no risk to yourself. but i also came up with a better analogy, imo.

as to azen i completely agree with him, if this argument weren't causing problems. but since it is, the issue can not be solved by "just play whatever game you like better and have fun"

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, now that I'm home, I can respond. And this one won't need to be a wall, either!

Let's take SHDW23's example of a kid beating up another kid and me happening along the scene. You're right in that I, being the kind of guy that I am, would most likely stop the fight (I say most likely because there might be justifications I would tolerate, like the kid getting beat up hurt the other kid's sibling, or lynched on a bet, or was generally a d*ck and deserved it ). However, is it my responsibility to? If I was a cop, this matter would be a moot point because it would be my job to break it up. If I am just average Jack Kieser, dude on the street, though? This might seem like a callous thing to say, but I am under no obligation to break up that fight, and if I didn't break it up, there wouldn't be a court in the US that would legitimately try to place the blame on me.

The problem I have with some Melee players is that they expect Brawl players to have some sort of responsibility to 'competitive play' to play the best game for competition... but they don't. No player HAS to try Melee at all. Most people don't even care. The Brawl community is under no obligation to the Melee community (or at least, the players who didn't play Melee in the past, at any rate).

Furthermore, bringing up coreygames' tournament and the example way to keep both his and the AC tournament running, you've proven exactly WHY it is the Melee players who should have the majority of the blame (and the majority of the responsibility) for Melee's condition. Yes, the players of the AC tournament could have chosen to support coreygames' tournament afterwards, but that would have been their choice, and AC is in no way required, or even expected, to suggest to its players, 'Hey, there just happened to be a Melee tourney today that you probably missed to come here; you should go check it out.'

So, to reiterate, Brawl (the game) and Brawlers (the people who play Brawl and never played Melee) may have had an effect on Melee's situation, but they CERTAINLY aren't to blame and shouldn't be held responsible for Melee's state today.

 

[Skler]

The people who went to the Brawl tournament instead of Corey's tournament were obviously under the influence of Brawl. Brawl is to blame for lowering Melee tournament attendance as much as alcohol is to blame for drunk driving, if the booze wasn't there it wouldn't happen.

People aren't saying Brawl is literally stealing players from Melee, but by Brawl existing players that usually would play Melee are going to Brawl instead because of money, placing higher, or maybe even enjoying the game more. Yes, technically the people are to blame, but Brawl is also a part of the problem. If Brawl tournaments weren't held Melee tournament attendance would increase.

 

[Jack Kieser]

The people who went to the Brawl tournament instead of Corey's tournament were obviously under the influence of Brawl. Brawl is to blame for lowering Melee tournament attendance as much as alcohol is to blame for drunk driving, if the booze wasn't there it wouldn't happen.

People aren't saying Brawl is literally stealing players from Melee, but by Brawl existing players that usually would play Melee are going to Brawl instead because of money, placing higher, or maybe even enjoying the game more. Yes, technically the people are to blame, but Brawl is also a part of the problem. If Brawl tournaments weren't held Melee tournament attendance would increase.

Skler, how old are you? do you have any idea how stupid your comment is about drunk driving?! You must have no understanding at all of the concept of 'negligence'. It isn't the fault of alcohol (an inanimate object) if someone abuses it. I drink all the time (I'm Greek, it's a cultural thing), and I've never done so irresponsibly, nor have I ever driven under the influence or anything else that stupid.

You cannot logically blame something for anything if it is not a direct causation. That is basic logic at work. Take a college mathematical logic course. Until you understand the laws of cause/effect, don't post in here with your uninformed blather.

 

[illboyzeus]

Long story short if brawl didn't exist melee would not be dwindling in it's numbers, so it is to blame and it isn't. The players are also to blame, picking the competitive inferior over melee. That is the synopsis of this thread is it not.

close this please, we have enough of these topics as is.

 

[SHDW23]

i would say that the major flaw of this thread is that it is trying to argue an ethical point/opinion (the analogy of whether someone should help someone else, though they are not obligated to) with logic. the problem is that the question of who is to blame for melee's problems is not something that can be argued objectively (ie through logic) as everyone has their own opinion and there are no guidelines or even truly relevant statistical information to debate using logic. this is a subjective topic, it in no way can be argued with logic, at least not within this setting.

but i still believe that the smash community as a whole, meaning everyone: brawlers, meleers, and even the wonderful people (seriously) who still play the N64 version, would be much better off if its factions accepted that everyone had some part of the blame (whether they care to fix it or not) for melee's sad decline and tried to work together to find common ground instead trying to prove that their game is better, which is pointless as (in the spirit of azen) neither is completely "better" they are just different.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, I want to preface this by saying I agree that if we all just got along we'd be ok. I agree with that. I don't agree in trying to skirt this argument by calling 'subjectivity.' You can't argue this using logic? Since when? (For the record: I've been arguing it using only objective logic since the beginning.) There is no ethics involved in this. There is no concept of 'right' or 'wrong'. I'm not arguing if it is 'right' to assign blame to anyone; I am arguing whether it is logical to assign blame. I really don't think many of the people who have argued against my thesis have taken mathematical logic.

'Ethics' and 'opinion' is not necessary to prove the statement 'If P, then Q'. All that is needed is cold, hard logical fact. Well, that and math. All I've argued is that placing blame on Brawl (at least, in a majority sense) is akin to trying to prove 'If N, then Q' when we know that 'If N, then Q' is impossible. That doesn't mean that 'If (P+N), then Q' is impossible (in fact, that may be the only time that 'N' can cause 'Q'). Of course, none of this will make sense if you haven't taken mathematical logic, or even basic electrical engineering (as mathematical logic is the very foundation of logic gates).

Everything I've stated, OP or otherwise, on this issue has been cold, hard, objective logic. This is easily provable. I am SO CONFIDENT in my logic that I will issue this challenge. I challenge ANYONE to take all of my arguments and all of the rebuttals and compile them. Take them to a mathematics professor, law professor, logician, or philosophy professor at any major State or Private university. If that professor says that I am in the wrong, not only will you win 20$, but I will also play you a 20$ Melee money match, which I will most likely (gladly) lose.

I can guarantee you that there is no subjectivity in my logic, or at least not enough to sway the logic. This is a fully logical debate, make no mistake.

 

[SHDW23]

the ethics and opinion point were actually separate, i was saying that arguing about that crime analogy was dumb because it is a question of ethics not logic and separately that this thread can not be considered a purely logical argument because the opinions of both side factor into the argument too much.

i'm sorry i can't agree with you that all of your post have been "cold, hard, objective logic." the majority of your points have progressed somewhat logically, but some are fundamentally flawed and most lack the solid fact or observation/statistical base that is required for both inductive and deductive reasoning (which i believe is the foundation of a "logical" argument). i believe that your inability to acknowledge the opposition and your confidence in the perfection of your own argument severely damages your ability to argue this objectively. for example you wrote off an entire post as wrong just because the author made a bad analogy, you avoided answering his point in any way. i would like to say that your claim that brawl is in no way responsible of the decline of melee is just plain wrong and can not be proven through any pristine logic .

I have no desire to "prove" any of this to you as I do not feel that it is worth my time. And, as I have stated before, I do not believe any proof can be established on either side.

this is my last post in this thread, aren't you glad to see me go. and so you know, i've never taken a class on logic, mathematical or otherwise, so feel free to write off everything i've said as uneducated ****.

 

[Tee ay eye]

*azen quote*

When did Azen say that?

 

[Pink Reaper]

Twas a long time ago in Scars thread, somewhere around page 180 I think.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Twas a long time ago in Scars thread, somewhere around page 180 I think.

Beat me to the punch. Dammit.

Smooth Criminal

 

[fkacyan]

Beat me to the punch. Dammit.

Smooth Criminal

Are you OK Annie?

 

[MarKO X]

wow... looking at this from the outside in, this thread is true comedy. (no offense jack) It's funny because I have argued about life before, but never have I heard soooo much about what's objective, what's subjective, what's reflective, etc... I dunno, last time I checked, when you debate, you wanna prove your point by stating facts and experiences, not necessarily saying, "Oh, but your point is subjective." Never heard that one until I got here on smashboards. Like, I literally had to look up objective and subjective in a dictionary to make sure I understood what the hell was going on here at times. (not just with this thread, but any thread that had to do with Melee, Brawl, and a debate.) At the very least, though, I learned, unlike some of the *** backwards groups I used to **** with on MySpace... people there don't know the difference between a spike and a meteor, claimed that spikes were in Brawl but not Meteor cancels...

Sorry for being so off topic... anyway, trying to get back on topic... well, no, I'm a just sit in the back and spectate some more, see where this goes. Mostly intelligent posts on both sides of the argument, but I'm officially on the "Just play the game you wanna play," side of the argument, meaning I don't wanna argue, nor do I need to argue because the hardbody points are already being brought up.

I will say this, if Melee is dying, then Melee players need to do something about it, even if it means bringing their GCs to Brawl tournaments to play Melee friendlies and teach the Brawlers about Melee and what it has to offer. If Brawlers are truly there for competition, then they shouldn't mind giving Melee a run or two in the back. Maybe then, the interest in Melee will increase. but all in all, Melee players need to do something about it, at least try, u know?

 

[cjrocker]

Eh. The complaints aren't gonna stop any time soon.

 

[Tee ay eye]

Twas a long time ago in Scars thread, somewhere around page 180 I think.

Like, in what month?