First things first, if you guys want to ban him cause hes "not fun" or anything of the like, nothing il do will ever convince you to ban him. If you want to ban him, at least make it so for competitive reasons which are logical please.
It's quite possible Meta Knight is bannable. Meta Knight has a definitive lead in tournament placings; his recovery is unprecedented, and he is far and away the best character in Brawl. Let's stop the arguing there because we all agree on that - that should not be the focus here. What we should be looking at is the RISKs of this ban situation - ie, the ramifications of what will follow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Watch this video: Specifically, :51-1:15.
Let's factor RISK into two options. 1 - We ban Meta Knight. 2 - We don't.
1. Say we ban Meta Knight - we run the risk of turning off Meta Knight players to the game (of which there are a lot; possibly decimating the Brawl scene) We also run the risk of being too hasty and realizing he's not actually banworthy. (I doubt this would happen -- however, it's important to note that it is in fact possible.)
However, out of those negatives, comes a large positive risk - the risk of revolutionizing Brawl's metagame.
2. Say we don't ban Meta Knight - we run the risk of playing Meta Knight dittos until the day SSB4 comes out, boring players and regional scenes - dominating Brawl's metagame forever.
Which risk would you rather take?
I dont know how to quote from other threads, so dont be surprised if the post number doesnt match.
Either way: Your argument does not work as you cannot ban MK on what he could become. This is because unlike with the other situation, we can afford to wait until it becomes true and actually fix it, thus making the whole risk argument not very useful, especially since i could easily apply the same situation to any best character. Im sure that with that logic, you coulda gotten sheik banned in melee in the starting year.
Now for your risk reward things: Your actual risk for number one go even farther than that. Not only will MKs leave, but if the SBR turns out to leave him unbanned, then less people will actually want to go to your tourneys.
I fail to see how banning metaknight will revolutionnize the metagame in brawl. Metaknight, first of all, is only the worst matchup of 3 characters in the game. If anything, he does not make more than 2 characters unviable in the game. If you want to say he will revolutionnize the m etagame, then you could apply this with D3, because D3 makes way many more characters unviable in the game. That and you do not know if the new metagame will actually be more diversified than the old one.
Another risk arises when you ban MK. You open the door for anyone who has lost to a certain character, make the exact same reasonning as you for risk, then get it banned. Best example here would be ice climbers. Who knows if theyl overcentralize the metagame without MK!(they wont, stop being stupid, MK doesnt make ics unviable). Now by your risk theory, i could very easily get them banned. You cannot ban something for what they MIGHT become, you ban something for what they are. Because or else so much more stuff would be banned and we could always say it could dominate the metagame. And whatever happens IS fixable, unlike banning MK. Once something is banned, that we cannot fix anymore even if we turned out wrong we will never know because we cannot see anymore if the character was really that good. How will we compare with metaknights if they are no longer into the equation?
The worst thing you risk with number 2 is another poll in 6 months if they situation is the same or has degenerated.
I ask of you all to make an informed decision rather than one based on "feelings" or personal hate versus the little puffball.
)
