BPC I agree with you about the stages. Essentially we banned MKs worst stages and then stopped banning stages
just before we removed MK's best CPs. Like I said, MKs best ruleset, lol.
And yeah I think most of those dont work, I believe pikas stalling in 64 does though.
It's written clear as day in that post.
It's unfair because the rule doesn't properly measure what we want to limit. You can't measure if planking occurred or not, nor can you measure how long the planking continued for, neither in seconds or in frames. That means you can't measure how much stalling occurred.
If someone gets disqualified because they surpassed the LGL, who is to say that they planked in a (non-)broken way? Even if they did, who is to say that they planked for an illegal amount of time? LGLs can't measure time buddy. Speaking of, how much time IS too much time anyways? Have the LGLs been fairly modeled to each individual character's planking abilities?
You of all people should know that we shouldn't take data too seriously if it's inaccurate. In fact, knowing you, you would discredit any interpretations if they were based on sketchy data. It's what you do to John#'s charts, and it's what you apparently are not seeing here. LGLs measure edge grabs. LGLs don't accurately measure planking or stalling, so why should we base disqualifications over them? Making a claim that someone stalled for too long because they passed the LGL would be a claim based on inaccurate data. Someone could unfairly get disqualified because they planked for "too much time", when in reality, they could've only been planking for 20 seconds. Would you really disqualify someone for stalling for 20 seconds, or would you see that as unfair?
I see now, it was difficult because you used 'fair' in several different contexts. I could go through the post and touch on everything you brought up/nitpick minor inconsistencies, but I hit on them generally in my last post preemptively(and unintentionally) and won't elaborate unless you would like me to or if you bring them up again. Ill respond to your main point for now. It also received a general response in my last post but Ill elaborate.
Essentially youre appealing to fairness as it applies to the community, therefore your entire argument is subjective. But first a note, an lgl doesnt need to prevent planking or even frown on it, it only needs to prevent game degeneration and over-centralization of planking.
On to the discussion. You claim an lgl unfairly disqualifies people from conditions we wish to measure, but I could easily turn this around and say the lgl simply institutes another condition for victory. Whether people were grabbing the ledge to plank or recover is irrelevant, and in its own odd way adds strategy in regards to the ledge.
In fact, this interpretation is even more accurate than yours as my interpretation actually has precedence.
Consider the timer. A timer was added when items were removed out of a theoretical fear that the game would degenerate to people never approaching and a practical fear that tournaments would end too late, via camping and stalling. As a result an arbitrary criteria for victory by percent via timeout was added. This didnt punish people from camping or stalling, but it did alleviate the concerns that existed for the community. Additionally people who lose via timeout are not considered to have been disqualified.
In conclusion I quote myself. An lgl is
consistent and
necessary with the ideology our ruleset has adopted.
However I do lend that an ideology can be adopted where the lgl is BS, but that belief only makes sense in a ruleset catered to such an ideology and becomes trash in an opposing ideology (i.e. the one our ruleset is predominantly based on now).
).
