They don't have to give two solitary ****s about people pleasing.
As well they shouldn't. People who aren't necessary to the process should no be in it, plain and simple. If you want people to care what you think, then demand their respect. You won't get that by arguing with me, go out and do something that impacts players, like winning tournies or discovering something useful.
And if they don't explain them, why should their positions matter to anyone else? This is even MORE important.
Why do they matter in the first place? Because they know what they're talking about, more than most people. That's why we give them credit, and if you feel they don't know what they're talking about, then don't give them credit in anything they say. It's really not difficult to understand.
That's a nice strawan you've constructed, there. Now, why don't you actually read what I said instead of making stuff up.
Straw man argument is one of the most effective kinds for a reason; it points out how weak your own argument was. If you don't like it, then don't leave your argument vulnerable to it. Here's what you said:
The representatives INSIDE of SBRB? How does THAT help anything? I sure as hell wouldn't trust some of the character reps in there to portray the characters they use most often accurately.
So, either you're saying the SBR is what has made them not worth trusting, which if that's true this argument is done, or you're saying that there are people out there better suited to rep those characters than the SBR members. Now maybe that's true, which is why I asked for an example of who you would replace:
give me 3 names that shouldn't be in the list
and you answer with
Umm... we're talking about the RULE, here. Not the exception. It's not like one or two people, but literally DOZENS of people with more impressive credentials than those of SBRB members.
Who are these dozens of people you're using to support your argument with in the first place? If they truly are better informed, and have more experience in the highest levels of play, then they should be there with the SBR. No one would argue that.
Then you come up with this:
So, let's see... they drop the ball in a huge way two different times, and it takes them over 10 months total to correct themselves.
This is your argument that self moderation is bad? For 10 monthes they didn't do it, and the result was lackluster. Then they start to do it, and... wow a tier list people agree is actually good. This shouldn't be so hard to understand.
And follow up with this:
Someone can have the completely wrong approach to solving an algebraic formula, yet accidentally stumble upon the right answer to an algebra problem. That doesn't mean their method was any less flawed, or that it would necessarily work again.
If you actually think they came up with a tier list by chance, and then to have that list, which is naturally going to have character bias, agreed upon for the most part, I really don't know what to say to you.
But don't you see? That doesn't solve things. That's just a P.R. release. That's just them putting a public face of the synopses of their discussions, when the actual PROCESS is what matters.
Finally another good point. So basically, what do people want from the SBR, besides a list, because there seem to be two separate things: knowledge of the proceedings, and actual participation.
Being able to see the discussions would actually be really cool, and I don't think anyone would disagree with that. In that way, I think the SBR could do better.
Being able to participate just brings us to the argument we've had already, whether you believe it's good or bad, I don't really care, but it won't happen because the SBR doesn't want to deal with uninformed opinions, and yes while allowing everyone to participate will bring more knowledge to the table, it will bring substantially more stupidity, and much more time for everyone involved.
