The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[Tesh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egj7KdbdckA

yup brinstar is the problem. see how horribly it skews matchups?

 

[B.A.M.]

I still find it hilarious people want Sade punished. its like someone tackling a sex offender whose feeling up a little girl then charging that said person with assault and battery.

People stop being dumb. The rules need changing; they are far from perfect. People arent excusing Sade's because shes not a top player. Get that crap outta here. Its fairly blatant that Sade's motive was very different. She was trying to amend what M2K did. Granted she shouldnt need to, however given the infancy of these rules and the fact that even the TOs werent exactly sure how to handle the situation, it seemed like the best option in her mind and I applaud her for doing what she did. If BBR-RC decides to give her a yellow card it probably wouldnt matter much anyways to her. I just find it ridiculously absurd that people would group what Sade did as opposed to what M2K did, in the same boat. Thats just being flat out naive.

 

[PGH Carroll]

Sandbagging.. You know. That thing good players have been doing since the dawn of time? Sandbaggers be damned you'll now be booked for underperforming... Lol at all this.

 

[vVv Rapture]

I still find it hilarious people want Sade punished. its like someone tackling a sex offender whose feeling up a little girl then charging that said person with assault and battery.

People stop being dumb. The rules need changing; they are far from perfect. People arent excusing Sade's because shes not a top player. Get that crap outta here. Its fairly blatant that Sade's motive was very different. She was trying to amend what M2K did. Granted she shouldnt need to, however given the infancy of these rules and the fact that even the TOs werent exactly sure how to handle the situation, it seemed like the best option in her mind and I applaud her for doing what she did. If BBR-RC decides to give her a yellow card it probably wouldnt matter much anyways to her. I just find it ridiculously absurd that people would group what Sade did as opposed to what M2K did, in the same boat. Thats just being flat out naive.

A thousand times this.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

...I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this...

Are you serious?

 

[Zankoku]

I just find it ridiculously absurd that people would group what Sade did as opposed to what M2K did, in the same boat. Thats just being flat out naive.

And putting offenses in various degrees of punishment (on a scale ranging from "yes" to "no") based on very subjective details like "intent" and "who did it" when all of them are listed in the same line is bordering on player bias. The concept of yellow/red cards is probably the best one we have for preventing the whole splitting/sandbagging nonsense in tournaments, and I'd prefer the BBR-RC to at least pretend to be impartial about it.

 

[John12346]

Are you serious?

Yes, I am...

You're saying that even if MK's placings do not deteriorate in the face of a Brinstar ban, it doesn't disprove the theory that MK's broken solely because of Brinstar/RC legality.

I'd like to know why, is all.

 

[Bizkit047]

Bizkit, did you seriously say that because Brinstar is banned at KTAR5 MK shouldn't do as well and if he still does that it proves it's him and not the stage? If that's the case ... then there's a lot of wrong in your assertion ... so much wrong that I probably couldn't even make up my mind on where to start pointing out what's all wrong in that idea.

You probably twisted my wording a little bit. All that my posts suggests is that without Brinstar, MK is very likely not to have that argued guaranteed hard counter game 2/3 and that it will be interesting to see if any MK players placings are affected due to most players likely choosing to ban RC, which means Delfino is the logical next choice in the list.

 

[Keitaro]

I'm pretty sure Sade tried to win the set but forfeited because she knew she shouldn't have won. Since she forfeited to attempt to fix M2K's sandbagging, it wasn't seen as a punishable forfeit to us.

 

[Jack Kieser]

So, basically, you view her situation as someone trying to right someone else's wrong, just doing it in the wrong way (by forfeiting, herself); yes, she technically broke the rules, but as an uninformed way of trying to help.

In that case, honestly, the right thing to do would to still issue a YC to her, but for a very short time (same duration as M2K's, maybe shorter) as a way of saying "We appreciate the sentiment, and thank you for trying to help, but next time try not to be a vigilante"; it's not a harsh punishment, so you're not really (in a practical sense) punishing her for being in a ****ty situation, AND you also send the rest of the community a message: "If you suspect shenanigans happening in pools / bracket around you, take it to the TO, don't take matters into your own hands".

I mean, hindsight is 20/20, but that's my take.

 

[DMG]

Yes let's Yellow Card the Girl who technically broke the rules but didn't do anything really bad and didn't affect the tournament in any way.

Man being a little boy scout sure is great! Yay

 

[Jack Kieser]

DMG, do you read at all? I'm guessing no. I just said that she didn't really do anything wrong, but that's due to circumstance. It could have easily been different. For instance, what if M2K really WAS trying to branch out from MK in bracket, and just failed? Well, all of the sudden, we have a girl who, on suspicion, could have tried to manipulate the bracket. Yes, still with good intentions, but this time, it would have had a negative impact.

The point of giving her an incredibly small card is to set a precedent and send a message to the rest of the community: do not be a vigilante. That's important, don't you think? Or would you rather have a community of Smashers that try to do the TOs job and cause collateral damage in the process, well-intentioned or not?

If Sade couldn't understand that she, through minimal fault of her own, would be punished not as a way to do anything to her, but as a deterrent for the rest of the community in an act for the "greater good", then she needs to learn why what she did, just like M2K's actions, could have far-reaching consequences, in which case she probably should be carded anyway.

Seriously, if I was in her position (not that I would be, because I'd have gone to the TO first), I'd understand that I was being punished lightly to set a precedent and just accept it for the greater good of the community. Stop being such a childish **** and think through what you're reading before you post.

 

[ADHD]

We should just bukkake on Sade as a minor warning for her actions.

 

[Jack Kieser]

You all should read "Atheist Universe" by David Mills, not for any religious reason, but because he has an incredibly well-reasoned explanation of what "punishment" is, why we punish, and which punishments are effective in which situations in his chapter on "The Myth of Hell". Seriously, learn something.

 

[Keitaro]

We should just bukkake on Sade as a minor warning for her actions.

Suggesting what you want to do to her will not cause it to actually happen.

 

[ADHD]

Suggesting what you want to do to her will not cause it to actually happen.

I'm a top player, listen to me.

 

[john!]

ahahahhahaa so glad i subscribed to this

so why is a ruleset committee necessary anyway? why doesnt each t.o. just decide the rules for themselves?

 

[WindMajor]

Because multiple TOs from across the country working together and following the same ruleset is a good thing in many ways.

 

[john!]

Because multiple TOs from across the country working together and following the same ruleset is a good thing in many ways.

seems like that would discourage experimentation within the ruleset and force people to accept a ruleset that they might not want to use. how do you know that other rulesets are bad unless you try them out?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

More or less what Twinkie said.

Hi John.

 

[WindMajor]

You're not forced into using the ruleset, and you're not obliged to stick with it as far as I know. You can still experiment as you please, and in a sense, experimentation is actually encouraged when you want to know what should be the standard or not.

The Unity ruleset is good because when you introduce the game to others, you can say, "This is the ruleset Brawl players use." and not have to hassle the person with explaining regional philosophy, what's good and what's not, and choosing from hundreds of different ruleset variations.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Unity is good for, well, unity. It's the standard that most use, but it's still the responsibility of smaller TOs and larger TOs who hold medium-sized events to experiment every now and then to accumulate data that then points the BBR-RC toward how they should perform larger-scale internal testing. That testing (possibly using a large regional or small national) then informs the BBR-RC on how to further revise the official ruleset.

Lather, rinse, repeat. It's not that hard. Community effort for the community ruleset.

 

[Zankoku]

Yes let's Yellow Card the Girl who technically broke the rules but didn't do anything really bad and didn't affect the tournament in any way.

Man being a little boy scout sure is great! Yay

Interestingly enough, I see two other yellow cards issued at the same time as M2K's red card that did just that.

Reason behind the decision for Judo777 and Zero...:

We understand that this problem was relatively low-key, with no harm intended. Because of this, we have chosen to distribute them a yellow card as a warning. The two players admitted to splitting after the tournament took place, though to offset this they played out finals completely and swore it to be in good faith. However, in good faith or not, splitting is clearly against the rules, and agreements like this can not be made public or encouraged. We respect the effort put forth in still playing out finals, but we hope this warning will show that splitting will not be tolerated. The Yellow Cards for Judo777 and Zero... will be active for 3 months.

 

[Heartstring]

We should just bukkake on Sade as a minor warning for her actions.

i second this notion

seems like that would discourage experimentation within the ruleset and force people to accept a ruleset that they might not want to use. how do you know that other rulesets are bad unless you try them out?

i think the commitee could beter be used for 'im going to try this particular ruleset out and bring back what i gathered from it' rather than 'we voted this as the best, lets stick to this one at all times'

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I think the reason FD got more bans than than Brinstar and RC is because players have to choose whether to ban either Rainbow or Brinstar since they can't ban both. Those two stages, when combined, have more bans than FD combined with any other starter stage.

 

[DMG]

@Ankoku: If their yellow card was an small time warning, why not make it a month? I mean I guess the time period really doesn't matter if you assume they will not do it again, but what's the difference between making an example for the community with 3 months, and doing it for 1 month?


The other difference is that this happened in pools vs actual bracket. If you admit to splitting after a tournament in GF's, sure ok I can understand carding them as a warning or doing something about it so that it doesn't look like we don't care if people split. But something happening in pools where you are the beneficiary and you correct it out so that the outcome is the same as it would have been, I mean at that point I'd think we're done. Especially since she wasn't the one who sandbagged her character choice for the matches.


Either way, it probably doesn't actually matter since I doubt she's some manipulative girl trying to get the edge in national pools all the time, and you won't hear anything else from her regarding stuff like this ever again. But I don't think carding her promotes this "striving to stop shenanigans" image, and would look more like "We're nitpicky ****s who care about trivial stuff that didn't even end up affecting the integrity or bracket or money distribution of the tournament."

 

[SaveMeJebus]

What do you guys think about adding an extra ban and taking out DSR for two out of three sets?

 

[Life]

An extra stage ban is probably a good idea, but I don't see the problem with DSR

 

[SaveMeJebus]

An extra stage ban is probably a good idea, but I don't see the problem with DSR

You don't need DSR if you have an extra ban. If you are having troubles with the stage you just lost in, ban it.

 

[Zankoku]

The other difference is that this happened in pools vs actual bracket. If you admit to splitting after a tournament in GF's, sure ok I can understand carding them as a warning or doing something about it so that it doesn't look like we don't care if people split. But something happening in pools where you are the beneficiary and you correct it out so that the outcome is the same as it would have been, I mean at that point I'd think we're done. Especially since she wasn't the one who sandbagged her character choice for the matches.

And yet, at the end, Sade's action was the one that had the most impact, and it occurred at the same level in tournament as M2K. And if you really want to look for "what should've happened", I'm pretty sure re-playing a set isn't particularly out of the question.

Either way, it probably doesn't actually matter since I doubt she's some manipulative girl trying to get the edge in national pools all the time, and you won't hear anything else from her regarding stuff like this ever again. But I don't think carding her promotes this "striving to stop shenanigans" image, and would look more like "We're nitpicky ****s who care about trivial stuff that didn't even end up affecting the integrity or bracket or money distribution of the tournament."

Funny, I don't see Judo or Zero as such, either. And again, if we're just going to be neglecting to give cards to people who we think are never going to run a violation again, that's an argument for intentional player bias. As for the "striving to stop shenanigans" image, carding M2K over the KTAR **** was great, carding him over this..? Let's go back to what you had also mentioned:

The other difference is that this happened in pools vs actual bracket.

Are we looking at severity of impact, the person's moral character, AND the intent when it comes to a system that punishes action, now? Can you profess to being familiar with all of this for every situation that might come up about it?

 

[DMG]

Of course not. I just think carding her would not matter and would be unnecessary, even if intended for purposes like promoting a more positive community image. I think carding her would either mean:

1. Nothing

or

2. Would be interpreted negatively more than positively for most people

Just my take

 

[Fried Ice Cream]

I STILL don't get why m2k gets punished for being a ******* and sandbagging, making his chance to win money smaller, especially if it wasn't even in the placings where money could be won.
And Sade is dumb for throwing her match, you win, you win. I still don't understand why people get silly cards for being dumb.

In a soccer match, as a referee, you don't give a player a yellow card because he intentionally missed the shot at the goal. You just let his team mates and everyone else get mad at him.

 

[John12346]

edit: ignore

 

[Ghostbone]

DSR shouldn't apply in Bo3 sets anyway, and shouldn't count the game 1 stage in Bo5 sets.

 

[-Ran]

There are enough stages in the game that provide similar styles of play. More so, the changing of the rule will dramatically increase the performance of linear based characters since they have a reliance on stages such as Smashville + FD. Usually one stage is banned in such an encounter, leaving them with what very well could have been the starter. I would argue that if the match was played on Smashville or FD, they had the benefit of a counter-pick strength stage in the first match. This isn't a luxury that most characters are given.

 

[Ghostbone]

There are enough stages in the game that provide similar styles of play. More so, the changing of the rule will dramatically increase the performance of linear based characters since they have a reliance on stages such as Smashville + FD. Usually one stage is banned in such an encounter, leaving them with what very well could have been the starter. I would argue that if the match was played on Smashville or FD, they had the benefit of a counter-pick strength stage in the first match. This isn't a luxury that most characters are given.

Well that is a problem with the starter list is it not? Why should we have a rule to try to minimise the adverse effects of another rule? Shouldn't we just fix that initial rule? In this case, fix the starter list, so it doesn't give certain characters advantages over others.

 

[-Ran]

In such a case were a linear based character would happen to get a 'counter-pick' strength stage on the first match, it would be indicative that their opponent had a poor understanding of how to strike properly. Between Fd, Smashville, BF, CS, PS1, Yoshi's and Lylat, there are enough variation in features that can promote the pick of the most even stage in those situations. Unfortunately, many people tend to be wary of CS, Yoshi's, and Lylat, and strike them without much forethought in their effect on their opponent. In a best of three, it should never be an issue of you getting your best stage on the first match if your opponent has an inkling of a clue as to how to strike.

 

[Ghostbone]

So in a Bo3 DSR is just to help players who don't understand how to strike?

Because otherwise it seems like it shouldn't be needed.

 

[ぱみゅ]

In a soccer match, as a referee, you don't give a player a yellow card because he intentionally missed the shot at the goal. You just let his team mates and everyone else get mad at him.

And players are not suspended until the second Yellow Card.
Just sayin'

 

[DMG]

Why let someone play again on a stage they won on, even if it was a starter?