The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[Vinylic.]

lol, that sig would be biased as hell though.

Just Saiyan.

Do like I do, I just through up a link in my signature for those that missed it. =)

Put it on yellow, the most noticable color.

You should never ban a character just because you think it'll be more "fun." Because let me spoil it and say no, it will not be more "fun." However, a character should be banned if there is enough evidence that they hinder the metagame and ruleset, among other reasons. Whether or not that is the case with MK...well, that's why there's a poll again.

Not sure what you mean d-air.

The combos are unstable.
The B Button is the most common thing an MK main would ask for.
And just because players get beaten by MetaKnight in a tourney, it doesn't mean others should say "get better" when they are already "pro".

Not only that, If metaknight was banned, there would be higher chances that one of the stages could now be playable for the ruleset.

 

[Arcansi]

Whether or not that is the case with MK...well, that's why there's a poll again.

This is unfounded and false.

Why do I say this?

Because there are 0 arguments posted on the actual thread, and this leads to people voting based on their opinion, not something close to the truth. (When their opinion isn't close to the truth, obviously.)

I mean, I've seriously had people say that MK isn't a problem and player skill wins over matchups.

Aughhhhhh.

 

[DeLux]

Wait, you want the BBR RC to endorse arguments via the poll to influence the decisions made from the community?

You don't see how that this would negatively affect the legitimacy of the data?

 

[Zankoku]

Well, clearly anything that specifically supports banning Meta Knight or getting him banned earlier is a completely unbiased and impartial action.

 

[Arcansi]

Wait, you want the BBR RC to endorse arguments via the poll to influence the decisions made from the community?

You don't see how that this would negatively affect the legitimacy of the data?

No. I want them to say "These are some reasons people think he should be banned."

"These are some reasons people think he should stay in the game."

(And give a good amount, say at least 80% of all the undisputable points that support each side.)

Are YOU trying to say that someone voting to keep mk because their character has bigger problems with olimar is very founded/good for the competitive scene?

 

[Zankoku]

I wasn't talking to you.

 

[Vinylic.]

This makes good sense now.

 

[Arcansi]

I wasn't talking to you.

Sorry, then.

 

[Player-1]

It was a unanimous decision in the BBR-RC to NOT put any type of debate up, the other two options was for if we should put links up to educate people about MK which won the polling, but the Smash Senate wouldn't allow links, nor would they have allowed any type of arguments in the OP so the only option was to include no information.

 

[DeLux]

Because I clearly said that.

-_-


No. I want them to say "These are some reasons people think he should be banned."
"These are some reasons people think he should stay in the game."

(And give a good amount, say at least 80% of all the undisputable points that support each side.)

There are no "undisputable points" that support each side. If there were indisputable points, then it would be a super easy decision just based on weighing contention clash. Quote any statistic you want offhand, and the relevancy of those stats can be questioned. Bring up any expert testimony you want, and the credibility of the expert can be questioned because of agendas people want advanced. The most unbiased thing and the most superior scientific course of action was saying nothing.

Are YOU trying to say that someone voting to keep mk because their character has bigger problems with olimar is very founded/good for the competitive scene?

How and why people vote doesn't necessarily matter to me. What I want to know is their answer to the question. Based on their answer, I will advocate a side accordingly within the BBRRC

 

[Vinylic.]

It's not "should meta knight be banned in brawl".
It's "should meta knight be removed as an acceptible character."

 

[DeLux]

What's the difference in the connotation?

 

[Arcansi]

There are no "undisputable points" that support each side. If there were indisputable points, then it would be a super easy decision just based on weighing contention clash. Quote any statistic you want offhand, and the relevancy of those stats can be questioned. Bring up any expert testimony you want, and the credibility of the expert can be questioned because of agendas people want advanced. The most unbiased thing and the most superior scientific course of action was saying nothing.

Put up some facts about mk, then?

Although I'm pretty sure there are undisputable points. (we just have to assume we don't all start posting like jebus.)

I mean really, are you going to question the relevancy of the % of money MK has won in tournaments?

Or the relevancy of stages and his dominance on them? (As agreed by a community, therefore making it a statistic, or at least something more then a testimony.)

Wouldn't being actually unbiased be to show everything, as your action to hold back all points shows that maybe you thought 'well x side has too many points, lets hold back everything.'

That really doesn't work, but the closest thing I can actually get to truly being unbiased is showing exactly the same amount of points for each side.

And they would have to be of the same degree of...everything.

For any decision that impacts a large group of people and is made by them, is having everyone know beforehand exactly what they're voting for/against a good thing? I would say yes, and it would seem to be echoed by political systems across our continent.

How and why people vote doesn't necessarily matter to me. What I want to know, is their answer to the question. Based on their answer, I will advocate a side accordingly within the BBRRC

(I have to treat this as if you don't care, or else you can just say 'well I said not NECESSARILY, which means I might, so all your points are nothing.' -_-)

You would rather people vote with their own amount of relevancy, as opposed to trying to make their position MUCH more relevant to the case at hand?

If so, why can any statistics relevancy be questioned?

 

[Zankoku]

Actually I would prefer people voted based on the conclusions they make rather than the ones drawn for them.

 

[Player-1]

Put up some facts about mk, then?

Although I'm pretty sure there are undisputable points. (we just have to assume we don't all start posting like jebus.)

I mean really, are you going to question the relevancy of the % of money MK has won in tournaments?

Or the relevancy of stages and his dominance on them? (As agreed by a community, therefore making it a statistic, or at least something more then a testimony.)

Wouldn't being actually unbiased be to show everything, as your action to hold back all points shows that maybe you thought 'well x side has too many points, lets hold back everything.'

That really doesn't work, but the closest thing I can actually get to truly being unbiased is showing exactly the same amount of points for each side.

And they would have to be of the same degree of...everything.

For any decision that impacts a large group of people and is made by them, is having everyone know beforehand exactly what they're voting for/against a good thing? I would say yes, and it would seem to be echoed by political systems across our continent.



(I have to treat this as if you don't care, or else you can just say 'well I said not NECESSARILY, which means I might, so all your points are nothing.' -_-)

You would rather people vote with their own amount of relevancy, as opposed to trying to make their position MUCH more relevant to the case at hand?

If so, why can any statistics relevancy be questioned?

It was a unanimous decision in the BBR-RC to NOT put any type of debate up, the other two options was for if we should put links up to educate people about MK which won the polling, but the Smash Senate wouldn't allow links, nor would they have allowed any type of arguments in the OP so the only option was to include no information.

..................................

 

[Arcansi]

Actually I would prefer people voted based on the conclusions they make rather than the ones drawn for them.

Do relevancy, integrity, or understanding of the point matter to you?

..................................

It was a unanimous decision in the BBR-RC to NOT put any type of debate up, the other two options was for if we should put links up to educate people about MK which won the polling, but the Smash Senate wouldn't allow links, nor would they have allowed any type of arguments in the OP so the only option was to include no information.

Sorry I missed that post, Player-1.

What I'm getting here is that It's not your fault, which it isn't.

Good to know.

But if so, why am I being argued against? Also, what is the Smash Senate (I have no idea.)

 

[Arcansi]

Delete this.

 

[Player-1]

Smash Senate is like the head of SWF or something like that that make decisions based on votes or something from what I understand, and you're being argued against because there are still some other points to why posting some information such as links is a bad idea, although there are some points that are a good idea. It was a split decision between no information and posting it with links to other threads with statistics.

 

[WindMajor]

The Smash Senate is a SWF staff room for senators+. It's under Password Protected in the index page. The Staffer Shack focuses more on modding and smaller site issues, while the Senate will focus on bigger site issues.

 

[Vinylic.]

What's the difference in the connotation?

People keep thinking mk should be banned just because of the b button and he is broken.

When people should ban him because of what the players do when they choose meta knight. And what they do is what will affect the ruleset.

 

[Zankoku]

Do relevancy, integrity, or understanding of the point matter to you?

I'm quite certain that at this point in the game's life, there is pretty much nobody "on-the-fence" about which side to take. If they are and don't vote, then it perfectly satisfies the concept of neutrality. If they are and do vote anyway, then, well, I guess they're no longer on-the-fence.

Brawl was released in 2008. People have been complaining about him since 2009. It is now 3/4 of the way into 2011. If people don't "understand the point" of the Meta Knight poll, then they shouldn't be voting anyway.

 

[Arcansi]

Smash Senate is like the head of SWF or something like that that make decisions based on votes or something from what I understand, and you're being argued against because there are still some other points to why posting some information such as links is a bad idea, although there are some points that are a good idea. It was a split decision between no information and posting it with links to other threads with statistics.

Thanks so much.

If people don't "understand the point" of the Meta Knight poll, then they shouldn't be voting anyway.

I don't understand where I talked about people being on the fence, so I removed that part(and kept the thing I'm responding to, a.k.a. your point).

But they don't, I have proof, and they are.

The Smash Senate is a SWF staff room for senators+. It's under Password Protected in the index page.

Basically someone I probably have to call out and then pray I get a response from while of course, it being at their leisure to just do what they want.

Hey Smash Senate, I think your decision was unfounded and unfair, and I also think if you have any sense of self-worth you'll come defend yourself!(I would namedrop here but idk any..Red Ryu?)

 

[DeLux]

Put up some facts about mk, then?

Although I'm pretty sure there are undisputable points. (we just have to assume we don't all start posting like jebus.)

I mean really, are you going to question the relevancy of the % of money MK has won in tournaments?

Or the relevancy of stages and his dominance on them? (As agreed by a community, therefore making it a statistic, or at least something more then a testimony.)[

Wouldn't being actually unbiased be to show everything, as your action to hold back all points shows that maybe you thought 'well x side has too many points, lets hold back everything.'

Yeah I'm going to question the relevancy of those statistics. Obviously I have read them and have taken them into consideration into formulating MY opinion. But to endorse those stats as "fact" by placing them within the context of the poll as "THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD USE TO DETERMINE WHETHER MK IS BANNED OR NOT" isn't our place to do as a committee. People need to do their own research and form their own opinions, and we're going to examine what they want from a democratic standpoint and take that data into consideration along with all the other data.

That really doesn't work, but the closest thing I can actually get to truly being unbiased is showing exactly the same amount of points for each side.

And they would have to be of the same degree of...everything.

I'm glad we met your burden of being unbiased. By putting in no arguments, we showed exactly the same amount of points for each side. They are the same to the degree of everything.

For any decision that impacts a large group of people and is made by them, is having everyone know beforehand exactly what they're voting for/against a good thing? I would say yes, and it would seem to be echoed by political systems across our continent.

People know exactly what they are voting for by reading the question.

(I have to treat this as if you don't care, or else you can just say 'well I said not NECESSARILY, which means I might, so all your points are nothing.' -_-)

You would rather people vote with their own amount of relevancy, as opposed to trying to make their position MUCH more relevant to the case at hand?

If so, why can any statistics relevancy be questioned?

It is all about your relative perception of what stats are relevant and how you make your decision. The BBR RC isn't suppose to tell people how to perceive things. We're just trying to find out how they perceive things.

 

[Zankoku]

Basically someone I probably have to call out and then pray I get a response from while of course, it being at their leisure to just do what they want.

Hey Smash Senate, I think your decision was unfounded and unfair, and I also think if you have any sense of self-worth you'll come defend yourself!(I would namedrop here but idk any..Red Ryu?)

Unless you're complaining about a vocal minority, I don't see what you're getting at, here. Perhaps the difference is that I can see the poll numbers, and you can't.

 

[DMG]

But we don't know how to perceive these things because we need you to repost stats and numbers that, IIRC, have already been calculated and posted elsewhere in a public area of these forums, and we need them shown again in front of the MK poll.




THEREFORE GENTLEMEN, I DO BELIEVE YOU HAVE REACHED THE THRESHOLD OF INCREDULOUS BEHAVIOR AND SHAMEFUL, SLANDEROUS ACTIVITIES THAT ANY SANE CIVILIZED GATHERING OF PEOPLE CAN WITHSTAND LEST STRICKEN WITH TERROR AND DESPERATION.

 

[Arcansi]

Yeah I'm going to question the relevancy of those statistics. Obviously I have read them and have taken them into consideration into formulating MY opinion. But to endorse those stats as "fact" by placing them within the context of the poll as "THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD USE TO DETERMINE WHETHER MK IS BANNED OR NOT" isn't our place to do as a committee. People need to do their own research and form their own opinions, and we're going to examine what they want from a democratic standpoint and take that data into consideration along with all the other data.

What about "Here are some of the many reasons x side is debateable."

This seems a lot less extreme then your example, and almost by definition, more realistic.

How do you know people are doing their own research and are forming their own opinions? You don't.

I'm glad we met your burden of being unbiased. By putting in no arguments, we showed exactly the same amount of points for each side. They are the same to the degree of everything.

NOTE: Not sure why you used the word burden, but meh.

This is something I can accept, although erring on the side of ignorance is something that is bad and should be avoided whenever possible.

People know exactly what they are voting for by reading the question.

Does that mean they understand it?

Sure you can tell kids to vote for their president, but does that mean it's going to be a good choice by any standards?

It is all about your relative perception of what stats are relevant and how you make your decision. The BBR RC isn't suppose to tell people how to perceive things. We're just trying to find out how they perceive things.

What if people aren't perceiving, just voting?

Unless you're complaining about a vocal minority, I don't see what you're getting at, here. Perhaps the difference is that I can see the poll numbers, and you can't.

1. GG never read your title beacause of the better one above it.

2. I'm complaining about a possibility that I have proof does happen happening in large quantities.

Although, thanks.

But we don't know how to perceive these things because we need you to repost stats and numbers that, IIRC, have already been calculated and posted elsewhere in a public area of these forums, and we need them shown again in front of the MK poll.




THEREFORE GENTLEMEN, I DO BELIEVE YOU HAVE REACHED THE THRESHOLD OF INCREDULOUS BEHAVIOR AND SHAMEFUL, SLANDEROUS ACTIVITIES THAT ANY SANE CIVILIZED GATHERING OF PEOPLE CAN WITHSTAND LEST STRICKEN WITH TERROR AND DESPERATION.

I like this post.

Not saying we do, but other people do.

 

[DeLux]

The RC is concerned with what the public wants via the results of the vote. I'm not going to force feed a rulesset down peoples throats if they dont' want it. Honestly, I want to agree, I hope people are educated on the issue when they vote. But reality is, there is absolutely no legitimate reason if we want the general public's opinion that we want to start dissecting into groups of educated and uneducated. At what point do you qualify as educated enough in relevant stats to vote? I could arbitrarily decide to make the vote on what I think is relevant in stats and you would hate it because I would copy and paste every results thread and every matchup thread and every tier list thread in the OP at which point there would be no usable data via info overload.

"If the public is uneducated, that's their own fault, not mine." - DeLux, Director of the Smash Lab

 

[Mekos]

thats what I read

lololol. Get out of here hahaha

 

[Ussi]

If people don't know the arguments by now... They probably don't pay attention

 

[Arcansi]

The RC is concerned with what the public wants via the results of the vote. I'm not going to force feed a rulesset down peoples throats if they dont' want it. Honestly, I want to agree, I hope people are educated on the issue when they vote. But reality is, there is absolutely no legitimate reason if we want the general public's opinion that we want to start dissecting into groups of educated and uneducated. At what point do you qualify as educated enough in relevant stats to vote? I could arbitrarily decide to make the vote on what I think is relevant in stats and you would hate it because I would copy and paste every results thread and every matchup thread and every tier list thread in the OP at which point there would be no usable data via info overload.

1. I thought you were concerned with what was best for the competitive community. What the public wants the public does, does it not? (See: Non-Unity tournaments, casual play/smashfests).
However, your point does make more sense with this being said.

2a. Assuming you wanted to find what was best for the competitive community, you could decide what information to use as a group, and that would in essence be the qualification. Nobody would be entitled to read it but there would be no argument for not reading it so it's quite possibly the best you can do without quizzing them on it.

2b. Even if you did (and they were all relevant). The use of collapse boxes and organization would make them usable, wouldn't they?

HOWEVER, that seems to be irrelevant because you don't necissarily want whats best for the competitive scene.

"If the public is uneducated, that's their own fault, not mine." - DeLux, Director of the Smash Lab

Maybe it's just me, but quoting yourself looks really dumb. That or condescending.

No offence.

If people don't know the arguments by now... They probably don't pay attention

Yet they can still vote.

 

[Vinylic.]

quoting another person's quote is slightly unneccesary...

just saiyan.

 

[Arcansi]

quoting another persons quote is slightly unneccesary...

just saiyan.

How else do I address it?

 

[Mekos]

What's best for the community is not that infinite! Wait till Clash 1 vids are up. I got two nice vids for u.
1. Where I out play Will and he gets a grab and resets the match in his favor. This happens like 3 to 4 times a match and I still get to game 3. Even alot of people on the live stream disliked it and said it was boring to watch a lucas get infinite grabbed, a free kill, and that it was bs. Dk already has the advantage anways

2. The second is me vs gunblade. Gunblade goes mk against me and the whole time you can hear the commentator agreeing with 2 people on the live stream talking about he is crazy for not going marth and infinite grabbing me. There was no shame and they despised him for not doing it.(Anyways he didn't go marth because he new I had beat Kadaj's, Zex's, and Mikehaze's marth. But that's not the point) Is that the community u want to build unity brawl set committee?

Just wait till the vids get here. I can't wait to here yer view point on the specific vids.

 

[Arcansi]

This is the Unity Ruleset Discussion.

Why are infinite grabs legal? (With the exception of IC's, as it's pretty much their whole metagame.)

 

[Ghostbone]

Why should they be banned?
And why should we make an exception for IC if they are banned? We didn't make an exception for any specific character with the LGL, it's all or nothing otherwise you're just blatantly being biased towards certain characters.

 

[Arcansi]

Why should they be banned?

They skew matchups completly when available to be used (all of this is with the exception of IC's, obviously).

They remove a large amount of the skill definition in the matchup in question, on both players part.

Why should they be banned?
And why should we make an exception for IC if they are banned? We didn't make an exception for any specific character with the LGL, it's all or nothing otherwise you're just blatantly being biased towards certain characters.

Are you for the LGL?

Do you not awknowledge that it was unfair for the LGL to happen the way it did because of characters like Pit & G&W who have good but not overpowering ledge games?

 

[Ussi]

@whoever quoted me (phone johns)

Uneducated voters are everywhere.

I think for brawl, it'd be too hard to set up a citerea for being allowed vote without it being too flawed.

 

[DRDN]

Why are infinite grabs legal? (With the exception of IC's, as it's pretty much their whole metagame.)

Your answer is in bold

Why should they be able to infinite everyone but the others can't do it to whom they can?

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

Why should they be banned?
And why should we make an exception for IC if they are banned? We didn't make an exception for any specific character with the LGL, it's all or nothing otherwise you're just blatantly being biased towards certain characters.

actually MK has a specific lgl outside from everyone

 

[Arcansi]

@whoever quoted me (phone johns)

Uneducated voters are everywhere.

I think for brawl, it'd be too hard to set up a citerea for being allowed vote without it being too flawed.

'Read this, then vote.'

Pretty much the best you can do, but better then nothing.