Note: The following is just my opinions and take on the controversial issues people have been bringing up. None of this is official from the BBR-RC.
So since the BBR-RC is a little slow on posting reasons for some of the more controversial rules and for some of the proposed rules, I'll try to ease the people who are wondering what exactly is going on.
*All Infinites are Legal*
This one will not change. It was completely unanimous to make all infinties legal. You either make all infinites legal, or you don't. Picking and choosing is extremely arbitrary. A moral standpoint makes you want to ban DDD's standing/small step infinites that he has on a very small portion of characters. But logically, you can't justify it other than saying "It's pretty easy to do and it's really lame." It does suck that DK and Bowser suddenly become slightly less unviable than they already were, but that's just the matchup. I definitely can't see this rule ever changing unless an infintie is discovered that changes the metagame into "use this infinite or you won't win."
*SD Moves Goes by game*
This one also disappoints players, seemingly only the Ganon mains. This rule changes the artificial buff on characters where the suicide initiator was declared the winner, despite what the game says. It does make sense that all of these moves are quite easily avoidable, so a player falling into them is entirely their fault, but it does not excuse the fact that a rule like that is arbitrary and gives artificial buffs to characters that goes against what the game decides the winner is.
The argument that Ganon should be given an exception because his move is random is also arbitrary and does not make sense when you consider that if it's known that a Ganoncide is random with the outcome, then the players know full well in advance that either using the move or running into the move could work against them.
*LGL 35 MK 50 Everyone Else*
Considering the old commonly used LGL for 35-40 for everyone was used, this is an improvement. The rule itself is a little hypocritical and hard to fully justify, but the nearly unanimous decision that MK is broken on the ledge warrants his ledge grabs having to be limited.
However, the real issue is with the rest of the cast being limited. It is not fair to limit the entire cast to a LGL as low as MK's, when even some characters are not the least bit broken on the ledge. The real problem lies with just how much of a problem are the other characters? It's clear that MK needs far less LGs due to not even really needing LGs to time out. But the LGL doesn't target time out, it targets broken stalling. The BBR-RC decided on this rule as a starting point for a LGL. I'm sure this rule will end up changing after some tourneys are ran with it. 50 is likely too low as it is for most characters, but removing it completely from non-MK characters creates the backlash you saw with Will Vs Rich Brown. This specific LGL is a good starting mid point between "no LGL for all non-MK characters" and "35 for everyone".
What I would love to see is video evidence of the argued ledge broken characters being stopped by more than 2-3 characters during planking. Seeing how each character on the roster can deal with each argued broken planking character's planking would be amazing evidence for or against this rule. I feel as though someone like GIMR could accomplish a project like this best, since his Metagame Minute episodes are incredibly well done and accurate.
*STAGES*
First and foremost, it's virtually impossible to get everyone to truly agree to a stage list 100%. Secondly, the stage list was made BEFORE all the current BBR-RC members were added. Because of this, I can't tell you exactly why Japes or Norfair or some crazy stage isn't added. But I can shed some light on some of the other situations that people are bringing up.
*Pictochat Legality*
This is easily the most glaring problem with the stage list. What I can say right now is that the BBR-RC is currently re-discussing this stage, and voting seems like it'll happen within a week. With all the current members, it seems like the majority is going against the stage.
In the TOs defense for whoever voted for this stage, at first glace, Pictochat isn't a terribly bad looking stage. Keep in mind this stage list was made months ago, before the two most recent nationals. I see many players refer to Pictochat as "a bigger FD." So if you take that into account, it's not surprising that it was made legal months ago when the BBR-RC was first announced. Should it have been re-discussed before release? Yes, but doing so would just delay the ruleset from initial release. What would stop us from re-discussing the entire stage list? IMO, first we deal with the most controversial stage first before moving onto other issues...
*PS2 is legal?*
At first glace, this stage seems messy. Physic changes aren't normal to competitive Brawl. However, unlike Pictochat, nothing on this stage is random and all transitions are adaptable. Furthermore, the transitions that may not benefit your character in a MU can be easily camped out just as most players do on PS1 during most of the transitions, as approaching is incredibly unsafe in those situations. What's even better is that the neutral state of the stage is better than on PS1, due to the ledges not having the ability to gimp certain characters. Even during DM's Skype Ruleset Discussion, the majority wanted this stage. So this stage won't be going anywhere anytime soon.
*Rainbow Cruise or Brinstar, Can't have Both?*
I have a feeling this wasn't even brought up initially. But it might have been, I'm not sure. What was more interesting was last night during DM's Skype Ruleset Discussion, when we got to this part, we were all drawing blanks. The stages alone are hard to justify banning. Which do you choose? Rainbow or Brinstar? The reason people want one of the two stages gone is because of MK having technically a free counterpick with both on the same stage list. But out of everyone in the discussion, no one really could figure out which should go over the other, and it ended up with both staying. There are more alternate suggestions, such as having two bans or limiting MK only further, but that's a whole other discussion.
*FD as a starter?*
This was discussed during the starter stages being put together. It was pretty split from what I remember, but it was decided against on the initial release to help have the ruleset be taken more seriously. Yes, it means if you're fighting Diddy, ICs, or Falco you're almost guaranteed game 1 to be on BF. But for the time being until it can be better discussed it's a better alternative than having the ruleset looked at as too extreme for removing a starter stage that has been used as a starter in just about every single Brawl tourney to date. But do not worry, this will be discussed more in future updates.
*Aw man, no more Japes or Norfair?*
Not necessarily. While at this point there's no discussion going on for adding Japes and Norfair, there's no reason why it won't be re-discussed after Pictochat.
Remember, this is all my opinion and take on it. Most of it is easily accurate anyway, but some of the specific reasoning for a rule may be a tad off. Regardless, there's no need to try and dissect this post since it's not official. Just typed it up to help people relax about some of the issues they have with the ruleset instead of having absolutely no reasoning behind it being known.
