The URC has been disbanded.

[Omni]

I think that that's actually a good thing, Omni.

Meh, nah. Falling on statistics as a crutch removes logical thinking out of the picture.

At least they aren't pulling things out of their ***, you know?

They aren't pulling things out their *** because there's nothing in it.

Stating a statistical fact and then drawing a conclusion is an incomplete thought process. What data does is help people become knowledgeable about what is actually occurring. Then it becomes a matter of how people perceive this data.

I'm just saying. I love it the data hunt; it's great. But I find there are some people who put too much weight on it whereas I find there are some people who don't put enough into it.

Ya'knowwatI'msayin'?

 

[danieljosebatista]

No offense guys, but calling me an ignoramus while ignoring all of my argument doesn't really make any sense to me lol.

 

[Omni]

The issue is more that Omni thinks that someone's opinion should be weighted as much as someone else's knowledge.

Go look up the previous anti-ban arguments from when they were first publicly posted; they consisted of "you have no proof" and "nuh uh".

We got proof, and completely shut down everyone one of their arguments with data in round 2.

The problem is, those weren't their arguments. Its just what they said. They weren't interested in right, or wrong, or competition or not. They just knew they wanted MK legal no matter what, so the only reason they'd want something different is... if they just wanted something different.

Classic Overswarm. :rollseyes:

 

[Espy Rose]

Meh, nah. Falling on statistics as a crutch removes logical thinking out of the picture.

You think it's falling on statistics?
It's just data that supports a statement, or a series of statements. You use logical thinking to help explain that connection.

Whatever.

 

[Omni]

You think it's falling on statistics?
It's just data that supports a statement, or a series of statements. You use logical thinking to help explain that connection.

Whatever.

Yes, Espy. I understand that. That's why I love data.

My point, is that people are skipping the logical explanation point and simply saying that evidence is proof of a conclusion, which is inherently not correct in this situation. The people who say, "Meta Knight makes "X" amount of money. Thus he needs to be banned," are who I am referring to. Of course there is the other side as well: "Meta Knight should not be banned because everyone just sucks."

 

[Cassio]

Lots of good posts on this page (and last), but something I wanted to address quickly.

I agree with how Omni put it, although he maybe worded it poorly. Stats are very useful, but nothing can replace entering a discussion with an open mind.

The biggest issue with the early community was the amount of hubris that existed. I remember reading discussions about how we knew everything there was to know about brawl two weeks in, and that nothing could save brawl from its low hit stun mechanics and 'lol airdodge' out of combos, when it turns out the saving grace was actually playing the damn game and learning how to string attacks together anyways. So yeah, the most important thing and most critical mistake of the past is putting our arrogance aside as we evaluate.

 

[Espy Rose]

Not now, but sometime after Smash 4 is announced, I'd like to think that there'd be a group of people who could begin structuring a somewhat fair and systematic system that helps them decide what should stay and what should go.

That, or just start tournaments with everything on, and then slowly but surely start taking out what lacks competitive depth.

Just rambling, but yeah, I'm more or less agreeing here.

 

[Omni]

Not now, but sometime after Smash 4 is announced, I'd like to think that there'd be a group of people who could begin structuring a somewhat fair and systematic system that helps them decide what should stay and what should go.

That, or just start tournaments with everything on, and then slowly but surely start taking out what lacks competitive depth.

Just rambling, but yeah, I'm more or less agreeing here.

I think your second proposal is more feasible than your first one.

 

[Bones0]

Honestly, I'd be surprised if Smash 4 has anything with a measurable level of competitive depth. The best course of action would probably be to not touch the game for at least 6 months. Then you remove the really bogus stuff, and just leave the game alone. Otherwise I can see it ending up with worse versions of ledge grab limits and lolMK bans.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Meh, nah. Falling on statistics as a crutch removes logical thinking out of the picture.



They aren't pulling things out their *** because there's nothing in it.

Stating a statistical fact and then drawing a conclusion is an incomplete thought process. What data does is help people become knowledgeable about what is actually occurring. Then it becomes a matter of how people perceive this data.

I'm just saying. I love it the data hunt; it's great. But I find there are some people who put too much weight on it whereas I find there are some people who don't put enough into it.

Ya'knowwatI'msayin'?

Not really, when the logical conclusion from the data presented is obvious.

Yes, Espy. I understand that. That's why I love data.

My point, is that people are skipping the logical explanation point and simply saying that evidence is proof of a conclusion, which is inherently not correct in this situation. The people who say, "Meta Knight makes "X" amount of money. Thus he needs to be banned," are who I am referring to. Of course there is the other side as well: "Meta Knight should not be banned because everyone just sucks."

Lol, there was much more data presented than that, some in response to multiple common anti-ban statements.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

No offense guys, but calling me an ignoramus while ignoring all of my argument doesn't really make any sense to me lol.

What argument, bro?

"Items are bad and I know it because they are. I mean, believe me, right?"

Your posts show that you don't even have a grasp on the proposed format that you're condemning.

 

[Cassio]

Its important not to take anything for granted. Common sense and obvious conclusions are opposed to logical reasoning and analysis. The only reasonable excuse for skipping over the latter is from time constraints.

 

[Espy Rose]

I think your second proposal is more feasible than your first one.

Oh definitely.
Wouldn't hurt to do one over the other, though.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Its important not to take anything for granted. Common sense and obvious conclusions are opposed to logical reasoning and analysis. The only reasonable excuse for skipping over the latter is from time constraints.

But it's simply distracting from the point at hand. It's fairly obvious what everyone here is getting at, but instead of challenging the logical process that is clearly there, Omni simply says there isn't one.

I've had enough exposure to him to know he's smarter than that. I'd have him lynched for such a faulty deflection.

 

[Arcansi]

I think your second proposal is more feasible than your first one.

They're both very solid philosophies, but we can only choose one, and that's likely to be our communities Achilles Heel.

The first one is actually optimal given our current track record, that being that once we have a community-established and accepted set of values, the community will defend it. (See: The community defends chaingrabs even when contradictory to depth//balance//whatever, for no apparent or logical reason.)

There would likely be manipulation in this, getting the community to like what is best for them is not an easy to do thing.

The second option, while better then what we did this time, is simply a worse version of the first one, where we create our standards as the game goes instead of starting out with them. It's what the URC tried to do, in part. As far as I remember the community did NOT like it.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if Smash 4 has anything with a measurable level of competitive depth. The best course of action would probably be to not touch the game for at least 6 months. Then you remove the really bogus stuff, and just leave the game alone. Otherwise I can see it ending up with worse versions of ledge grab limits and lolMK bans.

You have no idea the way Nintendo thinks nor their philosophy or outlook on the current iteration of smash 4.

I would also go as far to say there's quite a high chance you have no idea how many iterations a game goes through and how drastically a game can change close to release.

The above quote is nothing but speculation, and bad at that.

Not really, when the logical conclusion from the data presented is obvious.

Was going to post the above in response.

 

[Omni]

Not really, when the logical conclusion from the data presented is obvious.

There is some factual data that presents actual absolute conclusions.

"My data says that 50% of marriages end in divorce. Thus, my conclusion is that 50% of marriages end in divorce."

However, the decision to ban stages, items, and characters cannot be derived directly from data. What you may see as "obvious" is your own interpretation of the data, but it shows where your threshold lands.

I'm not sure why you're not getting this. In these kind of decision-making processes, data is only one part of a whole when it comes to obtaining a conclusion. This is mainly because the conclusion is an opinion or stance and not a fact in itself.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Alright, take your final statement as absolutely correct. What do you gain here? There's no challenge to the assumptions drawn, simply blanket statements to the contrary.

 

[Arcansi]

There is some factual data that presents actual absolute conclusions.

"My data says that 50% of marriages end in divorce. Thus, my conclusion is that 50% of marriages end in divorce."

However, the decision to ban stages, items, and characters cannot be derived directly from data. What you may see as "obvious" is your own interpretation of the data, but it shows where your threshold lands.

I'm not sure why you're not getting this. In these kind of decision-making processes, data is only one part of a whole when it comes to obtaining a conclusion. This is mainly because the conclusion is an opinion or stance and not a fact in itself.

You have to always assume a given entity (that is creating the rule) wants a certain sort of rule (like, the most competitive rule, or the rule that makes the game the most fun).

Once you have this, you can get conclusions quite easily from sets of the correct data.

 

[Omni]

Alright, take your final statement as absolutely correct. What do you gain here? There's no challenge to the assumptions drawn, simply blanket statements to the contrary.

Can you rephrase?

You have to always assume a given entity (that is creating the rule) wants a certain sort of rule (like, the most competitive rule, or the rule that makes the game the most fun).

Once you have this, you can get conclusions quite easily from sets of the correct data.

I disagree...

Competition. Fun. Those are all factors that are open for interpretation. What I mean is that one person's fun may be another person's unfun. The same applies to competition or the nature of competition that players strive to achieve.

It's only obvious from your own standpoint because you have already concluded in your own mind what is competitive and what is fun. But from a more global perspective what is obvious or direct may be, in fact, the opposite.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Can you rephrase?

Assume that there is no correct course of action, simply a subjective interpretation (Note this isn't something I necessarily agree with, but that, I believe stems from a different definition of correct which is simply arguing semantics).

There IS a logical process to a conclusion based on the data presented. Everyone makes some connection even if it's stupid. It could simply be "everyone seems to think it means X, so it must mean X." What do you gain from not rooting out said logical process and trying to find error with it? Really the only thing is time and effort. You're not swaying the sheep in the world with blanket statements.

That's slightly different from what I was aiming at with my last post, but now that you have me typing out sentences, I can get a little closer to talking about what I wanted to.

 

[Overswarm]

I'm not really sure what Omni's stance is.

If you're just saying "we do what we want" and reasoning isn't really the important thing, pro-ban has won every public vote ever.

http://allisbrawl.com/group.aspx?id=14480
Even that one, which is new to me.

http://lueshi.info/upload/images/metaknight.pdf

That PDF is so old it refers to the BBR as the SBR.

The anti-ban's arguments were:

1) Meta Knight isn't broken (he is, we had to make multiple special rules for him and people keep banning stages just for him)
2) Meta Knight doesn't dominate the meta game (he does and did)
3) The game is still growing and evolving (this didn't change from 2009)
4) Implying that MK breaks the coutner-pick system also implies that Brawl is a game of coutnerpicking (this isn't a counter argument and Brawl is a game of counterpicking)
5) Meta Knight's extraneous circumstances are already resolved (put in to show that #1 could even be considered, and given the consistent discussion on LGL and stages this hasn't been the case)

"Too good" is better defined by money winnings than frame data or other debatable
things. Through-out April, May and June, Metaknight won 30.18% of all cash prizes
from Brawl Singes events. Winning 3 of every 10 available dollars swiftly dismisses any
claims of a character's dominance. Moving on, all citations of a character's attributes are
readily explained as top tier traits. Metaknight having the best recovery is easily
comparable to DDD having the best grab, Falco having the best projectile, etc.

>:[

Addressing over-centralization, of the 570 observations from the chart of tournament
placements above, only 123 of them are Metaknight. This means that roughly 22% of
tournament placements are Metaknight, even at top level play where Metaknight is the
most threatening. The game cannot revolve around beating a character that takes about
1/5th of the highest tournaments placements. Metaknight does not institute overcentralization.

The entire reason we had the pro-ban vs. anti-ban public argument is because of what Omni is doing right now; saying "that isn't enough" but never actually saying what IS enough. He only negates repeatedly, never anything productive. -_-;;

 

[Cassio]

Its really not a distraction at all. Statements like "its obvious" are used to replace real analysis with...basically nothing. When that happens youre basically taking a shot in the dark and hoping you hit a target, but whats more likely to occur is that your conclusions wont hold up to scrutiny.

You are partially correct in that one interpretation can be better than another, but youre dead wrong that its something that ought to be taken on intuition.

For instance this BS here, when people claimed it was 'obvious' the unity online poll on MK indicated 75% of people wanted him banned:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=317228

 

[Arcansi]

I disagree...

Competition. Fun. Those are all factors that are open for interpretation. What I mean is that one person's fun may be another person's unfun. The same applies to competition or the nature of competition that players strive to achieve.

It's only obvious from your own standpoint because you have already concluded in your own mind what is competitive and what is fun. But from a more global perspective what is obvious or direct may be, in fact, the opposite.

Fun is definable, but only relatively.

As in, you can say what is more fun then X or less fun then X, based on the amount of fun it provides relative to X averaged out throughout the whole community.

This is an objective and correct definition, as far as I can tell.

Competition is easily definable, as something is more competitive when it takes more skill, and less competitive when it takes less skill. It gets hairier as you add in different types of skill, but these can be catagorized down and made easier to understand if done correctly.

That is again, objective and correct, as far as I can tell.

Am I wrong?

 

[Omni]

5:30 just hit so leaving from work but:

@Ryker: I kinda' see what you're saying. Not entirely. We'll rap later.

@Overswarm: Why is my name being used for those quotes? I don't recall typing any of it. Anyway, WoT = my cue to dip. How do you not get tired of this?

@Arcansi: You're not wrong, but I think there is more to it than that. I've gotta' dip but I think I generally understand the concept of your explanation.

 

[Overswarm]

@Overswarm: Why is my name being used for those quotes? I don't recall typing any of it. Anyway, WoT = my cue to dip. How do you not get tired of this?

They were the arguments you presented for the anti-ban side during the first pro-ban/anti-ban discussion. You publicly announced them as being your viewpoints to all of smashboards.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Cassio, you're just wrong. When presented with raw data and knowing your own threshold for too much, then the conclusion IS obvious assuming that the sources are trustworthy.

 

[Cassio]

Any worthwhile researcher or logician would disagree.

Statements that begin with 'its obvious' are designated to axioms that the presenter recognizes anyone can disagree with for any given reason.

OS I dont think we were really talking about that, lol

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

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

If Y=>X is the case, then it is too much. Data is presented. Y>X.

Obvious.

 

[Omni]

That's not obvious. It's factual data producing a factual conclusion. Math, lol.

 

[Cassio]

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

If Y=>X is the case, then it is too much. Data is presented. Y>X.

Obvious.

Maybe this is something youve learned of, but in logic there is a difference between something that is logically valid and something that is logically sound. The argument in that post is valid, but assuming X and Y are values that say something relevant wed need to know more to see if this is sound.

If its just deductive though it doesnt necessarily say anything important aside from its internal consistency.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

So,... you're arguing semantics which is absolutely pointless as it does nothing with the core of my message.

Okay, if that's what you see as a perfectly good use of your time, then good for you, continue being irrelevant. I'm going to come back when you decide you want to actually deal with the point being put forward.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

That's not obvious. It's factual data producing a factual conclusion. Math, lol.

Math is obvious. I'm pointing out that, while X may have different cases, charts will always give them Y. The conclusion drawn is obvious. If you take issue, then your job is to root out why X is what it is and then try and change the condition.

 

[Cassio]

No...its not semantics its procedure. The mathematics is fine, but you cant just claim a premise to be true and magically make it true. It needs to be shown to be true.

For instance, wiki example I can say everything that has wings can fly, penguins have wings, therefore penguins can fly. This argument is valid just as your is, but the relevant info is BS.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Mathmatics =/= Statistics
As simple as that.

 

[Overswarm]

You guys should stop talking about math before Tuen and Crow come in and shake books at you

 

[Espy Rose]

I wish they would. I haven't seen Crow in ages. ;-;

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

No...its not semantics its procedure. The mathematics is fine, but you cant just claim a premise to be true and magically make it true. It needs to be shown to be true.

For instance, wiki example I can say everything that has wings can fly, penguins have wings, therefore penguins can fly. This argument is valid just as your is, but the relevant info is BS.

Yep, you're content to stay irrelevant.

Peace.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

Yeah, nice try. I'm feel stupid for coming in hear and trying to argue with you, Mr.Stats.

Overswarm, getting that 'Mr. Stats' title. I got myself the "Dr. Anti-Ban" title in the backroom. Get on my level!

Seriously though, 1000 matches is a lot... I'm working on it... ever so slowly.

 

[Overswarm]

I'd talk to crow, Tuen. I think he wrote a python script to help sort through the data; I had to do it all by hand and it took forever. Not really worth the time anymore, but crow's script would make it a lot easier.

 

[infiniteV115]

No...its not semantics its procedure. The mathematics is fine, but you cant just claim a premise to be true and magically make it true. It needs to be shown to be true.

For instance, wiki example I can say everything that has wings can fly, penguins have wings, therefore penguins can fly. This argument is valid just as your is, but the relevant info is BS.

...
That's not a valid argument.
The first premise isn't true XD