Tournament Ruleset Hypocrisy

[petrie911]

i'm pretty sure that dedede is a VERY trendy counterpick on walled stages; you're going to have to have an official watching a lot of game2/3s



are your judges going to have stopwatches too to make sure 1 second has passed? are you going to be able to tell if ddd grabbed the guy during the 2nd frame of his jump?

For the first, this was assuming walled stages are still banned. If they're not, well, they ARE counterpicks, so it's not like you're going to be surprised about your opponent's choice of character like you can be in the double-blind pick for the first round. Since pretty much every character has an infinite on walled stages, there's really no reason to ban any infinites if you're choosing a walled stage.

As for the second, how the hell is the Dedede going to tell if the ref can't? For the 1 second thing, I suppose that's unnecessary. If you have enough time to visibly put your shield up, you have enough time to do any other action. Besides, it's not like the grabber doesn't have two perfectly good alternatives to an attempted regrab. Throw a different direction, or attack. Marth can fsmash, Yoshi can usmash, D3 can utilt, and, well, I'm sure Squirtle and Charizard have something, although they have KOing throws that would probably be better choices. All of these are completely unavoidable as far as I know.

 

[pockyD]

For the first, this was assuming walled stages are still banned. If they're not, well, they ARE counterpicks, so it's not like you're going to be surprised about your opponent's choice of character like you can be in the double-blind pick for the first round. Since pretty much every character has an infinite on walled stages, there's really no reason to ban any infinites if you're choosing a walled stage.

right, so don't ban it at all? is that what you have agreed to?

As for the second, how the hell is the Dedede going to tell if the ref can't?

It's not the dedede's problem; if the REF can't tell, he can chaingrab to his heart's content and just "claim" that he allowed a jump window, and it once again becomes the battle of who's word to accept (did his opponent even try to jump?)

For the 1 second thing, I suppose that's unnecessary. If you have enough time to visibly put your shield up, you have enough time to do any other action.

they don't HAVE to do any other action. You're FORCING the grab victim to do something during that time, and no matter what they do, they're still allowed to get grabbed for it

Besides, it's not like the grabber doesn't have two perfectly good alternatives to an attempted regrab. Throw a different direction, or attack. Marth can fsmash, Yoshi can usmash, D3 can utilt, and, well, I'm sure Squirtle and Charizard have something, although they have KOing throws that would probably be better choices. All of these are completely unavoidable as far as I know.

Why would the grabber voluntarily end their chaingrab when they can just rack up free damage?

The existence of alternatives is a pointless argument; let's ban fox's nair in melee because, you know, he could always just do fair instead!

 

[petrie911]

OK, I think you're misunderstanding me. Someone had pointed out how it would be difficult to tell if a person is "free" from the grab. I offered a definition to use for "free". The person is considered free from the grab when he actually performs an action. Airdodge, roll, shield, spotdodge, attack, grab, jump, w/e. It's pointless to say "the grabber can just claim the guy tried to jump and he grabbed him out of it". If the ref can't tell if the person jumped, neither can the grabber, so he can't validly make that claim. What do you see wrong with this definition.

Obviously, you don't want these standing infinites banned. I'm not saying I do. I'm just trying to dispel this whole "infeasibility" argument. They can be banned in a feasible manner. Whether or not they should be is a different story.

Oh, and screw the whole walled stages thing. If they're allowed, there's not really a point in banning any infinites. If they're banned, then Dedede won't be a popular choice for them, so it's really a complete nonissue.

 

[pockyD]

OK, I think you're misunderstanding me. Someone had pointed out how it would be difficult to tell if a person is "free" from the grab. I offered a definition to use for "free". The person is considered free from the grab when he actually performs an action. Airdodge, roll, shield, spotdodge, attack, grab, jump, w/e.

so dedede isn't allowed to grab if the guy just stands there? and like i said, you can grab someone on the way up in a jump, as well as grab someone who is putting up their shield

It's pointless to say "the grabber can just claim the guy tried to jump and he grabbed him out of it". If the ref can't tell if the person jumped, neither can the grabber, so he can't validly make that claim. What do you see wrong with this definition.

the burden of proof is on whatever official wants to disqualify someone for using a supposedly banned tactic. a player shouldn't have to justify why they shouldn't get an automatic loss; the tournament director should have a clear reason than "well if i couldn't tell, neither can you, therefore you lose"

Obviously, you don't want these standing infinites banned. I'm not saying I do. I'm just trying to dispel this whole "infeasibility" argument. They can be banned in a feasible manner. Whether or not they should be is a different story.

standing infinites only affect a small percentage of the characters, so who cares? we didn't ban sheik's grab, tilts, aerials, and everything else besides fsmash and chain just because bowser sucks... if your character gets completely ***** by one (1) character out there, deal with it

...and i understand what you're "trying" to do, but you're not doing a very good job

Oh, and screw the whole walled stages thing. If they're allowed, there's not really a point in banning any infinites.

ok, i guess?

 

[petrie911]

so dedede isn't allowed to grab if the guy just stands there? and like i said, you can grab someone on the way up in a jump, as well as grab someone who is putting up their shield



the burden of proof is on whatever official wants to disqualify someone for using a supposedly banned tactic. a player shouldn't have to justify why they shouldn't get an automatic loss; the tournament director should have a clear reason than "well if i couldn't tell, neither can you, therefore you lose"



standing infinites only affect a small percentage of the characters, so who cares? we didn't ban sheik's grab, tilts, aerials, and everything else besides fsmash and chain just because bowser sucks... if your character gets completely ***** by one (1) character out there, deal with it

...and i understand what you're "trying" to do, but you're not doing a very good jobQUOTE]

-Yes. if the guy just stands there, the grabber can't grab him. He can do any one of the myriad of other options he has, just not a grab.

-It wouldn't be much of a ban if it were so easily circumvented now, would it? The grabber is discouraged from attempting to continue the infinite because of the severe risk he takes by going for the sixth grab. He has any number of perfectly good alternatives, and he knows the rules in advance. It's his problem for taking such a risk.

-Well, yes, but considering the subject of the topic is banning these standing infinites, I'm attempting to provide a way to do it. Again, whether to do it is not my concern. I don't really care either way.

 

[Yuna]

-Yes. if the guy just stands there, the grabber can't grab him. He can do any one of the myriad of other options he has, just not a grab.

How is this fair? Or even logical?

-It wouldn't be much of a ban if it were so easily circumvented now, would it? The grabber is discouraged from attempting to continue the infinite because of the severe risk he takes by going for the sixth grab. He has any number of perfectly good alternatives, and he knows the rules in advance. It's his problem for taking such a risk.

Only logically, it's not an infinite once he allows for the opponent to get out of it. If he gives the opponent sufficient leeway to get out of the infinite, then it's no longer an infinite. Hence, if hallows for even 1 frame of escape, then he can claim "Not infinite!".

Also, what if I choose to infinite DK as DeDeDe and then segue into a simple chaingrab across the stage after the 5th grab? Illegal? How many infinite grabs before I can chaingrab? What if I infinite grab 5 times, chaingrab once and then repeat the process?

 

[petrie911]

How is this fair? Or even logical?


Only logically, it's not an infinite once he allows for the opponent to get out of it. If he gives the opponent sufficient leeway to get out of the infinite, then it's no longer an infinite. Hence, if hallows for even 1 frame of escape, then he can claim "Not infinite!".

Also, what if I choose to infinite DK as DeDeDe and then segue into a simple chaingrab across the stage after the 5th grab? Illegal? How many infinite grabs before I can chaingrab? What if I infinite grab 5 times, chaingrab once and then repeat the process?

-The opponent is standing right in front of you. You act as if grabbing is your absolutely only option. I doubt the opponent can react fast enough to block an immediate jab combo, all release grab chains leave the opponent wide open for a free attack, and D3's ftilt is a true combo out of his dthrow. I'm not sure how this is exactly unfair. The grabber just got 5 grabs* worth of free damage, a free attack, and has full knowledge of these rules in advance. That's quite a bit more than most characters get out of grabbing an opponent, anyways. Further, standing perfectly still and doing nothing is certainly not going to be the opponent's best option, so by doing so he's only hurting himself.

-Perhaps so, but that's not how this rule would work. The definition of "free of the infinite" is not that the player CAN perform an action, but that the player DID perform an action. The grabber is perfectly safe from any sanction if he uses a different throw or an attack after the 5th grab. And yes, those situations you described would be illegal. It's 5 grabs before the opponent is free. It doesn't matter how those grabs are obtained.

*It doesn't have to be 5. It could be whatever limit the community decides on should the community decide to limit it. But I'll continue to use 5 as an example.

 

[Patsie]

OK.

I'm a tournament organizer. My last tournament had 44 players and 10 TV's. There was one camera in the room. I had 2 people helping me keep track of matches and inputting data into TIO, and letting people know who they played next.

Overswarm recorded about half of his matches on his camera, which was the only one there, and nothing else was recorded at all.

If someone walked up to me and said "He just grabbed me 6 times, so I win." and the opponent said, "no, it was 5." How on earth am I supposed to sort that out? Always believe the person who isn't playing DDD? Always believe DDD? DQ them both?

What if the DDD player says "yeah it was 6, because I let you free for 3 frames after the 4th one, and you were just too slow to notice." He technically worked two different chaingrabs, but they were just really close to one another.

Who's going to be able to tell the difference?

If I say "ok, replay the match, since you don't agree" then that means that anyone playing against DDD can play aggressive, and if they start losing, claim a chain-grab and get a free reset.

If I say "I believe one of you and not the other one" then that guy's whole crew will stop coming to my tournament because I called them liars.

If I DQ them both, then you can bring your friend who doesn't care about smash to come along and pay $10 to enter just to try to get that one DDD DQ'ed so that you don't have to face him.

FACT: We can't watch every match.
FACT: Not every match is recorded.
FACT: There's no way to tell if you were let free for 1 frame and then grabbed again.
FACT: This sort of ban is absolutely unenforceable.

There is absolutely no way whatsoever that this sort of ban is enforceable. I know because I organize tournaments. You don't, because you never have.

I'm assuming you also banned "excessive stalling techniques," if not, ignore this, I guess.

If someone came up to you and said "This Sonic player stalled under the stage" and the Sonic replied "No, I didn't, I only used the homing attack like 3 times."

How would you reply/enforce that? Just curious.

It just seems to me like when we banned stalling we didn't have a clear-cut way of defining it aside from the TO's discretion, but it still was banned. I'm not arguing for infinites in this thread, I just want to know how you'd respond to that situation.

EDIT: Just making sure that people don't respond like "STALLING =/= INFINITES IDIOT."

I'm not saying they're the same thing, I'm just saying that stalling requires the same kind of vague definitions and same subjective TO enforcement, but it's still banned.

 

[CStrife187]

if someone's stalling, the opponent can call someone over to actually look at the technique and tell whether or not it's stalling. in the case of sonic's "stall" all you have to do is jump or grab the ledge and their homing attack will no longer keep them safe under the stage.