-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Tourney this weekend
- Thread starter Koskinator
- Start date
Teronist09
Smash Journeyman
Yea, that was a mistake.
1) TP would destroy you (OMG would he destroy you)
2) We ALlllll watched the matches, you played horrible and got lucky.
3) GTFO
TP
Smash Master
I didn't say I CAN beat you, I said I DID beat you.
I have the replay if you want proof. We were on FD. You got the first kill. Your first death was caused by you suiciding (you tried to phantasm into the ledge and got stuck under the lip). I avoided CG Spike until the third stock (we both had one stock left at this point). I miraculously avoided death by using sdi to land on the stage. I then made a comeback and ended the match with an Utilt.
However, I do recognize that you are a better player than me and you could have won easily had you chosen to camp more.
thexsunrosered
Smash Lord
lol TP i almost didn't see that xD
PK-ow!
Smash Lord
Careful now, these are johns right here. Well, I mean (2) is. What happened happened.
This is also, technically, a john. And it's really important I think to recognize this one.
I do not think it is right for players to get credit for using low tier characters. And let me give a reason other than the stock answer here, guys. I think that such is bad, because it cheapens the ability the cheer a low tier player when he does succeed.
In my view, you can't have things both ways. This is a general principle; I'd like to write something about it sometime. In this case, it's just.... if you're going to have credit for someone who is "so badass" he takes a low tier to a placing finish, then you can't allow it to also count that he used low tier when he doesn't make it. Using the low tier is out to prove "I'm good enough that I will win bad matchups against you consistently", forgoing the usual "I will prove my ability by beating you using whatever is there". The low tier mainer takes a reputation-shaping gambit, in a sense; he defines himself by taking these characters into competition, so that if he wins, it's even more impressive.
(This is assuming he's still a competitor in mindset, which may not be true; he may just enjoy using badass chars like Ganon and murdering people.)
Our low tier mainer, he wants to prove something stronger than the normal guy. But you see there, for that proof to matter for what it is supposed to matter, he cannot accept praise for doing what he does and failing. He has to shoot for the top. He does not want condolence for his performance because (a) it draws a certain ire from other players, which brings hostility to the praised player (i.e., they see this as you johning for them, as this discussion first pointed out, which is, to put it shortly, rude); and (b) as I'm saying, it misses the point.
That is why we must see these things for what they are. This is not an opposition of the communal supportiveness of the Ganon boards, that would be nonsense. But in the context where johns are amok, this should be recognized. Of these two forms of acclaim, you can't have both.
tl; dr He used Ganon. He did as well as he did, but I would not make excuse for him missing the placings he didn't.
Sidenote: The syntax on that sentence is messed. Yet it seems to read okay.
Also, HI SNOFY!!!!
*walks in*
Remember me? bwahahaha.
Also Luke is a pretty cool guy. He just like's winning is all. Integrity isn't something he's particularly concerned of.
(Don't worry, us melee players aren't safe either. He uses Sheik and cgs all the time in melee too.)
Alphicans
Smash Hero
LOL! Explain the luck please. I saw no luck. Also I've vs'd TP plenty of times guess who wins? If you guessed TP you're wrong. It's falco vs ganon dude wtf do you think will happen?
Squirrely
Smash Journeyman
I'm slightly confused with your post, PK.
So if we praise someone for getting third place, with Ganondorf, then it would make people upset because we congratulated him (in your words draw "certain ire")?
Why?
How?
Who gets upset for someone saying "You did a good job getting third place with Ganondorf"?
I don't see this as someone complaining for me if I was the Ganon in question.
I shouldn't be allowed to say someone did a good job beating someone using an inferior character because they had an option to use a better character?
That doesn't make sense to me.
They did, in fact, do well.
If the Ganon player claims he lost because he was Ganon and the other guy was not Ganon, then sure, that's a John. Otherwise I'm not seeing it.
Also for "He did as well as he did, but I would not make excuse for him missing the placings he didn't."
The syntax is indeed messed. I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.
I'm sure I left a lot of my thoughts unwritten but I'll be around to clarify if needed.
On a sidenote, what's with all the harsh words and arguments over the posted match?
Was I the only one who saw that as a very close game?
Any close game is a good game in my book.
Although I was honestly not interested in seeing a fight between a Wolf and a Falco.
I was expecting Ganondorf and was let down :-/
So if we praise someone for getting third place, with Ganondorf, then it would make people upset because we congratulated him (in your words draw "certain ire")?
Why?
How?
Who gets upset for someone saying "You did a good job getting third place with Ganondorf"?
I don't see this as someone complaining for me if I was the Ganon in question.
I shouldn't be allowed to say someone did a good job beating someone using an inferior character because they had an option to use a better character?
That doesn't make sense to me.
They did, in fact, do well.
If the Ganon player claims he lost because he was Ganon and the other guy was not Ganon, then sure, that's a John. Otherwise I'm not seeing it.
Also for "He did as well as he did, but I would not make excuse for him missing the placings he didn't."
The syntax is indeed messed. I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.
I'm sure I left a lot of my thoughts unwritten but I'll be around to clarify if needed.
On a sidenote, what's with all the harsh words and arguments over the posted match?
Was I the only one who saw that as a very close game?
Any close game is a good game in my book.
Although I was honestly not interested in seeing a fight between a Wolf and a Falco.
I was expecting Ganondorf and was let down :-/
TP
Smash Master
Let's play again soon. Technically, Falco is one of the 8 characters I CP against, but I'll use Ganon the whole time.
Ray_Kalm
Smash Master
Where are you getting at? All I see is your view in this, nothing else. A person has the right to get respect for maining, and using, a low tier in tournaments, especially if they place high.
ShinGaruda
Smash Journeyman
So, what exactly does all this have to do with...
KOSK AND BOOM'S MONEY MATCHES????????
KOSK AND BOOM'S MONEY MATCHES????????
PK-ow!
Smash Lord
Umm, well...
I didn't say it's bad to congratulate him. If what you say, is "Hey, you reached third! Alright!" then that's fine. If what you say is "Hey, you reached third! With Ganon!" that's fine. But if what you say is "Hey, you got third! But you missed second. With Ganon!" that's problematic. It comes close to (it could actually be) making an excuse for missing second. And we shouldn't make excuse.
You can say it was awesome that he reached his finishing place - "did as well as he did" - but it's different for you to muse about the placings above him, at the same time as you remark the choice of character - "make excuse for him missing the placings he didn't [reach]."
It either *is* a john, or it's something that sounds enough like a john that the praiser's belief about what he intended to mean isn't going to matter to listeners.
I mean the contrived, extreme example would be "He sweeped that tournament but got knocked into third. But he was Ganon!" The offense, pretty much, is entirely in the 'but' just before "you were Ganon!".
As you recognize with:
Now that's all I'm saying. I'm saying a certain kind of comment boils down to that, and thus, is a john.
EDIT2: Oh, and also, that if other people say this, they're johning for the player, which they shouldn't, for... the reason johns are bad.
.... now I regret that I must retract what I claimed about SniperNightOwl's statement. Looking at it now, it has no excusatory* content. My deepest apologies, to anyone who seeks them.
.... that's probably the cause of the confusion. I now don't have a real example.
*apparently this should be 'exculpatory'.
Well, my view is that one of the two options is preferable (the one where we praise the player for what he accomplishes, rather than patting him for going the tough road itself), but I believe that my exclusive disjunction of the two is factual.
I am claiming that 'praise' can't work a certain way. It can't have three properties all at once: Be used in context 1, be used in context 2, and be significantly meaningful in one of them (for a community of persons participating in this praise - praisers, praised, and listeners - roughly common to all the contexts).
EDIT: Also, I'm sure persons other than myself - "tourney***s," among others - would say, no, people who use low tiers in tournaments, for money, don't deserve respect, because they have made a mistake. I'm convinced the matter is more complex and deserves a more sophisticated view, but I wanted to confirm you were aware of this.
@ShinGaruda: We're having a meta discussion about comments about Kosk's matches.
Not the money matches though. Money matches? Where? Kosk started talking about vids but where are they?