His criteria is arbitrary selected in the following way:
1) His choice for determining whether something is "too random" is arbitrary. Why should it be Peach's Turnip Threshold and not something else?
2) His choice for choosing "single-character" and "single-strategy" brokenness is arbitrary. Why should it not be double-character or double-strategy, or some other variation?
However, to say that his standard of not wanting to remove things unless they're broken is arbitrary is fallacious. Again, it's not like he picked his standard out of a hat; he chooses a standard which is fairest in the sense that it maintains depth while keeping as many options as possible open to the player.
Obviously, there will be internal debate as to whether something is broken. But the standard itself is not arbitrary. We have gone over this. The standard "I ban things because I don't like them" is not less arbitrary than "I ban things which are broken" just because the question of what is "broken" needs deliberation.
In other words, criteria being arbitrarily selected does not equate to the standard itself being arbitrary. It's this sort of logic that causes me to dismiss your arguments as absurd, you know. >_>
I am hopeful that you will see that my standards, while obviously not "better" in any meaningful way, really are fairer, and that my standards do not seek to impose a simple majority-preference on the players who wish to play differently. Of course there will be deliberation on the actual criteria put forth to create a ruleset which follows the objective:
Preserve as much of the game of Melee as possible while keeping the ruleset competitive. When it is not an issue of competitiveness, select the option that promotes more game knowledge and required ability.
but I'm hoping you will at least understand why the objective itself, i.e., the standard, not the criteria, is "better" (at least fairer) in some sense than the standard put forth by players who wish to ban things on preference.
I think, fundamentally, the question of what is "arbitrary" causes this debate to surface. In general, if you can justify a particular choice in a meaningful way, then it isn't arbitrary. However, for the MBR ruleset, the vast majority of bans seem indicative of simple preference rather than any real justification, and while you could argue that the majority should decide the ruleset, I feel that this is unfair and infringes on the minority's right to play the game as they wish.
As an aside, you should know that I don't necessarily agree with KishPrime's criteria entirely. On the one hand, I am strongly in favor of the minimalist banning philosophy. But, on the other hand, I don't feel "single-character" and "single-strategy" brokenness are sufficiently strong criteria. However, I
am of the opinion that every banned stage not explicitly banned on his list was banned preemptively. When it comes time to discuss what stages should be banned (read: never, because the majority will never accept this ruleset), I feel we should then discuss what criteria should be used.
