URC Analysis - Voluntary Response Polling and the 75% Myth

[John12346]

I'm kind of annoyed, because when I realized that Cassio's data would of course be subject to regional bias, I then realized that the only way to fix it; by having a more national representation of people's thoughts on MK/the stage issue, could've happened at APEX.

Now I'm super salty at Cassio for not shoving this in our faces back in October, when the census data was taken, so I could've thought of that.

-___-;

Cassiooooooo

The results were 60:40 pro ban. That is a majority, but it is by no means a super majority. Often a 2/3 vote or something of that sort is considered a super majority. A lot of previous proban discussions used the super majority reasoning as a point (not the whole argument, just a point) when discussing banning. Yet at the higher levels of play the results seem to even up a little. It goes back to the concept of "proving without a doubt". A super majority helps further remove the doubt (especially if the super majority comes from top players). 60:40 shows preference, but is not 75:25 or even 67:33 for that matter and makes the community as a whole seem doubtful in the ban (even though a preference exists).

You're implying that the Top 100 is an accurate indicator of what we want to find out.

Right off the top of my head, I would want to consider one of two groups of people before turning to the Top 100, and that would either be a subset of very educated users(like the BBR, or maybe BBR + URC or something?) or, for example, the Top 1000 players of the nation. Hell, we could just make a super tedious move and go for all ~2000 and aim to get at least 1900 votes or something.

100 is far too small of a sample size when we're dealing with some 2000 players, and it hasn't really been proven that the Top 100 would serve as any better of a sample size, than say, BBR + URC, or even nationally ranked players 101 to 200, for example.

What I was showing in the case of the Top 100 was that a good proportion of players above the majority were still in favor of the ban, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a super majority in this case. For all we know, players ranked 101 to 200 may be like 80% in favor of the ban or something to balance it all out.

Now, if you believe that the uncasted votes would slightly even up the numbers, then that just hurts the case even more.

Dude, read it again.

If ALL 14 uncasted votes went in anti-ban's favor, the count is about even, and if they went in pro-ban's favor, the ratio is basically a super majority. In a NEUTRAL case, the vote turns out to be a 6-4 matchup, so don't say that I'm grasping for straws here.

Also, there is a DIFFERENCE between do they WANT a ban and do they think he DESERVES to be banned. Because I remember reading a post by Ally where he said he voted ban because he believed without MK the game more enjoyable, but in actuality he did not find MK banworthy. The question was posed as for or against when the question should have been posed, "do you believe MK deserves to be banned or does not desereved to be banned(aka banworthy or not banworthy)?"

Don't know what kind of argument this is.

There are anti-ban users who believe MK banworthy but will never actually vote to ban him, you know. Consider the plethora of MK users in the Top 100, for starters.

Bias is going to exist on both sides for the vote, no matter how the question is ultimately worded.

 

[xDD-Master]

You know what really needs to happen right now?
A new poll named "Should MK be allowed again?"
Just to see, if people who are actually interested vote more than the other ones, which would mean, the outcome of that poll could very likely be YES. Or to see if people actually changed their mind probably.

Btw. the MK polls were not good statistical polls.
A good poll wouldve been, to send a PM to EVERY member of smashboards. So that really everyone could vote on it.
Or (if that is to much) just do a RANDOMIZED (This is important) selection of 1000 people (or 10000 whatever) people.
Doing it like "Who wants it?" will obv. turn into more people voting that are actually PRO Ban, because as no-Ban was the status quo, some anti-ban people didnt vote at all.

Free MK!!! Good thread

 

[zmx]

1. idk if ur new around here(and i say this because i honestly dont know) but ive been around for the last 8 years so you can call it whatever youd like but ive watched the scene grow since i was 14
2. im aware. me and everyone else are aware, thankyou for your supreme knowledge. melee has a TON of rules to (help) balance it and it works out better because its a better game but who cares
3. idk what that refers to but they were discussing the "powers" in the community and sbr is a power, i stated that because maybe people shouldnt blindly follow "top" players
4. GOOD ONE!

You misunderstood. I agree with you that we shouldn't blindly follow top players. This would be an example of cognitive bias if we did. However, it is ironic for you to to say this and then try to give yourself more credibility by stating you've been here longer. One shouldn't blindly follow those that have been here longer either.

Though being a top player or being here longer MIGHT and probably should mean you know better, it isn't necessarily the case. I could have joined this site yesterday, if I said 2 and 2 make 4 it doesn't make it any less right.

You just admitted to make melee for enjoyable and competitive you needed a lot of rules and restrictions. So you still haven't justified why you hate brawl since the same principles apply: In an attempt to make an unbalanced game more competitive and enjoyable we need rules.

Edit:

And just so you know this poll conducted by the URC I've been against from the beginning because like Cassio I find it to be inaccurate and misleading. I was the one that initially mentioned about the voluntary nature of it.

At the same time we definetly need TOs for the community. There couldn't be rulesets, a standard or tournys without them.

 

[WindMajor]

I don't like this thread because it talks a lot about a problem but offers no solution.

 

[zmx]

I don't like this thread because it talks a lot about a problem but offers no solution.

A solution was posted 2 posts above yours.

 

[WindMajor]

The OP isn't two posts above mine though.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

What bothers me is this thread shows there is potentially a problem. That the data used MAY not be accurate. We haven't shown that the data is wrong. We have seen data for one region doesn't agree. I would like to see better data but not sure how easy it would be to get the better data.

what would the difference be between doing a survey of selected random individuals on the forums versus in person at a tourney? Is the problem that its not in person?

 

[Cassio]

Bob the first thing to determine is what your population is. Is it tournament attendees? Is it SWF members? Is it potential tournament goers (i.e. aib wifi warrios)?

I don't like this thread because it talks a lot about a problem but offers no solution.

If you mean about the URC, youre 100% correct. If I was being thorough I shouldve written more about solutions. The reason I didnt is because I needed to be sure the initial point would get across. I actually started to type out something longer, but I was afraid the message would get lost if I tried to include too much content. It looks like the initial point I intended to get across has been well understood, but I couldnt be sure of that beforehand.

And sorry John, I didnt intend to hold onto the poll that long but I wanted to do more with it and everything became busy for me. I havent even been able to attend a tournament since then. I have a lot of ideas I wish I could try to implement in a lot of different areas but time tends to run short for one reason or another.

 

[John12346]

Well, maybe if the idea is still fresh a year from now, we can try pulling something like that at Apex 2013 or something...

What about my ideas of surveying the Top 1000(I wouldn't suggest going for everyone, because the lower in rank you go, the more likely you'll hit inactives)players in the nation for at least 950 votes, or surveying the BBR + URC + Any other educated committee on SWF I might not be thinking of for their votes?

Either seems like a legit option, and seems to circumvent all the problems you have listed out in your OP, what say you?

 

[Cassio]

Well any data that gathers information from the entire group of persons can be useful. Im most likely done for now for one of two reasons. The first being the commitment gathering such data takes, which is why I have a lot of respect for all the money date youve gathered.

The second being that no matter what results a nation wide poll would yeild, it wouldnt change the conclusion Ive reached about a unified rulesets for locals. For instance, lets say that data from different regions matches what we found in socal. You might be able to justify a unified ruleset in this case, but at what cost? Theres been strong movements both against MK and for at least maintaining if not expanding the current list of legal stages, with many people claiming theyd sooner quit than not have their way. Do these people simply get asked to not let the door hit them on the way out?

Or lets say that various regions do not having matching data, and along with socal we see extremes in other parts of the country that want metaknight banned under any conditions and would prefer the inclusion of stages like Norfair, JJ, and Pirate Ship. These are not minor concessions, youre literally pushing one region to use rules that are the polar opposite of what they prefer. In this case in particular a ruleset that forces locals to adopt something their attendees dont prefer I simply cant see as doing more good for the community than harm.

Let me ask you these questions specifically John (or anyone else that wants to answer). Whats more important to you, a ruleset that every region in the nation follows even if its almost directly opposing to the ruleset you prefer? Or a ruleset that is not national but strongly matches what you enjoy in your local area? Would you continue to support and advocate for a game where tournaments everywhere in the nation did not follow a ruleset you enjoyed? If not how can you ask others to do the same?

 

[Life]

For the record, I think that using a variety of rulesets tests the widest variety of skills. A truly good Smash player will win from Smashville and BF to Norfair and PTAD. Can you beat MK on RC/Brinstar? ICs and Diddy on FD? GnW on Mansion? Oli on Pipes? Falco on Japes? Because it's highly unlikely you'll be tested on all these scenarios with just one ruleset.

I advocate an open stagelist because I think it's deeper on its own than a restrictive list, and because it doesn't get run as often as it should, but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for other rulesets. This expands to everything else as well: running frequent mid tier and low tier tournaments, alternate stock and timer counts, and maybe even ISP now and then, is wise for the same reason: it tests different skills and keeps the game fresh. Other fighters don't get the variety of settings that we do, so we should take advantage of them.

 

[John12346]

I see what you're getting at there, Cassio.

As far as collection of votes, census style, we'd probably only be able to act on results with a high showing of support(super majority? perhaps 3/4 vote?). Otherwise, yeah, we probably would risk leaving a lot of people unsatisfied with the ruleset. I know a lot of people wouldn't appreciate a national ruleset that they didn't agree with(although I'd be fine with it, even if I didn't like it), so maybe there is more merit to using region-isolated rulesets. It would keep more people happy, it seems.

But, in the case of constructing a national ruleset, I don't know. I just... feel that there could be a better way.

I still think we could work behind something like polling the Top 1000, and then having the educated committees of SWF discuss(not vote on) each facet of the rules, taking what they feel is better competitively, nationally, and for the ruleset, and taking the results of the Top 1000 poll into account, too. With a setup of polling, and then discussing, I feel this would be the best way to go about constructing a national ruleset.

What do you think?

 

[xDD-Master]

I advocate an open stagelist because I think it's deeper on its own than a restrictive list, and because it doesn't get run as often as it should, but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for other rulesets. This expands to everything else as well: running frequent mid tier and low tier tournaments, alternate stock and timer counts, and maybe even ISP now and then, is wise for the same reason: it tests different skills and keeps the game fresh. Other fighters don't get the variety of settings that we do, so we should take advantage of them.

I agree on this.
Variety is nice.
(nearly) every ruleset has its legitimation.

 

[BSP]

What about a standardized rule set for national tournaments, and a recommended rule set for everything else?

 

[Arcansi]

What about a standardized rule set for national tournaments, and a recommended rule set for everything else?

Bad because every region would logically end up using the standardized ruleset unless they didn't care about national tournaments, essentially making it how it is now.

EDIT: Also, shouldn't polling for the URC be 'would you go to a tournament with X rule?' because that's what the URC cares about?

I don't like this thread because it talks a lot about a problem but offers no solution.

The OP isn't two posts above mine though.

Oh no! It seems something in this thread, what you seemed to be talking about in the former quote, isn't in the OP.

Is your qualm with the OP (who of course, was probably looking for a solution by creating this thread), or with this thread? And if it's with the OP, why haven't you just PM'd this user?

If with this thread, can you not see the solution two posts above yours or is it insignificant/unusuable in some way?

 

[Dr. Tuen]

I feel like Cassio and I should become better acquainted. Hmm. I haven't read though everything yet, but here are my two cents on the whole thing.

On the topic of voluntary response polls, I agree. I think some of the error could be mitigated by comparing the voting population to the population of smashboards. That, however, has its own set of complications. You must assume that the registered population is similar to the competitive population (some world competitors and many local-only competitors may not have accounts). Even if that assumption were valid, there is the issue of dummy accounts and abandoned accounts, which would muck up the numbers even further... so really, it's not a solution at all.

This is why I went for a data analysis approach instead. The issue here is the use of 'statistically significant results'. Not everyone views that to be as important as I do, and not everyone will agree with results I get using non-parametric statistical analysis. Let's be honest, a large reason is the fundamental misunderstanding of statistics. But I digress.

Here's the outline of the analysis I wanted to do before I got really lazy, and by lazy I mean busy with PhD stuff, and retired from smash:

Gather the following for a year's worth of tournament data:
1. Top 8 player info
2. Top 8 character info (use the marked characters first, use known mains second)
3. Top 8 payout info

The analysis would go something like this (I haven't figured out all the details 100%):

1. Frequency analysis of character appearance in the top 8 (overcentralization)
2. Weighted frequency analysis of character appearance (overpowered-ness, more weight given to higher placements, though this is one of those methods that i'm not 100% on yet)
3. Pay distribution (John#s has a great deal of data on this already)

Something like that. I wanted to have a shot at consolidating repeated player appearances vs character representation, but I'm not sure how to do that yet, and without the data I'm not really going to try. I have a big ol' statistics book and some professors that are already familiar with my analysis endeavors in smash, if the data were to magically assemble (hint hint!).

Anyways, I'm rambling. My point is this: What does the community value more? Opinion data, or statistical analysis? Based on the reactions on the site, I'd argue that players prefer the former.

 

[Arcansi]

Of course players prefer the former.

They want to be right, and don't like being told that what they think is wrong, no matter what proof is given to them (generalization.)

If people could get over this, we would move leaps and bounds relative to our current pace, I theorize.

 

[WindMajor]

Bad because every region would logically end up using the standardized ruleset unless they didn't care about national tournaments, essentially making it how it is now.

EDIT: Also, shouldn't polling for the URC be 'would you go to a tournament with X rule?' because that's what the URC cares about?





Oh no! It seems something in this thread, what you seemed to be talking about in the former quote, isn't in the OP.

Is your qualm with the OP (who of course, was probably looking for a solution by creating this thread), or with this thread? And if it's with the OP, why haven't you just PM'd this user?

If with this thread, can you not see the solution two posts above yours or is it insignificant/unusuable in some way?

I didn't PM the user because I didn't have to. I don't need to send Cassio a private message to tell him what I already said when I could just tell him in this thread. It was on topic the first time, but now we're just drifting off topic.

To clarify my point, I appreciate that Cassio put down a well thought out OP to point out the flaws with the URC's poll, but it feels incomplete to point out everything they did wrong without telling them how to make it right. Cassio already responded, so now we're past that.

 

[Arcansi]

I didn't PM the user because I didn't have to. I don't need to send Cassio a private message to tell him what I already said when I could just tell him in this thread. It was on topic the first time, but now we're just drifting off topic.

To clarify my point, I appreciate that Cassio put down a well thought out OP to point out the flaws with the URC's poll, but it feels incomplete to point out everything they did wrong without telling them how to make it right. Cassio already responded, so now we're past that.

Are you saying that it is only acceptable to point out a discrepancy if you can also provide a solution, and that asking the forum for a solution when presenting a problem is a bad idea if you don't have one yourself?

Should a problem be kept away from the general public just because the OP, whoever they may be, can't think of a problem they see fit to put in their OP?

On-Topic: What does the URC plan to do about this, now that they have a proposed solution?

 

[WindMajor]

Are you saying that it is only acceptable to point out a discrepancy if you can also provide a solution, and that asking the forum for a solution when presenting a problem is a bad idea if you don't have one yourself?

Should a problem be kept away from the general public just because the OP, whoever they may be, can't think of a problem they see fit to put in their OP?

I'm saying that I would've enjoyed the OP more if he had at least mentioned solutions somewhere in the OP. There's no other meaning to it than that. And again, we're already past that.

 

[AlphaZealot]

The URC doesnt represent a good cross-section of the community, many of its members dont understand the game at a high level,

Care to be specific? Which members don't understand the game 'at a high level'? Because you are also using a 'in person' poll as evidence which also and definitely includes people who don't understand the game at high level.

In the poll of the top 100 players in the country, over 50% (actually it was over 60%) were in favor of the ban.

Your appeal to authority just backfired.

 

[Arcansi]

I'm saying that I would've enjoyed the OP more if he had at least mentioned solutions somewhere in the OP. There's no other meaning to it than that. And again, we're already past that.

Okay. You probably shouldn't of said 'this thread' then, instead opting to use OP, or something.

Would've made more sense.

@AlphaZealot: Is it not true that the URC represents an insanely flawed demographic in that it only takes in one aspect of the community?

That being, tournament organizers?

 

[Steam]

TOs are not a flawed demographic. They're by far the best demographic for the community. Only thing they have to gain is more attendance which would strengthen the community. Top players have PLENTY to gain from a biased ruleset.

Plus... Ultimately the ruleset is always the TOs decision anyways.

 

[WindMajor]

Okay. You probably shouldn't of said 'this thread' then, instead opting to use OP, or something.

Would've made more sense.

It would have, but a lot of people understood my post anyways, and the issue already got resolved.

 

[Cassio]

@John I think thats a great start. I think theres potentially multiple good processes to constructing a national ruleset as long as it has credibility and is vetted by those capable of doing so, neither of which feels true with the current URC. The current URC wasnt constructed because its members are good at understanding high level play, understanding data, represent the diverse view of the community, or understand the games mechanics in depth. A few of them happen to have one or maybe two of these qualities, but as its admitted itself the only strength of the current URC is their ability to enforce. Ill try and get in contact with you sometime this week or next weekend though so we can discuss more.

@Tuen Sure lets talk sometime soon, although Im starting to question the amount of effort we put into the MK ban debate. imo There's already a very simple, practical, and overall better solution by not trying to pressure locals and small regionals to use the same ruleset, a solution that likely leaves the largest amount of people satisfied on whether or not MK is banned at tournaments they attend and allows the greatest amount of flexibility and growth for regions that wish to cater their ruleset to their attendees. I think the MK debate has put our priorities out of order, and now were attempting to run before we can walk. Its consumed too much time and effort when many other deeper topics and issues concerning community growth and true professionalism exist that receive not even a portion of the attention or effort, and a unified ruleset is only a facade of professionalism in the first place. As Ive mentioned before Im not opposed to a national ruleset for bigger events and purposes of sponsorship and interregional coordination, but thus far Ive yet to see any benefits from pushing locals and regionals to adopt one ruleset. I think people underrate the importance of flexibility.

@BSP I agree

@Steam dont repeat points youve said multiple times and have been addressed just as frequently.

@AlphaZealot I understand youre busy and I understand you have good intentions for the community. However, its frustrating when you spend very little time understanding the opposing points attempting to be made, and then respond to a misconstrued version of what you understand to have been said. It wouldnt be that big a deal if you put effort into listening and trying to understand the point of view youre not agreeing with, but most times youve nitpicked posts or leave the conversation altogether without attempting to reconcile the misunderstanding. This is 99.9% of the reason I even had to make this thread in the first place since this issue certainly would not have existed had it been addressed when it was first brought up. Its most concerning because of the amount of influence you have over the site, and leaves any group with a viewpoint that conflicts with yours to feel as if you simply dont care to hear opposing viewpoints.

I am once again frustrated reading your post for the aforementioned reasons...but Ill again attempt to clarify my points anyways and hope past precedence is not repeated.

-I never stated that my polls scope was greater than it was, nor did I make a statement about its results. It was only posted to provide an example.
-The top 100 players poll is another example of a voluntary response poll. This was discussed earlier in the thread as well.
-The issue of lacking high level players in the URC was already covered by Mike in his video.
-This thread is not about the Meta Knight ban, I'm not making an appeal to anything. This thread is about issues regarding the URC. Id highly recommend skimming some of the other posts in this thread because many of them cover the issues there are with the URC and the concept of a unified ruleset for all tournaments.

 

[Steam]

Even if every uncasted vote went towards anti ban in that top 100 poll... Proban still would have had a majority... So I don't think you can pull the voluntary response card on that one...

And I keep on bringing that point up because it never really gets refuted... Lol

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

Well, you're right, actually, because I'm pretty sure that poll I linked up happened after the ban was decided on... w/e.

But I would still like you to ask this question:

The next time you get a tournament with a big-*** turnout like last time.

I feel that it's important to just confirm, even if we know this already, that MK and RC/Brinstar should not be legal at the same time(which would be indicated by the 1st and 4th options receiving very few votes). But more importantly, I want to see if people actually are/are not okay with RC/Brinstar in a MK banned environment(indicated by option 3 receiving more votes that option 4), and I feel that this question would provide quite a few answers, y'know?

We should get some sort of standard census form that can be available to all of the users so that we can get more data from different regions like what casio did but that is of a consistent format for the statisticians to use. Who would have the power to get this kind of a project going? cause I'm sure there are tons of people willing to collect the data if we got this ball rolling.

 

[popsofctown]

Cassio never seems to tire..


The average TO != the average player. The ruleset is experienced by players, not TOs. 95% mere players, 5% TOs playing their own ruleset. The utilitarian approach dictates that you look out for the best interest of as many as possible, so really it is better if the rulemaking body is players. Yes, the TOs can decide that they refuse to run tournaments unless they use their own personal (collectively) favorite ruleset instead of the one most players like, but most TOs I've met seem to have passed the bare minimum amount of selflessness not to do that so I don't know why everyone plays the "TOs = tournament" card every time Cassio points out that the URC is composed of an exceptional group of players instead of a group of typical players, so you're gonna get a skew towards a Type TO personality ruleset.

If there's anyone you need to skew towards (not saying you should skew, but making a point), it's the players who show up to bring mid level and low level competition to a tournament 50 miles away, pay the winner 10$ for gracing the venue with his (..or her) presence, and go home with nothing every time.

 

[Orion*]

Which members don't understand the game 'at a high level'?

Do you really not know the answer to this question? LMAO
like
either u trollin
or I'm actually salty

TOs are not a flawed demographic. They're by far the best demographic for the community. Only thing they have to gain is more attendance which would strengthen the community. Top players have PLENTY to gain from a biased ruleset.

Plus... Ultimately the ruleset is always the TOs decision anyways.

And regular/lazy/average players don't have the same things to gain? LMAO

@John I think thats a great start. I think theres potentially multiple good processes to constructing a national ruleset as long as it has credibility and is vetted by those capable of doing so, neither of which feels true with the current URC. The current URC wasnt constructed because its members are good at understanding high level play, understanding data, represent the diverse view of the community, or understand the games mechanics in depth. A few of them happen to have one or maybe two of these qualities, but as its admitted itself the only strength of the current URC is their ability to enforce. Ill try and get in contact with you sometime this week or next weekend though so we can discuss more.

@Tuen Sure lets talk sometime soon, although Im starting to question the amount of effort we put into the MK ban debate. imo There's already a very simple, practical, and overall better solution by not trying to pressure locals and small regionals to use the same ruleset, a solution that likely leaves the largest amount of people satisfied on whether or not MK is banned at tournaments they attend and allows the greatest amount of flexibility and growth for regions that wish to cater their ruleset to their attendees. I think the MK debate has put our priorities out of order, and now were attempting to run before we can walk. Its consumed too much time and effort when many other deeper topics and issues concerning community growth and true professionalism exist that receive not even a portion of the attention or effort, and a unified ruleset is only a facade of professionalism in the first place. As Ive mentioned before Im not opposed to a national ruleset for bigger events and purposes of sponsorship and interregional coordination, but thus far Ive yet to see any benefits from pushing locals and regionals to adopt one ruleset. I think people underrate the importance of flexibility.

@BSP I agree

@Steam dont repeat points youve said multiple times and have been addressed just as frequently.

@AlphaZealot I understand youre busy and I understand you have good intentions for the community. However, its frustrating when you spend very little time understanding the opposing points attempting to be made, and then respond to a misconstrued version of what you understand to have been said. It wouldnt be that big a deal if you put effort into listening and trying to understand the point of view youre not agreeing with, but most times youve nitpicked posts or leave the conversation altogether without attempting to reconcile the misunderstanding. This is 99.9% of the reason I even had to make this thread in the first place since this issue certainly would not have existed had it been addressed when it was first brought up. Its most concerning because of the amount of influence you have over the site, and leaves any group with a viewpoint that conflicts with yours to feel as if you simply dont care to hear opposing viewpoints.

I am once again frustrated reading your post for the aforementioned reasons...but Ill again attempt to clarify my points anyways and hope past precedence is not repeated.

-I never stated that my polls scope was greater than it was, nor did I make a statement about its results. It was only posted to provide an example.
-The top 100 players poll is another example of a voluntary response poll. This was discussed earlier in the thread as well.
-The issue of lacking high level players in the URC was already covered by Mike in his video.
-This thread is not about the Meta Knight ban, I'm not making an appeal to anything. This thread is about issues regarding the URC. Id highly recommend skimming some of the other posts in this thread because many of them cover the issues there are with the URC and the concept of a unified ruleset for all tournaments.

cassio the bess
he's all i ever wanted
i can play mk now

 

[zmx]

So is MK unbanned yet?

 

[John12346]

I think there'd be some merit to having a nationally(and regionally, perhaps?)-accepted ruleset, while allowing locals to have w/e ruleset they wanted.

Upgrading Unity Ruleset to National Ruleset, that would be the easy fix for this idea, I guess

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

man pro-ban are such whiners

so i'm going to whine about mk being banned repeatedly until i get my way

 

[Orion*]

man pro-ban are such whiners

so i'm going to whine about mk being banned repeatedly until i get my way

circle of life

 

[Hot_ArmS]

Plus... Ultimately the ruleset is always the TOs decision anyways.

People keep saying that but it's the whole no sticky if none urc rules thing that is annoying,THAT is one of the major gripes about the URC. Yes it's the TO's decision but it's not fair if he doesn't get a sticky just cause he doesn't want to follow the URC.

You will say "not every tourney gets stickies anyway" which is true but still doesn't take away that the rule is there and is unfair.

Revival of salt in Canada is set to get 100+ entrants from all over the place, and is not stickied because it's mk legal, but is more worthy of a sticky than one of the stickied touneys right now that is only going to get ~50 entrants at this point.

 

[Steam]

And regular/lazy/average players don't have the same things to gain? LMAO

They have no real money to gain. Top players have tons to potentially gain with a ruleset In their favor.

 

[Orion*]

They have no real money to gain. Top players have tons to potentially gain with a ruleset In their favor.

Not everyone plays this game for money.

 

[Steam]

Not everyone plays this game for money.

Yeah, the mid level and low level players. They're not winning no matter the ruleset. When i see ADHD so pro ban it makes me think all the money he could gain from a ban :/

 

[CT Chia]

Have only read most of the OP and the SP.

So you say we have a poor cross-section of the community, and then you proceed to post results from polls from a single large local tournament? Doesn't add up.

Regardless on whether or not you feel we have a poor cross-section on the community, you realize that applications are open for the URC right? Any well known TO is welcome to apply, and we're fairly accepting. If a region feels under-represented, reach out to your community to get their voice in there.

What AZ said about the poll is correct. It is not perfect. However for a sample size that large, not to mention the trends seen going across each public poll, it's very telling. Also the public poll was not the end-all-be-all decision factor of the ban, many things came into play as we have said on numerous occasions, though the public poll was clearly an important thing, in my opinion at least.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

Have only read most of the OP and the SP.

So you say we have a poor cross-section of the community, and then you proceed to post results from polls from a single large local tournament? Doesn't add up.

Regardless on whether or not you feel we have a poor cross-section on the community, you realize that applications are open for the URC right? Any well known TO is welcome to apply, and we're fairly accepting. If a region feels under-represented, reach out to your community to get their voice in there.

What AZ said about the poll is correct. It is not perfect. However for a sample size that large, not to mention the trends seen going across each public poll, it's very telling. Also the public poll was not the end-all-be-all decision factor of the ban, many things came into play as we have said on numerous occasions, though the public poll was clearly an important thing, in my opinion at least.

The top 100 poll might be considered very telling as it got a very high response rate, but the public poll is not so much. That poll got approximately 900 responses, and there are over 100,000 names registered here at Smashboards. Even if our representative community was half that number, to account for multiple accounts, dummy accounts and abandoned accounts, that'd still be 1.8% community representation.

It gets better from there if you'd like to make more limiting assumptions, but I'd highly doubt you could reasonably say that over 20% of the community actually participated in the poll. We're missing a lot of local and international responses (so the largest and smallest grain sizes).

It would almost be better to have the poll pop up upon signing into SWF for the next 4 weeks or something... give an "abstain" option and we'll get a more real cross section of the community's thoughts. The only problem here would be the thoughts on forced polling.

Anyways. Just some thoughts to chew on.

 

[Orion*]

Yeah, the mid level and low level players. They're not winning no matter the ruleset. When i see ADHD so pro ban it makes me think all the money he could gain from a ban :/

All top players where at some point mid level also. They had to work for where they got to and not think about money as a goal but as a reward for had work and dedication. the money you win from a grass roots game like this in general is not very significant to that of most large stage video games or even better an actual job which would prove to be consistent (unless you get a sponsor)

you proceed to post results from polls from a single large local tournament? Doesn't add up.

he posted it multiple times but essentially it was an example.

@tuen...

you really make me want to marry you LMAO