[1]"Changing the way the way the game is played" is a bad excuse. It has never been the reason to ban anything.
One major reason, not the only but one reason, to not have Brawl+ is because it changes the way the game is played. There are several more such as it puts wii's in danger that I dont think we should get into.
[2]Smash would be the first to ban a normal character as far as I know. Every example of a banned character is an unlockable boss character.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IEiSgkOUYU&feature=related How is MK compared to Gill (the focus of the vid is more on the supers and stun than the combos)?
Correct me if im wrong on this but in Halo, not quite a fighting game but is still very competitive, several things are banned such as rockets, and tanks in several different types of play. Now you can't quite ban a character seeing as there are only 2 (Master chief and the Arbitor, all though the only one you will see in the competitive field is Master chief as he is better) but the closest thing you can really do to banning a character in Halo would be banning a weapon.
[3]Your unrelated analogies aren't helping.
In any sort of debate you ask a question or give an example called a lead that shows another situation where somthing similar should have or did happen.
I don't really care about MK. I just wanted to sneak in some 3S >_>
Btw, if you really want MK banned, you could easily ban MK at ToF, but anyone whose favorite char is MK might not show up anymore.
I have already said before that I would like it to be a Utah rule set not a different rule set for each tourny and I also want it to be the communities choice, I am not the only one who thinks this several people who I have talked to in our little fun loving group have said the same so I don't see why I am the only one who seems to be deffending this side.
I think when Xsyven said to have a "soft ban" on Meta Knight, he means to have all the of the regular, more skilled players all agree to not use him, but if some noob breaks the agreement not to use him (either because they don't know or don't care), then the opponent could also pick him, too. But this sort of thing works better for characters at the level of Akuma, etc.
If he didn't mean that, then MAYBE he meant to leave it up to the host...
Like I said above I would like to go by a Utah rule set and not just make my own up for my tourny. I would be fine trying this
more skilled players all agree to not use him, but if some noob breaks the agreement not to use him (either because they don't know or don't care), then the opponent could also pick him, too.
but I think in the end it will come down to a vote between all of us, each saying: ban, keep, don't care, unsure and I am fine with doing that. However many people have said try a temp. ban so again I would be fine with trying somthing like for the month of dec. MK is banned then we see if we liked it or not.
And I'm not really neutral on this matter; I'm just tired of arguing with people about it.
I feel the same way about politics right now thank god it ends today. But it is something that we as a group should be talking about.
No offense but I don't think you seem to understand the point of stage bans. Stage bans focus more on the elimination of broken tactics(stalling mostly) and randomness associated with each stage that gets banned rather than hazards that can affect the match. As a Brawl player you probably never really thought about stage bans for Melee but thats how it was in Melee. Brawl, however, introduced EXTREME game breaking obstacles on certain stages so maybe you interpreted those as being the main reasons for stage banning.
None taken, but I don't think a stage such as WarioWare was banned for stalling, but more so for hasards and randomness. And Mario Bros. doesn't even have the same feel of randomness as WarioWare, yet it is banned I assume for item use and hasards. Except distant planet is still pickable and it has the same kind of items, just not as deadly. 75m, Flat Zone 2, Big Blue are all banned for hasards, I believe. Like you said Brawl has much crazier stages then melee but they were all banned because they changed the game into something we didn't want it to be, they made it less about who is the skilled player and more about the stage. MK can do the same everywhere I look its "how can ____ beat MK" or "How do you stop MK's ____" the game isn't about how skilled the player is but more so about what if they pick MK what can't I do then. Yet with all this talk as far as I have heard/seen noone has found something they can try to exploit.
Seeing as how Utah is a state where MK is not a predominant character, we should instead do the community a favor and continue to allow him to see how a scene that allows MK develops as opposed to those that do not. You shouldn't ban characters for not having weaknesses. You should ban characters for being unbeatable.
Thats a great point, but that has been happening all over, on the east coast and Texas MK is everywhere so you would think that someone would find something if he is in every match but they arn't. Im not saying we need to do this by the end of the week or anything and am totaly fine with keeping him until the end of the month or year, but I keep hearing people say wait, but not giving any sort of dead line if we can set a date and say if we still feel MK is OP by the ____ then we try a soft, temp., or even all out ban I am all for it.
Banning IS always bad. The community just has to decide if Metaknight is worse.
Banning isn't alway bad, like we said above stages and items are bad. But ya "The community just has to decide if Metaknight is worse."
