• 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!

What is your criteria for something being "Ban Worthy"

Pink Reaper

Real Name No Gimmicks
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
8,339
Location
In the Air, Using Up b as an offensive move
I really feel like we need to discuss this. Already there's multiple topics about what should/shouldn't be legal, and it will probably end up coming down to a vote, which was something I really didnt like in the old MBR and dont exactly look forward to now. Everyone's ban criteria is definitely different, and I'd like to know what the general feelings towards banning the members of this room have.

I'll post mine in a bit when i get more time.
 

KishPrime

King of the Ship of Fools
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 22, 2003
Messages
7,802
Location
Indiana
Copy/Paste from my No Johns ruleset post I've been working on

1. Prevent overly randomized results – One primary objective of any competitive ruleset is to ensure consistent results. Consistent does not mean that the same/best person wins every time - consistent is just consistent. There is always variation in results, even before random factors come into play. We have to acknowledge that Melee is a game that does include a degree of randomness. Decisions under this criteria have to meet some arbitrary threshold. In this case I’ve selected something that is considered widely acceptable by the community - the results randomization generated by the computer’s selection of Peach’s turnip pull - as my standard (referred to as the Turnip Threshold). Any effect that is less significant than this, then, should be allowable.

2. Single-character or single-strategy brokenness – Stages such as Hyrule, with run-away projectile camping being unbeatable, fall into this category. If two characters are viable, then clearly neither is broken and you have options available to you.

3. Unavoidable glitches that impede gameplay – Stages like Brinstar Depths, through which your character can randomly fall through any part of the stage, were banned for this reason. FoD is banned in teams because the frame drop messes with people. I never thought Mute frame drop was bad enough to warrant it, but some do.

That's my ban criteria for basically anything...stages, glitches, etc. But I'm still working on it...not entirely happy with how it's explained yet.
 

Divinokage

Smash Legend
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
16,250
Location
Montreal, Quebec
The lag also happens in Rainbow Cruise sometimes in doubles. It's kinda ridiculous lol. It seems random or dependent on the wii maybe or disk? Not sure.

My criteria to ban something would be..

- Using one strategy wins
- Stages that over-centralize matchups

I guess pretty much for now. That's what I have.
 

Skler

Smash Master
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
4,518
Location
On top of Milktea
-How much random factors, or any factor that a player does not control, affect the game.

-over-centralized strategy

-Whether or not it removes commonly accepted parts of the game (edges, platforms, etc).
 

Zankoku

Never Knows Best
Administrator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
22,994
Location
Milpitas, CA
NNID
SSBM_PLAYER
If it involves Mewtwo and a red shell, it's probably ban-worthy.
 

Fly_Amanita

Master of Caribou
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,224
Location
Claremont, CA
I've got two main criteria. Something is banworthy if:

1) it undermines the player's need to be versatile.
2) random factors associated with it have a strong and frequent influence on the outcome of rounds.

These are both a little vague, but I like the flexibility granted by said vagueness. Criterion #1 nicely handles degenerate strategies and polarizing stages and criterion #2 deals with Green Greens, amongst other chance-related things.
 

Redd

thataintfalco.com
BRoomer
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
4,133
Location
Richmond, Virginia
Something that is overly reliable to spam with. (tornado)

Ridiculously easy ability to camp at a % advantage.
 

Strong Badam

Super Vegeta
Administrator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
26,515
I don't think difficulty should be a factor. That's one of the weaker arguments for banning wobbling. My main criteria are:

1. Degenerative gameplay. What competitive gameplay "should" be is hard to arbitrarily define and so the degenerative gameplay idea is also difficult to justify, however I doubt anyone can disagree with the notion that Hyrule Temple would degenerate gameplay as would several other stages.

2. Skewing match-ups. Since there are no character-specific techniques that influence match-ups that should be banned (Soul Stun glitch and IC's freeze glitch I don't think fall under this category), all that's really left is stages. I don't think stages where the good characters are even better compared to the okay characters than on the 5-7 normal stages by any noticeable margin are very fair for competitive play.

Though of course, there are many that will make the argument that it isn't up to us to balance the game, or to do so with the cost of a lack of stage variety, but yea that's how opinions work. It'd probably come down to a vote or a Cactuar.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
I want to unfairly bump this to note that Metaknight for Brawl was banned. I know the MBR has had MK banned for some time now, but it seems that MK was banned almost entirely on popular vote for that community.

Which brings me to this question: how does the MBR feel about bans without game-related justification? Are there any opinions on making a ban to cater to the community, or are the criteria strictly game based?

I am of the opinion that it is our community, so we are free to do whatever we please with it. I expect there are others that require more concrete evidence before making a move. Thoughts?
 

Pink Reaper

Real Name No Gimmicks
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
8,339
Location
In the Air, Using Up b as an offensive move
Our bans are already made to cater to the community. We ban stuff people ***** loudly about.

The original point of this thread was to see the reasons various members have for banning things and see if we could work towards a universal criteria for something to be ban worthy. But i gave up on that when i realized that will never happen. The MBR will still just be a group of people who vote for whatever their opinion is every now and then and ban stuff because it's unpopular. Like Meta Knight.
 

HyugaRicdeau

Baller/Shot-caller
Joined
Jun 4, 2003
Messages
3,899
Location
Portland, OR
Slippi.gg
DRZ#283
I think making bans for the health of the community/metagame is a legitimate question that deserves serious consideration. We should remember that basically all of the rules we have are actually ultimately designed to promote a healthy metagame and unified community, although we rarely think about them in those terms because we have more standard objective criteria that we look to first (but again, those criteria do come from that more basic principle).

The real difficulty I had with the MK ban situation for the time I was in the BBR (and to the extent I argued about it on AiB), wasn't the ban itself, it was that generally the pro-ban arguments painted the bullseye (of banning criteria) around the data after the fact, and wasn't argued from first principles. And neither did either side bother to construct a criterion by which future such problems could be adjudged. Maybe they did this because they felt it was really unlikely that such a problem would arise again, so they could just go by opinion, and maybe they are right, but I still think that's irresponsible. This lack of rigor also made it so that people could retreat to the safety of "it's just my opinion."
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
I tend to make up stuff based on some arbitrary sense of fairness that bounces around in my brain. (I ignore community opinion in favor of "for the good of the community" mentality.)

But I also recognize the need for checks and balances. Which is why all of you exist.

:laugh:
 

Skler

Smash Master
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
4,518
Location
On top of Milktea
I want to unfairly bump this to note that Metaknight for Brawl was banned. I know the MBR has had MK banned for some time now, but it seems that MK was banned almost entirely on popular vote for that community.

Which brings me to this question: how does the MBR feel about bans without game-related justification? Are there any opinions on making a ban to cater to the community, or are the criteria strictly game based?

I am of the opinion that it is our community, so we are free to do whatever we please with it. I expect there are others that require more concrete evidence before making a move. Thoughts?
I'm unfairly bumping this as well to say wait, did they ACTUALLY BAN METAKNIGHT IN BRAWL!?

I'm sure I could verify this in a second, but I'm lazy.
 

Fortress | Sveet

▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
16,260
Location
Northern IL
There was a group of tournament hosts who formed the Unity Ruleset Committee which was backed by SWF (they got their own username color and everything). They started out by monopolizing the community ruleset by denying advertising to tournaments who didn't use their ruleset. So eventually all the nationals used their ruleset. Then they banned MK, everyone was like "WTF" and then a few months later the URC was disbanned and its back to normal. Like it was before, MK is banned in some places and not in others.
 

Skler

Smash Master
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
4,518
Location
On top of Milktea
Wow, Brawl community. Unity Ruleset Committee even sounds like some sort of evil government organization in a dystopian future.
 
Top Bottom