It's not that nobody is supporting you; I think most people here want someone from this board to get in.
I think, however, that people are considering both the differences in your and Bwett's realms of knowledge and your scientific analysis versus Bwett's practical analysis. They both have their strong points. Your realm of knowledge can be accounted for mostly online. Bwett's knowledge comes from his local tournaments. Your analysis is based more on numbers and binary situations that focus mostly on the character being played. Bwett's experience covers shifting probabilities and various scenarios that focus more on the player. Both views are good to have and are necessary to have in tandem in order to properly analyze the different angles of this game.
That being said, as more and more people are forcing depth to the game and to an overall tournament playstyle, reliance on strict facts and figures becomes less important as time goes on and building up knowledge of uncertainties and how to handle unclear situations becomes more appealing, especially for debaters in the back room. As much as I think they're...anyway, let's just say I have to give them credit where credit is due and acknowledge that they don't heavily favor one type of view (empirical versus statistic) over another when it comes to discussion as a whole. An example of what I'm talking about in regards to the difference in views in the realm of a discussion can be like: Meta Knight's downsmash always does 10% (for the sake of argument--I don't have the actual figure memorized) fresh. Awesome. Now, given a situation
x or a scenario
y, Meta Knight will not always downsmash. The first view is static while the second is more dynamic. I could spend the next two pages talking about the intricacies of arguments like this, but you see my point.
Of course, I try to favor neither argument over the other since I have already stated that both are essential for proper analysis.
Hopefully I didn't go too far off the mark, but to get back to what I was saying, I know that the biggest fear I have for anybody with hopes to get into the back room is that they will straight up be ignored or mostly discredited while the hopeful debater is in their corner by themselves trying to debate what may or may not be a valid point. I think that since most of Bwett's views cover a more appealing form of discussion among the back room members as a whole, he is more than likely the hidden hope for some who want a particular member of the Yoshi boards to get in.
With all that said, I don't think this is a case of favoritism, but rather members hoping that someone who would be more easily received in discussion will get the nod. In the end, I'm sure everyone would be satisfied no matter who got in, to be honest. We're all quite open with each other and there's not a single person here I would say that I do not want to voice the consensus of Yoshi players in the back room.
Now, these are just my opinions. I could be
totally wrong, but it's just what I've gathered from looking at how people in the back room work and how both of you present cases, arguments, and debates. I am not particularly favoring either of you for the spot (and, hey, you both might make it in!), so this is me trying to be as neutral as possible while explaining in the most honest fashion, LOL.
