Fairness, neutrality, and polarization
As easy it is to recognize fairness, there's an insidious trap that scrubs will lay. This is an attack on the principle of fairness when they say "that's not fair!", "that's cheap!", "that's over-powered"/"That's OP", "That's too good", or "That's broken!"/"busted!".
But, philosophically speaking, where does the boundaries really lie when something is broken enough to warrant an action to be taken?
Once again, referring to Sirlin's "Playing to Win", the criteria to a ban is three fold:
A ban must be enforceable, discrete, and warranted.
Click to expand...
(8)
As much as I agree with the content of the writing I believe the labels (not the content) could be better worded:
"A ban must be warranted, discernible, and enforceable."
The reason I changed "discrete" to "discernible" is because it flows better and seems to be more readily understood to the general audience - the context says it must be "well defined" which is to say it must be able to be identified.
The reason I changed the order fore this guide is due to a system of hierarchy: If a claim to ban is not warranted first and foremost than there is no reason to continue with analysis because there would be no warranted reason to do so. Sirlin says this himself: "If it isn’t warranted to ban something, we don’t need to even consider whether it’s enforceable or discrete." (8)
Anyone making claim that something must be banned, limited, changed, or "fixed" has the
burden of proof on them/their claim. There is no reason why anyone needs to defend why something should not be banned. Keep that in mind.
Likewise, any additional rulings that change tournament results regardless of in-game results must have proof as well (ledge grab limits, suicide, ties/stalemates/time-outs, etc.). If there is no reasonable proof for these imposed rules then violation of competitive principles are suspect.
Speaking of in-game rules...