A message to Smash Tournament hosts

I think it's fair to say that withholding a reward is a form of tacit punishment. Pushing some policy to the point where it has a negative impact on secondary parties is, well, pushy.

So far as I can tell, the player base does not oppose a unified rule set. Rather, they oppose the rule set itself. I agree with them, in that a lot of those rules are highly debatable, but of course they would be. So they fall to Option B, to not use that rule set, and are thus punished as well. There is no out for a TO that does not agree with Unity. It seems more like coercion than unity by definition, and site administration attempting to strong-arm the opposition is only more convincing of it. I don't think it's a wise move to use them as your intellectual support to avoid well due criticism. Rather, you should attempt to create as much transparency as possible to establish a base of trust with the community at large to get them to follow your agenda.

King Funk said:

This should have changed a long time ago.

But nah "you hung a man and discussed things later".

Click to expand...

I disagree. It's more like, just about no one truly knows everyone in the Smash community. It's kind of like saying how M2K doesn't make it a thing to know people's names that aren't like top players or those that directly effect him, like those who may be able to drive him places. I can reference tons of people to him that have likely attended 90% of the same tournaments he has and he will go who? It's also no difference where I may not be 100% involved or knowledgeable about how midwest tournaments are ran. You know who does know the midwest though? The midwest. This is why regional balance and representation is important for something like the URC. My goal as explained it sort of like educating the entire community on these people, not just the places they hail from. So it's not like the hung a man then discussed later as you said, since nothing about the URC actually changes, it's more of a public relations change I'm thinking of.

Mew2King said:

the main thing I've learned from the past 3 years, especially past few months, is that the most important thing to getting a rule changed isn't about what's right or wrong, it's about having the most number of people on your side. And that really sucks to have learned.

and chibo that's nice but at this point it doesn't matter and you know it

Click to expand...

What's nice? I don't even know which part you mean exactly. I think my last point in my post really goes home, it's never been the top players or community who finally decides a ruleset. It's always been the TO and no one else, since before the URC, before the BBR Recommended Ruleset, before.... forever. The role of the top players and community is to assist them in making intelligent decisions, but the final yes/no always falls on the TO.

Bionic said:

Neither the admins or URC made the sticky rule. Just an fyi.

Click to expand...

Who did it then? MLG? Whoever it is, why?

Eh, the point is basically what Mike said in his video. Any nitwit or person with an agenda can hold events and then be accepted into the URC. All it takes is for a group of nitwits/agenda driven jerks to band together and ruin everything for the community.

Point being that being a TO doesnt give you some God given power at making good rulesets, which makes unifying them absolutely horrific. Poor ruleset design and disagreements are tolerated in isolated incidents, but to standardize them is asking for backlash without credible and well accepted/respected members. Easy to tell by the amount of people that are upset.

I suppose the only way to counter that would be for those opposing such views to band together and find a better solution, although this becomes difficult when their only goal is greater independence.

Bad ruleset? What exactly is so controversial about the Unity Ruleset, outside of the MK ban, that would possibly cause people to suddenly reject it? The Ruleset's been revised and updated to help reduce problems in the past, such as Pictochat's ban and the Pause Rule, and I'm pretty sure that future iterations of the Unity Ruleset will continue to address any inherent problems with the way tournaments are run, so I don't really see any rule outside of MK's ban in the Unity Ruleset that would suddenly start a riot.

So... what are we left with, MK's ban? You're trying to convince us that the community is dissatisfied with it? Here's a nice idea; how many anti-ban users did we have on the boards before the MK ban? Not many. Maybe 2 to 5, if that. Suddenly, MK gets banned, and amazingly, we have a bunch of anti-ban protesters online. I can easily say the reverse for pro-ban users; they had reason to be here while MK was legal, and now they don't, since MK is now banned. When it comes to the status quo, whoever wants to change it is going to be the loudest.

Upset may have been the wrong word. Lets say "voiced concern".

To me the craziest thing is the way Alpha Zealot believes power is derived from in this community. Power is derived from the community itself first and foremost plain and simple. There is too much precedence in sociology to argue otherwise. He and others look at the BBR's Ruleset and determined it had no authority because they had no way to enforce it, anyone with reasonable intelligence would look at the same situation and determine they had no authority because they had no credibility from the community. As soon as that ruleset came out it was chastised by name recognizable professionals and TOs; while certain BBR members simply taunted the community. At that moment that ruleset died irregardless of their ability to enforce it.

The same thing has occured to the URC, only this time they can at least attempt to ram their ruleset down the communities throat even without credibility. However it will never be what this websites executives think it will be with such a large portion of the community dissatisfied. If alpha zealot honestly cared about creating a true unity ruleset then first and foremost credibility is by far the most important factor.

This can include but is not limited to:
1) Transparency
2) Representation by well respected, knowledgeable community members and professionals
3) Community involvement
etc etc.

People will agree to things they disagree with when it comes from a source deemed credible. It seems the URC has done everything in its power to destroy its own credibility, from its member selection, member limitations, and the way its run.


@John you must have missed the debate on conservative vs liberal ruleset going on for the past 3 years >_>. Also if you think this is the first time people have voiced concern with the unity ruleset, then I dont quite know what to say. It's been criticized since its inception. Best to keep the pro-ban mantra for more appropriate threads.

Cassio said:

If you think this is the first time people have voiced concern with the unity ruleset, then I dont quite know what to say. It's been criticized since its inception. Best to keep the pro-ban mantra for more appropriate threads.

Click to expand...

Actually, I was kinda referring to the way anti-Unity sentiment suddenly exploded. I know that there's been some dissatisfaction, but it was nowhere near as close as to how much we had post MK ban, for sure. You can't deny that quite a few less intelligent users(not you, you actually know what you're talking about) are simply going along with anti-Unity sentiment because they know it'll get MK unbanned if it actually works. It may point to the idea that a sizable sum of your anti-Unity protestors might just be anti-ban protestors...

I'm not saying this makes any anti-Unity points moot, because good points are good points, regardless of motive... But it may indicate that there are people who are anti-Unity not for the sake of removing an oppressive force as you put it, but rather, for the sake of getting MK unbanned.

Anyway, I'm not a hundred percent sure I agree with you on the whole "The community hates Unity" business. Since those who do not wish to change the status quo(pro-Unity) will not be voicing their opinions for the most part, as well as the concern I voiced above, I'm not sure we really have a way to accurately gauge the proportion of pro-Unity people to anti-Unity people.

Which sucks. We need an efficient observation method. >___>;

The way a ruleset was trying to impose itself was already annoying for many players, but not annoying enough to warrant any kind of protest.

Now that same ruleset just banned a character... No wonder it all explodes.

Might I throw a random thought/suggestion? Yes, we shouldn't sticky just Unity tournies, any meaningfully sized and fairly made ruleset tourney should be allowed to be stickied.

But, why don't we have a label like [Brawl] or [Melee] for the Unity Ruleset like [UR Brawl] so that people can immediately tell if the tourney is running off the standard? I feel that'd be fair enough while serving the purpose of pointing out that Unity is the standard.

You know, it is possible to create a new smash forum... Just sayin'.

I personally don't see the issue either way. As Chibo said, "Does not run unity ruleset" + "Gigantic tournament" is not an everyday occurrence. In fact, it's so rare that the rule about it seems kinda senseless; but at the same time so does complaining bitterly about it. If enough people are angry, we can create a different forum, or migrate en masse to an existing popular website. That's the solution, really. Not that I support it (I think this whole thing is just a bunch of hot air and will blow over sooner or later), just sayin'.

This only being stickied if you use a certain ruleset thing is bull. It honestly just seems so silly.

King of Hoboz said:

Might I throw a random thought/suggestion? Yes, we shouldn't sticky just Unity tournies, any meaningfully sized and fairly made ruleset tourney should be allowed to be stickied.

But, why don't we have a label like [Brawl] or [Melee] for the Unity Ruleset like [UR Brawl] so that people can immediately tell if the tourney is running off the standard? I feel that'd be fair enough while serving the purpose of pointing out that Unity is the standard.

Click to expand...

I think this is an acceptable compromise.

this whole sticky/uniform ruleset business is, IMO, an attempt at professionalizing the smash community that is failing miserably due to a sh*tty unity ruleset. stages like brinstar, rainbow cruise, and now jungle japes, do not belong in competitive play and for tournaments to not be "official" because they don't legalize these stages is ridiculous.

i didn't read any of the walls of text in this thread so my fault if this isn't the issue, but this is certainly what ticks me off about the unity ruleset.

frotaz37 said:

Taking quotes out of context is pointless, especially if it was an argument (which judging by your views on the situation, I imagine it was).

Click to expand...

i actually made sure to approach him in as calm a manner as possible so that i could get him to reveal his genuine opinion on the situation, rather than a skewed one due to him being mad at me. the conversation went something like this:

me: plank?
plank: hi
me: hey, i'm not mad at you [not true at all; just didn't want him to dc], i just wanted to ask you a question
plank: shoot
me: why haven't you paid anyone back for pound?
plank: i don't owe any of you people anything LMAO
me: (cursing ensues, plank signs off shortly and is never to be seen on AIM again)

frotaz37 said:

Legally, he's absolutely correct. Whether you like it or not. Yeah it sucks but smash tournament hosts aren't signing a contract that says they will give money to anyone, just as the participants aren't signing contracts that say they are guaranteed money.

And suggesting that every TO absolutely MUST NOT allow him to enter their tournaments is completely ridiculous. I sympathize with the kids who didn't get paid but think about what you're asking. It's totally nuts dude.

Click to expand...

legally, he's absolutely correct because he didn't put payouts in the ****ing Pound 5 OP. morally, he's at the bottom of the barrel. if you flew in from Europe, got 2nd place, made the $1500 you needed to get home and were then told you weren't getting paid would you calmly respond, "it's okay. legally, you're absolutely correct"!?!?!


WHAT THE ****

Hax said:

this whole sticky/uniform ruleset business is, IMO, an attempt at professionalizing the smash community that is failing miserably due to a sh*tty unity ruleset. stages like brinstar, rainbow cruise, and now jungle japes, do not belong in competitive play and for tournaments to not be "official" because they don't legalize these stages is ridiculous.

i didn't read any of the walls of text in this thread so my fault if this isn't the issue, but this is certainly what ticks me off about the unity ruleset.

Click to expand...

I agree with Hax 100%. And as a TO in my community, I have began banning these stupid stages which promote overcoming stage obstacles over outplaying your opponent outright.

I know most of my tournaments (with the exception of one held earlier this year, GSS) should not even be considered for a sticky. And I understand that this rule has no direct effect on my tournaments personally. HOWEVER, when you are effectively forcing the bigger tournaments which DO matter to follow this ruleset. It indirectly puts strong pressure on local TOs such as myself to conform to the same ruleset.

The reason being, that most decent players use locals as preparation for bigger tournaments, and when they are trying to prepare for a tournament with a ruleset that let's say, allows Brinstar, Rainbow Cruise, and Pokemon Stadium 2. Well if I hold one that bans those stages, all my local players will probably not hype the event, and may not come. Seeing as every 3 game set seems to go to one of those stages at some point. Despite the fact they may agree with me on the horrible aspects of the stages, they are being coerced into promoting their use simply so that they can be prepared for how stupid they are when they are at bigger, more important tourneys which are all being forced into using said stages.

That is why I feel that despite the fact most tournaments wouldn't be stickied anyway, their rulesets are still often dictated by the URC against the TO's will.

I am VERY thankful to Alex Strife for standing up, saying something along the lines of, I'm not taking this ****. I'm using the stages (and characters for that matter) I believe to be fair. He has given myself and other local level TOs the ability to offer a tournament with stages that aren't BS, and still be legitimate preparation for a big upcoming tournament. I had no complaints about the Apex stagelist used at my last tourney, and multiple comments praising it. I believe this group, while small, can be seen as a microcosm of overall sentiments throughout my region, and the community as a whole.

^ yeah props to alex

Hax, the opening flip in pokemon is ******** now.

any suggestions?

Hax said:

i didn't read any of the walls of text in this thread so my fault if this isn't the issue, but this is certainly what ticks me off about the unity ruleset.

Click to expand...

Of course you didn't...not even attempting to understand the actual situation yet still vocalizing you're views based on biased internalized feelings is what you are best at.

Hax said:

i actually made sure to approach him in as calm a manner as possible so that i could get him to reveal his genuine opinion on the situation, rather than a skewed one due to him being mad at me. the conversation went something like this:

Click to expand...

Why would I have been mad at you? I think I was in the middle of playing HON when you messaged me, which is way more important than talking to someone who is unwilling to understand anything other than how they currently feel.

Hax said:

me: plank?
plank: hi
me: hey, i'm not mad at you [not true at all; just didn't want him to dc], i just wanted to ask you a question
plank: shoot
me: why haven't you paid anyone back for pound?
plank: i don't owe any of you people anything LMAO
me: (cursing ensues, plank signs off shortly and is never to be seen on AIM again)

Click to expand...

Not how the conversation went. You are very transparent. When you start out a conversation with "I'm not mad or anything" then act the way you do, it's pretty obvious umad. I'm still on AIM pretty often as well.

Hax said:

legally, he's absolutely correct because he didn't put payouts in the ****ing Pound 5 OP. morally, he's at the bottom of the barrel. if you flew in from Europe, got 2nd place, made the $1500 you needed to get home and were then told you weren't getting paid would you calmly respond, "it's okay. legally, you're absolutely correct"!?!?!

Click to expand...

Legally I'm correct for many reasons, this included. You know nothing about my morality because you are judging your perceptions based off of biased views.

AlphaZealot said:

I do think plank made the correct decision from his personal standpoint.

However:

In no way should there be any mention of blaming Smash players for not booking rooms. That is absurd. It is called poor planning/decision making. The Smash community is poor and they stack hotels. Every TO knows this, trying to use that as a cop-out? Blaming the community? Really? It isn't the organizer's planning fault but instead, the participants? No. That is messed up.

Click to expand...

Regardless of what every TO "knows" it is the responsibility of the players to follow legal guidelines of the hotel. This obviously doesn't usually happen, which is why I made it such a huge point to continue to reiterate that people needed to not cram rooms, which I said hundreds of times in posts, on the website, and I even contacted Hyatt personally to add it again in two different places in the terms and conditions of what everyone was agreeing to while purchasing rooms.

If a tournament is run by single people then you need to follow the direction of those single people to make sure everything runs smooth, you can't just ignore what those in charge say and ignore requests just because it's "what you're used to". It'd be one thing if I just ignored the fact and pretended like smashers didnt usually cram into rooms, but I actively requested over and over and over and preached consequences if people didn't listen, and they didn't. The actual consequences didn't happen (people getting kicked out) because it wasn't feasible to monitor, instead there was no money left for prizes because my bank account got billed for extra rooms.

@mic I'm not gonna post about any of this anymore in here, hax if you want to get destroyed in some intellectual arguments I am always willing as long as I'm not doing something more important (IE, anything other than having a conversation with hax)



Off topic I think the Unity ruleset is a great idea to help get new players interested, you just need to make sure the players have a legitimate way to help formulate the ruleset. It sounds like people who have qualms with the rules within the ruleset are just displacing their dissatisfaction of the rules towards the actual act of having a unified ruleset

what kind of half ***** response is that? are you going to deny that you don't owe us anything now?

why don't you explain exactly how the conversation went

I don't think most people in this thread are arguing against a unified ruleset. People simply have problems with the means they are using to implement it. As well as some who are against the actual rules currently included in it, which in a few instances are understandably very polarizing.

I think the idea listed before to, "have a label like [Brawl] or [Melee] for the Unity Ruleset like [UR Brawl] so that people can immediately tell if the tourney is running off the standard..." is an exceptional one. It allows people to quickly and easily see who is using the unity list, and gauge it's popularity. While at the same time, not forcing out tourneys running rulesets that attempt innovation/improvement.

However, I think AZ (sorry to pick you out, I know you are not alone) and the other URC members/people involved in the stickying issue are trying to make sure this catches on in any way possible. And are using the ends to justify the (somewhat tyrannical) means. While they have this goal in mind, and their current belief in ends justifying means, this idea will not come to fruition.

Also, I'd suggest taking the Plank issue to one of the 984092374984 threads specifically dedicated to it. Splitting up this thread's debate/discussion is less efficient and will cause both trains of thought to fragment and suffer.

m2k complain on the internet some more about stuff

just keep doin it

forever

URC be mad.

oh okay, not going to post anymore in here. Just says "hax is wrong, I am legally right" then leaves, without even saying how the AIM convo went. -okay-

M2K, if you want any chance of accomplishing either of your goals. Keep the two of them separate (in different threads).

well i just got infracted 3 times for no good reason, and then someone else tried to make a plank thread and they got closed right away. makes me wonder whose side the mods are really on

lol@m2k raging @ mods for enforcing site rules ;D

This place really went to ****.

Mods are clearly siding with plank.



It definitely has nothing to do with the fact that threads about individual users have been insta-locked since forever.

Also, I just remembered THIS THREAD was designated as the place to argue about all this, so for the mods' sake, keep further discussion in there (not that it will accomplish anything luuuulllllz).

let me guess m2k, all the infractions you ever got had no good reason right?

btw planks first sentence was brilliant =D

Whoops. Will edit.

plank sucks
real talk

Someone from the URC should make a video to battle the videos against the URC.

The entire administration on smashboards is ****ed up. Corrupt and dumb. But sadly we're stuck here, some people suggested it but I really don't think migrating to another smash forum is feasible anytime in the foreseeable future.

Keitaro said:

Someone from the URC should make a video to battle the videos against the URC.

Click to expand...

We've discussed it