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!
Nah "get better" would be a better term.
If it can be done, then he isn't bannable.
And this is why you never take just one side's clear concise argument, because you never know what far better counter-arguments have been made.
Me to OS:
Thanks for ignoring the good counter arguments to this (namely referring to Omni's post) and my honest questions directed towards the OP, how the numbers seem to have little weight, and how the graph has nothing to do at all with MK.
I've never ever understood this logic
So to be bannable, something must be unbeatable? Then why is food on low banned, it's not broken or unbeatable in anyway. Why are some stages banned? Corneria is not unbeatable in anyway. Why is DDD's infinite commonly banned by TO's? It's not unbeatable in anyway.
This is completely true.
This can be aimed at adumbrodeus, too, but...
I'd request that the staff allow a second thread since this is obviously a rabble-rousing tactic that undermines the functioning of the SBR. It's only fair, and force-editing the post only makes OS look like a martyr.
But if ADHD can beat MK, then why can the rest of the Diddys not? This is why I say that it comes down to the players themselves.
Yes, the Diddy player. It'd be different if it were something like:
Well with out MK snake will dominate the format therefore he'll be overpowered the way MK is now and win everything so he'll have to go. IC are just gay and the CG is hella broken and the fact that their are two of them. It's just a pain to play against them and cause gay play from the gate because of their design.
Read the OPOverswarm said:
One player can do it. It's doable. If it's doable, MK isn't bannable.
I think you misread me. I was explicitly saying that having ONLY backroom closed discussions is a BAD thing. They need to bring the discussion into the open air, so that everyone can be educated, which is what OS is doing. If we want to have a side-thread to discuss in, that's cool, but I think having the SBR be able to discuss in the open, spam-free, would be good; open the discussion to everyone, and there will be too much spam.
You only believe everything is refuted because your position is pro-ban, I've personally refuted every single point he's made previously, as have others.
I don't think any of his tourney results includes MK banned tournies but I could be mistaken.
It was your idea.
So, the SBR makes a group-wide exception this time. What, does the SBR have a President who will punish all of them if they do?
So, if they want to "preserve the integrity of the debate process", make it so that we can't post. "[Preserving] the integrity of the debate process" is a sh*tty reason to keep 90% of SWF in the dark about the best arguments on the table.
Well, refuted is a strong word. I like your debate style as one of the best I've seen in the debate so far, but the last (closed) thread and this thread's OP only show that pro-ban's arguments stay solid, while anti-ban's arguments (and counter arguments) get flimsier by the day.
Update the thread constantly? Who asked for that? Just post a new thread that only the SBR can post in and let us read the discussion in real-time. It's not hard. Read my previous posts.
Wow **** is serious. LoL.
This isn't in the OP, but:
Oh look. No one knows how to play against Diddy Kong and they admit it.
@ Dekar I still feel like Peach would be worse.
No, not every argument was refuted. Far from that. OS only proved that MK is the best character in the game, and MK is dominating tournaments. OS didn't say explicitly why this is a bad thing or ban-worthy, he just proved the former and proceeded to say that MK needed to be banned. Furthermore, the data he used was very loose. For example, the graph that shows Brawl tournament attendance declining can only be assumed to be partly due to MK. There is no evidence to prove that it's all because of MK, and it's silly to think so.
Sadly that's not always the case.
It's not atypical for Mew2King to lose now. At all.
They gotta agree, having been in multiple deliberative bodies before this takes TIME. A lot of time. And even then, for the reasons that I've stated before, I'd think that they'd want SELECTIVE information leaks, in other words preservation of legitimacy and prevention of pressure on SBR members.
"Preserving the integrity of the process" is the most important thing ANY deliberative body can do.
There is nothing to refute Reductio Ad Absurdum, nor is there any proof that the attendance numbers measure what you think they do.
The problem is that it undermines the debate, there are avenues to release this sort of information without undermining the debate.
The thing is, this is a discussion.
Statements like this:
I'm only up to page 6, but I want to ask: why did you use all characters in Brawl compared to only the OU (ie Viable) pokemon? If you want to compare accurately, it should be either all Pokemon v all Brawl characters, or all OU tier Pokemon vs S/A tier Brawl characters. Otherwise, your data is skewed highly in Garchomp's favour, as Metaknight has his affected by the low/mid tier characters that are nonviable in the same way non OU tier pokemon are nonviable.
Inui something is horribly wrong tho. You'd think after a year of the these two doing so well that tons would be doing the same by today. Who are they again?
