Australian Unity Ruleset: Committee Discussion

Jesmo · Jan 23, 2012

I think it's better for the whole scene if we have one ruleset. If MK is banned here and not there is just complicates people going OOS. Same with LGL.

I think a unified ruleset is better for the scene as well. People might like doing their own thing but I think a trialled unity ruleset doesn't hurt anyone.

zApollo · Jan 23, 2012

A vote will only work if there is equal representation from each active scene.

Splice said:
Please don't ban MK though, Victoria this year is still shaping up to be the most active and high level state so I dont find it totally agreeable that we bow to QLD/NSW/SA rulesets when our scene is healthier (QLD seems pretty close to us in terms of number of players though so i guess i sorta understand)

That was a terrible assumption, and this is exactly the elitist attitude that has always kept Australia divided on these matters. Preferably this should be avoided if we make a committee.

I don't think there were really any problems with the different stagelists between states, the issues have been minimal. During most 'majors' the TO still allowed discussions and input from OoS attendees before deciding upon a ruleset. Having travelled OoS a fair bit, I've never had any problems until my last trip to Santasmash in December. At this time MK had been banned in SA for well over a few months but was still legal in QLD.

I can definitely see this being a problem with upcoming tournaments, for example the VIC tourney this weekend. The sooner we sort out the nationwide discrepancy with the MK ban the better.

EDIT: The MK legality played a significant role, amongst other reasons, in my decision not to join my fellow SA players to VIC this weekend. It really didn't appeal to me after Santasmash.

Shaya · Jan 23, 2012

People who want to travel OoS will do so anyway.
No reason to try to appease Victoria.

Attila_ · Jan 23, 2012

appease victoria? that's a bit rich.

can you please point out which part of a unity ruleset would be negative?

sure, it may not be 100% necessary, but it's definitely not a bad thing to have.

earla said:
there will naturally be anti mk bias with the majorty of the URC not maining mk. just like the american URC.

do you guys honestly think america will ban mk now? japan expressed dis-interest in competiting with them again with mk banned. the american's strike me as being much too prideful to ever let that go.

after watching all of apex, my thoughts on the issue were re-confirmed. i'm not interested in arguing over this anymore. it's clear where my vote is.

in much the same way that mk mains will have a natural pro-mk bias.

and by following that logic, mk mains should be denied from the ruleset committee.

bias is everywhere, and there isnt anything that you can do about it. the idea of the committee is to get rational people together, to have a proper discussion about the ruleset. while we cannot eliminate the bias that exists already, i would like to think that we can minimize it.

Zxv · Jan 23, 2012

I was interested in posting my two cents but I'm too lazy to read all the posts that have been written so far...

So here I am!

KuroganeHammer · Jan 23, 2012

Take two people from each state.

Watch as everyone has wildly different opinions on what the ruleset should be.

Laugh.

zApollo · Jan 23, 2012

shmot said:
appease victoria? that's a bit rich.

can you please point out which part of a unity ruleset would be negative?

Absolutely nothing, there is no issue with trialing one. Perhaps there's the problem of enforcement but we should worry about that later.

Jesmo · Jan 23, 2012

I agree with almost everything Apollo has said.

I think the main thing is that everyone needs to realise they won't get everything their way. If we don't learn to compromise, we'll never have a unified ruleset. Simple as that.

...Ellipsis... · Jan 23, 2012

There is nothing which obligates a TO to follow a unified rule set if they disagree with it. The main benefit I see to having a unified rule set would be for national level tournaments where there is a wide range of OOS attendance. Also as a MK main I am pro-MK ban.

Jesmo · Jan 23, 2012

I'm anti-ban but in my defense, I've always been anti-ban even long before I mained him.

I think there should at least be a unified ruleset for majors. Let TO's do what they want at their regionals.

Attila_ · Jan 23, 2012

Ideally I would a commitment from TOs to follow the unity rulesets for at least a period of four months.

I don't think that's too much to ask.

Jesmo · Jan 23, 2012

Try two or three first methinks. Four is pushing it if anyone has any issues with the ruleset.

It can always be extended if people like it and it's effective. If they don't, it'll get changed earlier.

tedeth · Jan 23, 2012

Two or 3 is not enough to truly test it out. That's like 2-3 tourneys.

4 months is perfectly reasonable.

Jesmo · Jan 23, 2012

Four would be fine but Ted, if people have issues they're not going to continue over several months. You've got a better chance of getting people to trial it over two or three months.

tedeth · Jan 23, 2012

No. 4 months.

"No. 3 months"

No.

etc.

I have issues about arguing over this for 4 seconds, so this has already gone on for way too long.

I think revision of the unity ruleset every 4 months is perfectly reasonable.

Asking questions like "Who is disgruntled due to 4 months of this ruleset" will actually help to being about a better, more refined one in future. The more issues people have with it, the better we can strive to suit everyone's opinions the next time round. People having issues is what we want.

Jesmo · Jan 24, 2012

I'm not arguing Ted. I'm not being agressive or anything I'm just telling you people want things their own way and people are also impatient.

I'm fine with four months. You're right, it's perfect but don't be surprised if people end up changing their ruleset after people complain after two months. That's all I'm saying.

tedeth · Jan 24, 2012

Which is why Attila was asking for a commitment to run for 4 months in the first place?

Jesmo · Jan 24, 2012

C'mon Ted. If one state and several players in that state really dislike the ruleset do you think they'll play it for 4 months in their state? Whether they made a "commitment" or not, they won't.

This is ridiculous and pointless. Honestly, make it five months it you want. All that matters is that it is temporary and everyone does give it an honest chance.

Remastered · Jan 24, 2012

So here I am adding what I know.

1. I tried to introduce the Japanese ruleset about a year ago, and got laughed out of my town because I wasn't a good enough player back then supposedly, and my changes were silly.

2. Jaice and I are not quitting after Summersmash. We haven't confirmed anything except that our interest in this messy scene has dropped off considerably, probably similar to Attila and Tibs. We are contemplating moving off to play other games competitively, but I have a few things in the works I want to try in the Aus smash scene before I go.

3. Elitism does not make you right Earl. Nor does it make the opinions of those who aren't as 'Elite' as you wrong.

4. If I were to make a panel, it would involve Ted, Attila, Shaya, myself, Apollo, Jei, Allens, and Kaion. That being said, Kaion is currently well outside the top 5 in our state, but still understands the motive behind the Aus smash scene more than just about anyone.

5. Lastly, unity is always a good thing, and every good player will adapt to the changes if they are enforced unanimously.

Attila_ · Jan 24, 2012

not sure if two from each state is enough. maybe, but maybe not.

i'd also like to avoid an even number, if possible.

KuroganeHammer · Jan 24, 2012

The main TO from each state and two PR'd players imo.

Attila_ · Jan 24, 2012

that still leaves us with an even number. although i do otherwise like that idea.

TOs obviously need to be involved, otherwise we cant ensure that the rulesets will be followed.

tedeth · Jan 24, 2012

TO + 2 PR + Luke as a neutral party/pillar of rage.

ALSO based on TO's won't follow it for 4 months if they don't like it, one could say TO's won't follow it for a single tourney if they don't like it so what's the point?

Dekar289 · Jan 24, 2012

i really think it should be 3.8 months, maybe 3.9

KuroganeHammer · Jan 24, 2012

TO's should follow it for at least three tournaments probably. That's three chances for it to work. If it doesn't meet one TO's expectation, but it meets everyone elses, then the major's of that state (the one that doesn't like it) should be under the AUR, whereas all other tournaments in that state are fair game.

imo.

Remastered · Jan 24, 2012

Well if it's one more you want, add Earl, Jesmo, Scoot, Ghost (maybe), and add Vyse as a moderator. Gives you an uneven number and no one would argue with Vyse being part of the crowd.

QLD are happy to adapt if it's for the better of the scene as a whole. I was getting a little tired of making changes to get things done and getting flamed for it. So this will be a refreshing change if it actually goes ahead.

Leisha · Jan 24, 2012

Well it is true, I'm probably the only one that travels to oos tournaments frequently in vic lol.

earla · Jan 24, 2012

sure add me

Attila_ · Jan 24, 2012

1 TO and 2PR players from each state with Vyse as moderator sounds like a good idea.

Ideally the selected PR players are open-minded and able to argue/discuss rationally and logically.

Can everyone agree to this?

Timic83 · Jan 24, 2012

it will increase chance of mk legality so yes i approve

KuroganeHammer · Jan 24, 2012

I doubt South Australia would be on board if MK was legal, considering they've pretty much already banhammered him and they like it that way.

I don't think NSW wants him legal either. QLD is indifferent.

Then it'd probably be back to square one if that happens.

Attila_ · Jan 24, 2012

which is the main reason i would like unity...

Dekar289 · Jan 24, 2012

perhaps the way to go is letting each state decide their own rules and keeping their states happy, and focusing on running quality tournaments and expanding their respective scenes
players may be deterred from traveling to interstate tournaments, but that is their loss. part of playing in another region is the experience of playing by that region's rules. in 07 when we went to adelaide we discovered that *shock!* battlefield was banned! this tournament was a great experience for all melbourners involved, we remembered the players and the matches and the skill of their scene, not the absence of battlefield.

however even if players still don't travel to interstate 'majors', this is fine. remember when we only had 1, perhaps 2 'majors' per year? perhaps it's time to go back to when the only true 'major' of the year was in melbourne, towards the end of the year. the fact that this was such a rarity made it all the more special and all the more likely that all top players from around the country were to attend. it meant there wouldn't be such flops as the time mango was supposedly visiting qld before coming down to melbourne, then that plan went haywire and qld attendance at bam was dismal. a 'major' for a state shouldn't be primarily about celebrating what we have, some great aus talent, but using it as a launching pad for growing the local scene.

the only thing we'd lose by not conforming to 1 ruleset would be... a few attendees at a few interstate tournaments? australia's skill level not rising as quick as could? well that's up for debate, but it doesn't matter anyway. melbourne looks like it would have mk unbanned and a fairly strict stagelist anyway, meaning that one special major each year wouldn't be spoiled for some by denying them their main or having them get gayed by frigate.

yes

Attila_ · Jan 24, 2012

agreed that we have too many majors. massively kills the hype.

but that's a different discussion altogether.

i really can't imagine why a unity set would be a bad thing, like i said before, it's not of vital importance, but it can only be a positive for the community.

one of those things that shouldve been done years ago.

Dekar289 · Jan 24, 2012

just seems like a waste of time, since in the end states will ignore the 'aus unity ruleset' and choose what they think is the most logical decision. vic seems to think banning mk is a bad idea. sa have already banned mk, and probably think it would be a bad idea to now go ahead and unban him. if the scene within in a state is happy with the way things are, why should a TO upset them by implementing this unity ruleset with the explanation that they were outvoted by the rest of the country?
they won't.

Ledge_g2 · Jan 24, 2012

Dekar 2g, I'm agreeing with him for the moment.

dean. · Jan 24, 2012

I also agree with Dave.

Splice · Jan 24, 2012

Dekar289 said:
yes

stole my line

Redact · Jan 24, 2012

YEAH DEKAR ALL THE WAY **** YOU ATTILA ILL KICK YOUR TEETH IN ***** ***** YOU CAN NEVA EVA
EVA EVA
EVA EVA
EVA EVA EVA EVA
GET ON MY LEVEL (what)

Dekar289 · Jan 24, 2012

all aboard

Australian Unity Ruleset: Committee Discussion

Smash Journeyman

Smash Ace

「chase you」

The artist formerly known as 'shmot'

Smash Lord

It's ya boy

Smash Ace

Smash Journeyman

Smash Lord

Smash Journeyman

The artist formerly known as 'shmot'

Smash Journeyman

Smash Master

Smash Journeyman

Smash Master

Smash Journeyman

Smash Master

Smash Journeyman

Smash Lord

The artist formerly known as 'shmot'

It's ya boy

The artist formerly known as 'shmot'

Smash Master

Smash Hero

It's ya boy

Smash Lord

Top Tier Pillow

Smash Lord

The artist formerly known as 'shmot'

Smash Ace

It's ya boy

The artist formerly known as 'shmot'

Smash Hero

The artist formerly known as 'shmot'

Smash Hero

Smash Ace

.

Smash Hero

Professional Nice Guy

Smash Hero

Information

Network

　　「chase you」　