Should Meta Knight be banned? (PG Version)

Note: If any DH mods feel this should be closed, feel free to do so. This was only made because CK allowed the same thread in the DH.

An argument that has plagued this site ever since Brawl's release. The banning of Meta Knight, arguably the best character by far.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=244416

The SBR has come to the conclusion that Meta Knight is not bannable, having anti-ban with the larger number of votes. The community, however, had a different opinion. The community poll would show pro-ban ahead by roughly 8 - 10%.

Some smashers are still convinced he's worthy of a ban. I, however, think that there's no valid evidence as to why he should be kicked out of competition.

But the question remains. Was this the right decision?

Oh God, really?

I was thinking the same thing. P:

But still, it's a popular topic.

No it's not!

Look, the MK banning needed a supermajority in order to pass. It didn't get it, so now everyone can move on.

Uh, no. This won't be locked. This is a perfectly good thing to debate.

Some ideas to spur some debate would be:

The SBR - is it okay to have a group that's not elected decide rulesets? Imagine if your cities were run by an elite, opaque group...

Meta Knight himself - does he truly fit the definition of "banworthy"?

The "supermajority" - is that arbitrary?

The outcomes of this debate - which is worse, banning him or not?

Don't quote me. These are simply to get you guys going. That means don't post like an idiot, greatkazoo.

DeLoRtEd1 said:

Uh, no. This won't be locked. This is a perfectly good thing to debate.

Some ideas to spur some debate would be:

The SBR - is it okay to have a group that's not elected decide rulesets? Imagine if your cities were run by an elite, opaque group...

Meta Knight himself - does he truly fit the definition of "banworthy"?

The "supermajority" - is that arbitrary?

The outcomes of this debate - which is worse, banning him or not?

Don't quote me. These are simply to get you guys going. That means don't post like an idiot, greatkazoo.

Click to expand...

Okay, I will take one stab @ these claims...

1. SBR--They have never been elected, and they never will. Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that their decision (and their say) should be overturned just because you don't like how one of their decisions turned out?

2. MK being banned--No he shouldn't be banned. To ban a character IMO, that character would have to be so God-like for a competent player to main MK; they could not be stopped. Methinks that argument is null & void especially with the beating that Ally put on M2K @ Genesis. Also, yes I do know that Ally lost @ EVO, but the point remains: If a player who doesn't main MK raises their level of play enough, they can beat any one. It's called rising to the challenge.

3. Supermajority's are not arbitrary. For example, they are a common place for my settings in a fraternity (such as the one I am in, ΑΦΩ) and host of other places. Perhaps they took a cue from Robert's Rules of Order in order to have a fair outcome of the matter...

4. Banning him would be worse because it basically removes competition from the game. Just because someone is good with a character doesn't mean that they should have to suffer just because people can't beat their character. And for the record, I don't think MK is broken...

I wonder how the PR will handle this argument.

Akuma in Street Fighter HD remix had many even matchups, was not winning every major national tournament, and was still banned.
If Akuma in HD remix can be banned under these circumstances, why can't Metaknight?

Comparing apples and oranges doesn't swing here...

As someone who enjoys watching and reading up on SF, their reasons were different from ours...

Also, the SRK world doesn't exactly take kindly to us comparing our game to theirs. In short, they keep our names out their mouths and we'll do the same.

I think I can live that, can't you?

As someone who enjoys watching and reading up on SF, their reasons were different from ours...

Click to expand...

Could you clarify and expand this a little bit. If there reasons were different than anything that the MK proban argument offers, I would like to hear it.

thegreatkazoo said:

Okay, I will take one stab @ these claims...

1. SBR--They have never been elected, and they never will. Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that their decision (and their say) should be overturned just because you don't like how one of their decisions turned out?

Click to expand...

You missed the point entirely, it isn't because of THIS decision or any decision it's about how the SBR gets into their position entirely. They're chosen via invite only, which is a conflict in of it's self. A group that basically decides how smash brothers is played for the rest of us is chosen by a group of "elites" basically. You have a better chance of being accepted through likability rather then being brought in because of your knowledge.

CRASHiC said:

Could you clarify and expand this a little bit. If there reasons were different than anything that the MK proban argument offers, I would like to hear it.

Click to expand...

Working on it...give me some time on this one...

Aesir said:

You missed the point entirely, it isn't because of THIS decision or any decision it's about how the SBR gets into their position entirely. They're chosen via invite only, which is a conflict in of it's self. A group that basically decides how smash brothers is played for the rest of us is chosen by a group of "elites" basically. You have a better chance of being accepted through likability rather then being brought in because of your knowledge.

Click to expand...

Duly noted, but that would raise another topic altogether aside from the banning of MK, which would be:

Should there be a new method in picking SBR members?

Which is beyond the scope of this thread. Also, do you have any proof as to what you say is true--viz the "Elites" of the SBR picks other based on a "popularity contest" of sorts. Any information on this front may turn a few heads on the subject, mine included...

It's not beyond the scope of anything. "Should there be a new method in picking SBR members" is directly related to whether or not Meta Knight should be banned. The SBR is deciding it - not us. Debate it.

You don't need proof. There are SBR:B members who don't play the game. Granted, they probably didn't vote, but that doesn't matter. I don't play Brawl, but I **** well would have argued pro-ban effectively if I was an SBR member.

DeLoRtEd1 said:

It's not beyond the scope of anything. "Should there be a new method in picking SBR members" is directly related to whether or not Meta Knight should be banned. The SBR is deciding it - not us. Debate it.

You don't need proof. There are SBR:B members who don't play the game. Granted, they probably didn't vote, but that doesn't matter. I don't play Brawl, but I **** well would have argued pro-ban effectively if I was an SBR member.

Click to expand...

Substanstiate your claim on the SBR:B members who don't play Brawl...viz who amongst them doesn't play SSBB and voted in the decision, if any of them did.

Also, I think the way the SBR decided on the decision is fair, so not much to me to debate on that end...

Don't be thick. I'm not going to say who does and who doesn't play the game. I'm not going to debate this with you - I told you not to quote me and respond. If you want to debate this further, I'll be in the DH. The PG is not for DH members other than to critique.

For the record, none of the SBR members who don't play Brawl voted in the poll.

Aye. I just feel closing a debate that a lot of people wanted to have is counter-intuitive. I am closing it here because this is the place to practice good debating; not develop bad habits.