SuSa
Banned via Administration
So I took a shower this morning wondering about working backwards. What are the harms and benefits of it?
(The TL;DR is a lot more straightforward so I put my real post in collapse tags.)
Well first off, you have to look at what it implies. It can apply one of two things depending on your outlook
1) Okay, maybe this stage wasn't so gay after all and I jumped the gun.
OR (and this is where it's important!!!)
2) The stage is competitively bad, but we don't care as a whole.
Why is #2 so important?
Player's can agree to play on a banned stage if both players agree to it. Why not stretch this a tiny bit? Because the majority (67%) agrees they are willing to play on it, it is implied everyone is okay with it.
When you're stage list is as objective as possible, and removes all stages deemed non-competitive for logical reasons. Banning them makes NO SENSE! All of those stages are 100% legitimate and should not be banned. However, if you take a look at my list in my other thread, you'll see Halberd is banned.
Halberd, to many, isn't deemed non-competitive (it is, but that's another matter) - therefore what is the problem with saying:
"We know Halberd is uncompetitive, and we do not care. We are willing to lose a match due to an amount of luck that we deem "not too much""
They are admitting, that they don't care if it's not competitive. They are agreeing to play there anyways.
The only problem is the minority? Correct.
The majority is always right, the minority is always wrong. That is simply what it comes down to for subjective views. If you are a part of the minority - convince members of the majority to switch to your side until you become the majority.
I hope you're still reading and haven't ridden off the top as "Dude, that makes no sense". KEEP READING!
The majority is also known for correcting mistakes. They may say "Halberd is totally legit. to play on, therefore we agree to play on it." and sometime later... they find out, they were wrong. Halberd is an uncompetitive stage.
So the members of the majority change their mind and decide to no longer agree to play on it.
You may be asking: "Well then why can't they ban stages?"
These stages are shown, with logic, that they are OK. Saying that they aren't is to challenge that logic. Can you prove it? If something is bad for competitive play, there is always something you can point to. If there isn't - it's NOT BAD FOR COMPETITIVE PLAY. You're just a scrub.
tl;dr
The problem arises when people ban for "that's too gay" and lower their competitive bar for no reason. They remove depth from the game - and make it easier to "master" the game. Keep in mind that this is banning from an extremely objective, competitive list such as the stage list I made (check my other thread) - this isn't legitimate.
However if players want to unban for "that's not gay enough" and still lower their competitive bar - it's to add depth to the game. That is there reason for unbanning the stage. They feel that that depth added from the stages raises the competitive bar more than it lowers it by adding the stages. This is a subjective view that is... actually legitimate!
EDIT: BPC asked me to add this over AIM
If you feel a stage is degenerate. Stop for a moment and do the following:
1) What is bad about this stage?
2) Is it because I cannot adapt to the stage - or is it another factor?
3) If the latter, what is this factor?
4) What is unique about this factor?
5) Is this factor degenerate to gameplay, overcentralizing, or is it just polar?
6) If degenerate - why?
6.5) If polar, it is not bannable.
7) If degenerate, it is bannable.
This is the process I used to come up with my competitive stagelist. This is why it's logically sound. When you point out something, I can point to a competitive and logical reason as to why I am right. It cannot be refuted - and that is why it works.
___________
I realize this could be a totally stupid idea.
Tear it to shreds if you want.
(The TL;DR is a lot more straightforward so I put my real post in collapse tags.)
Well first off, you have to look at what it implies. It can apply one of two things depending on your outlook
1) Okay, maybe this stage wasn't so gay after all and I jumped the gun.
OR (and this is where it's important!!!)
2) The stage is competitively bad, but we don't care as a whole.
Why is #2 so important?
Player's can agree to play on a banned stage if both players agree to it. Why not stretch this a tiny bit? Because the majority (67%) agrees they are willing to play on it, it is implied everyone is okay with it.
When you're stage list is as objective as possible, and removes all stages deemed non-competitive for logical reasons. Banning them makes NO SENSE! All of those stages are 100% legitimate and should not be banned. However, if you take a look at my list in my other thread, you'll see Halberd is banned.
Halberd, to many, isn't deemed non-competitive (it is, but that's another matter) - therefore what is the problem with saying:
"We know Halberd is uncompetitive, and we do not care. We are willing to lose a match due to an amount of luck that we deem "not too much""
They are admitting, that they don't care if it's not competitive. They are agreeing to play there anyways.
The only problem is the minority? Correct.
The majority is always right, the minority is always wrong. That is simply what it comes down to for subjective views. If you are a part of the minority - convince members of the majority to switch to your side until you become the majority.
I hope you're still reading and haven't ridden off the top as "Dude, that makes no sense". KEEP READING!
The majority is also known for correcting mistakes. They may say "Halberd is totally legit. to play on, therefore we agree to play on it." and sometime later... they find out, they were wrong. Halberd is an uncompetitive stage.
So the members of the majority change their mind and decide to no longer agree to play on it.
You may be asking: "Well then why can't they ban stages?"
These stages are shown, with logic, that they are OK. Saying that they aren't is to challenge that logic. Can you prove it? If something is bad for competitive play, there is always something you can point to. If there isn't - it's NOT BAD FOR COMPETITIVE PLAY. You're just a scrub.
tl;dr
The problem arises when people ban for "that's too gay" and lower their competitive bar for no reason. They remove depth from the game - and make it easier to "master" the game. Keep in mind that this is banning from an extremely objective, competitive list such as the stage list I made (check my other thread) - this isn't legitimate.
However if players want to unban for "that's not gay enough" and still lower their competitive bar - it's to add depth to the game. That is there reason for unbanning the stage. They feel that that depth added from the stages raises the competitive bar more than it lowers it by adding the stages. This is a subjective view that is... actually legitimate!
EDIT: BPC asked me to add this over AIM
This is true because stages are only banned for being uncompetitive. There is NO OTHER REASON to ban them.
If you feel a stage is degenerate. Stop for a moment and do the following:
1) What is bad about this stage?
2) Is it because I cannot adapt to the stage - or is it another factor?
3) If the latter, what is this factor?
4) What is unique about this factor?
5) Is this factor degenerate to gameplay, overcentralizing, or is it just polar?
6) If degenerate - why?
6.5) If polar, it is not bannable.
7) If degenerate, it is bannable.
This is the process I used to come up with my competitive stagelist. This is why it's logically sound. When you point out something, I can point to a competitive and logical reason as to why I am right. It cannot be refuted - and that is why it works.
___________
I realize this could be a totally stupid idea.
Tear it to shreds if you want.
