A message to Smash Tournament hosts

[Smooth Criminal]

blame implies the decision was bad, I don't necessarily agree to that, maybe to an extent.

You're ascribing a negative connotation to the word "blame"---to be fair, I don't blame you (harr, harr. C wut I did thar?). It's hard to read between the lines through text. Let me clarify: If you guys knew about this, why didn't you voice your concerns if you had any? Why didn't you guys come to the community with this idea of stickying threads that upheld your ruleset so that we can decide on whether it's a good idea or not?

Smooth Criminal

 

[Player-1]

I can't say since I wasn't in the community when the rule was made. I actually did voice my concerns when the URC was first made, but AZ made a good point which I agreed with so I actually changed my mind, again, to an extent.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

I'd like to hear this good point.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I can't say since I wasn't in the community when the rule was made. I actually did voice my concerns when the URC was first made, but AZ made a good point which I agreed with so I actually changed my mind, again, to an extent.

...

Really.

Okay, next.

Edit: I'd like to hear this "good point" too.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Player-1]

Here is how to explain the sticky thing, as I've also done in the past in numerous places, most notably the vVv Directional Influence podcast.

Stickies are a Smashboards resource for the community. The question with the stickies are: what is best for the community. That is largely why Apex is stickied (plus its a Melee national which would deserve a sticky in its own right) because it would be a disservice to the community to otherwise not. When I say disservice, I don't mean "a small setback", I mean it would potentially cause problems with Apex (sponsors may wonder "why are you not stuck?") and it is a huge tournament, likely the biggest of the year. It is unique here.

What most of you are not seeing is why the sticky rules are good for the community. First, the overarching goal is to get tournaments to use the same ruleset. We are closer now to this goal than at any point ever in the history of the Smash community. If you want to know why this goal is good for the community then you can start to question the standards that exist in any community or game. Without a universal ruleset Smash has always been amateur hour. I'm still trying to get guys like MLG to consider picking up Smash again, but things like a universal ruleset need to be in place before it really even starts to become likely again.

Second: yes, it is a means to an end. It is a little harsh, but the reality is that it is meant to promote the community standard. You can pretend that Unity isn't standard, but I can point to countless weekends in the past few months (going back to May) where over half of the tournaments (and sometimes way more) are Unity events. Most weekends no other ruleset even repeats. It is not fair to players to have to travel to nationals and every national has a different rule, creating a home field advantage. It is terrible when people go to tournaments and don't have a clue what ruleset they are encountering. If you have actually been an active member of the Smash community for the last 3 years you have undoubtably been to a tournament and said "wait, that stage is on?", "wait, infinites are banned/allowed?", "wait, there is/is not SD rules". Again: amateur hour.

Creating a universal ruleset is a paradigm **** in the way the community operates. Will the sticky rule always exist? Probably not, it is a purpose for a transitionary period and as more and more TO's join together in the URC and work toward a single goal the purpose of the sticky rule will eventually not be needed.

Stickies are an incentive, not a right, and there have been many reasons tournaments have been stuck/not stuck in the past beyond simple thoughts like attendance. Charity events that had low attendance have been stuck. Tournaments that were suppose to be huge like GAMME were not stuck because the TO didn't look credible - yet based simply on interest it probably should have been. Some tournaments don't get stuck because there are too many tournaments already stuck or the tournaments at that point in time are pretty high quality (example, in the summer tournaments usually have more attendance, whereas in September/October they usually do not, so you would need less people in those months then you would in the summer if you were strictly going by attendance for stickies).

In summation (TL/DR):
-URC is meant to better the community in the long run
-Sticky's are a facilitator of adoption but not the single force
-The use of sticky's as a privilege with rules has always been in place
-The question really is weighing on a scale: On one hand the idea that stickies should be available to all regardless of what type/rules of tournament they run (people didn't want EVO2k8 stuck, btw) and the good that brings the community VS the goal of having everyone use the same ruleset and the good that brings the community.

basically this that was already posted in this thread.

 

[Keitaro]

AZ is pretty good with them words. Good read.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Oh yeah. Especially when he pretty much proves everybody right about the minority deciding what's good for the majority without the majority getting a say in it. I also think he's underestimating just how well off we are without him trying to bark up MLG's tree all the damn time, and that we can achieve a level of cohesion without pandering to anybody but ourselves. Tournaments like Apex and Genesis are a really good example, I think, of just how much **** this community can get done without a major sponsor to back us up.

I do respect AZ, though. His intentions are noble and he's put in a lot of work for this community. I just don't agree with homogenizing things like this. I think that if he would have given the ruleset (post MK) a little bit more time, with some extra input from the community abroad, there could have been less of a ruckus. Part of ****ing somebody's paradigm gently (and in the best way imaginable) is introducing the concept (in this case, stickying/supporting URC-run tourneys) to the other members of the community, allowing absorption, and then have some kind of healthy dialogue between the rule-makers and the rule-followers. Diplomacy, really. Instead, he (and a select few others) decided that it would be a great idea to just dump this on everybody unceremoniously, making it out to be the penultimate ruling. So what if it's transitory? Nobody else had a say in the matter except Neal, JV, AZ and (maybe) the URC. It just happened. You could argue that everybody had a choice right from the get-go whether to run this ruleset, but there's a big difference when somebody comes along and makes it mandatory for things like stickies and (as I pointed out to Player 1; if AZ could confirm his own comment) other rewards that may come along with it.

Rome wasn't built in a day, after all, nor was it built without help.

On that note, I would like to say that I'm still going to go to tourneys if/when I can, even if it is Unity-sponsored. I don't really give a damn one way or the other about how I play Brawl, or hell, even Melee. I love this community more than the game(s) that we play. I just hate that this has to happen.

Smooth Criminal

 

[AlphaZealot]

Congratulations for alienating those TOs that decide to be "different." Way to go, URC, for making your Brawl community even more divisive than before.

Before almost every tournament ran with different rules every single weekend. No ruleset was replicated/repeated more than 10% of the time (10% is generous). Now the Unity ruleset is used at over 50% of tournaments and sometimes much, much more than that. The amount of 'division' strictly by looking at the variance in rulesets has decreased as a result of Unity.

Regarding other rewards: I haven't even talked with people about it yet. Just working on some ideas right now.

 

[Bones0]

What's wrong with also stickying the other 50% of good tournaments that use a different rule set? It's not like they are undermining the URC in any way; it may even end up being the rule set the URC adopts in the future.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Before almost every tournament ran with different rules every single weekend. No ruleset was replicated/repeated more than 10% of the time (10% is generous). Now the Unity ruleset is used at over 50% of tournaments and sometimes much, much more than that. The amount of 'division' strictly by looking at the variance in rulesets has decreased as a result of Unity.

Regarding other rewards: I haven't even talked with people about it yet. Just working on some ideas right now.

Can you address my most recent post, AZ? As to why you couldn't introduce this to the community before making it mandatory? I think a lot of people would like an explanation as to why you just decided to do this without feedback from the rest of the community.

And I wasn't talking about division in the sense of who uses what rules. I'm talking about how people feel about Brawl and its community as a whole right now.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Plairnkk]

What's wrong with also stickying the other 50% of good tournaments that use a different rule set? It's not like they are undermining the URC in any way; it may even end up being the rule set the URC adopts in the future.

I think the point is to begin to implement a system that the major tournaments aim towards helping people who travel have a more consistent ruleset, especially in brawl where little rules can make a big difference. It also allows a more professional appearance, which is good. Whether or not people agree with the actual rules, the concept of having a centralized tournament ruleset is great for any game, as AZ has stated.


edit:: true@smoothcrim

 

[ryulord_678]

I think the point is to begin to implement a system that the major tournaments aim towards helping people who travel have a more consistent ruleset, especially in brawl where little rules can make a big difference. It also allows a more professional appearance, which is good. Whether or not people agree with the actual rules, the concept of having a centralized tournament ruleset is great for any game, as AZ has stated.

A centralized ruleset might be good for the community. A centralized ruleset that at not everyone (or not 2/3rds or w/e) agree with is absolutely atrocious.

What is the point of the BBR. Like, why do they exist, of not for issues like this? MK ban already failed multiple times, so it seems to me like there is no mechanism to get this ban to go through.

So make up a new organization who no one even cares about, give it unlimited power, and voila, you create a huge controversy.

Why not just go through the BBR? Why do they even exist, if not to help make rulesets? (Tier lists aren't a good enough reason imo)

The wrong group of people were chosen to force a view held by a majority (not a supermajority, mind you) onto a minority, and even THIS is a huge stretch to claim.

 

[Bones0]

I can agree with that point in reference to stuff like stage lists and the number of games played, but I don't think the MK ban is a unanimous enough decision to ban him and force tournaments without the ban to be put on the back burner.

 

[Strife]

Here is how to explain the sticky thing, as I've also done in the past in numerous places, most notably the vVv Directional Influence podcast.

Stickies are a Smashboards resource for the community. The question with the stickies are: what is best for the community. That is largely why Apex is stickied (plus its a Melee national which would deserve a sticky in its own right) because it would be a disservice to the community to otherwise not. When I say disservice, I don't mean "a small setback", I mean it would potentially cause problems with Apex (sponsors may wonder "why are you not stuck?") and it is a huge tournament, likely the biggest of the year. It is unique here.

What most of you are not seeing is why the sticky rules are good for the community. First, the overarching goal is to get tournaments to use the same ruleset. We are closer now to this goal than at any point ever in the history of the Smash community. If you want to know why this goal is good for the community then you can start to question the standards that exist in any community or game. Without a universal ruleset Smash has always been amateur hour. I'm still trying to get guys like MLG to consider picking up Smash again, but things like a universal ruleset need to be in place before it really even starts to become likely again.

Second: yes, it is a means to an end. It is a little harsh, but the reality is that it is meant to promote the community standard. You can pretend that Unity isn't standard, but I can point to countless weekends in the past few months (going back to May) where over half of the tournaments (and sometimes way more) are Unity events. Most weekends no other ruleset even repeats. It is not fair to players to have to travel to nationals and every national has a different rule, creating a home field advantage. It is terrible when people go to tournaments and don't have a clue what ruleset they are encountering. If you have actually been an active member of the Smash community for the last 3 years you have undoubtably been to a tournament and said "wait, that stage is on?", "wait, infinites are banned/allowed?", "wait, there is/is not SD rules". Again: amateur hour.

Creating a universal ruleset is a paradigm **** in the way the community operates. Will the sticky rule always exist? Probably not, it is a purpose for a transitionary period and as more and more TO's join together in the URC and work toward a single goal the purpose of the sticky rule will eventually not be needed.

Stickies are an incentive, not a right, and there have been many reasons tournaments have been stuck/not stuck in the past beyond simple thoughts like attendance. Charity events that had low attendance have been stuck. Tournaments that were suppose to be huge like GAMME were not stuck because the TO didn't look credible - yet based simply on interest it probably should have been. Some tournaments don't get stuck because there are too many tournaments already stuck or the tournaments at that point in time are pretty high quality (example, in the summer tournaments usually have more attendance, whereas in September/October they usually do not, so you would need less people in those months then you would in the summer if you were strictly going by attendance for stickies).

In summation (TL/DR):
-URC is meant to better the community in the long run
-Sticky's are a facilitator of adoption but not the single force
-The use of sticky's as a privilege with rules has always been in place
-The question really is weighing on a scale: On one hand the idea that stickies should be available to all regardless of what type/rules of tournament they run (people didn't want EVO2k8 stuck, btw) and the good that brings the community VS the goal of having everyone use the same ruleset and the good that brings the community.

I understand AZ’s point here, but I think if you consider everything then it's clear that he, as well as whoever else had influence over this decision are using their own opinion and preferences to decide what’s good for the community.

In his explanation AZ said that the over reaching goal for TOs is to use the same ruleset everywhere. But while his intentions are good, his reasoning is flawed. Myself and I’m sure a lot like me prefer tourneys with different rulesets, it essentially gives us a better variety as to what tourneys we are able to attend. I may feel like going to a more unique tourney with a more liberal ruleset that have Mute City and Corneria as playable stages this week, and next week I may want to go to the usual conservative tourney that has these stages ban. Or I may wanna go to a tourney that has a best of 7 finals instead of a best of 5. It make more of a more diverse experience within the community and Alpha Zealot is wrong for saying this is a bad thing. He cites that other fighting game communites have standards in their rulesets, but he forgets that there is no other fighting game that allows for as much diversity as the smash series(differences in fighting levels, etc) and that he is SIMPLY WRONG in that a lot of other fighting games are not entire standardized, for example Old Sagat is soft banned at some tourneys and not soft banned at others.

His further explanation was that its’ not fair to the players to come to a tourney when people are using weird rule sets. It’s as if he forgets that smashers can check the tourney rules ahead of a time to see what tournament allows what rules. If certain people don’t like certain rules then they won’t attend those tourneys. The point is that at least you are giving them a choice in the matter. Honestly what a lot of us are essentially arguing for is that when go to a cafeteria we should have a choice as to what we can eat, instead of you, JV, and whoever else deciding what we are allowed to and not eat for us. That’s just not right.

 

[Mic_128]

A centralized ruleset might be good for the community. A centralized ruleset that at not everyone (or not 2/3rds or w/e) agree with is absolutely atrocious.

Outside of the MK ban, I haven't heard much, if any complaints about the actual rules.

As for not having a centralised rule set unless everyone agrees, good luck with that. There are people who will flat out ignore people's opinions on a number of things, due to their own opinions and experiences. This is the closest we ever have been towards a centralised ruleset. And if the only issue is MK, then hey, there's a 75% majority who are for it. Can't get much better than that.

What is the point of the BBR. Like, why do they exist, of not for issues like this? MK ban already failed multiple times, so it seems to me like there is no mechanism to get this ban to go through.

An MK ban hasn't 'failed multiple times' This is the first time it's ever become standard. If you're reffering to previous votes, that would be because people in the BBR argued that it was too soon, other options that could be tried, rules invented, ect. None have been particularly popular. (I haven't seen an "I Love LGLs!" thread) and after around 3 years of people protesting, they got what they wanted.

 

[ryulord_678]

MK ban failed. As in the movement to ban Mk. Theyre the same thing, why are you trying to pick semantics when its OBVIOUS what I mean?

First, the MK ban is a big deal. So calling it the only thing that you have heard problems with about the new ruleset is not significant. Something being the "only problem" doesnt matter if that only problem is big enough.

And I dont need "good luck." The centralized ruleset is a terrible idea, at least the way it was implemented. Get the BBR involved. Get the community involved. Get the TOs involved (NOT just 17 of them). And if these people all can generally agree on something, then implement it slowly.

If they cant: dont implement it!

I dont think it would even be a good idea in the first place. You can give a lot of lip service to having a centralized ruleset, but it wont create a better "standard." And as you see now, all it has done is create uproar and division on the forums. It's like in the star wars films when the emperor talks about bringing order to the galaxy. Bringing all under the desire of the few on how things should be done, and hurting everyone who disagrees (yes, sticky threads are important).

"They got what they wanted."

Wow. Because first of all, this is what the BBR wanted, after the vote failed 3 times (Ive heard)?
Might as well say the whole community got what they wanted, or 99.4% of the community got what they wanted, etc, because you CANT BACK IT UP.

Why not make Alphazealot a supreme god of the site, and he can decide whatever he wants, and whatever he decides, you can just say "the community got what they wanted"?

A lot quicker than going through 17 people.

It seems like this community is like what the EU is trying to be: taking select people who have desires, implementing those desires, and saying those desires are what everyone wants. Completely unprovable, but also cant be argued against.

I cant call your reasoning or facts for an argument bad if you dont have any reasoning or facts to be called bad.

-rl

 

[Keitaro]

But the majority of the community DOES want mk banned >_>

As for the ruleset, how much of the community needs to be involved in order for it to be okay? Cause clearly we can't have every single person allowed to help create rules.

The one thing that I believe will help the URC become stronger is having some top players in the URC. TOs host the tournies and top players are the farthest in the metagame for their characters.

Also possibly some smash researchers that have proven to be very knowledgable about characters and or stages.

In the end the URC still wins because most of the best TOs are in it and will follow Unity. Not saying that its okay but they in a way can do what they want since they run the tournies and choose to follow Unity so the community has to abide by it unless there's a huge fighting force against URC planned to over take them, which likely wont happen as I've seen plans against the URC fail many times before.

 

[Bones0]

What were the exact poll results?

 

[John12346]

Yes 687 votes 75.91%
No 218 votes 24.09%
Voters: 905

 

[Smashjin]

But the majority of the community DOES want mk banned >_>

Do you guys want him banned so you don't have to fight the best character in the game anymore? Or do you want him banned because it makes sense to do so?

 

[Strife]

In the end the URC still wins because most of the best TOs are in it and will follow Unity. Not saying that its okay but they in a way can do what they want since they run the tournies and choose to follow Unity so the community has to abide by it unless there's a huge fighting force against URC planned to over take them, which likely wont happen as I've seen plans against the URC fail many times before.

You've missed the point. You can follow whatever rules they want, we don't give a ****. The problem is that only unity threads are being stickiedd, it limits the freedom of what other TOs will be able to do. Instead of letting the community decide what they want, AZ and whoever else is in charge are making that decision for us.

 

[ryulord_678]

But the majority of the community DOES want mk banned >_>

As for the ruleset, how much of the community needs to be involved in order for it to be okay? Cause clearly we can't have every single person allowed to help create rules.

The one thing that I believe will help the URC become stronger is having some top players in the URC. TOs host the tournies and top players are the farthest in the metagame for their characters.

Also possibly some smash researchers that have proven to be very knowledgable about characters and or stages.

In the end the URC still wins because most of the best TOs are in it and will follow Unity. Not saying that its okay but they in a way can do what they want since they run the tournies and choose to follow Unity so the community has to abide by it unless there's a huge fighting force against URC planned to over take them, which likely wont happen as I've seen plans against the URC fail many times before.

I guess I would rather go by region then. If your region is ok with it, then the TOs of that region can make whatever rules they want. It just seems to make the most sense. Why would a region where Mk isnt a problem be given incentives to ban him?

I guess I just think that individual TOs should be able to run a tournament how they want without getting discriminated against because they dont follow a certain arbitrary standard.

The URC winning is VERY BAD. The only reason they "win" is because of the sticky rule imo. Otherwise people can just ignore them and it would all be ok. Then again, the mere presence of the ruleset might cause Mk players to switch mains, regardless of whether or not he would be banned where they play.

The worst part about this is that this happened 3 years after the game was released. I dont see how its even slightly ok to do this to people, just because people dont like playing against him. Sure Mk is good, but hes not broken. He has a lot more safe options and good matchups than other characters, but so does fox in melee. They are both good in their games (MK more so), but at what point are we just banning things we dont like to deal with?

And after Mk mains have been putting effort into their characters for years too.... maybe the MBR should vote to ban fox now.. Or maybe a random group of 15 melee TOs could form and do the work for them?

It is just wrong for 17 people wield that much power.

 

[John12346]

...People aren't rebelling against the Unity Ruleset because of the MK ban... they're doing it because what the URC is doing is apparently unfair to other TOs...

Granted, I'm almost completely convinced that most of these people ARE MK users who are trying to overturn Unity just so they can play their character again, but that's just a load of ad hominem and me complaining. Like I said, if good points are brought up, they're good points, regardless of any possible mal-intent behind it...

As far as MK not being ban material, I'm not really sure if you were around to view all of the crazy debating, but this summarizes what most of the pro-ban viewpoint was: http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=125393

And for anyone who's gonna say that the first point doesn't count, keep in mind it's the accumulation of all of MK's broken moves, as well as his ridiculous timeout abilities that qualify as one point on its own. It's not like I'm trying to say that each move in MK's moveset counts as one individual point each.

Also Fox is not as broken in Melee as MK is in Brawl. He's not ban material, not by a long shot.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

...People aren't rebelling against the Unity Ruleset because of the MK ban... they're doing it because what the URC is doing is apparently unfair to other TOs...

I main Dedede and Fox. I didn't really care for the ban, but that's neither here nor there.

Besides, most of the MK mains had issues with the other parts of this to start with. I don't think it has any bearing on your ruling.

Smooth Criminal

 

[John12346]

Besides, most of the MK mains had issues with the other parts of this to start with. I don't think it has any bearing on your ruling.

Well, keep in mind that it may also be possible that MK mains may have been motivated to be anti-Unity because, considering a ruleset was being imposed on the community, and the MK ban proceedings were picking up pace at the time, well... I'm willing to bet it put them in a compromising position, to say the least.

But w/e, like I said, it means nothing, because the above is just a load of ad hominem and me complaining over an unsupported theory of where most anti-Unity sentiment comes from.

Regardless of how I feel about anti-Unity protestors, I will recognize a good point from them, regardless of who said it or why they said it.

 

[Plairnkk]

There is nobody "winning". The Unity ruleset is a good idea as a whole, and the rules have to start somewhere. Let the respected TO's using the ruleset explore it and find out what is really wrong and needs work, then they can change the rules accordingly. They may be able to implement a better system for the community to be involved. There is a lot of room for growth and the general concept is good, a new process is never perfect at the beginning.

Realistically you guys need a way of voting that only encompasses players who actively go to tournaments. 90% of smashboards loves to post but doesnt actually participate to the point that their opinion should be considered in tournaments they will never go to. This also creates all polls to be skewed to a casual players mentality, so of course 75% of people will want MK banned.



Edit:: The forum creators can sticky whatever they want. They created the forum. Anyone can still go to any event, and every single player has their own mind to choose what event to go to. If there is a compelling reason for people to go to another tournament, they should go to that tournament.

 

[Tesh]

^ John, if they have a problem with the means and not the end, why is all of this complaining just now happening? Those people weren't complaining about MK banned tournaments not getting stickied. There wasn't even this much complaining when APEX wasn't stickied.

Has there ever been a poll of any relevant group that even slightly leans towards MK being legal? Even that AiB poll of the "top 100" players is leaning pretty heavily pro-ban.

 

[Smashjin]

Realistically you guys need a way of voting that only encompasses players who actively go to tournaments. 90% of smashboards loves to post but doesnt actually participate to the point that their opinion should be considered in tournaments they will never go to. This also creates all polls to be skewed to a casual players mentality, so of course 75% of people will want MK banned.

Maybe the polls could be done at tournaments. During signups or something perhaps.

 

[Tesh]

Maybe Plank should have polled people about "metaknight" before he ran a huge tournament with "metaknight". Like many other MK legal tournaments, alot of people felt robbed after Pound 5.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Do you guys want him banned so you don't have to fight the best character in the game anymore? Or do you want him banned because it makes sense to do so?

Does it even matter? I mean, really? Whether or not they're wrong, or stupid, the community wanted it that way. And the community pays the pots.

@Plank: well, if it means anything, the approximate spread among the top 100 was pretty much the same IIRC.

@Tesh: I almost fell off my chair. That was hilarious.

 

[Smashjin]

Does it even matter? I mean, really? Whether or not they're wrong, or stupid, the community wanted it that way. And the community pays the pots.

Just because some people want to ban a character to make it easier for them, doesn't make it right or a smart decision for the community.

There's a good chance if someone votes to ban MK, they're only thinking for themselves and the fact they won't have to fight them anymore.

 

[Tesh]

Even if you assume half of pro-ban is like that, the reasonable ones still outnumber ALL of anti-ban. Thats without also disregarding people that only want MK legal because they won't win without him.

Claiming that people vote for selfish reasons is never a good way to nullify results. I could say alot of people voted for Obama out of selfishness, but he still won tho.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

The forum creators can sticky whatever they want. They created the forum. Anyone can still go to any event, and every single player has their own mind to choose what event to go to. If there is a compelling reason for people to go to another tournament, they should go to that tournament.

I don't exactly agree with this rationale but it is a valid point to be made.

Smooth Criminal

 

[ryulord_678]

The Unity ruleset is a good idea as a whole

No /thread.

This is pointless. Such a stupid abuse of power.

 

[Keitaro]

Do you guys want him banned so you don't have to fight the best character in the game anymore? Or do you want him banned because it makes sense to do so?

I myself think MK is bearable with a restricting enough ruleset but with the current one I think he should be banned.

Personally I don't like fighting dair camping mks that if I lose the lead by 20% I pretty much lose unless they do something pretty dumb. And if I win then a nearly auto loss on either Brinstar or Cruise, meaning I have to win the first game just to win the set.

I have many times forfeited the 2nd game cause I didn't feel like struggling and losing to a player near my level there. I don't let that get in the way of whether I think mk should be banned as I would personally prefer to have him gone even if the only allowed stage was Smashville.

Both Japan's and Europe's stagelists are fine with MK imo and id vote for MK to be legal if we had either stagelist/timers.

Regardless if the majority of the community on many levels (scrubs, mid lvl players, top players, TOs) are for MK being banned the reasoning wont matter much.

 

[Strong Badam]

Maybe Plank should have polled people about "metaknight" before he ran a huge tournament with "metaknight". Like many other MK legal tournaments, alot of people felt robbed after Pound 5.

lolol what kind of piece of **** argument is this

& yeah, brinstar & rainbow cruise should have been banned before MK. that was obvious enough.

 

[John12346]

brinstar & rainbow cruise should have been banned before MK. that was obvious enough.

How obvious, exactly?

What warrants the ban of either stage, outside of MK?

 

[SupaSairentoZ7℠]

Much is uncovered but I like and definitely agree with this video. Hopefully shed some light to some players out there.

 

[Strong Badam]

How obvious, exactly?

What warrants the ban of either stage, outside of MK?

MK is a good enough reason, similar to how Fox is a good enough reason to ban several stages in Melee.

 

[Mic_128]

MK is a good enough reason, similar to how Fox is a good enough reason to ban several stages in Melee.

However that was due to a simple mechanic being broken, not the entire character. (IE, Drillshine infinites vs Fox being able to fly around the stage, attack from anywhere ect. Bit of an exaggeration, but there is differences, and it's not like other stages couldn't heavily abuse Onnet)

First, the MK ban is a big deal. So calling it the only thing that you have heard problems with about the new ruleset is not significant. Something being the "only problem" doesnt matter if that only problem is big enough.

And yet the complaints aren't that much more after each MK banned poll came up voting to ban and the BBR didn't ban, coming up with various surgical rules.

I dont think it would even be a good idea in the first place. You can give a lot of lip service to having a centralized ruleset, but it wont create a better "standard."

And yet I don't hear anyone actually complaining about the rules themselves.

"They got what they wanted."

Wow. Because first of all, this is what the BBR wanted, after the vote failed 3 times (Ive heard)?
Might as well say the whole community got what they wanted, or 99.4% of the community got what they wanted, etc, because you CANT BACK IT UP.

I can say that 75.91% of people got what they wanted, thanks to the latest MK Ban poll.