A URC members thoughts on the Metaknight Ban

[WindMajor]

I feel the URC also needs to consult the best players, both Meta Knight and non-Meta Knight players. Ally, Mew2King, ADHD, ... pretty much all the top 10 players in the world should be in involved in the process in some form.

The entire Brawl Backroom was consulted before the poll even came to be.

 

[Katakiri]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKgTv_SzlQg

gimpyfish speaks

I love Gimpy's rants and I agree with him, but the URC is just as big as he fears. Well I can actually use MikeHaze's video. Yes URC's set is a recommendation but look who's in it. Mike listed all of them and he's right, they're not big-name players, but they're big-name TOs hosting most of the biggest Regionals & Nationals. For any local TO that wants to attract players, they're gonna have to play by their rules. If you remember back, think about how many Meta Knight banned tourneys there were in the past and how many of them went largely unnoticed. That's going to be what happens to MK legal tourneys now. You're basically playing a "side metagame" and while, yes a tourney win is a tourney win, with the Unity Ruleset being the standard for Smash Boards, those results won't be included in any tier list.

Once the standard mentality of Smashers becomes "Okay, you can keep your MK, but keep it away from my metagame" that's the "no return" point for MK. But we won't get to that point for a long while. Just remember. It's been 6 days since the announcement. 6 days and we're already having petitions to bring him back. HE'S NOT EVEN BANNED YET!

Not directing this at anyone particular, but if 70+% of the community wants MK banned, the top TOs want him banned and they're even willing to wait until Apex is over, but you're over here crying you eyes out 6 days after just the announcement of a future ban that gives you months to switch characters or ride out MK into the night,...
...You'll get no sympathy from me.

 

[Sorto]

I used be very into brawl at its inception. I was even decently good. I was good enough that local to's banned the ice climbers infinite chaingrab and had next to the ruling in parenthesis sorry sorto. This being said, i am very against the idea of banning without cause. As any player knows the ic chaingrab is considered legal now and in my story it took a few months, maybe even a year, but this ban was later lifted. I did play after but never quite as seriously as I did during the first few months. But I kept quite knowledgeable in the brawl metagame and discussions.

Along with this I helped run a melee power rankings at my college. So while I am not a true to, I do know how to host an event.

Also, I would like to apologize in advance for my discussion of mk ban since I know this is not an mk ban forum, but a know your urc forum.

I was never in support of banning metaknight, because to me there was never proof to ban him. But again, this all goes to the idea to what is proof for a ban.

I am suprised that the community went directly to a hard ban, instead of soft banning metaknight. I would have much rather have seen the top 15 metaknights agree to not playing metaknight and seeing the evolution of the metagame because of this. Because let's be honest, playing mk doesn't make you win. And the only true threat comes from the top level mks. Has this even been attempted. The top 15 mks would still be doing well without mk. Maybe not as well, but still very well. This option would be a more friendly way to go about it, rather than creating strict ruleset. I already forsee a counter argument to my idea that goes something like this, "well people are not going to want to lose out on money". Since people usually do like money this does create an issue. My simple resolution to this would be that the top 15 mks would be given free entrance to tournaments for not playing mk. This rule would be optional and used as incentive to stop players from playing mk and allowing the metagame to develop. It would be at the tos discretion to boot them if they did not comply. Something to that effect. Honestly there could probably be a better resolution for enforcing a soft or temporary ban (this was just a quick thought).

The reasons for mks bans as far as I know them are not proof of brokeness, as I would say that's hard to prove.

John# thread shows mathematical signs of correlation. Correlation and causality are not the same. These numbers don't exist because metaknight is broken, that shows a lack of logic. I know that john# knows that but I am informing the people who think otherwise.

The matchup chart shows the mk has the best matchups and does not lose any. I feel like that scenario happens more often in fighting games then people like to credit. Fox in melee doesn't lose any matchups either (tho he does even ones).

Final thoughts and argument. In my mind a ruling for banning should not be made to help the advancement of lower tiered characters. It also should not be made to quiet the masses. A ruleset change should be made because it is fair and with just cause.

The brawl ruleset we play by should not be made to make the lower tiers advance or have a fairer chance. A ruleset should be made to be fair to all characters. And a character should not be banned to help the advancement of the low tier. And I only say this because I see a lot of people argue about how mk makes character x unviable and stuff like that. And in all honesty something like that is rarely reason for a ban, unless it is just him and it is a large majority of the cast, which is not the case.

*sorry for any typos. I am on a phone and just kinda typed and did a quick editing job.

 

[Rockenos]

I used be very into brawl at its inception. I was even decently good. I was good enough that local to's banned the ice climbers infinite chaingrab and had next to the ruling in parenthesis sorry sorto. This being said, i am very against the idea of banning without cause. As any player knows the ic chaingrab is considered legal now and in my story it took a few months, maybe even a year, but this ban was later lifted. I did play after but never quite as seriously as I did during the first few months. But I kept quite knowledgeable in the brawl metagame and discussions.

Along with this I helped run a melee power rankings at my college. So while I am not a true to, I do know how to host an event.

Also, I would like to apologize in advance for my discussion of mk ban since I know this is not an mk ban forum, but a know your urc forum.

I was never in support of banning metaknight, because to me there was never proof to ban him. But again, this all goes to the idea to what is proof for a ban.

I am suprised that the community went directly to a hard ban, instead of soft banning metaknight. I would have much rather have seen the top 15 metaknights agree to not playing metaknight and seeing the evolution of the metagame because of this. Because let's be honest, playing mk doesn't make you win. And the only true threat comes from the top level mks. Has this even been attempted. The top 15 mks would still be doing well without mk. Maybe not as well, but still very well. This option would be a more friendly way to go about it, rather than creating strict ruleset. I already forsee a counter argument to my idea that goes something like this, "well people are not going to want to lose out on money". Since people usually do like money this does create an issue. My simple resolution to this would be that the top 15 mks would be given free entrance to tournaments for not playing mk. This rule would be optional and used as incentive to stop players from playing mk and allowing the metagame to develop. It would be at the tos discretion to boot them if they did not comply. Something to that effect. Honestly there could probably be a better resolution for enforcing a soft or temporary ban (this was just a quick thought).

The reasons for mks bans as far as I know them are not proof of brokeness, as I would say that's hard to prove.

John# thread shows mathematical signs of correlation. Correlation and causality are not the same. These numbers don't exist because metaknight is broken, that shows a lack of logic. I know that john# knows that but I am informing the people who think otherwise.

The matchup chart shows the mk has the best matchups and does not lose any. I feel like that scenario happens more often in fighting games then people like to credit. Fox in melee doesn't lose any matchups either (tho he does even ones).

Final thoughts and argument. In my mind a ruling for banning should not be made to help the advancement of lower tiered characters. It also should not be made to quiet the masses. A ruleset change should be made because it is fair and with just cause.

The brawl ruleset we play by should not be made to make the lower tiers advance or have a fairer chance. A ruleset should be made to be fair to all characters. And a character should not be banned to help the advancement of the low tier. And I only say this because I see a lot of people argue about how mk makes character x unviable and stuff like that. And in all honesty something like that is rarely reason for a ban, unless it is just him and it is a large majority of the cast, which is not the case.

*sorry for any typos. I am on a phone and just kinda typed and did a quick editing job.

They can't do that, bro
That wouldn't accomplish the URC's goal of banning Meta Knight


One thing I don't get though is why there was a vote to ban Meta Knight amongst the URC
From the creation of the URC and the constantly recurring polls to ban MK, how was there any doubt that not a single member wanted him in the game?

 

[Sorto]

They can't do that, bro
That wouldn't accomplish the URC's goal of banning Meta Knight


One thing I don't get though is why there was a vote to ban Meta Knight amongst the URC
From the creation of the URC and the constantly recurring polls to ban MK, how was there any doubt that not a single member wanted him in the game?

There goal should not be and hopefully isn't simply to ban him. It is hopefully and should only be to create a fair and competitive game

 

[Rockenos]

There goal should not be and hopefully isn't simply to ban him. It is hopefully and should only be to create a fair and competitive game

Yep. Too bad the URC doesn't properly represent the Smash community. I don't wanna be a wet blanket, but the URC is about as far a way from hopefully and shoudland as one can get.

 

[AllyKnight]

I farted, 10/10 post.

 

[Player-1]

Yep. Too bad the URC doesn't properly represent the Smash community. I don't wanna be a wet blanket, but the URC is about as far a way from hopefully and shoudland as one can get.

yeah sorry our ruleset isn't as well thought out and competitive as this:

but what can you do?

I farted, 10/10 post.

11/10

 

[John12346]

I just realized that some people think the URC was created solely to ban Meta Knight.

I don't even have a witty reaction to that, I'm just beyond angry at some people's ignorance now.

 

[fkacyan]

I just realized that some people think the URC was created solely to ban Meta Knight.

I don't even have a witty reaction to that, I'm just beyond angry at some people's ignorance now.

Given the initial membership and the way its rules were phrased, it's really not that much of a stretch.

It's still wrong, though. The main reason was to let Bizkit have a perfectly OK reason for having PS2 legal.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

In regard to Tuen's data, the issue that I had with it revolved around sample size.

Essentially, he dictated that in order for the tests that he used to have any statistical merit, he needed to have a large sample size. Unfortunately, I think that's the biggest flaw in that particular examination.

If you haven't noticed, there seems to be a binary generated in the community of it should be top players, or it should not be top players.

Since Mike used the example as the URC members are too inept to understand the metagame, I think using 1000 members based on the SWF Power Ranking is too LARGE a sample. In that, I'm ranked 249th atm (which I'm willing to guess will shoot up to either top 100-150 after my recent results get factored in), and if I'm inept, I'm going to make the fair assumption everyone below me is. That being the case, a sample of the top 200 or 100 players would have been more accurate, despite the small sample size.

However, assuming I did the math correctly on my end, the numbers skewed more towards MK being an outlier at the high level (because of the fact that as BAM mentions, you can attribute MKs money to a certain top number of players; I like to call them the dirty thirty ) in a manner of some significance. This issue can be directly attributed to the small sample size of course. Although, I'm not a stats major, so my numbers might have been off.

But the point remains, either that test's sample size was too large and inclusive (and I say that with having about an 75% certainty that those numbers would trend towards MK being a significant outlier) OR the sample size we're trying to examine cant' be properly weighed using Tuen's methods as a criteria because of the limitations of the test itself.

It's a catch 22 and it's in no way Tuen's fault. In my opinion however, I think the data has value because I don't think we need to regard a player's ranking as a criteria of "knowledge of the metagame". Meaning if looking at the metagame as a whole, Metaknight himself isn't an issue in terms of dominance. However, if looking at the metagame at the top level of play, he might be. But if you combine an examination with those parameters along with the fact that the top level of play voted overwhelmingly in favor of a ban (with far less margin of error due to non response than the general community I'm sure), and I could see why the stats support each other in that regard.

Guess who just learned about name searching? Yeah, took me long enough.

I'm happy to hear my analysis is being utilized! With respect to this, I'd like to question what you've said here a little. Don't worry about me getting butt-hurt or anything, criticism pushes progress forward!

That said, I do understand the concern about there being too little data. That is always a concern. In fact, I tried to look at all 36 factors (characters) individually with something on the order of 100 data points. Turns out that doesn't really work. But I have since looked at a larger set of data. I'm wondering if you guys have seen it yet: The 1000 Player Analysis.

If you have, then great! I would like more clarification on why "too much data" can be a bad thing? Statistically, all that lends is the opportunity to get closer to the population as opposed to just looking at a subset of a population (utilizing statistical analysis to make inferences about the population). Overall, I have never really heard of too much data being a bad thing. Unless it's biased intentionally or accidentally. That's always bad.

When I'm not at work I'll take a look at the rest of the thread and keep tabs on this discussion. Feel free to ask any questions about the data, the analysis or the conclusions drawn.

 

[DeLux]

Oh Tuen, we're on the same page
I wrote that in the last paragraph that I personally think the data for the community at large is important.


I was just addressing how if the statistics were catered towards a certain subset of players from that 1000 population (say the top 50), the data becomes nearly incoherent.

And unfortunately, the community seems to want to trend towards only considering that top percentile in terms of valuable information.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

Oh Tuen, we're on the same page
I wrote that in the last paragraph that I personally think the data for the community at large is important.


I was just addressing how if the statistics were catered towards a certain subset of players from that 1000 population (say the top 50), the data becomes nearly incoherent.

And unfortunately, the community seems to want to trend towards only considering that top percentile in terms of valuable information.

Oh, gotchya. Yeeeeeah.... truncating the data is a pretty bad idea. That is, unless you want to truncate the analysis too. My first pass at the analysis was MK vs The Cast, since I only had 100 players. People enjoyed that until someone noted "hey! you can't say MK isn't overpowered if it's him vs EVERYONE". I then looked at 1000 players (to up my degrees of freedom by a ton to allow for a 36 factor analysis) and people then have brought up only analyzing the elite.

Just so people know... Statistically speaking, you can only have one or the other. It's just not mathematically permitted to have a small dataset for a 36 factor analysis :-/.

 

[Hive]

I just realized that some people think the URC was created solely to ban Meta Knight.

I don't even have a witty reaction to that, I'm just beyond angry at some people's ignorance now.

Its easier for some people to pretend that its the URC trying to force it on everyone, or that its only unskilled players that are causing the ban than to face the reality.
Which is that the majority of the relevant community feels the game would be better without metaknight, major TOs do, the majority of the total smashboards community does, a majority of the top 100 players does (even with that being a bit biased towards mk since his win rates give him more relative representation in the list), and the polls based around the BBR do. Because if you recognize that you can't just pass it off.

 

[CableCho57]

I just realized that some people think the URC was created solely to ban Meta Knight.

I don't even have a witty reaction to that, I'm just beyond angry at some people's ignorance now.

why was the urc created then? I don't play brawl and im indifferent on the subject of the ban, but i'm curious about the creation of the URC when a brawl backroom exists.

 

[C.J.]

Because the BBR had no authority whatsoever. All they could do is recommend rules and hope people used them.

The URC is made up of TOs and actually have the means to enforce their ruleset (being that they run tournies).

 

[CableCho57]

then why couldnt they just enforce the rules the bbr approved of?

 

[WindMajor]

A change that drastic being "forced" upon everybody would cause so much of a ruckus that Smashboards would literally break in half, then burst into flames.

 

[ElDominio]

A change that drastic being "forced" upon everybody would cause so much of a ruckus that Smashboards would literally break in half, then burst into flames.

I love this quote lol

 

[Isatis]

They (BBR) could've enforced it, but it still wouldn't have mattered anyhow. Nobody would use it with its stages.

cause so much of a ruckus that Smashboards would literally break in half, then burst into flames.

Really? That sounds like my job.

 

[AlphaZealot]

BBR is not made of tournaments hosts. The URC is made of TO's and only TO's, and therefor when they come to a decision it is in turn implemented straight into the rulesets. You can't throw non-TO's into the mix, it is a power struggle issue and to be straight: a TO who actually runs a tournament with a ruleset doesn't want to have to listen to someone who doesn't have a real stake in the process. The URC gets completely away from theory and only works with a tangible, physical environment.

Here is a good example: in the BBR, Distant planet would be considered legal, because theoretically nothing is really...broken...on the stage. The reality? Almost every TO universally hates the stage or has had the stage removed from competitive play and has for over a year and a half (well before Unity came along). The theory of the BBR never matched up with what the tournament hosts were actually doing, which is why the URC came into existence.

 

[Tesh]

^ on the subject of stages, I think its really dumb that we can consistently ban things like DP, YI:M and Green Greens for being "dumb" or "janky" but not MK. Maybe most of the community just hates that part of the game despite it not being broken.

Just another way to look at it.

 

[san.]

Can we ever vote on legalizing stages?

 

[Cassio]

lol, what stake does a TO have that others dont? Community rep?

@tesh its called precedence

 

[CableCho57]

@alpha zealot. Idk anything about brawl stages but you just said TO's "universally hate that stage" therefore they ban it. isnt that just personal preference over practicality? I mean in the melee community (bear with me), the most universally hated character is obviously puff with the exception of those who play her. And although ppl hate her, TO's continue to allow her in tourneys because emotions shouldnt get in the way of logic. And a group most educated on the game (mbr) state she is fair game. TO's follow accordingly. As much as they hate her.

And yes I know i'm probably not the best person to be questioning the ban due my lack of knowlegde on the brawl scene and metagame, but I cant help but see the ban as an unjustified, biased ruling.

From what I see you saying:
people who run tourneys > people who have the most extensive knowledge about a game
(not saying TO's dont have any knowledge, but probably not as much as top level backroom players. applies to both games)

in terms of makeing rulesets

very blunt example: if majority of TO's happen to believe team attack should be off because they "hate" it being on, now enforce that ALL tourneys must have it off even if a smashbackroom, after putting consideration and votes into it, say it should be on.

the other thing that makes me upset is the fact someone in the URC has the ability to NOT sticky tourneys if they dont follow the unity ruleset? that just seems wack. (and please correct me if i'm wrong but thats what I read).

 

[Judo777]

@alpha zealot. Idk anything about brawl stages but you just said TO's "universally hate that stage" therefore they ban it. isnt that just personal preference over practicality? I mean in the melee community (bear with me), the most universally hated character is obviously puff with the exception of those who play her. And although ppl hate her, TO's continue to allow her in tourneys because emotions shouldnt get in the way of logic. And a group most educated on the game (mbr) state she is fair game. TO's follow accordingly. As much as they hate her.

And yes I know i'm probably not the best person to be questioning the ban due my lack of knowlegde on the brawl scene and metagame, but I cant help but see the ban as an unjustified, biased ruling.

From what I see you saying:
people who run tourneys > people who have the most extensive knowledge about a game
(not saying TO's dont have any knowledge, but probably not as much as top level backroom players. applies to both games)

in terms of makeing rulesets

very blunt example: if majority of TO's happen to believe team attack should be off because they "hate" it being on, now enforce that ALL tourneys must have it off even if a smashbackroom, after putting consideration and votes into it, say it should be on.

the other thing that makes me upset is the fact someone in the URC has the ability to NOT sticky tourneys if they dont follow the unity ruleset? that just seems wack. (and please correct me if i'm wrong but thats what I read).

I don't know a thing about melee.

However I want to say the example you gave isn't entirely parallel. DP is on paper an arguably good stage, there is a lot of controversy as to whether it should be fair game or not, as a result the TO's decide "Hey I don't want to deal with the risk of this being bad" and as a result they don't allow it. It's not so much they hate it as they don't really know so why should they be the guinea pig if they don't want to be.

Conversely team attack on is not only theoretically, unanimously the better choice, but its also very obviously the better choice. The 2 situations aren't all that similar.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to undermine your point, because you said from the get go you aren't in a position to object, I'm just also giving my say.

MK's ban is not only theoretically sound due to the BBR's most recent polls heavily agreeing that he is disruptive to the metagame, but the TO's also see most of what really goes on in the community. The TO's were the guys that got johned at when MK timed their *** out with only 20 ledge grabs. They were the ones who had to deal with people complaining about the universal ledge grab limit put in place to keep MK in check.

They don't say they are anything they are not. They are a group that make rules based off experience and what they have seen in practice, tho they are obviously willing to listen to the more intelligent players also.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Tons of stages are banned in Melee basically because TO's feel like it. They may try to back it up with something like "it isn't conducive to competitive play" but really many of the stages banned in Melee are done so simply because, well, people don't like them.

This is not parallel to MK. People have 'not liked' MK for a long, long time. In fact, MK has lost the public polls about getting him banned for quite some time.

very blunt example: if majority of TO's happen to believe team attack should be off because they "hate" it being on, now enforce that ALL tourneys must have it off even if a smashbackroom, after putting consideration and votes into it, say it should be on.

This over simplifies how rules are made though. In the case of the MK ban, for example:
-Statistics from multiple sources, most showing huge dominance/unparalleled success for MK
-Years of said dominance across every ruleset in NA
-Multiple public polls all in favor of the ban
-Previous BBR poll in favor of ban
-Information and discussion from the BBR relayed to the URC so their opinion(s) were taken into account
-Talking with top players, the majority of which also support a ban
-A current public poll here with 75% in favor of ban, and a public poll from AiB with 73% in favor of the ban

So, if all of this existed for, say, turning team attack off, then sure. Heres the thing though: it doesn't, which is why team attack is on and will stay on. These things (the above) do not occur unless there is something clearly wrong with the status quo/a current mechanic/etc. If it were a simple decision, it would not be divisive and would not have taken so much painstaking work (on behalf of some) and years to have occurred.

 

[Jem.]

When you only look at the top 100 players its still a 3-1 ratio to ban MK.

Actually, according to Doom's blog on AiB where he asks the top 100 to post whether they are for or against, so far its 52 for the ban, and 34 against the ban with 14 yet to reply. Don't make up fake statistics

Another problem I see is that all the TO's are competitive players themselves. That's where Washington is different, we have Gameclucks Guy who actually doesn't play, so I feel like his opinion is unbiased. None of you are MK mains except t1mmy, so it would be fairly obvious, right? You make it farther in the tournament. With people like GC Guy, there is no bias because they aren't players, but are near the scene.

I think though the biggest gripe of all is the cult-like aspect where you can't get your tournament featured unless you use these rules. Better not give MK-allowed tournaments a chance to steal the spotlight and get some support, eh? All for the community! Yeah right.. All for yourself.

Player 1: Why would people switch their votes out of peer pressure? It's the internet, peer pressure doesn't exist. If a made-up statistic is being called out, then people wanted evidence about it and we got it. So the 3-1 is false. Right now it's 60-40

 

[Player-1]

According to Delux with the actual SWF banned results it was something like 70% of the people who voted were for it and then some people changed their answer on the open AiB poll. The SWF poll holds more merit, IMO, since the AiB one actually factors things in like peer pressure and people actually knowing your answer which was disclosed here on SWF

 

[El Duderino]

Tons of stages are banned in Melee basically because TO's feel like it. They may try to back it up with something like "it isn't conducive to competitive play" but really many of the stages banned in Melee are done so simply because, well, people don't like them.

This is not parallel to MK. People have 'not liked' MK for a long, long time. In fact, MK has lost the public polls about getting him banned for quite some time.

That is a nice observation, but historically the Melee scene has been more open individual tournament rule variations, including stages. The only real comparison you can make here is Melee is not only a different game, it is also guided by players of a different mindset.

I agree though, the Puff is a pretty different case than MK. But it has nothing to do with how people react in polls. It's about Melee, as a game, having more tools available that can help combat a character with superior air mobility and pressure.

 

[DeLux]

To be fair, I'd figure Doom's open poll would hold more merit since it is more recent and has higher participation than our closed poll

Perhaps the four or so people who switched changed their minds since the ban occurred.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Player 1: Why would people switch their votes out of peer pressure? It's the internet, peer pressure doesn't exist. If a made-up statistic is being called out, then people wanted evidence about it and we got it. So the 3-1 is false. Right now it's 60-40

Because these aren't just faces on the internet, this is a competitive community and a lot of us have close friends that are part of the community that we interact with all the time. Beyond the close friends, a lot of us have friends and acquaintances from all over the community. Even beyond that, there's the fact that everyone knows or can easily find out who you are.

The end result is that people can feel like it will create bad relations with any number of other people varying from loss of friends, respect, or even outright physical danger (unlikely, but still possible) because their identity is exposed. That is an incentive for a more conservative position.


Even if there was anonymity of real identity, there still are group dynamics that still exist on the internet, things like not wanting to publicly admit that you were wrong, and being concerned that people will hound you about your choice.


There's a reason most democracies use secret ballots.



So, while I remain anti-ban, let's not misrepresent the sentiments of the community. It's very different to vote for something in absolute privacy and to vote for something and know you could potentially be held personally responsible, even if it is only an electronic persona.

 

[Ussi]

Actually, according to Doom's blog on AiB where he asks the top 100 to post whether they are for or against, so far its 52 for the ban, and 34 against the ban with 14 yet to reply. Don't make up fake statistics

Okai I'll go correct my 2 week old post that went off what someone just said.

7-3 for top 10 (70%/30%)
12-8 for top 25 (60%/40%) (missing 5)
27-18 for top 50 (60%/40%) (Missing same 5)

So besides top 10, the results are consistent from those who voted at a 3-2 ratio

 

[C.J.]

Also not each of those people voted in the original poll...

Oh, and apparently at least a couple people changed what they voted in the blog from the original URC poll.

 

[John12346]

Did no one see adumbrodeus' post or something?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Did no one see adumbrodeus' post or something?

Obviously nobody cares. Or at least nobody that responded does.


"Who cares about the facts when the public perception helps my agenda?", it's unfortunately a rather common attitude around here.



Say what you will about my positions, but at least I'm intellectually honest.

 

[John12346]

No, what I meant was that the two people who posted after you basically said the same thing as you, but missed out on like half or more of the details of what you said.

Just found it odd. -___-;

 

[Ussi]

I was just correcting some-ink old i say

 

[adumbrodeus]

No, what I meant was that the two people who posted after you basically said the same thing as you, but missed out on like half or more of the details of what you said.

Just found it odd. -___-;

Disagree, they acted like polling people and having their answers public somehow was capable of producing valid results

 

[C.J.]

Not at all. Jem was saying that Delux's statement about whatever was false due to the existence of the AIB blog. I was just defending Delux saying that he was talking about among those who voted/people changed votes.

Adum, you were talking more about social pressure and the like that would cause vote changes. I was saying what the original context that Delux gave his statement about the info was.

I wasn't implying or acting like anything, lol. Just that people were assuming that delux had data from all 100 people and nothing changed and were trying to discredit his statement when the two things I just mentioned aren't necessarily true or false.