Backroom Reform: Current Topic -> Success?

[-Ran]

I'm not trying to cherry-pick arguments, it's just with the size of this thread, I'm just trying to keep everything on track.

It's only recommended!

To say that it is 'recommended' is to be ignorant of the pull that the SBR has in the community. This rule list, by all intends and purposes, is the official rule set of Smash. That is how it has been treated, up until now. Though there have been regional differences, tournaments have closely followed the rules that have been provided by the SBR as the backbone of the community. Rather than reaffirm this with a rule-set that represents the current meta-game, they have instead attempted to break free from being a rule creating body. The SBR isn't supposed to be a 'suggestion box.'

A prime example would be the MK ban that never happened. If the SBR would have said 'Ban MK' then he would have been banned. That's pull. Even if it is only 'recommended' it is an incredible STRONG one.

Did not enough people vote? To an extent this is true. Many people felt conflicted so they chose not to vote because both choices seemed equally appealing.

This is the annoying sentiment. The Back Room is supposed to be composed of top players/thinkers with the ambition to guide the metagame. Many players from the BR have stated that people didn't vote because they didn't have experience or an opinion on the stages. The point of being in the Back Room is to form an intelligent opinion and vote. If they didn't have knowledge on the stage, is it really hard for them at the next smashfest to go: "Hey guys, I need to get a few serious sets in on Luigi's?"

Suddenly they go from having limited knowledge to having information that they can use to discuss with. Of course, that would take effort that most of the Back Room is apparently incapable of performing. This is why there needs to be reform, because the SBR has power, even if the members don't want to admit it.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

I agree with Ran. The BBR needs to be changed.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

The power is still rather limited. Despite having a general guideline, each reigon really does adopts it's own form of stagelist. The only real variation from ruleset to ruleset thus far has been about the stagelist recommendations. The core mechanics of tournament play is still there. The concept of pools, counterpicking stages and characters, all of it has not changed any except in the areas of suicide attempts, and a few other small things.

The only real power the rule list has ever has was to set a common format for tournaments to particpate in. I hardly ever hear of tournaments that do not follow the 3 stock, 8 minute, best of "#', with counterpicking format. So, the tournament format is hardly ever changing, but everything else is getting butchered by tournament organizers anyway. Anything the ruleset does only slightly affects the popularity of stages.

Beyond the ruleset, the only other areas they really discuss is the tier list which does not have much point in tournament play anyway.

 

[AfroQT]

Technically speaking when stages don't kill people, we are playing a different game. Almost every stage in Brawl has damaging hazards. That is the norm when looking purely at the available stage selection offered in the game. This perception is only changed because the EC got a lot of people to switch to stages that don't really change MU dynamics (except for Brinstar/Rainbow, which there is now a movement to ban on the EC).

Ideally for me, if I were making a ruleset, I would have on (of the controversial stages)
-PS2
-Norfair
-Picto
-PTAD

And not have on
-Green Green
-Japes
-Mansion
-Yoshi thingy
-DP

As I said earlier, the BBR encompasses this ruleset, since the stage list is more of "we think any ruleset that allows any of these stages in any amount is legit". Instead of "you must include all of these stages in your ruleset".



This is actually to an extent true. But I will humor you anyways and just note that items don't spawn equal distant from both players, giving one an unfair advantage in the event both are playing their positions perfectly prior to the spawn window. On PTAD, there is a set pattern and you should know which position you should be holding at all points, and more importantly for all but like 1 or 2 formations there are two safe zones so you don't even have to bother engaging the enemy if you don't want to. Easily enough, even though it falls short of really explaining things: items have some random properties, PTAD has zero random properties.

I can agree with this then i guess.
I don't really but theres no point in arguing further.

 

[Crow!]

No offense intended, Crow, but you main two completely inviable characters and are about as relevant to the metagame as I am at the moment: Which is to say, essentially not at all. Whether or not you stand by the stagelist is completely irrelevant to most posters.

Who says idea X does not make the idea itself any better or worse. I expect myself and the rest of the BBR to be judged on how good our ideas are and not on who we are.

If there is something you disagree with, post what you disagree with and why. The "no, you guys are just totally wrong" line of reasoning isn't reasoning at all, and is what we strive to eliminate in the BBR. If something is wrong, there must be some reason for it to be wrong, and until you say that reason, the complaint is not going to be taken seriously.

(For the debate-inclined, the quoted statement is a textbook example of ad hominem reasoning, and it's pretty rampant among those who are panicing about the well-thought-out ruleset.)

 

[AfroQT]

Who says idea X does not make the idea itself any better or worse. I expect myself and the rest of the BBR to be judged on how good our ideas are and not on who we are.

(For the debate-inclined, the quoted statement is a textbook example of ad hominem reasoning, and it's pretty rampant among those who are panicing about the well-thought-out ruleset.)

You look legit right now.

 

[fkacyan]

Who says idea X does not make the idea itself any better or worse. I expect myself and the rest of the BBR to be judged on how good our ideas are and not on who we are.

If there is something you disagree with, post what you disagree with and why. The "no, you guys are just totally wrong" line of reasoning isn't reasoning at all, and is what we strive to eliminate in the BBR. If something is wrong, there must be some reason for it to be wrong, and until you say that reason, the complaint is not going to be taken seriously.

(For the debate-inclined, the quoted statement is a textbook example of ad hominem reasoning, and it's pretty rampant among those who are panicing about the well-thought-out ruleset.)

You're confusing ad hominem with a legitimate questioning of your experience in regards to the debate at hand.

If you're going to personally endorse something, it is well within reason to take a look at the person doing so.

Edit: Holy **** nice catch Afro.

 

[Overswarm]

You're confusing ad hominem with a legitimate questioning of your experience in regards to the debate at hand.

If you're going to personally endorse something, it is well within reason to take a look at the person doing so.

Edit: Holy **** nice catch Afro.

Crow has done more in the BBR than, oh, every single tippity-top player that has ever been in the back room ever.

Being able to call someone on saying something that is false, being able to be coherent and logical, and expecting accountability to actions are all things Crow brings to the table. You want to discount a ruleset because one guy doesn't make top 3?

Does this mean you're going to bow to my every demand? I'm 10x better than the majority of smashboards. Should I be in a room with them, they must all listen to me, right? I obviously know best. But then again, Mew2King could wreck me. I guess if he shows up we should all listen to him, right?

It doesn't make any sense.

Crow is familar with Brawl and is incredibly competent. I've had many discussions with Crow on subjects brought about in the BBR and he's attended tournaments and participated just like everyone else. He sees firsthand how the game works and, more importantly, he statistically verifies his claims. What Crow brings to the table generally isn't an opinion... it's fact.

What about Ankoku? You want him to be removed from the BBR? He's not that great at Brawl, but **** if he isn't useful. His character ranking thread is legendary, and he's generally on top of the ball.

tl;dr, skill at smash doesn't make you a good ruleset creator. If anything, it does the opposite. Most top players are either inactive or just plain self-serving.

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[Black Mantis]

Being good implies that you understand the game, which makes you better equipped to create a good ruleset. Being bad implies you don't understand the game, or you don't care, both of which means you don't have any business shaping the ruleset

This is the smartest post I've seen come from this fiasco.

 

[Overswarm]

Being good implies that you understand the game, which makes you better equipped to create a good ruleset. Being bad implies you don't understand the game, or you don't care, both of which means you don't have any business shaping the ruleset

Being good doesn't mean you understand the game at all. Really, it doesn't. I wish it did. Being good just means you're good at pressing buttons.

I have to explain the most basic concepts to top players all the time. Things like "FD isn't a fair starting stage" took sooooo long to break into people's heads.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Yeah, I definitely don't think experience has a huge deal to do with someones competence in discussing things that don't need true experience to have knowledge of. I can easily test things myself and provide data to back up my claims, but I'm still generally new to Smash in a sense.

With that said, it wouldn't honestly matter who exactly we have in the BBR as long as those people do their job and are productive and contribute. I'd personally rather have someone who has entered only one tournament, but takes the time to test data and come up with proofs and all of that than someone that just plays the game for what it is and uses experience as a way to back anything they say.

The main problem is that the BBR, regardless of who is in it, automatically divided itself as not only a minority, but an exclusive one. It naturally gained some sort of recognition because it was tucked away from the public, but more so because important/intelligent people unlike many of the community was part of it. If anything, that gains recognition.

The thing is, whether or not we allow the BBR to have any sort of power within our community, it naturally will hold some sort of regard no matter what it does. Look at what we have from yesterday. Everyone obviously cares about what the BBR does/has to say because of how many replies and responses and all of that it got after releasing Ruleset v3. If no one gave a **** about what the BBR does, no one would have posted and, if someone did, it would probably be trolling.

However, even with that governing post it magically, and probably not physically, has, the BBR can't do really anything no matter how hard it tries. TOs can still do what they want because they don't work for the BBR and don't have to pass any sort of inspections or things like that. That would be the only way the BBR could ever even control the community in the first place.

Thus, there's absolutely no point in the BBR's existence as what it is today, which is essentially a pseudo-governing power, if it cannot do much of what a governing power should do. If anything, it's really there just to be there.

For example, the ruleset being a recommendation. Seeing as the BBR knows it can't control what TOs do, as exemplified from what I said just before, it can only recommend these rules, not make them mandatory. That's a problem. That makes the ruleset essentially a waste of time, especially when a majority of the community doesn't like it.

I understand it's a "guideline" (that seems like the popular name for it now), but if no one wants to use this said guideline, there's no point in it being there. And a bigger problem is that many a BBR member easily remark that, "if you don't like it, don't use it." That's showing lack of care. The BBR should want the community to use these rules, or at least try to test them first, not just "let's see what happens, but if it's nothing good, we don't mind."

A solution would be to allow these kinds of rulesets to be more official so at least the community can be more organized per region. I mentioned this yesterday (possibly on this very thread), but if the BBR and the rest of the community (and, by that I mean people that actually have more than half a brain cell, so we can easily just disregard any trolls or idiots) made the ruleset together, we can avoid these situations entirely. Let the BBR come up with a basic ruleset as a foundation, shoot it over to the public, let them take a stab at it, send it back, etc etc.

We don't want this sort of division in the community. We do need official rulesets and stagelists and all of that, in my honest opinion. It legitimizes and organizes what is, at this point, a seemingly unstable and chaotic community that is in many ways self-serving. Unity seems to be a key factor that is heavily lacking at this point, and that needs to be put to an end immediately.

EDIT: Woah, that was long, sorry about that. xD

 

[Life]

Or, in short "implies you understand" =/= "guarantees you understand".

 

[Red Arremer]

@Rapture:
While I see where you are coming from, a (recently purged) BBR member, Dastrn, has described the BBR pretty well.
He said that the BBR is a "secret videogame club" where people who play good and/or host tournaments and/or are generally intelligent about Brawl are talking about the game without the interference of people who don't know at all what they are talking about.

We gather together, talk about what we know, and then show the results to the public. Whether or not you think this is a good conclusion is up to you, but this is what the BBR's united thoughts are about the ruleset - or, for that matter, other stuff like tierlists, banning characters, whatever.

Of course, since we are quite a few people, this is not what EVERY BBR member thinks. There were a lot of people disagreeing with allowing certain stages, or the placement of certain characters on the tier list. What you see is just the overall result of everything combined, basically.

 

[vVv Rapture]

@Rapture:
While I see where you are coming from, a (recently purged) BBR member, Dastrn, has described the BBR pretty well.
He said that the BBR is a "secret videogame club" where people who play good and/or host tournaments and/or are generally intelligent about Brawl are talking about the game without the interference of people who don't know at all what they are talking about.

We gather together, talk about what we know, and then show the results to the public. Whether or not you think this is a good conclusion is up to you, but this is what the BBR's united thoughts are about the ruleset - or, for that matter, other stuff like tierlists, banning characters, whatever.

Of course, since we are quite a few people, this is not what EVERY BBR member thinks. There were a lot of people disagreeing with allowing certain stages, or the placement of certain characters on the tier list. What you see is just the overall result of everything combined, basically.

That makes more sense.

However, "thoughts" on the ruleset and "recommended ruleset" are two different things. It would be one thing for the BBR to post a huge thread with an essay and data and all of that on what the ruleset should be, not an actual ruleset.

As I said, the BBR naturally gives itself that governing position by making things such as tierlists and "recommended" rulesets because they are the only ones doing it and because of the people in them.

If anything, if the BBR is really just a club for intelligent discussion, it should stay that way and not be something that recommends things and makes things for the rest of the community. But then that's just wasting potential, in my opinion.

 

[Eddie G]

Being good implies that you understand the game, which makes you better equipped to create a good ruleset. Being bad implies you don't understand the game, or you don't care, both of which means you don't have any business shaping the ruleset

tl;dr, skill at smash doesn't make you a good ruleset creator. If anything, it does the opposite. Most top players are either inactive or just plain self-serving.

Is this really so hard to understand? Top players, more often than not, tend to have an agenda.

 

[Red Arremer]

@Rapture:
That definition is of course overly simplified.

Also, what is the difference between saying how we think a ruleset should look like and doing an actual ruleset? It's just the way of presenting it that is different in that case.

As for the tier list - this is the collective result of the BBR's discussions/votings on characters specifically, basically, this is what we think how the characters are ranked, when all opinions of top players and TOs combined.
I don't know what the background is to the tier list, but I guess the release of the tier list coming from the backroom has its original roots in the MBR, and actually was taken over by the Brawl iteration.

As I already mentioned, the sort-of-authority the BBR holds comes mainly from and top players and TOs being in there. Noone is forced to agree with any of our results, though, think of it as a condensed version of what these people think.

By the way, I want to state that I enjoy discussing with you. :D

 

[Life]

So what if the BBR is comprised of a top TO from each state (I'm not sure how foreign countries would factor in) and the top player of each character? That'd give us a 50-35 split of TO's who want more people attending (so they make more money) and players who want to improve their character by influencing rules (so they win more money). This biases the result towards TO's (who don't want their tournaments biased as that makes for poor attendance), but doesn't give either side a supermajority so that neither side dominates if one side has better logic.

EDIT: 50-37, silly Sheik/ZSS throwing the numbers.

 

[Overswarm]

I'm confused as to why people think that TOs aren't part of the BBR, XD

 

[AlphaZealot]

If M2K made the rules Snake would be banned in teams and Falco would be banned in singles. He has actually made topics to this regard explicitly stating this. We should follow him, because he is the best. Who is on board?

 

[-Ran]

I'm confused as to why people think that TOs aren't part of the BBR, XD

I think that the belief is that the percentage is incorrect by many. I'd hope that everyone realizes that Tos are in fact in the Back Room, but it would seem that the top players are the ones that hold a majority in the Back Room.

Top Players - > Want to maintain the current Meta-game, since they are successful in it already.
Tournament Organizers -> Want to structure the Meta-game to increase players in their scenes, and to make their players happy.

If M2K made the rules Snake would be banned in teams and Falco would be banned in singles. He has actually made topics to this regard explicitly stating this. We should follow him, because he is the best. Who is on board?

I'm aware that M2k has done this. I've had the chance to read various posts in the BR over the years thanks to various members on the forum. On that note, let's move on the discussion to try and find out why we feel that it needs to be reformed.

---------------

Perhaps, the BackRoom as it is, is simply too large. If there were less members [30-50] then it would be easier to maintain activity, and quality of the members there. What are the thoughts of everyone on this? Does the Back Room need to be large 100+ members, or does it need to be a group of the elite few?

Discuss.

 

[vVv Rapture]

@Rapture:
That definition is of course overly simplified.

Also, what is the difference between saying how we think a ruleset should look like and doing an actual ruleset? It's just the way of presenting it that is different in that case.

As for the tier list - this is the collective result of the BBR's discussions/votings on characters specifically, basically, this is what we think how the characters are ranked, when all opinions of top players and TOs combined.
I don't know what the background is to the tier list, but I guess the release of the tier list coming from the backroom has its original roots in the MBR, and actually was taken over by the Brawl iteration.

As I already mentioned, the sort-of-authority the BBR holds comes mainly from and top players and TOs being in there. Noone is forced to agree with any of our results, though, think of it as a condensed version of what these people think.

By the way, I want to state that I enjoy discussing with you. :D

The difference would be, as how I was explaining it, would be instead of actually giving a rule, (ie. We do not encourage banning infinites), the BBR would present it like this:
"We feel infinites should not be banned because (point 1, data, info, point 2, data, info, etc).

As in, instead of actually giving exact rules, there would be an analysis or thesis or essay or whatever. Sort of like the analysis the thread has for each of the stages they made legal or Counter/Ban. That sort of thing.

@the tierlist, I understand that, it was just an example.

As I said, I know no one has to, but wouldn't it be nice if we were about to make a ruleset that we could all agree on (or at least kindly discuss) so that no one has to ignore it?

(And I agree, discussion is good and I enjoy discussing with you, too. )

 

[Red Arremer]

I agree, but a ruleset only allowing, say, the 12 NJ/NY stagelist, would upset the other part of the community.
This is why we chose to make a big stagelist. TOs who feel similarly to us won't feel that allowing stage X would be bad, and TOs who don't agree on our stage selection simply can strike them off their list.
In theory, everyone should be happy because a big stagelist actually caters to pretty much everyone, but instead, there's a lot of complaining because the TOs actually can't copypaste the ruleset without looking over it in order to determine if they or their region agrees with the stage selection.

As I already mentioned, you can never publish something that everyone ultimately agrees on, especially if its such an emotional topic such as rulesets. Compromising is not really possible with the community, as there will always be a vocal group disagreeing, and usually it's really split evenly with almost 50% on each side.

Additionally to this, no matter what the BBR released regarding any topic, people moaned about it. People who've been in the BBR for some longer time actually know that by now and have given up on discussing, except for apparently OS (and sometimes a few others).

 

[vVv Rapture]

I agree, but a ruleset only allowing, say, the 12 NJ/NY stagelist, would upset the other part of the community.
This is why we chose to make a big stagelist. TOs who feel similarly to us won't feel that allowing stage X would be bad, and TOs who don't agree on our stage selection simply can strike them off their list.
In theory, everyone should be happy because a big stagelist actually caters to pretty much everyone, but instead, there's a lot of complaining because the TOs actually can't copypaste the ruleset without looking over it in order to determine if they or their region agrees with the stage selection.

As I already mentioned, you can never publish something that everyone ultimately agrees on, especially if its such an emotional topic such as rulesets. Compromising is not really possible with the community, as there will always be a vocal group disagreeing, and usually it's really split evenly with almost 50% on each side.

Additionally to this, no matter what the BBR released regarding any topic, people moaned about it. People who've been in the BBR for some longer time actually know that by now and have given up on discussing, except for apparently OS (and sometimes a few others).

Well, not necessarily.

What I'm getting at is that if both the BBR and rest of the community could bounce ideas off each other as a collective and hammer out a ruleset, it'd be more likely to be agreeable on both sides with a majority in each rather than just hoping for the best.

Yeah, some people will disagree, that's certain; however, give everyone a fair shake at it and we could go from disagreeing entirely on a recommended ruleset to enjoying whatever comes from a more official one.

That's what this should be about. As much as the BBR has every right to discuss and say what they want, just as we, the community, does, I still think there is a lot of potential with BBR-Community relationships that we just haven't seen.

I'd love to be able to discuss things in the BBR that you can't anywhere else. That sort of exclusiveness can be great. We just need more connections to you guys is all.

However, yeah, the BBR will always be a target of flaming and stuff, but that comes with anything and anyone willing to state their opinions flat-out. Regardless on whether or not I agree with everything the BBR says (I don't, but that's just how it happens), the fact that you guys still do what you do, to some extent (read: people in BBR who did not vote), is something I'd tip my hat to.

EDIT:

Going on with what Ran said:

Perhaps, the BackRoom as it is, is simply too large. If there were less members [30-50] then it would be easier to maintain activity, and quality of the members there. What are the thoughts of everyone on this? Does the Back Room need to be large 100+ members, or does it need to be a group of the elite few?

Hard question. I think it should definitely be set at like 40-50 members, however, if it happens to go over that because of additions that would be great assets to the group, then I'd be fine with that.

Also, it would be nice if the BBR did a monthly or bi-monthly check of activity of BBR members, as well as maybe chopping out some members that are inactive/not contributing enough when they add new submissions after the application cycle.

 

[TheTantalus]

I think people are complaining a bit too much about a ruleset that says in its listing that it encourages changes and modifications.

 

[swordgard]

Being good implies that you understand the game, which makes you better equipped to create a good ruleset. Being bad implies you don't understand the game, or you don't care, both of which means you don't have any business shaping the ruleset

LOL


Please, talk to mew2king on aim for 15 minutes then come back with the same opinion.


Ran, Tos are just as biased. Catering to the players is wrong, cater towards competitiveness instead.

 

[lordhelmet]

M2K has aspergers give the guy a break.

And I second this:

So what if the BBR is comprised of a top TO from each state (I'm not sure how foreign countries would factor in) and the top player of each character? That'd give us a 50-35 split of TO's who want more people attending (so they make more money) and players who want to improve their character by influencing rules (so they win more money). This biases the result towards TO's (who don't want their tournaments biased as that makes for poor attendance), but doesn't give either side a supermajority so that neither side dominates if one side has better logic.

 

[demonictoonlink]

Why did you have to make it about MK?

 

[Count]

The BBR DOES have the best interest of the player in mind. They just do so in what they think is best for the community, and what is the right decision is not always the popular decision.

My father is the prosecuting attorney in my county. Many times, he can make a popular decision that would probably get him reelected next time. However, he chooses to make the right decision, in what is best rather than what is most popular.

I'm an extremely conservative fellow, so I voted against a lot of the stages. However, that does not mean that I disagree with what the BBR put out as a ruleset. The BBR wants the best ruleset for the community, and a lot of thought and time was put into this ruleset. The bbr must cater to what they feel is best for the community as a whole


Obviously, TOs must cater to what they feel they need to cater to. As a TO, you want top players to come. Top players generally attract lots of players, because those of us that are competitors wish to have their shot at the best. With this in mind, a conservative ruleset makes sense in attracting the biggest crowd, which is often in the best interest of the TO. The BBR recognizes this, but does not feel a conservative ruleset is the optimal ruleset for fair and balanced play that does not limit any characters but still stays fair to the best of their ability. This is a slippery slope but the BBR did what they felt was right

 

[Overswarm]

+1 to Count's post

Perhaps, the BackRoom as it is, is simply too large. If there were less members [30-50] then it would be easier to maintain activity, and quality of the members there. What are the thoughts of everyone on this? Does the Back Room need to be large 100+ members, or does it need to be a group of the elite few?

Discuss.

The issue is that there is no way to force participation. There are regular purges (Marc has done a good job speeding those up and keeping us up to date on them), but we don't get paid and have no external motivation to do anything. You only have intrinsic motivation. Having only 30 members or so would lead to only 8 or so posting in discussions. It's just the sad truth of how things like this work. The more people we have, the more can discuss. Having less would certainly speed up processes! We take FOREVER to get things done because we argue every detail. We made like three or four threads on Pirate Ship alone, and these are not small discussions. We have members showing frame data, others showing statistical analysis of trends, others collecting character data, so on and so forth, and they all contribute in their own way. Removing members solely to keep an arbitrary number would not be beneficial.

 

[Orion*]

If M2K made the rules Snake would be banned in teams and Falco would be banned in singles. He has actually made topics to this regard explicitly stating this. We should follow him, because he is the best. Who is on board?

m2k despite being extremely selfish and biased, does know a LOT about this game. you and sg underrate that LOL. using one players personality, is not a good argument when you consider top players overall

 

[Orion*]

How did you see it then?

i sneak on top players laptops obviously because im a ninja

So, to clarify. The BBR sees nothing wrong with being the laughingstock of the community, completely ignored by many regions and most nationals, and similar things? What is even the purpose of the BBR in such a case? Nobody pays any attention to it. Hence my suggestion of getting every top TO in the country together and making them form a room over the BBR. They have to OK it either way.

then you essentially just said the bbr has no purpose LAWL

 

[EdreesesPieces]

I don't think people understand what it takes to be a top player. The reason a lot of people aren't top players isn't because of lack of knowledge for the game, but because of factors like

-Time
-Money
-Getting Nervous
-Reflexes
-Reaction speed/reading people in the heat of the moment

You can know every single thing there is to about Brawl, go to every single tournament, and place low because you exhibit a failure when it comes to these qualities. Doesn't make you a bad rule set creator or poster just because you aren't a top player. A lot of factors that have nothing to do with understanding the game go into placing well and if you fail to recognize that I don't think you understand what it takes to be a great player yourself.

On the flipside, someone who has a positive aspect to all of those qualities, but doesn't really undesrtand how the game works, won't necessarily contribute well, but will place very well in tournament. Do Doctors get a vote in the supreme court decision about abortions just because they are the experts in Health? It doesn't always work that way.

Fortunately the BBR has a good combination of both types of members, and members in between the two extremes of the spectrum. The mere concept of dissing Crow's contributions is completely puzzling to me, he is one of the most useful, helping and contributing members back there.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Just a random generic quesiton. Is there any reason to have the secret back room be, well... so secret? Why can it not simply be viewable to the public, but no one other than the members have posting privleges? That sort of thing never really made much sense to me.

 

[xDD-Master]

Take the best MK (M2K)
Take the best Snake (Ally)
Take the best Diddy (ADHD)
Take the best Falco (DEHF)
Take the best Wario (Glutonny)

Let them talk, discuss, vote & bla bla together so they can create a new Ruleset.
...
Profit.

 

[swordgard]

Take the best MK (M2K)
Take the best Snake (Ally)
Take the best Diddy (ADHD)
Take the best Falco (DEHF)
Take the best Wario (Glutonny)

Let them talk, discuss, vote & bla bla together so they can create a new Ruleset.
...
Profit.

LOLOL


This is going to end up being ********.

 

[vVv Rapture]

I posted this on the discussion thread, but no one took notice (*rolls eyes*). Wondering if I could get some feedback here:

Interestingly enough, I definitely do suggest that a lot more people should read more of what the OP actually encompasses. Mistakenly, I passed over a part that, if anything, is rather important to the whole of the stage controversy. If anything, it is at least worth nothing.

The below Starter/Counter list has a list of three stages, followed by three sections of two stages each. In order to use this, start with the top three stages in the list, and adjust the starter list between 3 and 9 stages by going down the list and adding the next two stages until the desired number of stages is reached. Keep in mind that "Battlefield, Yoshi's Island, Smashville, Lylat Cruise, Pokémon Stadium" is a correct use of this, but "Battlefield, Yoshi's Island, Smashville, Lylat Cruise, Final Destination" is not. Go down the list; do not mix and match. Any remaining stages not used in the Starter list will be moved to the tournament's Counter list.

And this is the 3.0 Starter Stage list we've been provided:

Battlefield
Yoshi's Island
Smashville

Lylat Cruise
Pokémon Stadium

Final Destination
Castle Siege

Delfino Plaza
Halberd

Before I continue, this Starter List essentially gives the option for 3-stage, 5-stage, 7-stage or 9-stage gameplay, in terms of Starter Stages. It gives options.

And, that right there, in my honest opinion, is what this ruleset is about: options.

As I said at one point, I think the best idea the BBR could do would be to work towards a ruleset that acts as a guideline that is more than a recommendation, almost to stablize and organize our community's competitions (as well as do this with some community input to do so). I just think it'd be more productive that way.

However, the next best option is to at least recommend something that has options. Yes, they've stressed enough that it's just a recommendation and I for one would love a ruleset that we don't just have to ignore because we don't like it.

But look right there. We have options. This whole ruleset is about having options. If you intend to follow the ruleset, you have options to do so how you like. Do you have to keep Port Town legal at your tournaments? No. But, it's listed as a counterpick, so if you feel like that is a good idea, you have the option to do so.

I guess what I'm saying is that as much as the rules may not be the most favorable or “awesome omg lulz” as people would have wanted, at least tournament organizers have the option to continue as they please while using this, only if they want to, as a way to make their tournaments better, not worse.

Just my two cents.

______________________

Moving on.

Another thing I'd like to comment on would be the two stage “Counter/Ban” section of the rules. For the sake of simplicity and organization, I feel it would be best for those two stages, Pirate Ship and Yoshi's Island: Melee, to be either counterpick or banned, not both.

Reason being, as I said before, this is about options, but options have to be clear. Counter/Ban, to me, seems like everyone is on the fence about them, so let's just put them out there and whatever happens, happens. I'm glad most of the new stages made legal were put directly into CP instead of C/B so more confusion and chaos did not ensue, but this kind of thing seems somewhat lazy or just unneeded.

If anything, I'd like to know why Pirate Ship and Yoshi's Island: Melee are not either just CP or just banned. What was the reasoning for making them Counter/Ban? What could be done to remedy this?

Also, one more thing to add, but one rule I'd like to point out:

The BBR now recommends that the game's verdict should always be honored; a victory screen should decide the winner. Any Sudden Death (excluding time-outs) should be treated as a tie; which are resolved with a 1 stock, 3 minute, same characters, same stage rematch.

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to just get rid of the timer in this case and make it 1 stock, only? I mean, theoretically, that timer could also run out in a match. What would happen? Is there clarification on this? I apologize in advance if I'm missing something on this that is obvious/common knowledge to others.

 

[xDD-Master]

@sg: Who knows... maybe they are smart enough to use their knowledge and experience to make a smart ruleset.

 

[Veggi]

Just a random generic quesiton. Is there any reason to have the secret back room be, well... so secret? Why can it not simply be viewable to the public, but no one other than the members have posting privleges? That sort of thing never really made much sense to me.

Maybe they're hiding something. *nudgenudge*

 

[Mic_128]

Just a random generic quesiton. Is there any reason to have the secret back room be, well... so secret? Why can it not simply be viewable to the public, but no one other than the members have posting privleges? That sort of thing never really made much sense to me.

Because what will happen is that people will make threads to discus what people in the BBR are discussing and how they're discussing it, removing the point of being read only. And more importantly, people will harass BBR members who vote certain ways on things, PM them to correct/comment on what they've stated, ect.

<questionanswered