---
The posts way below are posts that I really want to address, but I'm going to look at something else really quickly.
---
In terms of having the best players leading the metagame as the main authority for our community, I find the concept to be outright disheartening. I've watched and read various comments from our top players(along with meeting some of them) and I feel like I firmly could say that they really don't give a crap about the majority of the community (which isn't surprisingly not the top percentage of the population). There are select few that would love to see smash as a whole progress (along with it's community) and also be in the top percentage of their characters. These people are rare, rarer than the detractors might think (or care about at all, really).
I'm not going to say that the top of the metagame in general does not have a great source of knowledge. However, I'm particularly sure that they suffer from the same mindset of the top in many other professions and sports: They've focused on what's made them good and their skillset in that specific area. Do I want ADHD to talk about Diddy? Of course. I love hearing M2K talk about MK's character traits. Seeing Ally weigh in on what he thought were Snake's limitations was very enlightening for me, but are any of these players fit to lead (full of only like-minded individuals) a metagame for all people (regardless of the talent level, character choice or whatever)?
Not a chance.
For the sentiments that the elite should make the rules, I point you to various sporting avenues. The leaders of the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB and etc, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that they were not the top players in their profession (if they even played at all!). Even people that /teach/ what the top players are learning. Coaches, Coordinators, Staff are filled to the brim with both players that have seen success to people who have never stepped in the stadium since their senior years of high school,
but have the mind for the game. There's just a different need of mindset (and a different mindset in general) between those who are playing the game and people who are making the rules for the game. That doesn't mean that top players don't have the same ability, however, they are few and far in-between.
---
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.
Ran, Tos are just as biased. Catering to the players is wrong, cater towards competitiveness instead.
---
Alright, now on to the point that I was looking forward to.
As for the size of the BackRoom, I think a general number of 30-50 people is actually a good idea for the general. Personally, I think having dedicated branches (and go-betweens of those branches, such as our wonderful admin AA) covering different areas: Stages, Characters, etc, etc is a great idea (of course other members of the back room could fill in as necessary). Ideally, this would work out: There are people that are focused on their tasks at hand and then check in on a whole with the rest of the back room members. That way there are focuses on particular characters/stages and testing of various things.
Logistically, for a couple of reasons... I don't think that this is going to work. As OS has stated and I think others have eluded to, there is just no way for people to enforce activity within those avenues. Players come and go, have life troubles brewing up and sometimes just lose interest. Unfortunately, this isn't a job (as much as I would love for it to be, lol) and there's not much to stop turnover of it's members. Then you have particular things like characters whose metagames have drastically slowed/stopped for various reasons (Mario, Jigglypuff, Lucas are all characters I can name off the top of my head) and that hurts the competitive community overall. Even if they're not considered viable at top levels of play.
I think having a definitive criteria for it's members to meet for what the BackRoom is supposed to represent helps out the back room of a whole. The idea that you must discuss your opinions in a meaningful is wonderful and helps your peers clarify your position and offer their own input. Keep doing that, it really helps. As for the bridge between the back room and the community, I have to say that I'm not really sure what can be done for that. Visibility is something that as an invested (see: in the community of SWF's as a whole) person like me wants to see, but I'm not completely sure if the community as a whole is able to handle. That's just my opinion and could very well be false, but it's what I think anyway.
To bridge that divide, I think something creative is going to have to happen.
Overall, I am liking the attitude of the backroom's vocal representatives and their willingness (again, in my opinion) to consider the needs of the community both competitive at the top of the community and not, their willingness to address the (reasonable) complaints and reply to them in meaningful ways, and also their stance that things should really be tested and shown. Sucks that the BRoom is sometimes painted out to be the bad guy. Otherwise, there are kinks that need to be worked out on the whole, but for where we're at and where we've been, I say good job.
Just my two cents.
[Edit:] Hopefully, we continue to have the healthy discussion we've had in this thread so far instead of particular attacks at a person's credibility. This has been a good read and a great source of new information/thoughts so far.
[+1_to_self_esteem]
