Banned Tactics

[Kink-Link5]

Since when has "having a good time" ever been relevent to tournament viability?

I'm just imagining a rule like:

"Your opponent must have fun at all times or you will forfeit the current match in the set."

Seriously, this is supposed to be a sport, not happy fun time.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

It makes the most sense to average it out between all communities, so the no. of people can be known. (Although the rule may have to change in areas where LARGE amounts of people are leaving, but this would be avoided if possible, as it usually shows an acquired taste (get over it is an acceptable response to this) or a flaw that has been overlooked)

You know how there are LOTS of tournaments, including majors, that don't use Unity?

I rest my case.

Essentially, popularity has no impact on a stage's competitive depth, Grim. The only reason I didn't bring it up in your thread is that the way you use it still fits your goal fine, so it was ok. In truth it only has an impact on how much the stage is played, but even this is false at the highest levels of play.

If a match is played an average of 1 time/tournament (t/t) on RC, does that make the stage less competitively deep then if it's played an average of 10 t/t?

No, in no way does it do so.

You're herp derping.

Amount of times played is irrelevant, thats not what I'm talking about when I mean popularity. I'm saying that if having a theoretically legitimate stage legal in your tournament causes a lot of people to not show up, then that should factor into your decision on whether to keep the stage legal or not.

What has more competitive depth? Final Destination that 50 people are willing to play on, or PS2 that 10 people are willing to play on?

More players = more difficult = higher skill ceiling = higher competitive depth

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Isn't asking people's opinions in an argument just another wording for(or a better way to say) 'anyone got a better solution/a way to fix this one/agree with this one?'

And? What is your point here?

You would assumedly average it out for everyone or establish baselines based on normal/average human experiences with things. Nothing tends to differ highly save acquired tastes, and small differences shouldn't be considered over anything else.

All parts should be considered. To say one should be outright ignored is silly.

Acquired tastes should usually be ignored save when they affect a large amount of the community.

Horrible idea. If the point is to cater to the players, nothing should be ignored. The most voted one is simply a general consensus, thus, the majority's opinion. Nothing is ignored by doing that.

So, while it is subjective on a personal level, on a community level it's objective, as you can find it and know it will not move very far anytime soon.

It's a majority opinion. Still overall subjective, just closer to objectivity. Opinions can't be objective no matter what.

Doesn't have to be, and isn't always.

Every rule is the opinion of someone. That's kind of how they, you know, work. You make a rule because of your opinion on a matter. Whether you make it for your own board/chat, or just design the rules of a game. It's possible that a rule has no votes on it, but it's still the rule-maker's opinion on how the game should be played.

This is incorrect. You can find a way that best fits your philosophy if you look. E.G. the most competitive version, the most fun version for your town/your country/the world, the best mix of both, the fastest version while still keeping competitive integrity, etc.

All of those are opinions, Arcansi. It's a person's opinion on what is the most competitive.

It's quite possible to objectively find those, as long as you know what your looking for.

How can you find an objective answer in a sea of subjectivity? You can't. It's a favored subjective opinion. That's really not how objectivity works at all. Objectivity is one clear possible item that has no other options. For example, a person cannot be subjectively dead. That's pure objective. A person might look near dead, but it's a matter of opinion on how dead they seem. That's just one example anyway.

Subjective is how a person thinks and their opinion on an item. Objectivity is a FACT. MK is banned in Unity Tournaments. That's an actual fact. The rule itself is subjective, however. Not everybody agrees with the rule or why it's there in the first place.

Let me be more clear; A rule is indeed a fact(Objective). How we go about making that rule OR why it exists is completely Subjective.

Being an average doesn't make it factual at all. That's just the favored opinion. Please understand how this works before you speak further of it.

 

[Arcansi]

And? What is your point here?

Point is that it's just asking for more expansion on the argument, not asking for unproven opinions incapable of argument.

All parts should be considered. To say one should be outright ignored is silly.

What I'm saying here is that small differences should never take priority. Because they shouldn't.

Horrible idea. If the point is to cater to the players, nothing should be ignored. The most voted one is simply a general consensus, thus, the majority's opinion. Nothing is ignored by doing that.

If your going for a mix of competitiveness/popularity, acquired tastes should usually be ignored.

If your going straight popularity (Because everyone loves the URC) then you usually ignore them unless it's an extremely large majority, because catering to them essentially forces everyone else to get them too, and they tend to be extreme. There are exceptions.

It's a majority opinion. Still overall subjective, just closer to objectivity. Opinions can't be objective no matter what.

Isn't it simply objectively the best mix of popularity and competition? As in, there are no other possibilities for it given you did research correctly, and it is a fact? I don't understand what's subjective there.

Every rule is the opinion of someone. That's kind of how they, you know, work. You make a rule because of your opinion on a matter. Whether you make it for your own board/chat, or just design the rules of a game. It's possible that a rule has no votes on it, but it's still the rule-maker's opinion on how the game should be played.

So yeah, is not always voted opinions. We agree on this.

All of those are opinions, Arcansi. It's a person's opinion on what is the most competitive.

How can you find an objective answer in a sea of subjectivity? You can't. It's a favored subjective opinion. That's really not how objectivity works at all. Objectivity is one clear possible item that has no other options. For example, a person cannot be subjectively dead. That's pure objective. A person might look near dead, but it's a matter of opinion on how dead they seem. That's just one example anyway.

Subjective is how a person thinks and their opinion on an item. Objectivity is a FACT. MK is banned in Unity Tournaments. That's an actual fact. The rule itself is subjective, however. Not everybody agrees with the rule or why it's there in the first place.

Let me be more clear; A rule is indeed a fact(Objective). How we go about making that rule OR why it exists is completely Subjective.

Except, most competitive is objective. It's what tests skill the most efficiently. I don't know 100% how to perfectly describe this off the top of my head, but it is objective. For instance, more influential choices = more competitiveness. There is no opinion on that, and if your choosing between two rules, 3 stock Bo3 or 5 stock Bo3 based on what is most competitive, 5 stock Bo3 is, objectively, more competitive. There are simply more choices to be made. It's a LOT deeper then this, but I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

Being an average doesn't make it factual at all. That's just the favored opinion. Please understand how this works before you speak further of it.

Can't being an average make it, factually, the average? X = X is objective, I'm pretty sure. And if you ask me, 'What is the average?' Objectively, your going to get an objective average, assuming I answer correctly and objectively.

You know how there are LOTS of tournaments, including majors, that don't use Unity?

I rest my case.

The Brawl community is quite possibly, objectively the community that acts the most like textbook scrubs. They also don't tend to like competition, they just like what they like because they like it.

As long as this is acceptable, that will happen. It doesn't show anything, really. Except maybe that they don't all like the same thing.

Amount of times played is irrelevant, thats not what I'm talking about when I mean popularity. I'm saying that if having a theoretically legitimate stage legal in your tournament causes a lot of people to not show up, then that should factor into your decision on whether to keep the stage legal or not.

This makes sense. Unfortunately, this is the only part that makes sense.

What has more competitive depth? Final Destination that 50 people are willing to play on, or PS2 that 10 people are willing to play on?

Amount of times played is irrelevant

More players = more difficult = higher skill ceiling = higher competitive depth

Your going to need to explain how all of that works. Because....

More players = more difficult what? More difficult wins? Maybe. More difficult to do perfect on the stage? Sure.

more difficult = higher skill ceiling is just wrong. Skill ceiling stays the same because at the skill ceiling you practice against a computer that has 1 frame reaction time, and always punishes perfectly, and win.

And you only win because your pit and the computer has to approach or get arrow rained on by Y arrows (however many the max is), so that it will get grabbed out of shieldstun or take the arrow shot.

Since when has "having a good time" ever been relevent to tournament viability?

Unfortunately, if noone comes the tournament isn't successful.

I'm just imagining a rule like:

"Your opponent must have fun at all times or you will forfeit the current match in the set."

Seriously, this is supposed to be a sport, not happy fun time.

Ever heard of the LGL?

Or perhaps the ban on infinite dimensional cape? These are extensions of that rule you posted above.

 

[Jeffbelittle]

Holy ****ing ****.


Okay, I may be new to this particular forum, but I'm not new to video games. Nor debate.


On the subject of Maps containing hazards:


There are plenty of stipulations one can infer that tournaments give out to justify why one hazard is fine and another isn't. While these stipulations aren't in fact inclusive to all of the reasons, there comes a point where we can simply look at a map like human beings rather than rulebook nazis and ask "Should we play this map?"

Obviously RANDOM GAMEBREAKING events aren't a reflection of skill, which is what were suppose to exhibit in tournaments, and therefore are ousted. Whether this be a legendary pokemon randomly jumping into the middle of the map and slamming his **** all up inside you, or a platform just randomly appearing, saving your recovery,



As for the grey areas, such as interactive hazards. Say Green Hill: we need to look at the map and ask ourselves:

-Does the hazard cause a problem?

-If it doesn't: Do we still want to play it?


MetaKnight's home map is only worth saving because we find it's features worth having, it promotes fun games, and while there is a hazard we must avoid in PSvPS, it's actually a map pros WANT to play on. Obviously if it counter picks you you kinda grumble, but it's not the actual map that makes you cringe and moan.

Green Hill on the other hand is just an annoying map in general. Sure you could argue it's balanced, you could argue certain characters are balanced around map control, yadda yadda yadda, but at the end of the day: Not a lot of people want to watch or play on Green Hill. And as a tournament host: you should care about that.


Does it take Skill to control the elements of Green Hill? Yes. Are tactics used to both create and avoid the obstacle thee? Yes. But that doesn't mean we should just make it playable. We have a decent map pool. A good enough amount of veterans, I'd say the top 20 characters on the tier list, are all made playable and useful with picks and counter pick maps. And in a fighting game by nintendo, 20 balanced characters that fit into the metagame is really all you can ask for.

~Just a reasonable poster.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Point is that it's just asking for more expansion on the argument, not asking for unproven opinions incapable of argument.

Okay. Fine with asking for more data.

What I'm saying here is that small differences should never take priority. Because they shouldn't.

That's like saying the opinions of weaker tourney members should not have their opinion taken into account. They all matter.

If your going for a mix of competitiveness/popularity, acquired tastes should usually be ignored.

And also get less people. You want to cater to the players as well. It's important that the players enjoy the game. Just because a rule makes sense doesn't mean you'll get a lot of people for it. Competitiveness is really just a popularity contest of what things are used. There's rarely an exception to that rule.

If your going straight popularity (Because everyone loves the URC) then you usually ignore them unless it's an extremely large majority, because catering to them essentially forces everyone else to get them too, and they tend to be extreme. There are exceptions.

Taking pot shots at the URC is not helping your case. In fact, it's making me want to put you on ignore. This isn't about the URC at all. And you know that. It's about the most popular rule. And guess what? That's just opinions.

Isn't it simply objectively the best mix of popularity and competition? As in, there are no other possibilities for it given you did research correctly, and it is a fact? I don't understand what's subjective there.

That's not objective at all. That's just what LOOKS objective, nothing more. It's really just people thinking it's objective. Every current rule is literally objective since that's what it is. A rule is a current fact. How we get there is through subjectivity. That's what I'm saying.

So yeah, is not always voted opinions. We agree on this.

But the opinions still exist.

Except, most competitive is objective. It's what tests skill the most efficiently. I don't know 100% how to perfectly describe this off the top of my head, but it is objective. For instance, more influential choices = more competitiveness. There is no opinion on that, and if your choosing between two rules, 3 stock Bo3 or 5 stock Bo3 based on what is most competitive, 5 stock Bo3 is, objectively, more competitive. There are simply more choices to be made. It's a LOT deeper then this, but I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

You're talking about the gameplay itself. Not the subjectivity of rules themselves. You can't honestly vote on something without bias. The only way to be objective is to stay neutral. The most objective gameplay option is simply the general consensus. Thus, the combined and most known opinions of the players. Any rule that gets voted is because of their own subjective reasons. That in itself is true.

Can't being an average make it, factually, the average? X = X is objective, I'm pretty sure. And if you ask me, 'What is the average?' Objectively, your going to get an objective average, assuming I answer correctly and objectively.

An average of opinions(votes) is not a fact in itself. It's just the most opinionated data. What is a fact is how many wins one might get. That kind of data is factual. What is factual would be the exact number of votes, what isn't factual is why they voted that way. Since you'd have to ask every individual about their subjective opinions.

The Brawl community is quite possibly, objectively the community that acts the most like textbook scrubs. They also don't tend to like competition, they just like what they like because they like it.

Insulting the community is also worsening your case. Competitive players trying to play by the rules? Hmm? What's wrong with THAT? Maybe they like it because it benefits them? Or because they agree with the point of the rule? You're applying stuff that may only apply to some. Honestly, your generalization does not work here since it's not an actual fact.

As long as this is acceptable, that will happen. It doesn't show anything, really. Except maybe that they don't all like the same thing.

...So you just described what subjectivity is all about. Not liking the same thing as others. You know, like every person in the community as is? That's atleast a true generalization. Everybody has their own thoughts and opinions on things.

...Also, obviously, I replied to something that was to Grim, but eh.

 

[Mithost]

I give up on trying to watch this thread. tl;dr D:

 

[Arcansi]

That's like saying the opinions of weaker tourney members should not have their opinion taken into account. They all matter.

If the opinions of the weaker tournament members are being compared against gain in competitiveness, I would choose gain in competitiveness every time, and so should everyone. That's what I'm saying.

If it was the opinions of 6 of the top 9 + weaker tournament members vs gain in competition, it would be different.

In fact, we already do this.

And also get less people. You want to cater to the players as well. It's important that the players enjoy the game. Just because a rule makes sense doesn't mean you'll get a lot of people for it. Competitiveness is really just a popularity contest of what things are used. There's rarely an exception to that rule.

Competitiveness is not a popularity contest. What gets added into the URC and into our rulesets may be, but what is more or less competitive is fact, whether it gets added to a ruleset or not.

Taking pot shots at the URC is not helping your case. In fact, it's making me want to put you on ignore. This isn't about the URC at all. And you know that. It's about the most popular rule. And guess what? That's just opinions.

Using the URC as an example of how trying to make just the most popular ruleset can go, not just taking a potshot.

That's not objective at all. That's just what LOOKS objective, nothing more. It's really just people thinking it's objective. Every current rule is literally objective since that's what it is. A rule is a current fact. How we get there is through subjectivity. That's what I'm saying.

It should be noted that if a rule was a current fact, cheating wouldn't be physically possible to happen, so your statement is broken somewhere.

Now, I went and looked up objective because how your using it made no sense, and this is what I got.

[COLLAPSE="Definition - Objective"]adjective
4.
being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
8.
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. [/COLLAPSE]

Before we go on, because it's quite possible we're using different definitions of objective, which one are you using?

But the opinions still exist.

Yeah, they exist.

You're talking about the gameplay itself.[+paragraph].

See Above, will respond afterward

An average of opinions(votes) is not a fact in itself. It's just the most opinionated data. What is a fact is how many wins one might get. That kind of data is factual. What is factual would be the exact number of votes, what isn't factual is why they voted that way. Since you'd have to ask every individual about their subjective opinions.

An average is factually, the average. Y/N?

If you ask someone why they voted X way, and they answer truthfully, that is a fact, therefore factually correct. Y/N?

If you did ask everyone, it would be possible to see why the public voted any which way, although the representation would have to be in a pie chart or the like, as it would not be all one way. Y/N?

And then explain the no's.

Insulting the community is also worsening your case. Competitive players trying to play by the rules? Hmm? What's wrong with THAT? Maybe they like it because it benefits them? Or because they agree with the point of the rule? You're applying stuff that may only apply to some. Honestly, your generalization does not work here since it's not an actual fact.

Competitive players, when faced with changing the rules, refraining/wanting to change things based solely off of opinion and rarely off of facts or data or objectivity.

That was what I was saying, not whatever your saying. It's noted everywhere, from the MK ban poll comments to my infinites thread.

...So you just described what subjectivity is all about. Not liking the same thing as others. You know, like every person in the community as is? That's atleast a true generalization. Everybody has their own thoughts and opinions on things.

...Also, obviously, I replied to something that was to Grim, but eh.

I also said that as long as we stay subjective, we won't be together. Which is true.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

If the opinions of the weaker tournament members are being compared against gain in competitiveness, I would choose gain in competitiveness every time, and so should everyone. That's what I'm saying.

All the opinions are being considered. Which ones win in another kettle of fish. I'd choose the one that shows the most logic and is being presented with better facts and logic. Their status is unimportant to their point, anyway.

If it was the opinions of 6 of the top 9 + weaker tournament members vs gain in competition, it would be different.

Let me put it this way; Your status as a player has no bearing on your points. If your points are wrong, then they're wrong. And guess what? High-level players are wrong too. So your status is 100% irrelevant.

In fact, we already do this.

Which is in fact, terrible.

Competitiveness is not a popularity contest. What gets added into the URC and into our rulesets may be, but what is more or less competitive is fact, whether it gets added to a ruleset or not.

And what actually is competitive is an opinion of people. All courses, all items, all characters can be just as competitive. People just don't think it is due to their bias for more direct player VS player. Which there's nothing wrong with that bias whatsoever. Nobody said it was a bad thing. But to say that the way we play isn't based around bias is pure ignorance.

Using the URC as an example of how trying to make just the most popular ruleset can go, not just taking a potshot.

No, you directly made it sound like they shouldn't be popular. It's not them alone that's popular, it's their purpose, unity itself. It's popular because everybody is able to train under the same ruleset. It could be any name, any rules. It's just a unity that helps.

It should be noted that if a rule was a current fact, cheating wouldn't be physically possible to happen, so your statement is broken somewhere.

The current rule is the fact in itself. That's the facts of what you're allowed to do and not allowed to do. Why the rule is in place is another story. The concept is hard to explain, I admit. To put it simply; Flaming is a rule(you're not allowed to do this). It's in writing, and is a fact, because it's directly there. Why it's there is subjective regardless. Rules are made subjectively. Their existence is the current objective part of it all.

Now, I went and looked up objective because how your using it made no sense, and this is what I got.

[COLLAPSE="Definition - Objective"]adjective
4.
being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
8.
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. [/COLLAPSE]

Before we go on, because it's quite possible we're using different definitions of objective, which one are you using?

Or you're not reading what I'm saying. We subjectively make rules. That doesn't mean we aren't trying to make an objective rule itself, but we can't directly make a rule through objectivity, just the SPIRIT of objectivity.

Yeah, they exist.

Remember, all opinions are automatically subjective. Data, except for voting, is directly objective. Votes are done for subjective reasons, but the numbers themselves are indeed objective.

An average is factually, the average. Y/N?

That's the numbers, not the reasons.(reasons are subjective, numbers are objective) So that's both a Yes and a No.

If you ask someone why they voted X way, and they answer truthfully, that is a fact, therefore factually correct. Y/N?

Yes, but only to the particular voter. It's not objective.

If you did ask everyone, it would be possible to see why the public voted any which way, although the representation would have to be in a pie chart or the like, as it would not be all one way. Y/N?

The final data is just the objectivity part. I don't think you even get the point here. Of course it won't be one way.

Competitive players, when faced with changing the rules, refraining/wanting to change things based solely off of opinion and rarely off of facts or data or objectivity.

Which pretty much proves that rules are still made subjectively. Except that many people still do want changes. Just not enough to sway opinions.

That was what I was saying, not whatever your saying. It's noted everywhere, from the MK ban poll comments to my infinites thread.

That people make subjective reasons to find the most objective view? Because that's what I was saying.(and frankly, that's true)

I also said that as long as we stay subjective, we won't be together. Which is true.

Welcome to every community in existence. That's how it is. It's all subjective.

 

[Arcansi]

All the opinions are being considered. Which ones win in another kettle of fish. I'd choose the one that shows the most logic and is being presented with better facts and logic. Their status is unimportant to their point, anyway.



Let me put it this way; Your status as a player has no bearing on your points. If your points are wrong, then they're wrong. And guess what? High-level players are wrong too. So your status is 100% irrelevant.

OH, your thinking of opinions as 'It should be this way because of X'

I'm thinking of opinions like 'I want it this way because I value X more then Y'

What your saying is true, and I understand it. When it comes to values there's no current precedent for, however....

Which is in fact, terrible.

It's actually super nice. If we didn't, ICs would have no chaingrabs.

And what actually is competitive is an opinion of people. All courses, all items, all characters can be just as competitive. People just don't think it is due to their bias for more direct player VS player. Which there's nothing wrong with that bias whatsoever. Nobody said it was a bad thing. But to say that the way we play isn't based around bias is pure ignorance.

This is wrong because competitiveness is a defined quality, just as something being blue or green is.

Are you telling me blue/green is subjective too?

No, you directly made it sound like they shouldn't be popular. It's not them alone that's popular, it's their purpose, unity itself. It's popular because everybody is able to train under the same ruleset. It could be any name, any rules. It's just a unity that helps.

I was trying to emphasize the fact that almost everyone has a beef with the Unity ruleset, and a large amount of places don't use it. (something near 50% or something, DeLux would know.)

The current rule is the fact in itself. That's the facts of what you're allowed to do and not allowed to do. Why the rule is in place is another story. The concept is hard to explain, I admit. To put it simply; Flaming is a rule(you're not allowed to do this). It's in writing, and is a fact, because it's directly there. Why it's there is subjective regardless. Rules are made subjectively. Their existence is the current objective part of it all.

Yes, but they can be created to fit an objective criteria. And that criteria, being objective, is objective. (NOTE: See the below, I guess?)

Or you're not reading what I'm saying. We subjectively make rules. That doesn't mean we aren't trying to make an objective rule itself, but we can't directly make a rule through objectivity, just the SPIRIT of objectivity.

What is the difference there?

Remember, all opinions are automatically subjective. Data, except for voting, is directly objective. Votes are done for subjective reasons, but the numbers themselves are indeed objective.

I don't know what your trying to point out here. This is probably because I just kinda interjected into the conversation, though.

RThat's the numbers, not the reasons.(reasons are subjective, numbers are objective) So that's both a Yes and a No.

I was talking about the numbers. An average is a data point gathered from a set of numbers, not the reasons behind any of it.

RYes, but only to the particular voter. It's not objective.

And I'm back to wishing you would point out what definition of objective your using so I can qualify this statement against it.

The final data is just the objectivity part. I don't think you even get the point here. Of course it won't be one way.

That wasn't the main part of w hat I was asking. The main part was the data stuff.

Which pretty much proves that rules are still made subjectively. Except that many people still do want changes. Just not enough to sway opinions.

Is a rule based on a fact (an average, or majority) made subjectively or objectively. (Assuming we have a set of guidelines for making a rule, that outline every process and procedure.)

That people make subjective reasons to find the most objective view? Because that's what I was saying.(and frankly, that's true)

What do you mean by most objective? Can't a most objective view not exist, as many views can exist that are 100% factual?

Welcome to every community in existence. That's how it is. It's all subjective.

I guess. But it could strive to be better.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

OH, your thinking of opinions as 'It should be this way because of X'

I'm thinking of opinions like 'I want it this way because I value X more then Y'

That doesn't change my point. We figure out the rules through opinions. I never said or meant to say otherwise.

What your saying is true, and I understand it. When it comes to values there's no current precedent for, however....

There can be guidelines made, as they do help.

It's actually super nice. If we didn't, ICs would have no chaingrabs.

You're missing my point. Just because greater players find tactics, doesn't actually mean that we ignore lesser players in turn.

This is wrong because competitiveness is a defined quality, just as something being blue or green is.

Competitiveness is the act of finding something that the general consensus prefers to test via some kind of skill. Competition is being against someone in a set of rules.

Are you telling me blue/green is subjective too?

Colors can't be subjective. Or I don't get the analogy at all.

I was trying to emphasize the fact that almost everyone has a beef with the Unity ruleset, and a large amount of places don't use it. (something near 50% or something, DeLux would know.)

What relevancy does that have here? In fact, it's completely unrelated, since we're talking about how to make rules here in this situation. Albeit, this is partially off-topic in a way. But let's not get into that too.

Yes, but they can be created to fit an objective criteria. And that criteria, being objective, is objective. (NOTE: See the below, I guess?)

Start naming some objective criteria examples, then. Pleasing players is beyond subjective, since not everybody can be.

What is the difference there?

The spirit of something is the purpose, even if the way we do it isn't exactly how the purpose would work. Let's look at a law; How we define it has subjectivity. But the spirit of it is to protect a certain ideal. Also, here's a related example; Any word has multiple definitions. The one we choose is the objective one if possible.(key term being IF) However, if there's multiple definitions, then it's subjective which one a person chooses. Sometimes they won't even choose one that is related to the conversation at all. Thus, it has no objective meaning.

I don't know what your trying to point out here. This is probably because I just kinda interjected into the conversation, though.

It's exactly what I said. No matter what we vote, we do it subjectively. However, the data itself is just data, and that directly is objective. There is a note, though; People subjectively interpret the data how they wish. Which ruins some of the objectivity in the first place. Objectivity is extremely rare, to be honest.

I was talking about the numbers. An average is a data point gathered from a set of numbers, not the reasons behind any of it.

The numbers are objective, yes.

And I'm back to wishing you would point out what definition of objective your using so I can qualify this statement against it.

I'm using Objective as "What a fact is. Without reasoning."

That wasn't the main part of what I was asking. The main part was the data stuff.

Okay?

Is a rule based on a fact (an average, or majority) made subjectively or objectively. (Assuming we have a set of guidelines for making a rule, that outline every process and procedure.)

It's still made subjectively. Because a person needs to interpret the data and how to use it to make a rule. Also, how the rule is defined is indeed subjective.

What do you mean by most objective? Can't a most objective view not exist, as many views can exist that are 100% factual?

A "view" is not factual at all. That's just an opinion. You can't objectively view something in the way you're trying to do it. There's bias at all times. You view a rule as good or as bad. That's subjective. A rule exists. It's objective because it's THERE. Why it's there, how it got there, all subjective.

I guess. But it could strive to be better.

Physically impossible. Nobody will ever agree to one thing.

 

[Raziek]

I'm entirely aware of the irony of me saying this, given I used to do so for some time, but....

Don't you people have better things to do than butt heads over semantics and cover the same old crap over and over?

Go volunteer your ample time somewhere, or at least spend it making a hilarious YouTube video for me to laugh at.

 

[Timic83]

shadow moses should be legal

discus

 

[infiniteV115]

It's funny to think that theoretically, DDD would be very good here cause you know, cg + walls + walkoffs.
But against a mobile character like Pikachu/ZSS I could see him being circle camped XD

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I'm entirely aware of the irony of me saying this, given I used to do so for some time, but....

Don't you people have better things to do than butt heads over semantics and cover the same old crap over and over?

Go volunteer your ample time somewhere, or at least spend it making a hilarious YouTube video for me to laugh at.

Main reason I don't do it often anymore and just lurk to watch and see what people post.

I just go in circles with people.

 

[Omni]

I'm entirely aware of the irony of me saying this, given I used to do so for some time, but....

Don't you people have better things to do than butt heads over semantics and cover the same old crap over and over?

Go volunteer your ample time somewhere, or at least spend it making a hilarious YouTube video for me to laugh at.

Not sure why you would discourage this kind of discussion. It seems to be a very healthy back-and-forth. Much better than the common flame wars that naturally takes place all over the forum.

 

[Arcansi]

Not sure why you would discourage this kind of discussion. It seems to be a very healthy back-and-forth. Much better than the common flame wars that naturally takes place all over the forum.

The only reason I stopped was that I never followed along enough to know what I was arguing about, tbh. I felt I had moved the thread forward enough to leave without consequence.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

The only reason I stopped was that I never followed along enough to know what I was arguing about, tbh. I felt I had moved the thread forward enough to leave without consequence.

I know we were healthily discussing things. However, what I got was that a mod was saying to stop, so I did so as well.

But Raziek is right that it's pretty much off-topic anyway. Unless this became a topic on how we figure out the rules, then it would be on-topic.

 

[Raziek]

Not sure why you would discourage this kind of discussion. It seems to be a very healthy back-and-forth. Much better than the common flame wars that naturally takes place all over the forum.

Did you actually read the last few pages of this thread?

 

[Kink-Link5]

At least they stopped doing that sub-quote every line of the opponent and attack them individually thing.

****'s mad annoying to have to scroll over.

 

[Dexident]

Shadow moses should be legal, so should Jungle Japes, and temple.

 

[djdevil96]

Hyrule temple should be legalized

 

[T0MMY]

The only tactics that should be banned are ones that glitch the game to the point where it cannot be played.
Banning anything else is scrubbery. Being very blunt here.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

I'm entirely aware of the irony of me saying this, given I used to do so for some time, but....

Don't you people have better things to do than butt heads over semantics and cover the same old crap over and over?

Pretty much exactly this. If you're going to argue, at the very least, try to argue the actual points discussed and not the wording and please move onto different **** once and a while.

EDIT: I'd like to take this opportunity to bump a rational and well-presented argument that was overlooked in the great HyperFalcon vs. Arcansi semantics war.

Holy ****ing ****.


Okay, I may be new to this particular forum, but I'm not new to video games. Nor debate.


On the subject of Maps containing hazards:


There are plenty of stipulations one can infer that tournaments give out to justify why one hazard is fine and another isn't. While these stipulations aren't in fact inclusive to all of the reasons, there comes a point where we can simply look at a map like human beings rather than rulebook nazis and ask "Should we play this map?"

Obviously RANDOM GAMEBREAKING events aren't a reflection of skill, which is what were suppose to exhibit in tournaments, and therefore are ousted. Whether this be a legendary pokemon randomly jumping into the middle of the map and slamming his **** all up inside you, or a platform just randomly appearing, saving your recovery,



As for the grey areas, such as interactive hazards. Say Green Hill: we need to look at the map and ask ourselves:

-Does the hazard cause a problem?

-If it doesn't: Do we still want to play it?


MetaKnight's home map is only worth saving because we find it's features worth having, it promotes fun games, and while there is a hazard we must avoid in PSvPS, it's actually a map pros WANT to play on. Obviously if it counter picks you you kinda grumble, but it's not the actual map that makes you cringe and moan.

Green Hill on the other hand is just an annoying map in general. Sure you could argue it's balanced, you could argue certain characters are balanced around map control, yadda yadda yadda, but at the end of the day: Not a lot of people want to watch or play on Green Hill. And as a tournament host: you should care about that.


Does it take Skill to control the elements of Green Hill? Yes. Are tactics used to both create and avoid the obstacle thee? Yes. But that doesn't mean we should just make it playable. We have a decent map pool. A good enough amount of veterans, I'd say the top 20 characters on the tier list, are all made playable and useful with picks and counter pick maps. And in a fighting game by nintendo, 20 balanced characters that fit into the metagame is really all you can ask for.

~Just a reasonable poster.

I completely agree with all of this. I know my opinions in the past were extreme and totalitarian, but this is pretty much exactly how I feel now.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

At the moment I see two valid schools of thought:
1. Rulesets should be created under the assumption that the players know whats best for themselves, and that their majority opinion has the power of veto over other arguments.

2. Rulesets should be created following a competitive guideline to attempt to create the most competitive atmosphere possible (considering the competitive merit of decisions made based on how they affect competition both inside and outside of the game).

To dumb it down...
1. The majority of players using the ruleset get to decide what it is, either based on sound logic or what they had for breakfast.

2. Players agree to follow a ruleset that uses objective criteria for making decisions. Said criteria is based around maximizing competitiveness both in the game and outside (i.e. a stage might be competitive but become "uncompetitive" because no one will agree to the ruleset if it is legal).

Extreme conservative rulesets follow the first school of thought, unless they are trying to make the argument that less stages is more competitive.

Extreme liberal rulesets don't follow either school of thought because they are impractical.

Standard conservative/liberal rulesets can follow either.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

You mean second, right?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

No... I mean first.

Extreme conservative can't really have any logical backing because it bans heaps of stages for no competitive reason.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

So you're saying that most people want a 3 stage list? I'm having a hard time believing that. Also, only playing on the best stages is arguably more competitive.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

So you're saying that most people want a 3 stage list? I'm having a hard time believing that.

Rulesets don't have to be worldwide. The Japanese have, what, 5 stages? I'd consider that "extreme conservative" and because they are (presumably) using that stage list because thats what the players want, it goes under category 1.

Also, only playing on the best stages is arguably more competitive.

I didn't say it wasn't. People read into my posts too much.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Then what were you saying?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Exactly what I did say

Extreme conservative rulesets follow the first school of thought, unless they are trying to make the argument that less stages is more competitive.

It fits into the first category unless they think (and can prove) that they are making a logically sound decision. I didn't even mention whether it was a good idea or a bad idea in my opinion, so I don't know where you got that idea from.