Character skill vs Player Skill: A Graphical Relationship

[Sky`]

What he's saying may be right, but he drives the majority of his arguments by "Your reasoning is flawed" without properly taking apart their point, and lacking evidence that can be quoted in support of his own.

Find where Yuna outlines anything explaining succinctly that an only-Peach can't realistically be expected to win tournaments because at the top level of play she'll be counterpicked too hard by people who have multiple characters they can play. In fact, I just went to look at his first post to see (Since an excellent place for a great debater to crush the opposing argument is going to be the opening statement) and all he says is "Peach can't beat Snake." He doesn't mention how Peach fares on the first round (Whether she can get that critical first win or not), whether she can get CP'ed on stages (Like you did), whether she can CP anyone else to other stages (Like you clarified). He just says "Snake beats Peach." How is this suddenly a well defended point that proves Peach can't win tournaments?

Basically, he only gives his argument one fact at a time, and then backing up each fact are almost always veiled insults or pats on his back about how smart he is. And the facts actually don't stand up by themselves, many of them can be taken apart as Hive did.

I've come to realize, that Yuna's style of debate is more or less, a manipulative style, like a Bait and Switch kind of thing. Yuna knows everything that I spewed out, but in order to have a better chance in succeding to prove a point, he taunts and teases with these traps in his statements to provoke you to ask more questions, or contradict him. At that point, with malicious intent, he strikes you down effortlessly with facts and logic, contradictary to yours. His boasting of his intelligence actually just bleeds through the text. Sometimes, he does it on purpose, but the majority of the time it's done just in the choice of words he uses, and his style of rhetoric. This style isn't bad, it's actually quite clever, but I think that you should know what you're getting into when you choose to contradict Yuna. He's a tough cookie to beat, but if you can see through the traps, and you just watch the validity of your statements... It can happen.

The only thing that I provided, was just an example to further stimulate the fact, and to help get the audience to understand the fact better.


And Hey Yuna. Do you know how many thousands of dollars I'm going to get in like a year?
I did the same bet with people, that peach will never make 1st in a regional, 500 bucks. Let me get in on that bet!

 

[Sky`]

Oh, and this just in, and if anybody finds this contradictory, please debate it.

Just because one person places with one character, does not mean that character is a viable character for tournament. It just means that the player is a viable tournament player.

 

[Hive]

lol sky i doubt it. especially when he never actually gets around to showing any conclusive evidence besides the first statement he says. and i thought your opinion on peach was good bc you actually showed insights into her matchups, and strengths, cps, and why she actually doesn't win in tournies in a way that wasn't berating anyone and that would progress discussion on the subject. no offense but yuna didn't have that at all. i trust your insights but what you said about yuna having the same arguments as you is just wrong.
do we really need to keep bringing it up?

 

[BentoBox]

If this was sarcasm, then you need to show it better.

Clearly if other characters do win often enough (which is merely relatively "rare" but not something completely uncommon in itself), those results will be used as evidence that they are viable. More than one Wario wins tournaments (though I have not researched the top tournaments around since I simply do not care), so that's evidence enough that Wario is viable.

The best player using Peach and winning shows that Peach can win when used by a player of significantly higher skill than his opponent. A good selection of Peach players placing well would show that Peach is viable. M2K winning with Peach wouldn't show much.

That was a precis of all that Yuna had said in this thread so far. Take it up with him.

 

[salaboB]

"She has multiple problematic match-ups?" (paraphrase)

Lack of specifics, entire lack of mentioning the importance of the stage counterpick, it truthfully sounds like you're stating opinion not fact. If you want to prove someone wrong, specifics are required. Without anything that can be verified you've just got unsupported opinion.

Don't lie. "Almost always" my tuchas. I rarely ever address my own "greatness". It is almost always someone claiming my ego is huge and me countering with how I can afford it. In other words, they brought it up. I usually don't.

Implying that I'm lying is implying I'm a liar. Telling me to not lie (Especially repeatedly, so it becomes obvious you're not just joking) is effectively stating I have told a lie. Calling me a liar is in fact ad hominem. This goes contrary to your repeated claims that you only pick apart people's arguments.

Hive didn't take apart a single one of my facts. Stop lying.

Don't support your arguments with ad hominem. That being said:

and there is a limit to how much conjecturing about about limited tourney results leads to substantial claims.

No there isn't. Not in this case when the tournament results clearly went against you.

Hive gave you this in answer:

the tournamnet data didn't go against what i was saying. i said peach had the capacity to win a large scale tournament though it was improbable. there were two big tourneys in the tourney data, that's hardly "proof" that she won't ever win a major tourney.

and you let it stand. I believe he's right: If all you have to base your analysis on is two major tournaments, that's not enough to conclusively state Peach can't win one. That doesn't mean Hive was correct in saying she could, but it means your point was not strong enough and you failed to support it.

Also...

At least my reasoning and my arguments were flimsy, according to you. You yourself claimed that my case was shoddily built.

See, this is where you and I differ. You called my arguments stupid. I merely called yours flawed.

From the same post, replying to the same person. Do you honestly not know whether he called your arguments stupid or merely flimsy before you start responding? This is not a credible way to debate, but is an example of your constantly shifting statements that makes it so impossible to have a good discussion with you.

And finally...

But you refuse to admit that I have a very keen understanding on Peach's viability. In the same breath as you admitted defeat, you claimed you saw yourself perfectly justified in opposing me in this debate because, apparently, I was arguing my case badly.

Which against goes to show how all you needed from this debate was a notable Peach telling you you were wrong. That's not debating, that's just waiting for an authority figure to dictate your views and opinions for you.

Logical fallacy. You don't get to state what he's done and interpret it however you want. He may very well have simply been able to accept what Sky said because Sky supported it with more details than you -- I already addressed how your statements were often vague and lacking supported details. This is a very reasonable way to interpret it, yet you twist it into the implied-insult of "waiting for an authority figure to dictate his views." Which by the way, I believe crosses firmly over the line of implied insult (Which it certainly is) into outright attack (Because you said he had in fact taken that action, you did not say his argument was simply that.)

 

[Sky`]

lol sky i doubt it. especially when he never actually gets around to showing any conclusive evidence besides the first statement he says. and i thought your opinion on peach was good bc you actually showed insights into her matchups, and strengths, cps, and why she actually doesn't win in tournies in a way that wasn't berating anyone and that would progress discussion on the subject. no offense but yuna didn't have that at all. i trust your insights but what you said about yuna having the same arguments as you is just wrong.
do we really need to keep bringing it up?

Welll Hivy, we do have the same argument.

We don't have the same proof, however.

We both argue and state that Peach isn't viable to win a regional tournament.
Where we differ? We proved it in two different ways.

Thaaaats all.=D

 

[Flayl]

Really? Not even a regional?

 

[Hive]

Welll Hivy, we do have the same argument.

We don't have the same proof, however.

We both argue and state that Peach isn't viable to win a regional tournament.
Where we differ? We proved it in two different ways.

Thaaaats all.=D

i've already said that i thought she wasn't viable to win a regional tourney. @.@ i'm not sure what you are arguing? yuna wasn't nearly conclusive though, simply bc the data he presented had significant legitimate counter-arguments/holes that still existed to his arguments and there were many other "arguments" of his that were just sheer opinion. that's what i've been saying the whole time... this wouldn't even be a problem either cept that he's decided to claim that his original opinions are pure fact, and talk ****.
your opinion isn't definitely factual either, its just that your insights on peach have more experience/evidence than my own thoughts, and so i admit/trust that over my original thoughts.

edit: really, i'm not going to talk about this anymore. :/

 

[Browny]

Lucario. So yes, Lucarios high placings are trends based on two very dominant players (Lee Martin wins basically every tournament he goes to in the south and Azen is MD/VAs best player), unless you can show me results of other players.

We'll Ive gotten 5 tournament wins using Lucario... but apparently Australian tournaments are scrubtastic and arent worth anything lol

 

[Brinzy]

Oh, and this just in, and if anybody finds this contradictory, please debate it.

Just because one person places with one character, does not mean that character is a viable character for tournament. It just means that the player is a viable tournament player.

I agree with this, and I argue this.

 

[Eddie G]

Are some of you still squabbling?

logic, facts, examples, you name it. They're all flawed. I'll being up the question that I asked before, "isn't uncertainty the only certainty?"

I <3 you all though.

 

[thesage]

Are Peach players on permanent pms or something lol. Everything about her starts drama. She's not a d tier character lol. While I agree with a lot of what this thread has to say, I don't think Peach is as bad as some of you are portraying her as.

 

[~Peachy~]

Are Peach players on permanent pms or something lol. Everything about her starts drama. She's not a d tier character lol. While I agree with a lot of what this thread has to say, I don't think Peach is as bad as some of you are portraying her as.

The Peach Boards can be seen as a Soap Opera. It gets really entertaining for first time visitors.

As for this particular thread, it seems things may get out of hand. ^__^;

 

[RPK]

Are Peach players on permanent pms or something lol. Everything about her starts drama. She's not a d tier character lol. While I agree with a lot of what this thread has to say, I don't think Peach is as bad as some of you are portraying her as.

It's just kids like you, that don't even main her, trying to contradict the experience of Sky with simple theory, that creates drama.

 

[BentoBox]

Everybody's experience differs. People need to stop being such tools.

 

[Sky`]

Everybody's experience differs. People need to stop being such tools.

kan i b ur tool bby?

 

[CRASHiC]

The Peach Boards can be seen as a Soap Opera. It gets really entertaining for first time visitors.

As for this particular thread, it seems things may get out of hand. ^__^;

pfff women

 

[~Peachy~]

pfff women

pfffffff.....CRASHIC

 

[Kitamerby]

Diddy's more viable than Lucario.

Discussion over.

 

[BentoBox]

Insightful.

 

[Yuna]

I've come to realize, that Yuna's style of debate is more or less, a manipulative style, like a Bait and Switch kind of thing. Yuna knows everything that I spewed out, but in order to have a better chance in succeding to prove a point, he taunts and teases with these traps in his statements to provoke you to ask more questions, or contradict him. At that point, with malicious intent, he strikes you down effortlessly with facts and logic, contradictary to yours. His boasting of his intelligence actually just bleeds through the text. Sometimes, he does it on purpose, but the majority of the time it's done just in the choice of words he uses, and his style of rhetoric. This style isn't bad, it's actually quite clever, but I think that you should know what you're getting into when you choose to contradict Yuna. He's a tough cookie to beat, but if you can see through the traps, and you just watch the validity of your statements... It can happen.

How dare you... correctly analyze my style of debating?

I am a lazy man. Therefore, I will not go out and dig up tournament results or do anything that requires me to spend more than 5 minutes of work in order to prove my points unless absolutely necessary, which is why I do not present my post important facts, tournament results, unless it is absolutely necessary.

I also "set up traps". I present valid arguments, analysis, etc. in a minimalistic and simplistic matter, often not delving too deeply into the metagame if I have to for two reasons:
1) I'm lazy.
2) The people on Smashboards often have only a superficial grasp of the facts, thus, delving deeper would be meaningless
3) Trapping

Oftentimes, it's an amalgamation of all three. That do I mean by trapping? I set up arguments which will prompt responses that will end up showing 1 of 2 things:
1) The opposition knows what it is talking about and we will go on to have a deep debate which delves deeply into the metagame.
2) The opposition will show that it knows very little by utilizing flawed facts, reasoning, arguments, etc., at which point it will become exceedingly clear that they "are not qualified" to debate the matter. They will most often present extremely flawed arguments, logic, etc., things for me to shred.

So the lesson to learn here is:
Debate better.

And Hey Yuna. Do you know how many thousands of dollars I'm going to get in like a year?
I did the same bet with people, that peach will never make 1st in a regional, 500 bucks. Let me get in on that bet!

Peach and Peach alone will never get first in a regional with a high concentration of skill.

So you claim you actually know this Yuna?

Then why on earth didn't you just say so? I always assumed that you never answer my questions because you don't actually know the answer. After all, there is no reason an intelligent debater would try to avoid facts that prove his opposition wrong. Unless, of course, he has no idea what he was talking about.

I did not know the specifics but I kinew that Diddy Kong had several Diddies in several regions doing quite well for themselves. Obviously I did not have all of the results in my head.

I was just waiting for you to actually fess up to your arguments being invalid or provide better arguments before spending time digging up tournament results. After all, you had yet to provide any tournament results yourself.

Just because one person places with one character, does not mean that character is a viable character for tournament. It just means that the player is a viable tournament player.

Did you not see the past 20 pages? Hive, the Halloween Captain and possibly BentoBox and/or saladB and others have argued the very opposite.

lol sky i doubt it. especially when he never actually gets around to showing any conclusive evidence besides the first statement he says.

Why should I when the opposition (say, you) provides me with ample ammunition through their posts alone? If the opposition responds to my post with entirely invalid arguments, facts, logic, etc., all I have to do to win the debate or at least stay ahead in the battle is to destroy said invalid/flawed BS.

I only show my hand when I have to. I'm lazy like that.

Lack of specifics, entire lack of mentioning the importance of the stage counterpick, it truthfully sounds like you're stating opinion not fact. If you want to prove someone wrong, specifics are required. Without anything that can be verified you've just got unsupported opinion.

Fine, I never went into specifics here. You've got me there.

Implying that I'm lying is implying I'm a liar. Telling me to not lie (Especially repeatedly, so it becomes obvious you're not just joking) is effectively stating I have told a lie. Calling me a liar is in fact ad hominem. This goes contrary to your repeated claims that you only pick apart people's arguments.

You are, in facy, lying. Or at least stating things that are wholly untrue as if they are fact. And you never once apologize for it.

It's not an ad hominem if it's true or at least something I believe to be true. "Your argument is invalid" is not an ad hominem if it's true. Likewise, my telling you to stop lying (which is not saying you are chronic liar, only that you are, at the present moment, telling a lie) is not an ad hominem if you are, in fact, deliberately telling an untruth.

If you aren't doing it deliberately, just admit to have stated untruths and defend yourself with that it was done unwittingly.

Also, this is rich coming from you, Pot. The posts in whose responses I stated that you were lying were filled with ad hominems. And I never said I never ever used ad hominems or only ever pick apart people's arguments, that's another exaggeration/untruth from your mouth.

Don't support your arguments with ad hominem. That being said:

Pot, kettle.

Hive gave you this in answer:

and you let it stand. I believe he's right: If all you have to base your analysis on is two major tournaments, that's not enough to conclusively state Peach can't win one. That doesn't mean Hive was correct in saying she could, but it means your point was not strong enough and you failed to support it.

How the hell does that data contradict my claim that Peach cannot win a major tournament on her own? Two tournaments where some of the world's best Peach players managed top make it reasonable high? Heaven forbid! Meanwhile, let's take a look at the many tournaments where those same players didn't manage to get as high even against people of lesser skill!

From the same post, replying to the same person. Do you honestly not know whether he called your arguments stupid or merely flimsy before you start responding? This is not a credible way to debate, but is an example of your constantly shifting statements that makes it so impossible to have a good discussion with you.

What in the world are you talking about? Hive herself said that she called my arguments stupid. You do not even bother to check the posts I'm quoting before replying to me, I see.

Logical fallacy. You don't get to state what he's done and interpret it however you want. He may very well have simply been able to accept what Sky said because Sky supported it with more details than you -- I already addressed how your statements were often vague and lacking supported details.

1) She.
2) Don't enter in the middle of a debate and assume you have all of the information without ever bothering to read up on it. Hive herself admitted to all of this.

It's not a logical fallacy, it's you assuming you know everything about everything despite not bothering to spend even 5 minutes reading back and then making up a lot of stuff in an attempt to win over me in a debate!

This is a very reasonable way to interpret it, yet you twist it into the implied-insult of "waiting for an authority figure to dictate his views.".

Sky himself admits that he didn't really provide much more details than I did. Also, you obviously have not read all of my posts in this thread. I've provided every single detail Sky provided except the specific stage-counterpick scenario. That was hardly enough to turn Hive from a hardcore believer to a non-believer.

Which by the way, I believe crosses firmly over the line of implied insult (Which it certainly is) into outright attack (Because you said he had in fact taken that action, you did not say his argument was simply that.)

She admitted to it herself. She stated, several times, that the fact that Sky` plays Peach played a huge part in her "conversion", that since Sky` has so much experience with Peach, she just threw all of her arguments and personal experience, views and opinions out the window when Sky` stated that Peach is not viable. She stated that my arguments, logic and facts were so flawed that she felt perfectly justified in debating me and that she felt her arguments trumped mine, but when Sky` entered the ring armed with nothing more than the very same things I'd already thrown into the mix + a specific example of stage counterpicks (which is not enough to refute Hive's supposedly valid tournament results), Hive immediately converted because she trusted in Sky`'s experience.

You didn't even bother to read Hive's posts. You just read mine and tried to refute what I said... in reply to Hive's posts... without ever reading Hive's post...

You just assumed I was wrong. Too bad I have facts (Hive's own words) on my side.

 

[OlimarFan]

Peace be with us all. Why don't we all be friends?

 

[Frown]

That's heavy, Yuna.

 

[Eddie G]

And this is what I mean. Logic translates into nothing more than a tool in a giant game of one-upping each other. These "arguments" are squabbles nonetheless.

 

[Hive]

Yuna, even though i responded to this and had objections realize this is not an attack on you at all . i honestly don't care when we disagree. however, when ad hominem attacks occur and there are insults i get hurt simply because they are irrelevant and have no place in a reasonable debate.... having said that this post didn't really have as much which was kwl though you still said a few things that were pretty disrespectful imo :/. i'm actually pretty calm now ^^ and i don't intend this as anything other than a reasonable objection to ponts made in your post->no insults, and i will try to show my points as calmly and as nicely as possible, i hope you will grant me the same courtesy.
there are a few things i disagree with though when you were talking about me, please hear me out. :]

Did you not see the past 20 pages? Hive, the Halloween Captain and possibly BentoBox and/or saladB and others have argued the very opposite.

my arguments were based around whether peach could win a major tourney even if it was a fairly isolated incidence, but i was only doing so because of how you defined "viability" beforehand- that being the capacity to win a large tourney. this isn't what my own idea of viability is actually, but i was accepting your definition of it for the sake of discussion.

personally i think the viability of a character is if they can provide a reasonable impact in a tourney and is more off of player skill than character skill honestly. Despite whether they place, since really the money isn't as important to me as having fun playing competitively. (plus i'll never see tourney money ever lol) Before you debate this idea, i fully realize no one else in swf agrees with this lol, and i also have no intention of debating it ^^its just a personal definition for myself and not meant to be as taken anything more.

Why should I when the opposition (say, you) provides me with ample ammunition through their posts alone? If the opposition responds to my post with entirely invalid arguments, facts, logic, etc., all I have to do to win the debate or at least stay ahead in the battle is to destroy said invalid/flawed BS.

my posts aren't entirely shortsighted yuna, you must realize that. with the tourney data available (two major tournaments to look at, good tourneys, but still) it was hardly enough to draw a definite conclusion. when this is true, then there are valid arguments and valid counterarguments, despite there only being one conclusion if we had all the info.

It's not an ad hominem if it's true or at least something I believe to be true. "Your argument is invalid" is not an ad hominem if it's true. Likewise, my telling you to stop lying (which is not saying you are chronic liar, only that you are, at the present moment, telling a lie) is not an ad hominem if you are, in fact, deliberately telling an untruth.

it is still ad hominem even if you think it is true though. ad hominem means that you are directing insights at the person instead of his argument
ad hominem
1. A fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim; an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself.
2. A personal attack.

whether or not you think the attack is "true" or not you are directing your objections to the nature of the person instead of addressing the substance of the argument. calling him a chronic liar is ad hominem for example ... you may disagree with him but its still unproductive to the goals of the debate...
and realistically doing such will almost never produce a positive outcome.

obviously these shouldn't have any place in a debate setting, however since its the internet, and being loud and immature pays off many people still do it.

I've provided every single detail Sky provided except the specific stage-counterpick scenario. That was hardly enough to turn Hive from a hardcore believer to a non-believer.

actually a lot of it is that he provided counter pick info on characters and talked about her strengths and weaknesses, there were quite a few differences i thought. a lot of it was based on him having more experience though, i admit that. why does experience matter? because it makes his viewpoints have more foundations. if you went into an infinite debate thread and there were two people 1. a noob who made a single post in the thread saying "chaingrabs shouldn't be banned, because they aren't cheepz imo :V" and someone who has actually studied the frame data and who actively mains, say, ddd in the competitive scene, and he posts against the ban. EVEN if their arguments are essentially the same at heart (ddd's icg shouldn't be banned) the experienced person's insight is a lot more credible/thought provoking.
i'm not saying you are a noob by any means yuna, so don't take it that way. i'm just saying that sky has a stronger foundation for his arguments even though the heart of the argument sounds the same. i'm not like a fangirl or anything either ^^ i just think that, when talking about peach, a competitive peach main has more insight. if dark peach came in here and argued against sky his opinion in my eyes would be equally based off of experience, and i would decide between their arguments. however as a samus main i can't say that my opinions are more justified than either, so either way i'm stepping back.

Too bad I have facts (Hive's own words) on my side.

i'm not sure where you got this off of though??? i've never said that. i said that even though your opinions were based on facts that they were still opinions. which they are.

edit: <yawn> so tired!

 

[shlike]

great post!

Peach is overestimated as a character, but underestimated as a jelly.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

We'll Ive gotten 5 tournament wins using Lucario... but apparently Australian tournaments are scrubtastic and arent worth anything lol

I'm saddened by this.

What makes people hate Australia?

and I'll post responses later.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Ah Yuna, you and I have a much different idea of what it means to set a trap. I set the type of trap where I ask you quite directly to support your assertions, and attempt to use your refusal to do so as an admission of your own ignorance. I KNOW you will never answer even the simplest of my questions, always excusing yourself from the need to do so by questioning it's relevence or my evidence without having any of your own. Thus, since I was never able to get you to answer even the simplest of questions, even when the answer is in your favor, I started attempting to use this to display your complete ignorance in the topic at hand.

 

[Brinzy]

And this is what I mean. Logic translates into nothing more than a tool in a giant game of one-upping each other. These "arguments" are squabbles nonetheless.

You're trying to sound like you've got the world figured out in a few sentences when, in reality, you sound like some nobody-writer living in Montana trying to make a living by selling cheap phrases that you got from fortune cookies.

I set the type of trap where I ask you quite directly to support your assertions, and attempt to use your refusal to do so as an admission of your own ignorance. I KNOW you will never answer even the simplest of my questions, always excusing yourself from the need to do so by questioning it's relevence or my evidence without having any of your own. Thus, since I was never able to get you to answer even the simplest of questions, even when the answer is in your favor, I started attempting to use this to display your complete ignorance in the topic at hand.

You couldn't trap a caged hamster.

 

[Yuna]

i'm not sure where you got this off of though??? i've never said that. i said that even though your opinions were based on facts that they were still opinions. which they are.

edit: <yawn> so tired!

This is the only part of your post I will respond to.

Read my post again. Even though there's a "the" missing, you should be able to decipher the meaning of what I wrote ("Too bad I have the facts (Hive's own words) on my side". That is, your own words are the facts themselves.

You yourself stated that when Sky` entered the debate, you took his word for it in large part because of he's an authority on Peach. Those are the facts.

Ah Yuna, you and I have a much different idea of what it means to set a trap. I set the type of trap where I ask you quite directly to support your assertions, and attempt to use your refusal to do so as an admission of your own ignorance.

That's not a trap. That's a challenge. Traps are hidden, deceitful, clever.

I KNOW you will never answer even the simplest of my questions, always excusing yourself from the need to do so by questioning it's relevence or my evidence without having any of your own. Thus, since I was never able to get you to answer even the simplest of questions, even when the answer is in your favor, I started attempting to use this to display your complete ignorance in the topic at hand.

You refuse to reply to my posts and my demands of proof, why should I reply to yours?

I asked you for proof of Lucario's prowess. You named Lee. And that was it. No tournament results. In return, you demanded I provided tournament results.

I asked you, quite nicely, to please provide me with tournaments results first, at which point I would provide you with the tournament results you so coveted... I did this several times. You refused both (all three? I can't remember, was it twice or thrice?) times!

I didn't fall into your trap or whatever. I refused to acquiesce to your ludicrous demands when you couldn't provide me with valid proof. All you did was give me a name. Sorry, it does not work like that. It's not my job to verify your claim by looking at Lee's tournament results. It's your job to provide me with those results.

The one who fell into the trap here is you, failing yet again to provide simple proof when asked to (multiple times).

 

[PK-ow!]

No, the thread is really arguing that depending on the skill level, low tiers perform differently, implying that the higher up you go, the better Low Tiers will perform (which is preposterous).

Oh.

Well that is preposterous.

The only thing the thread has going for it is using that fact - of different performance at skill level - for saying that tier lists constructed 'empirically' are compatible with the case that the lower tiers are better than we think they are. That is, the empirical results aren't the end of it.
But duh, we already know that. Tier lists shift, metagame grows etc. etc.

Anyone making a stronger claim needs to remember that showing a *possibility* does absolutely nothing at all to give reason to believe in an *actuality*.

@Hive: An ad hominem is a kind of fallacy; but a fallacy only occurs if it is an argument.
If Yuna simply asserts someone is lying, then that is his claim. It doesn't feature in an argument, it is likely the conclusion of some (brief) one (e.g., "You said X" "Not X" "You know that not X" "therefore...").

Not only that, but asserting someone is lying is not an attack. Laws of the land aside, saying you are lying amounts to saying you spoke falsely. It's very much bound up in being an attack on character (it's hard not to come to believe someone who lied is a liar), but the fact of the matter consists only in what someone said, and what he believed when he said it.

Pointing out liars is involved in intellectual exchange, so long as liars are. I mean, what would you have the honest ones do? Not point out the liars?

 

[Yuna]

@Hive: An ad hominem is a kind of fallacy; but a fallacy only occurs if it is an argument.
If Yuna simply asserts someone is lying, then that is his claim. It doesn't feature in an argument, it is likely the conclusion of some (brief) one (e.g., "You said X" "Not X" "You know that not X" "therefore...").

Not only that, but asserting someone is lying is not an attack. Laws of the land aside, saying you are lying amounts to saying you spoke falsely. It's very much bound up in being an attack on character (it's hard not to come to believe someone who lied is a liar), but the fact of the matter consists only in what someone said, and what he believed when he said it.

Pointing out liars is involved in intellectual exchange, so long as liars are. I mean, what would you have the honest ones do? Not point out the liars?

What he said.

 

[Deleted member]

I was discussing a concept similar to this with Le Thien at cot4 on friday, but it was more like a player is a % of skill and a % of character. Where like xzax would be 10% player 90% MK, whereas Mew2King would be 70% player 30% MK as an example.

I also disagree with your assessment of Peach in that I think she is one of the most reliably good characters regardless of player consistency. I mean, unless you can have a bad day somehow of spamming spaced float dairs/fairs.

 

[BentoBox]

Did you not see the past 20 pages? Hive, the Halloween Captain and possibly BentoBox and/or saladB and others have argued the very opposite.

No. You don't get it.

You claim that Peach will never win a regional based on the current metagame and the current trends, which then led you to label her as an unviable character. You then asserted that some characters like Diddy Kong did display such trends and that he could win. I hence asked you to show me those trends you were refering to repetitively, as my own research only led me to find results from various low-scale tournaments, where Diddy did indeed place well, such results being emulated by quite a few other D+ chars. You have yet to give me anything of the sort. You refute arguments on principles you cannot even present/defend yourself. I have yet to see a big regional being won by anything other than M2K, consistently. Fact of the matter being that there are no trends indicating that any other character (snake perhaps?) could win such large scale events. So your rambling is pointless, unless that was your point all along.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

You couldn't trap a caged hamster.

Agreed

This is the only part of your post I will respond to.

Read my post again. Even though there's a "the" missing, you should be able to decipher the meaning of what I wrote ("Too bad I have the facts (Hive's own words) on my side". That is, your own words are the facts themselves.

You yourself stated that when Sky` entered the debate, you took his word for it in large part because of he's an authority on Peach. Those are the facts.


That's not a trap. That's a challenge. Traps are hidden, deceitful, clever.


You refuse to reply to my posts and my demands of proof, why should I reply to yours?

I asked you for proof of Lucario's prowess. You named Lee. And that was it. No tournament results. In return, you demanded I provided tournament results.

I asked you, quite nicely, to please provide me with tournaments results first, at which point I would provide you with the tournament results you so coveted... I did this several times. You refused both (all three? I can't remember, was it twice or thrice?) times!

I didn't fall into your trap or whatever. I refused to acquiesce to your ludicrous demands when you couldn't provide me with valid proof. All you did was give me a name. Sorry, it does not work like that. It's not my job to verify your claim by looking at Lee's tournament results. It's your job to provide me with those results.

The one who fell into the trap here is you, failing yet again to provide simple proof when asked to (multiple times).

I didn't provide proof because I already knew the answer. I knew you were right. I also knew that you didn't know you were right. The trap/challenge isn't for the sake of winning a debate.

Of all the posters on smashboards, you damage discussion more than even the worst infractors, often with strawmanning, refusing to support your opinions with even a few recognizable names (note: I NEVER asked for tourney results, just a few names), and belittling everyone around you. The worst of it is that after a deep amount of thought, it does not seem like you have more than an extremely basic understanding of the game. You have no place in a debate, and my goal is to demonstrate that so that discussions can actually be productive. In this debate alone you stopped all progress simply because the rough graph was inaccurate, stalling discussion because of small details for days. If it becomes apparent that you really don't have any idea what you are talking about and should simply be ignored, discussion can continue again.

 

[salaboB]

Throwing out the exact details of this graph (And attempting to haul the thread roughly back on topic. Hah, I crack myself up sometimes...) it seems like it could be realistic.

There may be some characters that perform at nearly a flat line level compared to others -- if you play a bad X, a bad Y will beat you. If you play a perfect X, a perfect Y will still beat you.

But what if the character has a number of odd techniques? Say, Yoshi. So they'll start off about even with the characters that don't have powerful kill moves (Face it, bad players do best with the characters that have one or two really obvious, usable power hits). But then middle skill he'll start to suffer, as people figure out the better characters. His line is likely to actually drop here (At least in relation to everyone else), because his weaknesses will start to be exposed and the players won't be good enough to handle them. Then you get to a good level, and start using pivot grabs, his pseudo wavedash, etc. and suddenly his line jumps up a ways as he can handle matchups that he couldn't when he just charged into things. But it ends there -- going to perfectly played doesn't really unlock more for him, so he'd stay about the same or drop a little as other characters gained the ability to work around his odd behaviors.

Why is this argument fixated so much on one example and/or saying it's not even realistic that a character's line can jump that way, instead of even looking at how it might work out? It seems like it would be an interesting thing to have if possible (Of course, it's not likely to be realistically possible -- we can barely agree on matchups, and this is even more complex)

 

[Eddie G]

You're trying to sound like you've got the world figured out in a few sentences when, in reality, you sound like some nobody-writer living in Montana trying to make a living by selling cheap phrases that you got from fortune cookies.



You couldn't trap a caged hamster.

No, you couldn't be more mistaken. Also, how is your silly little comparison between me and "some nobody-writer from Montana" even supposed to relate to what I'm trying to say? Or are you trying to be Yuna Jr. and reel me in with your "logical insight" and a topping of insult?

Are these oh-so-important SWF arguments about a video game not just mere squabbles or continuous instances of one person trying to one-up another? Am I wrong to view these as such? Please, elaborate on your point a little further for me, seeing as you were quick to jump the gun on this.

Throwing out the exact details of this graph (And attempting to haul the thread roughly back on topic. Hah, I crack myself up sometimes...) it seems like it could be realistic.

There may be some characters that perform at nearly a flat line level compared to others -- if you play a bad X, a bad Y will beat you. If you play a perfect X, a perfect Y will still beat you.

But what if the character has a number of odd techniques? Say, Yoshi. So they'll start off about even with the characters that don't have powerful kill moves (Face it, bad players do best with the characters that have one or two really obvious, usable power hits). But then middle skill he'll start to suffer, as people figure out the better characters. His line is likely to actually drop here (At least in relation to everyone else), because his weaknesses will start to be exposed and the players won't be good enough to handle them. Then you get to a good level, and start using pivot grabs, his pseudo wavedash, etc. and suddenly his line jumps up a ways as he can handle matchups that he couldn't when he just charged into things. But it ends there -- going to perfectly played doesn't really unlock more for him, so he'd stay about the same or drop a little as other characters gained the ability to work around his odd behaviors.

Why is this argument fixated so much on one example and/or saying it's not even realistic that a character's line can jump that way, instead of even looking at how it might work out? It seems like it would be an interesting thing to have if possible (Of course, it's not likely to be realistically possible -- we can barely agree on matchups, and this is even more complex)

Currently it is all centralized around a realistic view on the situation, even though I'm finding it difficult to differentiate from momentary pessimism on some characters.

 

[Yuna]

I didn't provide proof because I already knew the answer. I knew you were right. I also knew that you didn't know you were right. The trap/challenge isn't for the sake of winning a debate.

Then you have no friggin' right to demand tournament results from me and ride my back for not doing so, when you, yourself, refused to do the same thing!

Of all the posters on smashboards, you damage discussion more than even the worst infractors, often with strawmanning, refusing to support your opinions with even a few recognizable names (note: I NEVER asked for tourney results, just a few names)

You're confusing me with yourself. Also, names are meaningless unless you have the results to back those names up.

and belittling everyone around you.

I almost never belittle people.

The worst of it is that after a deep amount of thought, it does not seem like you have more than an extremely basic understanding of the game.

I just choose not to play my cards until such play is required.

You have no place in a debate, and my goal is to demonstrate that so that discussions can actually be productive.

You are not productive to debates. Because you rely on flawed facts, reasoning, arguments and logic. I rely on sounds such and when I enter debates, I drive them forward, even if such drive is based at least partially in hatred against my person.

After all, what was this thread before I entered it? It was nothing but less informed people thinking it was proof of Peach's viability. There was no debate. My advent opened up the stage for debate and a debate raged for days, one which produced actual results:
The conclusion that Peach is, in fact, not viable.

In this debate alone you stopped all progress simply because the rough graph was inaccurate, stalling discussion because of small details for days.

I didn't stop progress at all. What was there to discuss, really? Edreeses's concept was horribly flawed to begin with. And no one really discussed it. The debate instead segued into a debate regarding Peach's viability as a character.

And I didn't stop any progress in that debate at all. The inability for certain users to read plain English did. I wrote things, certain people misread them entirely. It's not my fault.

If it becomes apparent that you really don't have any idea what you are talking about and should simply be ignored, discussion can continue again.

Yes, Mr. "Captain Falcon is perfectly viable"!

Are these oh-so-important SWF arguments about a video game not just mere squabbles or continuous instances of one person trying to one-up another? Am I wrong to view these as such? Please, elaborate on your point a little further for me, seeing as you were quick to jump the gun on this.

All debates are about winning. Nobody debates to lose or just for the sake of debating.

Nobody who isn't stupid/nuts/whatever, that is.

 

[SaltyKracka]

Yuna, much though I love your constant arrogance, stubborness, and complete disregard for the opinions of others, it's about time you stopped doing this sort of thing. If you want debates, I do believe that there is a WHOLE SUB-BOARD for that sort of thing, where you and your friends can debate each other on logic for days.

However, at this moment, all you are doing is causing more trouble and butthurt than the most skilled of trolls. You do not contribute to a thread, all you do is derail and lengthen it considerably.

Yuna. This **** needs to stop happening. I don't care if you think it's wrong and it's flawed beyond belief, but I have to say, you're NOT HELPING. If you want to debate somebody so much about a topic which you hold dear, again, just go over to that little sub-board and enjoy yourself.

But not here.

Thank you,
SaltyKracka.

 

[Eddie G]

Yuna, what ever happened to debating being geared more toward truth-seeking, rather than just winning/competing? It's as if...competition has engulfed a majority of what we as human beings do now. I'm not saying that people nitpicking each others' arguments is wrong or unnecessary, in fact, I encourage it. However, it is the reason that we nitpick that really makes me question why. Rather than nitpick to correct errors in each others' words for the sake of truth-seeking, we do it solely to win, to leave a "haha you're wrong and stupid, and I'm not!" impression, if you will. So yes, the actions and words are not what I question, but rather the intent behind them. Why?