It seems the case of the MK stalling at Genesis wasn't addressed.
Additionally, I am... very intrigued by the statement that MK always has a safe option. Could that not be demonstrated on paper, and if so, is it not then simply a matter of "Assume Theory Fighter; MK can't give an opening, he's unbeatable", done?
I thought the anti essay was not written as well as the pro one, but that won't mean too much.
It seemed MK really had a case against him... but the other essay just denies some of the claims. For my vote, I need to know, who answers to authorship of the pro-ban paper? On whose head are those facts being admitted as evidence?
I want this to be settled. But all I can think is how afraid I would be to have MK banned if it's not right.
I also believe I spotted a fallacy in the anti-ban paper, but it will be hard to tug out.
EDIT: Well I mean they both have some fallacies; more like unimportant points, mainly, but this one is a hole in what seems to be one of the central thrusts.