• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Grim's LGL arguing thread

MK26

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
4,450
Location
http://www.mediafire.com/?zj2oddmz0yy for ZSS fix!
there are so many arguments and counterarguments and tangents going on in this thread that im not even sure what anyone is arguing for at this point...

seriously, there are really only three options at this point:
1) the LGL that we have now, a general level for everyone and a lower mk-specific level
2) no lgl for anyone except mk (and I suppose other characters whose planking deserves to be limited, but i dont know of any other characters who really have banworthy planking)
3) no lgl at all

imo, 1 is flawed, 2 is significantly less flawed, and 3 is dangerous to the health of the game

however, i would appreciate it very much if you guys mention which one youre supporting before you start arguing...
 

Ussi

Smash Legend
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
17,147
Location
New Jersey (South T_T)
3DS FC
4613-6716-2183
isn't the current LGL already absurdly high at 50? I mean I guess ROB and Pit are the only 2 I can think of that could/would actually have that many ledge grabs in certain MUs (VS DDD or IC for example) but other than that, does anyone NEED over 50 LGs to win?
 

popsofctown

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
2,505
Location
Alabama
The general 50 LGL is a joke. It's just there to make the surgical nerf to MK look less dumb. It is not very effective at that.
 

-LzR-

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
7,649
Location
Finland
50 LGL is like way to much.

Also @BPC: Rob loses to ZSS and Dedede harder than to MK :)
 

Hippieslayer

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
953
Location
Azeroth
ROB gets **** on by Falco and ZSS, DK loses badly to DDD and ICs (IIRC), and DDD gets wrecked by Falco and ICs. I may be wrong, this is just what I remember. ROB doesn't lose to anyone as badly as MK, but I still doubt he'd be that much better with MK gone.
Having one character **** all other characters is ok because a lot of theese other characters actually get ***** by some other character? Doesn't that other character at the end of my first sentence also get ***** by another character beside Mk? Doesn't that create a much funnier game?

Tis a shame the ''no one would attend that ****'' argument isn't currectly viable for supporting a MK ban. Hopefully if he actually does get banned a bit more and people realize how nice it is not to have the ****er around pissing on everyone then the argument will become viable.

In any case, about the LGL limit, one thing I don't get is why this debatte started after Olimar got planked by DK. Why can't the Olimar just switch to a secondary? DK's need to do that vs DDD.

I guess what Im wondering is why Planking upsets people more than infinites. Is it because they have to wait for the timer before one player loses by default?
 

Ghostbone

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
4,665
Location
Australia
isn't the current LGL already absurdly high at 50? I mean I guess ROB and Pit are the only 2 I can think of that could/would actually have that many ledge grabs in certain MUs (VS DDD or IC for example) but other than that, does anyone NEED over 50 LGs to win?
50 isn't that high, absurdly high would be 80, which at that point you might as well not have one.
You can rack up 50 ledge grabs really quickly if you're actually planking in the way ROB or Pit would.

Budget Player Cadet_ said:
All right, imagine that suddenly it turns out that Kirby has a move that he can use that only affects characters with a certain weight. Those with a weight of 100 or more are the only ones that get hit. The move is executed by passing a lower blastzone while in stone and pressing 236A simultaneously; something that is not likely to happen naturally. It's a OHKO that hits the entire stage (and teleports Kirby upwards to make him avoid dying). It's a move that completely invalidates a fairly large swath of the cast, simply because they have absolutely no options against it, beyond go offstage and try to hit kirby.

(Let's just assume, for the sake of example, that planking with several members of the cast, like DK, G&W, Pit, and the like invalidates certain other members of the cast in just as harsh of a manner as this attack does)

Would you support banning this attack? Kirby isn't broken because of it, it just turns him into a shoe-in hard counter for several well-liked and established characters. But would this mean that Snake is unviable? That Wario is unviable? What if multiple characters had access to the move?
Firstly, I don't think anyone would play Brawl if everyone had access to that kind of attack regardless.
Secondly it would be a glitch and the ban would be easily enforceable if we wanted to.
(If it wasn't a glitch there would be many similar moves from other characters, and again, nobody would play the game, it's like if everyone got a FS every 30 seconds and you couldn't turn them off)
 

Ussi

Smash Legend
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
17,147
Location
New Jersey (South T_T)
3DS FC
4613-6716-2183
50 isn't that high, absurdly high would be 80, which at that point you might as well not have one.
You can rack up 50 ledge grabs really quickly if you're actually planking in the way ROB or Pit would.
Do ROB/Pit mains want a higher LGL?
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
8,905
Location
Vinyl Scratch's Party Bungalo
NNID
Budget_Player
Firstly, I don't think anyone would play Brawl if everyone had access to that kind of attack regardless.
Secondly it would be a glitch and the ban would be easily enforceable if we wanted to.
(If it wasn't a glitch there would be many similar moves from other characters, and again, nobody would play the game, it's like if everyone got a FS every 30 seconds and you couldn't turn them off)
So... you agree with me? Assuming it isn't a glitch, a difference I find rather pointless.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
10,050
An LGL that's too high or too low? You guys are arguing over something that doesn't exist. There is no such thing as an LGL of the correct quantity, because it will never exist. There's no point in arguing over a correct number, you will be wrong no matter what.
 

-LzR-

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
7,649
Location
Finland
Even after 2 years of Rob experience, I cannot see how he doesn't have like the ****tiest "Planking" in the game.
 

Cassio

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,185
Like I have said before, tactics and methods to stop planking are inherently complex in nature because Planking is complex. You can't cover broad planking with very specific measures.
I dont disagree, lol. If anything I mostly disagree with the "grab ledge + uair = 100% win" mentality when much better reasoning exists.
 

Akaku94

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
483
Location
Washington, DC
Only MK has broken planking, so an LGL for everyone is pointless. It's just as viable as an infinite under the current ruleset. The difference is that infinites are generally avoidable (Don't get grabbed by IC's, etc.) while planking is out of your control. Also, planking is stalling, but not brokenly so, nor any more stalling than projectile camping; beatable with good reads and a little effort. The exception, of course, is MK.

A global lgl is like having a projectile limit; arbitrary and unequally nerfing a perfectly valid tactic. MK's planking is only one of his broken techniques, and short of banning him, we need to limit him however we can, and an MK-specific lgl is the way to do it.
 

popsofctown

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
2,505
Location
Alabama
Planking is totally avoidable. There's several characters that have plausible answers. And besides that, if you stay in the damage lead the entire game, your opponent can't plank. Against Meta Knight, that's a silly angle, but if the problem character was Ganondorf, he would would actually still have disadvantaged matchups.

There's nothing global, universal, or transcendent about the planking tactic, it's just as surgical as the "MKs can't have B in their controller config" or "MKs can only counterpick neutrals", and that's too surgical. He needs to be removed entirely instead of a dumb sliding scale that punishes the MK players as a group everytime they get better with their character.
 

SaveMeJebus

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
4,371
Grab ledge + uair isn't 100% win at all.

What IS 100% win is letting Meta Knight grab the ledge infinite times.
Standing on the edges of a stage that has walk offs isn't 100% win either, but they still ban stages with walk offs. You can't ban the ledge so we do the next best thing
 

Grim Tuesday

Smash Legend
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
13,444
Location
Adelaide, South Australia, AUS
Jebus, my post was not saying that planking isn't broken just because it isn't 100% win.

You are a ****ing ****** who cannot comprehend basic concepts such as the one above.

Get out of my thread.
 

Ghostbone

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
4,665
Location
Australia
Standing on the edges of a stage that has walk offs isn't 100% win either, but they still ban stages with walk offs. You can't ban the ledge so we do the next best thing
Ban stages with ledges?
I mean that's what we did with walk offs >.>
Oh and banning the ledge is easy.
"If a player grabs the ledge they lose"
Done.
 

Grim Tuesday

Smash Legend
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
13,444
Location
Adelaide, South Australia, AUS
I'm hoping if I flame Jebus enough, eventually a mod will try and ban me for too much flaming, then have a seizure from SMJ's stupidity thus accidentally clicking on Jebus' name and banning him instead.

It's a long shot, but by god is it ****ing worth it.
 

ElDominio

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
452
I'm hoping if I flame Jebus enough, eventually a mod will try and ban me for too much flaming, then have a seizure from SMJ's stupidity thus accidentally clicking on Jebus' name and banning him instead.

It's a long shot, but by god is it ****ing worth it.
I understand completely.
 

Anthon1996

Smash Ace
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
995
Location
Bionis
NNID
AnUglyBarnacle
3DS FC
5301-0385-3871
I'm hoping if I flame Jebus enough, eventually a mod will try and ban me for too much flaming, then have a seizure from SMJ's stupidity thus accidentally clicking on Jebus' name and banning him instead.

It's a long shot, but by god is it ****ing worth it.
 

theunabletable

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
1,796
Location
SoCal
I think at this point we should just quit playing the game if we are going to institute bad rules simply for the sake of tournament attendance.
man you are such a downer every time you post.

Seriously why does everyone on these boards hate Jebus and not Shadowlink315r2345r23 w/e his tag is? Like Jebus might say things you disagree with every once in a while, but he

Secondly it would be a glitch and the ban would be easily enforceable if we wanted to.
I don't think there's much of an enforceability issue with LGLs.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
8,905
Location
Vinyl Scratch's Party Bungalo
NNID
Budget_Player
I think at this point we should just quit playing the game if we are going to institute bad rules simply for the sake of tournament attendance.
Umm
I'd rather not play Brawl if it existed basically lol.
So kinda I guess? I mean if you do play Brawl then yes you should ban it.
This is where our opinions differ. I think that in such a case, it would be perfectly reasonable to ban or limit the tactic/move in question, rather than accept that the game is broken and play something else, especially when it's the only truly glaring issue left in the game (yeah, yeah, MK, I know :glare:). Especially with such a unique and fun game as Smash. And I think that planking is similar enough to this example to be used.

And yeah, Jebus makes ShadowLink84 look like a cross between Einstein and (Max) Plank.
 

theunabletable

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
1,796
Location
SoCal
idk, Jebus is respectful guy as far as I can see, and is nice in person, and is actually good at the game. shadowlink is just some ******* on the forums who doesn't seem to add anything good to discussions either.

Like, okay feel free to dislike Jebus, or whatever you'd like, but Shadowlink84 is due just as much negative feedback as is given to Jebus, if not more.

Anyways to get back on topic, since just railing on players we don't like is hardly tasteful.

I would be glad to respond to whatever you have to say about how we shouldn't have LGLs, but I'm afraid I really only have the patience to do so if I have some sort of shorter summary to quote from and respond to, rather than the really big OP. If I could have some sort of TL;DR that can be used as a reference point, while I can read the large OP to make sure I get the reasoning behind the points being presented to me, I'd be pretty grateful, as I don't want to misrepresent your argument by accidentally quoting the wrong thing, or something like that haha.

Do these two parts represent your arguments in the OP adequately enough?

"1. People are more willing to defend the characters that have been established as good (i.e. Ganon has always been bad, so who cares about him? Olimar was viable until planking became common). Objectively, there is no logical reason to make this distinction.

2. People are more tolerant of on-stage camping than off-stage camping. Again, no reason to draw a distinction between them. "

Disregard this if there is something you would like to change about the statements that I'll address specifically, but for the sake of saving time if you find these acceptable, I'd like to put forth a question.

When we've... set our sights upon making a rule, or deciding if something needs a rule in place, what would you say our goal should be? Or rather, what would you say is our goal for making these rules, what is the reason for making any of these rules at all?
 

Ghostbone

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
4,665
Location
Australia
Jebus > SL84, I've seen Jebus change his opinions at least.

The other argument against LGLs is that it opens the door to a bunch of other nerfs (e.g. banning infinites, and from there tactics and so on).
 

ShadowLink84

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
9,007
Location
Middle of nowhere. Myrtle Beach
"ghostbone said:
He doesn't change his opinion to mine I dislike him.
I normally don't shorten things like that but that is essentially the core of your reason for disliking me.
It's childish, grow up.

I would far more prefer if you disliked me simply because I am such a prickly *******, and less so than for simply having a different opinion.


idk, Jebus is respectful guy as far as I can see, and is nice in person, and is actually good at the game. shadowlink is just some ******* on the forums who doesn't seem to add anything good to discussions either.
*looks at your join date*
*looks at his join date*
Did it ever cross your mind that maybe...just maybe it is because you joined in late that you did not see any of the contributions I have made?

I don't particularly care if you call me out for my trolling, but I do get a wee bit annoyed if one is to say I never add anything good to discussions.

Which we've had already a year ago, two years ago, and sometimes three.
Considering you have not been around long, nor were you frequenting the boards that I do at the time of those arguments.



Like, okay feel free to dislike Jebus, or whatever you'd like, but Shadowlink84 is due just as much negative feedback as is given to Jebus, if not more.

Anyways to get back on topic, since just railing on players we don't like is hardly tasteful.
Which is why you spent a lengthy part of your post saying of how much you essentially dislike me. Right?

Perhaps the reason I do not wish to contribute is because it the arguments are cyclical and are ultimately subjective.

Funny enough, unlike yourself and Grim, I don't take the time to dedicate posts railing on other posters, not unless they choose to do so themselves like you.

The primary reason for all the negativity towards myself isn't due to the actual content, but the fact it is an opposing argument.

If you want, I can list off two other users who got themselves into a bit of a grudge with me simply on the matter of banning DDD's infinite.

You're essentially the same. At least have the maturity to keep your negativity to yourself and not fan it like K.I.D. and Browny do simply cause it makes them feel oh so good to mock someone.

Or you can also have selective memory like them so you can continue the railing, whatever gets your jollies off. Do know I'll point it out each time when necessary.



This is where our opinions differ. I think that in such a case, it would be perfectly reasonable to ban or limit the tactic/move in question, rather than accept that the game is broken and play something else, especially when it's the only truly glaring issue left in the game (yeah, yeah, MK, I know :glare:). Especially with such a unique and fun game as Smash. And I think that planking is similar enough to this example to be used.
No.
Ten no's.
This is the EXACT.SAME.MENTALITY that AN follows.

Or at least way more intelligible reason than "oh god its say gay ban it."

Essentially, you're pretty much sacrificing the competitiveness of the game simply so that enjoyment can be had.
That idea in itself isn't wrong, because after all, a competitive game needs to have some sense of enjoyment otherwise, no one would really want to watch it or play it.

The problem is such limitations and bans set the bar as to what the competitive community will allow, and the reasoning behind it will also open up other possibilities.

IF we are willing to go so far as to place a ledge grab limit, so far as to limit a part of the core gameplay is a bad idea.
We should not be altering such things unless it ensures that the competitiveness of the game is maintained, which it does not.

All that happens is people get the nice, lovely feeling of knowing that SOMETHING is being done.
It does not matter if it is effective or not, does not matter if it actually addresses the core problem so much as it is SOMETHING.

Like recycling cans in the name of stopping global warming.

I won't entertain the latter part since you already know what my reply would be, but hey I'll take the Einstein part for sure. I have the hair for it.


Part of the reason why the smash community is mocked so very greatly by other fighting game communities i for two big reasons.

1. We are trying to make a game that is geared towards casuals, into a competitive game. That in itself gives off the idea of the community being childish, stubborn, and incapable of seeing the game in its appearance.
I do not necessarily agree with it, but when you take into account my second point..


2. We have discussions like the LGL and alot of the time, whenever something is banned, it isn't banned for being harmful competitively but for being banned because it is gay.
We immediately freak out whenever something troublesome comes our way and rather than analyze it, take it apart, we create very stupid rules like the LGL.

The saddest part?
The Brawl Community actually collects their data! We collect a massive amount and make it relatively easy to find, and yet, we still make silly and scrubby acts such as LGL, such as constantly limiting the bat just so that it can remain legal.
 

theunabletable

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
1,796
Location
SoCal
I normally don't shorten things like that but that is essentially the core of your reason for disliking me.
It's childish, grow up.
Actually I think that might not be the message he's trying to get across, if I were to summarize his post, that's atleast different than the message I'd have come up with. He's probably not being particularly childish anyways :p

*looks at your join date*
*looks at his join date*
Did it ever cross your mind that maybe...just maybe it is because you joined in late that you did not see any of the contributions I have made?
That's cool that you did stuff a few years ago.

I wasn't talking about a few years ago, though, I was saying that you don't seem to help any discussions nowadays, sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. And normally I wouldn't care, but when you say something that is atleast on par with what Jebus says, and then right below that people flame Jebus. I'm not intending to flame you for saying that you're due just as much disrespect as is given to Jebus.

There's a difference, atleast I intended there to be a difference. The post wasn't meant to put you down (although I can definitely see how it could be seen that way, given just the nature of the post), it was meant to point out that people kinda focus on Jebus, even though he's definitely better than some people as far as debating goes on this forum.

The primary reason for all the negativity towards myself isn't due to the actual content, but the fact it is an opposing argument.
I don't think so

You're essentially the same. At least have the maturity to keep your negativity to yourself and not fan it like K.I.D. and Browny do simply cause it makes them feel oh so good to mock someone.
nah that's not what I was doing, and I genuinely apologize if you took it that way.

That's great that you used to contribute 2 years ago, I'm glad for that. In the here and now, though, we have people in these threads calling Jebus very harsh things, when your current lack of productive or intelligent things to say (generally) is worth just as much dislike, or Jebus is worth just as much silence on those matters.

Although you could continue telling me my reasons for saying what I said if you prefer that to just asking me what I mean, if you'd really like.


And just so you know, I genuinely don't really dislike people over the internet, because people are significantly different online than they are offline, and if they say something I don't like, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. I wasn't intending to express dislike for you, and I apologize if it was taken that way.

Essentially, you're pretty much sacrificing the competitiveness of the game simply so that enjoyment can be had.
The core part of this post that needs to be cleared up before anyone can get anywhere.

How would you define "competitiveness", and why would you define it that way?
 

Grim Tuesday

Smash Legend
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
13,444
Location
Adelaide, South Australia, AUS
I think the above post by Shadowlink put the SL vs. Jebus debate to rest. SL comes out on top.

I would be glad to respond to whatever you have to say about how we shouldn't have LGLs, but I'm afraid I really only have the patience to do so if I have some sort of shorter summary to quote from and respond to, rather than the really big OP. If I could have some sort of TL;DR that can be used as a reference point, while I can read the large OP to make sure I get the reasoning behind the points being presented to me, I'd be pretty grateful, as I don't want to misrepresent your argument by accidentally quoting the wrong thing, or something like that haha.

Do these two parts represent your arguments in the OP adequately enough?

"1. People are more willing to defend the characters that have been established as good (i.e. Ganon has always been bad, so who cares about him? Olimar was viable until planking became common). Objectively, there is no logical reason to make this distinction.

2. People are more tolerant of on-stage camping than off-stage camping. Again, no reason to draw a distinction between them. "

Disregard this if there is something you would like to change about the statements that I'll address specifically, but for the sake of saving time if you find these acceptable, I'd like to put forth a question.

When we've... set our sights upon making a rule, or deciding if something needs a rule in place, what would you say our goal should be? Or rather, what would you say is our goal for making these rules, what is the reason for making any of these rules at all?
I believe a rule should only be created when it
a) Does not introduce ANY double standards
b) Is easily enforceable
c) Doesn't greatly change the game in a way OTHER than the way we are attempting to change it (so no Ground Time Limits, for example)
d) Warranted in the sense that the rule fixes a basically objective problem with the game, such as removing game-destroying glitches/stalling tactics/etc...

The core part of this post that needs to be cleared up before anyone can get anywhere.

How would you define "competitiveness", and why would you define it that way?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I define competitiveness the same way BPC does: A game is competitive if two or more players can compete and find a winner consistently (i.e. no luck). A game is MORE competitive than another if it has more effectively different situations, which sets the skill bar higher and thus makes the game more difficult to "solve".
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
10,050
A game is MORE competitive than another if it has more effectively different situations, which sets the skill bar higher and thus makes the game more difficult to "solve".
A game is competitive if it allows for competition to occur (in other words, a contest).

A game is more competitive if it allows for more competition to occur than another.

A game has more competitive depth if it has more effectively different situations, which sets the skill bar higher and thus makes the game more difficult to "solve".
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
Only if those different situations positively contribute to competitiveness.

There's no point in having Hyrule legal because "It expands the game" when all it adds is something negative.
 

Veril

Frame Savant
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,062
Location
Kent Lakes, New York
As soon as I saw someone post saying that pika had options against a planking mk... I knew this thread would be all sorts of fail, and it certainly is.

Except for DMG.


The only sorta kinda maybe plausible counter to MK planking was Diddy Kong shield sdi-ing the up air such that he transitions off the ledge and cancels shieldstun, then buffering a dair. Doesn't work outside of frame advance or even in frame advane if mk has the same magically perfect reaction time.

Either mk has to be banned or his ledge grabs have to be limited. A global lgl is something I don't care to debate.

:phone:
 

theunabletable

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
1,796
Location
SoCal
I believe a rule should only be created when it
a) Does not introduce ANY double standards
Why? What do we gain by doing this, and what would you say constitutes a double standard, and why?

b) Is easily enforceable
Hmm... I'd say easily enforceable is a bonus, but not a requirement. Like I don't think we should ever ditch a rule because we can't enforce it 100% of the time. That always seems almost analogous to just saying "We should remove speed limits, because we can't enforce them even MOST of the time". You know?

Like of course something that can almost never be enforced probably won't make a good rule, but I wouldn't put enforce ability in a criteria

c) Doesn't greatly change the game in a way OTHER than the way we are attempting to change it (so no Ground Time Limits, for example)
I think the people who like ground time limits appreciate them BECAUSE they solve multiple problems at once.

Why exactly would this be a universal standard thing we should use? Why is this superior to judging a rule in a case-by-case manner, and instead of dismissing something on the sole fact that it changes more than it was originally put in place for, we could decide to dismiss it or not based on the quality of the things it changes?

d) Warranted in the sense that the rule fixes a basically objective problem with the game, such as removing game-destroying glitches/stalling tactics/etc...
I would agree that this is good in some cases, but why is it something that we should commit to using universally?

Like most of your criteria is agreeable in the situations they're made to be agreeable in, but why is it a criteria that we should use, and decide everything based on, universally?

The only sorta kinda maybe plausible counter to MK planking was Diddy Kong shield sdi-ing the up air such that he transitions off the ledge and cancels shieldstun, then buffering a dair. Doesn't work outside of frame advance or even in frame advane if mk has the same magically perfect reaction time.
Actually the Shield DI stuff does work with other characters. Logic shield SDI'd my uair and spiked me out of it at Genesis lol. Although it's not extremely practical or anything, it's still a gay *** position, but it is technically beatable.
 

Grim Tuesday

Smash Legend
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
13,444
Location
Adelaide, South Australia, AUS
Only if those different situations positively contribute to competitiveness.

There's no point in having Hyrule legal because "It expands the game" when all it adds is something negative.
Having Hyrule legal would remove effectively different situations from the game in the long run, not add them, so it didn't need a special mention.

Why? What do we gain by doing this, and what would you say constitutes a double standard, and why?
The problems with double standards should be obvious, namely that they are double standards.

What constitutes a double standard? Well, if something is banned because it falls under a certain ban criteria (which we have established is anything that is uncompetitive), yet something else which falls under the same criteria isn't banned, that'd be a double standard.

Hmm... I'd say easily enforceable is a bonus, but not a requirement. Like I don't think we should ever ditch a rule because we can't enforce it 100% of the time. That always seems almost analogous to just saying "We should remove speed limits, because we can't enforce them even MOST of the time". You know?

Like of course something that can almost never be enforced probably won't make a good rule, but I wouldn't put enforce ability in a criteria
I can see the logic in this.

I think the people who like ground time limits appreciate them BECAUSE they solve multiple problems at once.

Why exactly would this be a universal standard thing we should use? Why is this superior to judging a rule in a case-by-case manner, and instead of dismissing something on the sole fact that it changes more than it was originally put in place for, we could decide to dismiss it or not based on the quality of the things it changes?
And they create many other problems, which is what I was saying.

We can decide on a case-by-case basis, every rule is going to change gameplay in some way other than it's purpose. We should decide subjectively as a community whether the rule is discrete enough to be used.

I would agree that this is good in some cases, but why is it something that we should commit to using universally?

Like most of your criteria is agreeable in the situations they're made to be agreeable in, but why is it a criteria that we should use, and decide everything based on, universally?
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing now? Obviously we shouldn't add rules that aren't warranted because they aren't warranted. My criteria is based on common sense.
 
Top Bottom