Ok, so you've said the magic words, PLAYING DEFENSIVELY would be a DQ'able offense at your tournament.
No, it isn't. I'm going to go over this again, just so we're clear. I don't care about any specific examples, this is an in general thing.
If I'm watching a match and I catch both players camping, then I'm going to announce my intent to them and keep my eyes on their match.
If neither player stops camping within the next minute, then it's clear to me that they're both actively avoiding approaching. That, to me, is stalling, and since in my ruleset stalling results in disqualification, I will tell them both that they've lost. To be very blunt, I don't
care if it's a defensive strategy that one of the characters is incapable of dealing with. It's sink or swim if he wants to stay in the tournament and he chose to stay on the boat. Is that the right metaphor?
If one player stops camping, but it's clear to me that he can't actually approach his opponent at all in this situation and it's obviously showing in this match, then his opponent has ceased to camp, is now stalling, and by my rules that opponent has lost the match. I know that this means I have to be aware of how every character can handle that defensive option in order to keep this as fair as possible, and I'm fine with that.
If one player stops camping, and even though he's not doing well I know that his character really can handle this camping strategy, then it's fair game. If he stops the other player from camping, it's fair game. If it's the loser that's still camping, then all of the above still applies even though he was doing worse before they both started camping.
And yes, I would make it clear that this is how I rule on stalling. I would even include my definition of stalling in my rule list, so everyone's clear on what not to do. If they chose to ignore it then I'm not about to let it slide. And if nobody comes then I'm out however much it cost me to set up the tournament. I'm entirely willing to accept that.
What do you mean "think of something?"
Okay, fine, specific example: Sheik vs. Ganondorf. Sheik gets the lead, then starts chain camping. Ganondorf responds by bair baiting. To the best of my knowledge G-Man can't deal with the former, whereas the latter is actually very easy for Sheik to deal with. I declare the one minute rule.
When I say "think of something", to the Ganondorf in this situation I mean "Try to hit Sheik. Try to stop Sheik from chain camping. Even if you can't do anything about it, try." and if he does not try, then he loses. To the Sheik in this situation I mean "Try to hit Ganondorf. Try to stop Ganondorf from bair baiting. I know you can, so just do it already." and if he does not try, then he loses.
For a closer example, that M2K vs. gnes video. I would've likely DQ's M2K for the scrooging. However, if instead of approaching gnes simply ran to the other side of the stage every time the platform started moving, I would've DQ'd him, too. Even if MK's scrooging is beatable, even if it isn't, even if they proceed to rob me blind, they're both DQ'd.
The important part here is trying.
nobody was using any form of hardcore stalling tactic here, it was just, we were playing the game normally, but we were waiting for our opponent to leave openings, there was a consistent pace of damage and stock loss, it was just slow enough that the match got called on time. Simple defensive play.
This is a lot more complex than "he/I was turnip camping, and I/he was doing nothing", you know. I was referring to a scenario where the above sentence is true
And what incentive is that? Since both players are in essentially the same position, if they're both DQ'd it's an even outcome for both of, especially considering that in a number of MUs, being forced to approach is bad enough to nearly be an auto-loss. Add that to the possibility that just your opponent will get DQ'd, and well, you've got yourself a reason to camp.
I'm really not sure how you get from "if both players camp to the point where they're both stalling, then they both lose" to "if my opponent's going to lose for camping to the point that he's stalling, then I should camp too". Really, it's like we're having two different conversations here.
Of course infinite stalls break this, which is why they are considered "instantly ban-worthy glitches".
We agree on this! It's just that I feel that even beatable stalling should lead to disqualification, provided both players are doing it, and that you shouldn't need specific stalling technique rules when you have a "No Stalling" rule, since No Stalling should imply that specific stalling technique in the first place.
No... what I'm saying is you should read the wording, it's basically lifted line by line from Playing to Win's "Immediately Ban-worthy Glitches". It's neither worded, nor intended to deal with all possible forms of running the clock, only the forms that are literally unstoppable.
This only makes it more confusing, then. Okay, if I get this wrong again, I'm just going to drop it because I get the feeling it's not going to become any more clear. You are saying that I should not ban stalling (or I should not be strict on my stalling ban) because there's always the chance that the stalling I'm seeing is actually beatable, even though I feel that even beatable stalling is bannable? Or that I should not ban stalling when I can ban stalling techniques that are unbeatable instead?
'cause I severely disagree with the former, and politely disagree with the latter.
so many things i could do with it... sigh.
