Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[da K.I.D.]

thats actually what this is supposed to be, funnily enough...

 

[Hive]

thats actually what this is supposed to be, funnily enough...

true ^^ but we just don't need another imo

 

[whisperingtears]

Banning it would make those 6 charectors sorta like counter picks. With out his chian grab dedede loses alot of his game plan.

But i dont think spamming it shoudl be allowed either, thats just un sportsman like.

maybe a soft ban where he can only chain grabe every other stock, or is aloowed to grab like 3 times in a row per stock, woudl slove the problem.

 

[brinboy789]

Banning it would make those 6 charectors sorta like counter picks. With out his chian grab dedede loses alot of his game plan.

But i dont think spamming it shoudl be allowed either, thats just un sportsman like.

maybe a soft ban where he can only chain grabe every other stock, or is aloowed to grab like 3 times in a row per stock, woudl slove the problem.

not CG, infinite

 

[Yuna]

it won't reach out to new people though, it will just end up with the same sort of debate from people convinced of one side or the other.

It will get the job done better than this thread is at the moment.

and I doubt it won't be biased... as in this thread where most of the active people are just anti-ban now.... and it is not from lack of pro-ban. people get sick of arguing the same points over and over again...

Debate threads are not about equal representation of both sides. It's up to each side to present valid arguments and rhetoric.

 

[Hive]

I didn't mean biased in terms of representation... i meant biased in which are valid arguments and which statements are entered. Biased in the ways that both groups are represented... not by how many in each side is represented.

also, and besides ^^, if I hear the word "overcentralization" again I'm going to barf lol

 

[Yuna]

I didn't mean biased in terms of representation... i meant biased in which are valid arguments and which statements are entered. Biased in the ways that both groups are represented... not by how many in each side is represented.

Then what part of "The pro-ban side is free to submit whatever they wish to submit!" was too confusing for you?! How the hell can it be biased if the pro-ban side is in completely control of what they want to have representing them in the OP?!

 

[Hive]

its not like the proban side will agree on one person to represent them though, the submitted argument will almost definitely not be indicative of the pro-ban side in total... nor do I think the anti-ban argument. It will just spark discussion on "what one side didn't say" "what they thought was wrong with what ___ said" and "____ had better arguments" aka like this thread ^^
your personal insults are cute ^^

 

[Yuna]

its not like the proban side will agree on one person to represent them though, the submitted argument will almost definitely not be indicative of the pro-ban side in total... nor do I think the anti-ban argument. It will just spark discussion on "what one side didn't say" "what they thought was wrong with what ___ said" and "____ had better arguments" aka like this thread ^^

This is why the anti-ban side is banding together to present its own manifesto, one which the vast majority can agree with. Of course the inane and invalid arguments will be weeded out. Why would we want those to represent our side and taint our arguments? Why would it be wrong to weed them out?!

And if we do not have an argument representing our side, why the hell would the other side whine about it?! Evidently, we felt that argument was not valid! If the opposing side finds flaws in our argument, it's their gain!

The pro-ban side is free to do the same.

 

[adumbrodeus]

im going to never post here again. there are too many people who are stupid and lost sight of what smash is about.

And what IS Smash about?

they dont use common sense or think realistic.

And obviously empty generalities are a good substitute for actual substantive arguments...

IM just gonna recommend that each and ever one of you who use those 6(not 2) and do not wish to have broken techs mess up your match..........just hold your own events or ask your TO to ban it. MOST of them are intelligent and will listen.

*Bolding added

So... unwillingness to gain tech skill makes a match-up unwinnable regardless of skill?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't tech skill PART OF SKILL?!

I've also got my eye on a few people for the "jury", such as adumbrodeus and Successor of Raphael (please do not take offense if your name was not just mentioned). You guys up for it?

Sure, I'm game.

Amazing how anti-ban people are still using the ******** Pikachu VS Fox argument.

Please, every time you see an anti-banner say something incredibly stupid like pika/fox shiek/gannon mk/bottom just ignore it.

And you STILL fail to give a substantive PRACTICAL reason why they're different.

it wouln't create concrete arguments at all though... it would just spark the same arguments...
people won't see the thread as an answer i don't think though... it will just be seen as another cg thread, and attract the same people.

also, and no offense, I don't think you or adumbrodeus would be good judges either.... it has nothing to do with how well you are at understanding the arguments though.... I just think it would be better to have judges coming from an outside perspective and who could interpret both the arguments in the thread without possible preexisting biases from this thread...

I think the whole idea was, "who was to judge what the best of OUR SIDE is". If we come up with sub-par arguments, that's our problem.


An outsider would be best to judge which side is better OVERALL.

Fair enough?

 

[Hive]

lol its own "manifesto"? wouldn't this pretty much show that the point of the thread wouldn't be about back and forth discussion at all? I have a feeling that this is just going to be the same bad arguments from before in fact I'm quite sure of it.

@xyro- omg my thoughts exactly ^^

 

[Yuna]

lol its own "manifesto"? wouldn't this pretty much show that the point of the thread wouldn't be about back and forth discussion at all?

You clearly aren't reading my posts.

The point of this thread is to provide a more organized and coherent (better) version of the current thread.

I have a feeling that this is just going to be the same bad arguments from before in fact I'm quite sure of it.

Did I ever say the thread would magically be filled with new never-before-seen arguments? No, I didn't. I said that it would give us a better organized thread for discussion.

How to debate on forums:
1) Read only every other 10 words
2) Make the rest up in your mind
3) Reply and "refute" the stuff you just made up
=
Wrong

1) Read only every other 10 words
2) Make the rest up in your mind
3) Reply and "refute" the stuff you just made up
4) (Hive edition) Accuse others of strawmanning
=
Super wrong

1) Read posts properly
2) Reply with valid arguments
=
Right

 

[Hive]

anyways, I think I'll leave for now.... ^^
yuna as always, you need to debate better (aka posts with logic instead of ego, personal insult, strawmans, and offtopic responses) Is it any wonder I always ask you not to answer me? You are my least fave person here to debate with, its not because i disagree with you, but rather, how you answer my posts and attack points you don't like. I've been trying to be calm til now... but you seem to have resorted to your usual remarks....

smash is a game... its supposed to be fun. competition is supposed to be fun. or else why would people play it? people have lost sight of this...
why does "overcentralization" matter to some people? why does stalling? why are there stage bans, item bans and etc?? the essence of any ban is to change something to make the game more enjoyable and in a direction the people would like. Any ban criteria is completely dependent on what people think the game should be played like. (do you want one competitive character, or many? randomness to be a factor.... etc). your "overcentralization criterias" are misguided, you can't use them to tell people what they would like in a game, they are supposed to try to represent that. don't say that the game isn't supposed to be fun, it is, isn't it? DDDs infinite is stupid, and we can agree on that....

 

[Yuna]

yuna as always, you need to debate better (aka posts with logic instead of ego, personal insult, strawmans...

This is rich, coming from you. BTW, "ego"? Also, picking apart your posts and attacking all of their flaws =/= personal insults. "Attacking" your logic, reading comprehension, arguments =/= personal insults. Mocking your debating skills using sarcasm and snark =/= personal insult.

smash is a game... its supposed to be fun. competition is supposed to be fun. or else why would people play it? people have lost sight of this...

Competitive gaming is not about maximizing fun! Why can't you get that through your head?!

If you want a metagame that's all about having fun, go back to Casual gaming.

 

[Sosuke]

Competitive = wanting to win. <_<
This CAN be fun, but doesn't have to be.

Casual doesn't have to be fun either, but it usually is due to no stress over losing.

Example of competitive not being fun: Wanting/needing the money from tourney winnings.
Example of competitive being fun: Playing against your Smash idol and giving it everything you've got.

Example of casual not being fun: A repetitive losing streak that makes the game unappealing.
Example of casual being fun: Having your friends over and just messing around.

 

[1048576]

Example of casual not being fun: Everybody whining and arguing over what tactics are "cheap" and "unfair"

Example of competiive gaming being fun: Everybody uses all techniques at their disposal; people get owned for a while by cheap tactics; counters are discovered and the metagame progresses; cycle repeats.

I dunno, discovering and employing counters (A secondary Falco) is fun, IMO.

 

[Gygados]

It's infinite (potentially). You can't allow that.

 

[metaXzero]

It's infinite (potentially). You can't allow that.

IC infinite?

 

[RDK]

It's infinite (potentially). You can't allow that.

Dear Christ, they never stop. They're like a flood of ignorance.

 

[1048576]

It's infinite (potentially). You can't allow that.

Think of it more as a 20-death combo. It's banned past 300% for stalling purposes.

 

[Flayl]

Would you be willing to do this Yuna? I'd be interested to see what the pro-ban side would put up to go against this since they never seem to refute anything, but rather just call things "gay" or "********".



There's an example, again against an argument by the anti-ban side that has had no refutation.

Keep perpetrating the stereotype of anti-banners ignoring everything that's minimally relevant please. That has been discussed ages ago.

 

[Yuna]

Keep perpetrating the stereotype of anti-banners ignoring everything that's minimally relevant please. That has been discussed ages ago.

Yes, and you didn't provide any valid arguments and then you just left.

 

[Flayl]

No, you didn't provide any relevant counter-arguments to my explanation why Pikachu VS Fox is not comparable to Bowser/DK vs Dedede.

 

[Yuna]

No, you didn't provide any relevant counter-arguments to my explanation why Pikachu VS Fox is not comparable to Bowser/DK vs Dedede.

Yes I did. I'm still doing it. You didn't refute my counter-arguments then and you haven't even tried to refute them now.

They are quite comparable. No one is making the argument that they are the same, but comparable? Very much so.

 

[Flayl]

You're still doing it as in saying you did but not actually doing anything relevant at all? Then yes.

 

[Yuna]

You're still doing it as in saying you did but not actually doing anything relevant at all? Then yes.

If my arguments are so flimsy and flawed, let's go at it with Round 2. Prove to us how Pikachu vs. Fox is not, in any way, comparable to DK vs. D3.

 

[ExCeL 52]

i think its shouldnt be banned becuase once your at a high percent you di out of it so its not that bad but the ice climbers chain grab that should be banned i heard the limit of chain grabs the ice climbers can do in a tournament is 4

And why did you post that image?

 

[Flayl]

Why should I when I've already done that 2 or 3 times? If I repeated the explanation yet again you could say the pro-banners have yet to validly refute the [bad matchup] comparison in the next 50 or so pages.

Sorry I'm not quite fond of exercises in futility. I'm just here to warn pro-banners that anti-banners are regurgitating the same arguments over and over.

 

[Yuna]

Why should I when I've already done that 2 or 3 times? If I repeated the explanation yet again you could say the pro-banners have yet to validly refute the [bad matchup] comparison in the next 50 or so pages.

So basically you refuse to even try to refute the point, claiming to already have refuted it? I don't remember you bringing anything revolutionary to the table which crushed the anti-ban side's argument.

State your counter-arguments, this one last time so we can counter-argue you (or conceede defeat if we cannot) or stop claiming to have "won" this argument.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Why should I when I've already done that 2 or 3 times? If I repeated the explanation yet again you could say the pro-banners have yet to validly refute the [bad matchup] comparison in the next 50 or so pages.

Sorry I'm not quite fond of exercises in futility. I'm just here to warn pro-banners that anti-banners are regurgitating the same arguments over and over.

and the pro-baners are not?
the reason we say the same **** over and over is because you guys say the same **** over and over AND you haven't refuted many of the points we bring up over and over

 

[Brinzy]

I want that Pikachu vs. Fox thing COMPLETELY killed off in the next thread. I don't want to just here, "They're not the same thing", but instead I want to hear why they're not the same and why it does not warrant a ban yet DDD's infinite does.

 

[dainbramage]

And why did you post that image?

Considering the content of his post, he probably doesn't know how to make a signature...

 

[IrArby]

@Hive: I'm sure that the new thread won't completely eradicate the all the futile repetitive BS in this thread but it think it'll will still clarify a lot of things. Hopefully, people won't ingore the new OP as it will have both sides arguments right there. Thus far, a couple ProBan voters, who weren't neccesarily taking part in the threads discussion, expressed a desire to switch their vote. I can only hope that there are more people out there who would vote Anti-ban if presented with the arguments.

Furthermore, I don't think we'd have convinced anyone to switch sides and actually come out and say so in the thread if we were just insulting everyone and essentially acting like *** holes. *** holes don't win anyone over to thier side and we obviously have.

Cause were not *** holes. Were D*cks! And the ProBans . . . are P*ssies. And anyone who thinks we shouldn't remake the thread better . . . is an *** hole. JK lol I couldn't resist. Hope people get the reference.

@Flayl: Please, feel free to take part in the new threads OP which will contain all of the ProBan's arguments and coutner arguments. By placing your explanation of how the Pika/Fox match is completely unlike the D3/DK matchup, you will never have to rewrite it EVER again because you can easily refer people to the OP.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

yuna, do you get payed to play video games? because for 97% of people video games are played to have fun, not for for money or anything else like that

Da KID, if you played for fun, then why does it matter if you win or lose? After all, its only a game.

You lose.

Seriously, the reason you want to ban it is because you think it is cheap. Competitive gaming is about deep fun.

If you don't want to play competitively, that's fine. But if you play competitively, you're going for deep fun.

If a game isn't good competitively, then you shouldn't play it as such. If you feel Brawl isn't good competitively, then don't go to tournaments.

Because you go to tournaments, though, you're saying "Brawl is a good competitive game", so you are being a scrub - someone who is whining about cheapness. Not using that exact word, but that's what you're saying, in the end.

Not linking him because he's "OMG Sirlin" but because that's where it's best explained about how a technique warranted a ban. Check under "Street Fighter, Again!" That's a good example of a technique that over-centralized.

You do realize that he said that you cannot ban it, right?

So your own link says you're wrong.

AFAIK, there has never been a serious debate about whether or not this should be banned in the SBR (as in a "It looks like it could very well be banned" kind of debate) and the vast majority if not all SBR people I've seen speak of the subject in this thread (and elsewhere) are against banning it.

Of course they are; the pro ban side is 100% scrub.

Why would we let "outside perspective people" (i.e., "unbiased people who have not yet taken a stance"?) waltz in and make our arguments for us? This is a "battle" between the pro- and anti-ban sides. Of course the most qualified people for the job would be, you know, the pro- and anti-ban people.

No. They'd be anti-ban people. Why? Because the pro-ban side has no argument.

They are advocating an unenforcable arbitrary unwarranted ban like the scrubs they are.

All of this is pointless.

 

[salaboB]

Of course they are; the pro ban side is 100% scrub.

Not according to Sirlin's definition of a scrub.

Who's are you using?

 

[Brinzy]

You do realize that he said that you cannot ban it, right?

So your own link says you're wrong.

Of course I realized that. It warranted a ban, and it can be banned (in the sense that, yes, it was a technique that could be placed under a ban). It was not banned because it was too hard to monitor, not because the technique did not deserve a ban.

The point was the rolling technique was an example of something that over-centralized that could have been banned. It being hard to monitor does not tract from the fact that it over-centralized. My statement about over-centralizing techs warranting bans remains true.

 

[ColinJF]

Not according to Sirlin's definition of a scrub.

Who's are you using?

You're still repeating this?

We use "scrub" (adjective) to talk about things that might be supported by scrubs (noun). Let's say we're talking about a rule to "ban camping". The type of people who tend not to like camping even though it's legal are scrubs (noun), so we might call this a "scrub rule".

Everybody understands the use of the word "scrub" like this.

 

[speck1231]

i use mario and am forced to spam against his spamming sad i know

 

[Titanium Dragon]

Of course I realized that. It warranted a ban, and it can be banned (in the sense that, yes, it was a technique that could be placed under a ban). It was not banned because it was too hard to monitor, not because the technique did not deserve a ban.

Which, as I've already pointed out, is one major strike against this ban. Indeed, he talks about the criteria for banning, and this fails them.

It isn't discrete - indeed, he specifically gives this sort of thing as an example of something which isn't bannable. If this really is the best strategy, then the optimal strategy remains to do it as much as possible.

Moreover, it also enables cheating. Let's say we capped it to five reps. Now, its to my advantage to report DDDs constantly, even giving false reports, in the hopes of my opp being DQed for cheating (either due to a judge error or them actually cheating). Then, after tournaments have slowed to a crawl, you'd probably see a new rule instituted which DQed players who falsely filed an offense report which required the judges to watch an entire match over again. Now, suddenly, its to my advantage sometimes to go for six, as if they miscounted, they'd be afraid of reporting, and it gives you an advantage. Moreover, it would benefit you to do the TOTALLY LEGAL thing of intentionally miscounting your own throws (throw them the maximum number of times, but start counting only on the third throw, and say "four", then "five", then "six" on your fifth throw). Totally legal, and if your opp thinks you actually did it (falls for it, loses count, whatever) you could get a free match win when they call in a judge to DQ you. You could employ the opposite (cheating) strategy of undercounting a six-rep as "three" to "five" instead of "four" to "six".

This brings up the enforcability - they have to spend up to eight minutes watching your match to say "Oh, you are DQed". That's a long time to delay a tournament, and it sucks.

Moreover, if you were to restrict it overly, you get to the point where other things are better but still legal, at which point you're weakening someone arbitrarily.

This isn't warranted (DeDeDe isn't dominating the tournament scene, and DK still is useful), it isn't discrete, and it isn't enforcable.

 

[Brinzy]

Right, I am completely aware of the fact that this is not warranted. I agree that it should not be banned. I was merely posting an example of something that warranted a ban for the guy above me.