How is it a strawman? Your question was "Is a mod more competitive than a ruleset?". I already directly answered the question by saying by definition the two are mutually exclusive. It's a very very very bad question.
So what I'm getting for mutually exclusive is this (mutually exclusive - unable to be both true at the same time)
Now, not only can a ruleset and a mod both be true(or exist) at the same time, they can even be true(or exist) in such a case where the mod is the ruleset given 'form', so to speak.
So I don't know if you were just illogical or I didn't understand you.
First, you're asking me to compare the merits of competitiveness of a mod that doesn't exist. How am I supposed to weigh what is objectively or even subjectively more competitive if the mod doesn't exist. I can easily envision a shallow mod created that limits characters to single move pokes in fear that tactics might be deemed too powerful for specific matchups.
The rest of my post points out that I was talking about a mod that would imitate our current ruleset. I don't know if you just missed this or what.
Second, even if it did exist, it's like asking, "Is Basketball more competitive than Brawl?" Hell, a lot of things are probably more "competitive" than Brawl, but it doesn't mean that the organization whose sole purpose is to regulate Brawl is going to go and regulate that other game. We can leave that to the creators, tournament hosts, and players of that other game to decide how they conduct themselves.
Again, the same thing.
In regard to your future glimpse: That's laughable. If you're running successful events, why would you care what the "status quo" thinks? If people elect to not attend and your event crashes and burns because of it, I don't think you should be blaming the status quo. You should probably blame the reason your event failed. If the ruleset is the reason, maybe you ought to reevaluate your ruleset ideology.
1. Because everything matters to me.
2. I was talking about a response I would get after talking to someone who didn't agree with me about hosting a tournament like mine, assuming mine had been competitive. That was EXTREMELY vague, and I apologize.
It isn't functionally the same. Manipulating/reprogramming Internal Mechanics (aka creating a different game) vs. External Regulation (aka creating a ruleset for a specific game). They are mutually exclusive.
Ok, so can we assume function means this: The action for which a person or thing is particularly fitted or employed.
And if so, can we assume functionally relates to this?
Because if I'm being logical here, they both are particularly fitted for doing the same action, are they not?
I mean, not if we go into exact semantics, but the end result is very the same, people play the same game with 1 difference, in a non-mod the rules can be broken.
Awesome. Then we can close the discussion on the use of a mod as a competitive standard.
Not unless you concede. My points still stand to be proven or unproven.
I think I've responded to every single one of your posts that I've seen. I am insulted that you said you are being ignored.
More over, a lack of response as concession on the URC's part is absolutely ludicrous.
Has the ruleset changed? No
Therefore, no points have been conceded.
See, I took this to mean that you guys had not responded to stuff, and knew it.
It's not just my posts, because you have responded to them diligently, and I thank you for that.
But a response is not an answer, and telling me in effect 'your not going to get an answer' is the same thing as telling me nothing.
Stuff like around page 254 (50 posts per page) where I see no URC member comment on the LGL thing and then the only response we eventually get that I can even tie to this is 'no changes until january'.
Feel free to disagree with my opinion on how you should go about changing the ruleset. But then you'll have to forgive me at that point if I see you as part of the problem and not part of the solution. Either way, I addressed ways that you could further your argument; it's not the URC's fault you choose to ignore it.
Because I disagree with your opinion, I am part of the problem? I have already explained to you why such things that you suggest are illogical at best, even if successful. In truth,
I myself wouldn't take data from my own tournaments, because the average skill level would be way too low for me to assume any of this is viable information outside of my own area and other areas with similar skill levels.
And I don't even know if any competitive areas exist with such low skill levels.
What more is there to discuss? Trying to have preconceived notions as to what our next move is going to be leads to confirmation bias. You're free to dissent, but trying to theorycraft the future on what is going to be a pressing issue with the ruleset that would prevent it from being the used standard across the country will most likely leave every claim you have unsubstantiated.
I meant talking as in the LGL example above.
I don't mean anything about assuming anything you would do ever.
Exactly. Show me a specific incident that merits a rule change without having a control sample of tournaments to base off of come the pending ruleset change already scheduled to take place.
So what your saying is the URC is prepared to make untested rule changes without proper knowledge of the situation in order to make people happy? Why is this something the competitive standard is doing?
Apparently you haven't read my post to Cassio/Infi that immediately preceded yours. I'll repeat it for your benefit: ANY distinction in classification of stage outside of Legal and Illegal is arbitrary in consideration to a competitive striking system.
Your goal, I assume, is to advocate an expanded starter list or even achieve Full List Stage Striking. I would make the argument that classifying stages as "ground based" and "air based" is the same type of dogma that lead to the current starter list and a distinction of counter pick. All of it is arbitrary and should be dealt away with.
I can agree with this because the end result is the same. Gotta do work though.
I wonder if threads are even worth it with the fact that nothing will happen until January unless someone gets angry at you guys, no matter the competitive dampening stone the rule actually is.