I will say that without a uniform set of rules, it would be much more difficult to differentiate legitimate tournaments, and this is where I disagree with you, Kal. I think that a uniform ruleset gives everyone a set of guidelines to follow if they want their tournament recognized as legitimate, meaning that a victory there means something. For example, you wouldn't acknowledge someone who won at a local tourney where items were on, and all stages were legal as much as you would, say, someone who won at a national, where the rules are agreed upon by everyone. So I guess the MBR should exist, but perhaps the capacity to which the control things should be changed.
If a TO explains, ahead of time, what the rules are, there will be no problem. It's always up to the individual to decide whether a tournament with a specific ruleset is worth attending. If the MBR bans Sheik tomorrow, I won't go to MBR approved tournaments, regardless of legitimacy.
This has nothing to do with "acknowledging player skill." That is an entirely separate issue, and these complexities you've mentioned actually pale in comparison to real complexities: the people are human, and the game is exceptionally deep.
I'm getting a bit off topic here, so I'll revert to the first point:
It would not be hard, at all, to tell what tournaments are worthwhile. If a TO posts his rules ahead of time, then you can tell if the tournament is legitimate. The MBR does not actually account for the problem you've mentioned in a real way but, instead, a contrived one: it decides "this ruleset is
right" and has to hope a large enough proportion agrees with it. If the MBR published "items-on" tomorrow, tournaments would still be hosted with items-off. And that's the point, really: this methodology of legitimizing tournaments exists with or without the MBR.
Now, consider some of the negatives of something like the MBR: you can't host tournaments which stray even slightly from the ruleset, or your tournament is not legitimate,
because the MBR, the faux-authority, has decided so. In other words, when the majority agrees with the faux-authority, it becomes an actual authority which cannot be argued with.
Moreover, and in the first place, there are issues with something as elitist as a small group of players getting together and deciding on what's the "best" way to play.
Whether or not those rules are fair/unfair/too restrictive is an entirely different issue.
No, the fact is that, if those unfair rules arise from an individual TO, without an authoritative body, we would have no issue with telling the TO to **** off. What are we supposed to do when we have an authoritative body that makes a ruleset which is obviously bad, but which the majority agrees with?
national tourney generally means Apex/Genesis type of stuff, but Japan and Europe like the ruleset of 10 min timer, less stages, MK legal. I talked to Suinoko on aib PMs a week or so ago and he said "almost all japanese think mk should be legal" and mr-R told me that too and said his scene thinks that way too.
when you said national i think international, since that's what it really is
I still don't really understand what's surprised you about what I said. Could you explain?
I really want to meet Kal. He plays marth, writes well, and quotes musicals.
We would probably be good friends. <3
I expect everyone of my crowd to make fun of my proud protestations of faith and romance.