First off, perhaps you could have clarified your point to begin with as opposed to seemingly, whether consciously or subconsciously, mocking me with your first post 'set in stone'.
like i said, it hardly matters... northern state citizens were not simply in the dark about slavery as you seem to think; many of the first settlers up north had slaves too
Secondly, I did mention in the possibility of all tournaments that if wobbling wasn't banned it had strong restrictions, such as the up to 200% restriction per stock.
that's actually an incredibly weak restriction, since by FAR the most common use of wobbling is to take a stock, and by 200%, that's typically the case already
and as has already been mentioned countless times in this thread, that limit is in itself unnecessary; most rulesets already have a clause about "stalling" (typically including examples such as rising pound or peach's wall bomber) under which wobbling past KO percents already falls.
Also, I do understand the minority laws and rules put into place. However that doesn't change them from being the minority. It just protects their rights as well. I don't see nor understand how in a controversial subject such as this one a majority vote won't conclude it.
...because there's no vagueness about who would benefit and who would suffer from such a rule. there's nothing subjective here in a pure, blind vote
I see your argument with self-interest being valid, but if everyone looked out for themselves, normal people would be robbing stores every day and every cop out there would be dead or severely handicapped.
I really hope I never have to live where you live such that you think this is the case, but even so, a common reason to NOT commit a petty crime like shoplifting or speeding is indeed the fear of getting caught and punished; everybody weighs being able to get to their destination 10 minutes faster against the possibility of getting a $300 ticket whenever they get behind the wheel
So to a certain point that has to be limited, much like even though an IC player would be looking out for his/her self-interest with wobbling, it would have to be limited never-the-less (in tournaments that it wasn't banned it has been limited).
As mentioned above, the 'limiting' to fight stalling is already covered in the generic rule for stalling. it doesn't need a separate rule at all
Yes, I know what unanimous means. Probably could have chosen a better word that would've fit the context better for what I was trying to say though.
Yeah... the word you would've chosen would've pointed back at (or actually been) the term 'majority', which I've already stated I don't believe is the proper way to make such rulings given that people are driven by self-interest, consciously or not
And lastly no, this is the same SmashMac. I disagree with wobbling for a variety of reasons. Not just me, but almost 90% of all the smashers I've ever trained with agreed with me.
it's 'gay', it's boring, it's 'whack', it's easy once it gets started; i agree with that too
you need to justify the point where any of those aspects makes it bannable though; either by proving it's 'broken' or by attributing it to some other criteria
Hmm, someone giving Melee more respect because it contains Wobbling, more-so than the fact that it's one of the only unique fighting games of it's time. Which one would you choose?
This is more than the future of ICs. This is the future of Smash Melee we're talking here.
...and it's going to be a dark dark future if we begin (or depending on your perspective, continue) down the path of banning elements that have not proven to be broken or severely detrimental to gameplay