For one, this is a presumptuous position to make. The burden of proof exists on both ends, keeping the status quo is just easier to do than changing it so it's already a greater effort on the pro-ban side to bring something up. I already brought up the inherent balance that the metagame will see if meta were removed. At no point did I complain about his being overpowered or whatever. If the other side (in this case RDK) wishes to miss it completely then act like nothing was said, that's as much on him as it is on us to provide the slightest bit of proof. You put one side in a position to HAVE to prove something with absolutely no obligation on your end to do the same then don't even do what little reading is required. You don't even have to respond under your presumption, all you have to do is read and THAT isn't even being accomplished.
Banning a character is a drastic step, it needs heavy and precise evidence.
Granted, the evidence is EVERYONE'S responsibility to obtain, but that doesn't negate the fact that it hasn't been done, and that this NEEDS to be deferred until it is done.
I've got a question because I'm just curious about something. Some people say that if MK gets banned, then Snake will dominate. Others say that won't be the case. However, earlier in Brawl's life, Snake was the one dominating, so people searched for a way to beat him, correct? And so that's when Meta Knights started popping up. So if we ban MK, won't Snake go back to dominating again? I understand people say that Snake has disadvantageous match ups now, but were those found before, or after MK was found to counter Snake? I'm just curious.
It's actually quite simple, Snake owes a lot of his advantage to MK, always has always will. MK cleared the field for him, then Snake won tournaments because beating him was different then the other characters in the metagame.
When MK players adapted (aka, playing like Marth), they started actually winning.
However, snake has disadvantages and even match-ups, without MK to protect him, his position in the metagame will be a lot more vulnerable.
It is very much on you as it is on us to justify a viewpoint. Your pedestal exists not off of proving something, but rather sustaining something. The second you stop assuming that I haven't thought something out before I say it the second it'll be easier on you. At this point no one's arguing your platform because you've already established that you have not read the topic and it's wasted effort.
In pure logical terms, our status quo exists in the aether, in this case however, gathering the evidence required is a necessary step to finally resolve this issue.
Which is sort of what I was trying to get at.
Ultimately, this should come down to a case of one side or another proves it's case, but the community has moved too quickly on this topic, while MK should not be banned here, this SHOULD NOT be the final word on the topic.
Trying to circumvent the rules that have been established and proven to work for many games and genres and trying to remove a character from the game for the sake of
thinking outside the box isn't creative or revolutionary. It's circumventing the rules for their own selfish purposes, and most of the time, it's just plain wrong. Thinking logically is not being dense. It's being logical, and no amount of fallacious reasoning is going to make it otherwise.
The answers thought outside the box could be the most clever. They are also usually wrong.
Nice illustration.
I think it's best to think about it in terms of "thinking outside of the box is good, if you can justify the conclusion using pre-existing information once you have it".
It's just amazing how you don't understand such a simple principle. Let me lay it out in a few steps for you.
1) Not banning anything - in other words, playing the game straight out of the factory - is the default position.
2) You, the pro-ban side, are asserting that Metaknight in some way, shape, or form, breaks at least one of the current ban criteria (overcentralization, anti-competitive, etc.).
3) Pro-ban provides proof to back up their assertion.
It's really easy stuff; I hope you get it this time around.
One thing to understand though, this is a necessary issue to resolve, because figuring out whether he's banworthy or not is an important community objective.
In that sense we need to work together to get the evidence (and I previously explained what was needed), and so the default position here is really, not "mk should not be banned", but "mk should not be banned yet".
We need to defer the issue until the community gets the data to come to a final conclusion with both eyes open.
