JackKieser

I find that funny, considering we're on OCRemix. We're in the Internet age. You don't need a record label anymore. Explain to me how a dude like Girl Talk can make bank enough to travel and do live shows if you have to have a record label. Are you going to make Kanye-levels of bank? Of course not... but I'm really tired of hearing people say we need industries like the record label industry in the 21st century. Learn some HTML and distribute yourself.

Are people in here honestly saying, "Oh, it's cool that this record label tells you what to do with your own IP; let them screw you."?? Dude, screw them. Go somewhere else. Don't let some record label dictate to you what you can and can't do with your own IP.

I was listening to a torrent of Ozzy Osbourne's fully discography with a friend the other day, and we came across a strange song simply titled "Stayin' Alive"; it had no album or anything other than Ozzy as the artist. We played it... And it ended up being a bootleg recording of Ozzy Osbourne singing a cover of the Beegee's "Stayin' Alive", featuring Dweezil Zappa! No joke: the Prince of Darkness covered a classic disco hit. Apparently, Dweezil Zappa asked Ozzy to do the vocals, but it was never released on an album because Ozzy's label at the time didn't think it'd be good publicity for Ozzy... so the released version has the vocals done by Donny Osmond. Has anyone else on OCRemix come across songs that have been covered by artists you would have never expected? Here's a link to a page where you can download the Ozzy version of "Stayin' Alive", in case anyone's curious. If you don't want to download it, you can find it on Youtube: "Stayin' Alive" by Ozzy Osbourne, feat. Dweezil Zappa

My girlfriend gave me one of her Ocarina of Time carts (she had two for some reason), and when I tried playing it, I realized the save battery was dead. I was sad.

Oh, man. I'll never forget the most painful savegame loss in my life. The game was the GCN version of Phantasy Star Online, and I was absolutely addicted to it, as was my friend/neighbor/gaming buddy. We played the game almost non-stop; in fact, we played it so much that we decided to abuse a drop mechanic (drops get better the longer you play without turning the game off) by playing the game for 72 hours straight, which ended up frying my Gamecube's cooling and breaking my system. We eventually got to around lvl 87 or so, almost 90. We both had AMAZING equips and could take out enemies and bosses in record time. We had logged in over 210 hours total into the game. So, when my family decided to make me take a break from gaming to take a trip to Florida with them in an RV, I brought my 'cube with me so I could still level. One day, we had parked in an RV park and got notice that a hurricane was heading for Florida, and so we were told to evacuate. While my parents were learning about this, I was inside playing PSO. My dad yelled to me the situation and told me to turn everything off, and I yelled to him to wait for a minute so I could save. I start saving... and all of the sudden, I lose power. I beg for him to turn the power back on for a second, and when I boot up, my save (as well as my friend's save) is corrupted. Needless to say, I lost it. ...I haven't played that game since; it's been at least 5 years.

I'm pretty sure this DOES use two mics spaced six inches apart. But two mics can only tell left and right, not left, right, up, and down. The algorithm can correct not only for left/right and forward/back, but also up/down.

Holy crap, that's cool. I've listened to this 3 times already and can't get over how accurate it is. I really wish more audio was done this way.

If that's really the case (and I've read enough of it to know that it is, honestly; I'm just trying to point out the flaws), then "Playing to Win" was a horrible name for the book/philosophy, because he's not really advocating playing to win, he's advocating playing to do your best. Not quite the catchy title, but people remember catchphrases more than they remember actual passages. "Play to win" is easier to remember or regurgitate than "play with the intention of always bettering yourself and fighting to he best of your ability", and so people are going to act on what they remember. "Playing to win" means playing to win, and people will do that.

I don't see how more opponents helps someone who's playing to win. If anything, more opponents means more fights in the bracket, which mean a harder time getting the gold. Sure, you won't get too much better at a tournament with only 16 people in it, but it's not called "playing to get better" or "playing to be skilled"... it's called "playing to win". Winning at any cost is your ultimate goal, and fighting good people in the bracket will always make achieving that goal harder.

Well, personally, I'm sure (especially after this discussion) that you're both decent dudes to play against, but, like I've said, running an actual large-scale tournament is quite the experience; I've been in contact with anywhere between 500-750 players in my Smash career (maybe not unique players, though). After what I've seen at actual live tournaments, you guys are an exception. Decent people at a tournament are not impossible to find by any means, but a group is usually judged based off of the outstanding people (good or bad), not the median people, and tournaments with their large cash prizes really bring some cruel people out of the woodwork; it's hard to believe until you actually see it for yourself. I know I've dogged a lot on Sirlin in this thread, and I understand that his stuff has really helped some people, but after reading it at a more critical level, I really do see elements that encourage poor sportsmanship, even if it's not explicity doing so (that quotation earlier, for instance, doesn't say "be a douche", but can be used to justify it). So, basically, yeah. Sportsmanship is always a good thing, and you guys are good dudes... but I see you as exceptions to the rule, and that's thanks to my experiences.

See, this is where sportsmanship comes into play. Sometimes, you're lucky enough to get in some friendlies time before pools starts, but usually those matches are cliques and friends practicing for actual matches; few times will you see a pro playing an amateur before the tournament proper. But, put yourself in the shoes of a noob player for a second. This is your first time at a tourney, and you're excited. You're pretty good with your friends; some of them have even come to cheer you on. You get assigned your pool and you get in with some pro player (but you don't know that, because your a noob and you don't lurk SWF). Next thing to know, you go 0-2 and get 3-stocked both times, and your other pools matches go just as badly. How would you feel? Most people (sure, there are some freakish people like zircon who have superhuman maturity levels their first time out of the gate) would feel horrible, and certainly wouldn't be in the mood to play a game anymore. This is the situation at actual tournaments. When it starts, the room is packed, but after first round / pools, half the room is empty because all those people just want to go home / do something that won't make them more depressed. As a TO, I've seen and heard this (and as a player, I've done this). This is not uncommon. Now, you're the pro player that 3-stocked the noob in pools. You have a choice, both during the match and afterwards. During the match, it will be obvious that you are the better player; let's be clear, I'm not talking about two mid-level players, or even a mid-level player and a noob, I'm talking about you're D3 and your opponent doesn't even know what the words "chain grab" mean. Sure, you can cheese the guy, and even if you don't, you can 0-death him and end the match in 30 seconds so you can just get on to your next match as quickly as possible. But... it's not necessary. You don't have to do that to win, and you know, consciously know that your opponent will not only not have fun, but will feel humiliated and demoralized. You're really saying that you, just for the sake of saying you did, will really do that to a person with no regard for their emotion? And after the match, you also have a choice. You see the guy, totally wrecked and demoralized, and you have 3 options. You can leave for your next match (and the noob leaves the tournament, dejected, maybe never to return), you can shake his hand and say "GG" (which still leaves him feeling shitty, and he still probably leaves without learning how to beat a chain grab), or you shake his hand and say, "Good game; if you want to wait for just a sec, I'll play some friendlies with you and teach you how to stop that tech" (which keeps him there, cheers him up a bit, teaches him something, and gives the entire community a positive impression). There is so much human / community element that Sirlin just leaves out in his writings; technically, it's not really his responsibility to foster good will in any competitive community. But, like I've already illustrated, being sportsmanlike has so much potential for positive growth for a gaming community: positive self-image, positive public image, increased player base (which means a more diverse game), and increased community (which is kind of the point of driving across 2 states to get to a tournament). There is so much that can be lost in the name of "playing to win", in the Sirinian sense. Yeah, I agree. Again, outside of close-knit groups of players, this rarely happens, and it's in part because of the exclusionary mindset we foster within our communities. We don't care about being sportsmanlike to outsiders; if we shake our pro buddy's hand after a match, we think that's what makes sportsmanship. Sportsmanship is grace in defeat and humility in victory, regardless of relative skill level. If pros aren't extending the olive branch to noobs (yes, even noobs that cry foul every now and then), they aren't really mature players with sportsmanship; it's a thin facade of sportsmanship. And even so, we can't deny that there are still plenty of people that would actively and willingly horde secrets to make money at a tournament. That can't be denied. It's rare, but only in a pro-level sense; pros horde info from noobs all the time at large tournaments; I personally see it happen. That can't be denied, either. Correct, because someone truly adopting Sirlin's doctrine would never question a choice of rules until they prove, in some way, that they should be changed. That doesn't mean it's right, though. Face it: a major TO is behaving like a scrub. To a group of players, a scrub is the one guy saying "This needs to be banned 'cause it's so cheap!"; Xyro, in comparison, is the one TO in the room saying Meta / IC grabs are cheap. He's a scrub in a macro sense. You may argue that individual players don't have the right to complain, but they actually do, since Xyro is the one holding the tournaments and without his scene, Houston Smash (where he locally operates) wouldn't exist. If you don't like his rules... there is nowhere else to go. Besides, TO's may not like BS at their events, but we will always encourage debate over the rules (as long as no one expects them changed the-day-of). I don't know how many people I had to explain ISP rules to at WHOBO, but I loved every second of it (I actually had some good points raised to me that I hadn't considered before). Ultimately, Sirlin's arguments lay the groundwork for people to exclude those who don't agree; after all, if the people who don't like Xyro's rules just never go, well, you can't expect debate and discourse in a place with no people, can you? A case in point: my grandparents argue that Muslims who don't 100% agree with the US social order should just leave, since they obviously don't want to be here. But, that's not true at all, since they do want to be here and without them, there's no social debate (on whatever issue they take offense to). Same in gaming. You're arguing that people who don't agree should just go away. But they want to join. Sirlin's thinking is explicitly excluding people who just want to be a part of the community, and that's never a good thing for competition.

Sorry for the double post; my original post was 2000 characters too long, . Irrelevant. I don't care how respected he is. Half the country respects Bush 43 (the red people); doesn't mean his rationale for war wasn't completely retarded. Also, if you haven't been to any large-scale tournaments, stop talking about player behavior like you have any clue what's going on. I don't claim to know how you play in your OCR TF2 server because I've never been there. You've never been to a tournament, so stop talking like you've personally witnessed a room of 300 people starved for 1500$ acting like saints. You're tournament attendance may not be relevant to the concept of sportsmanship, but it certainly is relevant to your qualifications for even debating the subject. I think wanting to win and adopting Sirlinist doctrine are two different things. "Playing to win" is a mindset created by making a distinction between your motivations and another player's motivations, and then purposefully distinguishing yourself as morally superior. I can play a game with the intention of winning and still not believe in "scrubs" or Sirlinist doctrine. I seriously doubt Kobe is going around calling other players "scrubs". Meanwhile, pro gamers are going around calling people "scrubs". What's the difference? Kobe isn't taught Sirlinist doctrine, and gamers are. There are many reasons not to pick a character; a good number of pros won't play Metaknight because they want him banned (although one, Overswarm, played him as gay as possible to get him banned, too ). Either way, it's really irrelevant. The only thing that makes one player weaker than another is skill level. THIS IS SIRLIN'S PROBLEM, AND YOUR PROBLEM. I don't care what philosophy you have; you can be pacifist and refuse to fight for all I care. If you have more skill than me and can beat me in combat, you are better; mindset, motivation, and philosophy is totally irrelevant to who has more skill. Where do you get off saying that someone who has different motivations than you is a weaker player (or person)? Also, (again) millions of people give Bush 43 positive reviews, too. Again, if you knew anything about intellectual honesty and logical debate, you'd know that a million, a billion, every person on the planet could agree on something... but that doesn't make them right. ...so? He plays crap characters for shock value, hoping that his opponents won't know the matchup (and he probably enjoys playing them more, too). He's a scrub by his own definition. Unless he's playing those characters intently to be able to play every single character at top level, he's restricting himself to characters that don't give him the highest statistical chance of winning. That. Is. Not. Playing. To. Win. "Your way is good, and right, and true..." TELL ME THAT DOESN'T MEAN SOMEONE IS BETTER THAN SOMEONE ELSE! Not in that quotation, he's not. In that quotation, he's pointing out that the Sirlinite is morally superior to the "scrub" and that the Sirlinite has a moral obligation to prove the scrub wrong (hell, to prove any dissenter wrong) by beating them in a fight. The very words "good, and right, and true" are the important words here. NO ONE plays a game and does not intend to win, even the "scrub"; that's why he's objecting in the first place, to better his chances of winning! You really believe that someone who doesn't follow Sirlinist doctrine doesn't play with the objective of winning? Really? Have you ever even read a holy text? They write the same way. I'm calling this doctrine for a reason; because Sirlin's writings go WAY past "winning should be your objective, and you shouldn't hold yourself back" to outright dogma. It's a philosophy that actively teaches moral superiority. You seem intent on denying this, even though the words are staring you in the face. No one plays with the intention of losing, and his even SUGGESTING that people, especially people at tournaments, would do so is disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst. Your objective is no different! He's not saying the objectives are different because they aren't. The objectives of all parties is always to win the match. What he's asserting is that your mindset is superior, and that, by default, means that you are morally superior. There is nothing to separate there.

Most first-time players aren't "ready" to compete. When I first went to a Melee tourney, I had been playing Melee for 5 years against one of my close gaming friends competitively. I mained Link (because I love Link as a character), and he mained Falco. I hate Falco. With a passion reserved for the deepest, most fiery pits of Hael. The reason I hate him is because his blasters are so OP vs. Link; I'd never tell him not to use them, but it doesn't mean the didn't piss me off. So, when I got good enough to beat him consistently, I went to a Melee tournament hosted at my college thinking I was going to stand a chance. I had never even HEARD of SWF at this point; it was obvious to anyone else that I would get owned. This little story is important for a few reasons: First, the noob player usually has an overinflated sense of self. That's to be expected, though; when you're good amongst a group of people, it makes sense (to them) to extrapolate that to a larger group of people (within reason). What sucks is that pro players don't remember being this way themselves and treat noob players like trash for even considering going to a tournament without 5 months of lurking on a forum they didn't even know existed. Second, there is a BIG difference between "acceptance" and "tolerance". I tolerated Falco's lasers (still do, too). I would never seriously want them banned, but that doesn't mean that my friend not using them for a few matches wouldn't have helped me learn, nor that they aren't still incredibly cheap vs Link. I think Mr. Garrison said it best on South Park's "Museum of Tolerance" episode: "You tolerate a crying baby or you tolerate a bad cold; doesn't mean it can't still piss you off!" Players are in no way required to accept anything. IC grabs, D3's chain throws, Falco's lasers, Meta's 'Nado... they're all legal, but that doesn't mean they aren't total BS. No one is required to accept those and never ever get pissed by them to be a decent person. Well, if that's how you play, then be prepared to be labeled as an asshole. If it's obvious that people play to have fun first and foremost, and that you're not going to lose, and that you're already having fun, why on earth would you purposefully hammer someone into the ground and take away his fun, too? Because money is on the line? Because it's a tournament? You're going to win anyway. If your opponent is bracket fodder, why would you think it's ok to take away his fun just because he's less skilled than you? The worst case scenario here is that your action force a player away from the game by showing him the "futility" of playing and showing him how big of dicks the community is made of. Best case is you motivate him, but how many people really think on that mature of a level? Christ, use the opportunity to talk to the guy during the match. Explain that it's not smart to take D3 to Corneria's wing because of the chain grab, don't just lure him there and laugh at him (note, I'm not sayin YOU'D laugh at him, but either way, it's not necessary)! Sirlin encourages this by his "competitive players are holier-than-thou" attitude as referenced by his own writings. Why are you guys ignoring human nature? He doesn't have to write a chapter on purposefully being a dick at a tournament to influence it! The Pope doesn't tell people to bomb abortion clinics, but that doesn't mean he's not influencing people to do so. I'll give you that this is a (mainly) Smash-related problem, because of the Brawl / Melee relationship. Also, it's just so easy to make money in Brawl. First, I'd like to say that I agree that SWF's Shadowy Board of Pro Players, *ahem* I mean the Smash Back Room, is indeed a dumb way to do things (I always believe that disinformation is a bad thing, though). I've said so in a couple of threads there... and subsequently got flamed to hell for challenging the status quo. So... there you go. Second, show any player the IC infinite, and they will want to be able to do it, too. Any player will. Hell, I'm sure all the pros who can't wish they could, too. So, the thoughts "I wish I knew" and "it shouldn't be allowed" are not mutually exclusive. Even if they were, though, a player is well within his rights to legitimately not believe something should be allowed. Even so, most times, thinking like that is due to a mixture of feeling cheated and (and the "and" is important) not being educated to the weaknesses of the tech. If we, as competitive players, don't want to make the effort to dispel the misinformation, how do we expect people to know the truth? We're the ones with the info, and we're refusing to use it! Teach a noob player; it's your duty as a pro player to dispel the lies about your own community. Sure, we know that now. In retrospect, people are rarely "scrubs". As of now, though, Xyro is a scrub, according to Sirlin. He's playing with a pre-defined set of rules in his head (and worse, is using his TO status to force other players to play by his rules, too!). His justification is irrelevant; that is the definition of "scrub behavior", according to Sirlin's own writings. If he doesn't want to be considered a scrub, by Sirlinist doctrine, Xyro himself has to prove why he's right; then he won't be a scrub.

*sigh* You keep forgetting really important things, and it seems that I'll have to quote you for you to see them. I think history has taught us that the majority isn't always right, if we can even agree on what right is (after all, who says an Akuma-only SF isn't a good game? It depends on the subjective definition of a "good game"). ...so you're trying to tell me that he's a good player because he plays to win? Ok, there are some serious problems here. First of all, we're talking about Samus here. vBrawl Samus is trash, at best. He plays her not because she's good (like a true Sirlinite would do), but because he likes her, even though she's bad. That's NOT playing to win. Even so, Samus doesn't even really have "cheap" stuff (besides her projectile spam, which is ok in Brawl). Not to mention, he hosts entire tournaments that ban IC grabs (or at least limits them) and outright ban Metaknight. So... yeah. He's really not playing to win, by Sirlin's definition, and he's certainly not facilitating it with his TO policies. And even if he was, who are you (or who is Sirlin, for that matter) to make the judgment that he wouldn't be good if he wasn't a Sirlinite? Where's your proof for that lofty statement? There are plenty of good players (not A-tier, multi-hundred $ winners, mind you, but good players nonetheless) that don't follow Sirlin's philosophy of always taking the easiest, most profitable route to a win. There are also plenty of trash players who only pick Metaknight because he's S-tier and still get their asses kicked. "Play to win" =/= "good player". First of all, you weren't acting like a "scrub"; you were acting like someone treated unfairly (or someone who perceived unfairness). And the only reason you stopped that was because: * You're hard-headed * You learned about the game, instead of staying ignorant Good for you; not everyone is lucky enough to be as stubborn as you / have your wealth of info. Some people need some help to be taught things and can't / won't find things out alone... Oh, if only there were people who already possessed the knowledge and were willing to teach it... OH, WAI- Again, you speak as if you've ever been to a live tournament. You've watched videos from EVO? You mean carefully edited videos making EVO out to be the Mecca of fighters in an attempt to draw even more people next year? Yeah... go to EVO. I'll say it one more time, and if I'm not answered again, I'm just going to stop debating with you, because you're obviously not listening: Name the large-scale tournament you've gone to that had such a super-de-duper pool of pro competitive players who admitted to being devout Sirlinites. If you can't, then at least have the intellectual honesty to admit you're making a lot of assumptions here. All this means is that emotionally mature people tend not to be assholes. Wow. Really? I wasn't aware. You forget to mention that you don't need to be emotionally mature to be a Sirlinite; that's nowhere in the requirements. All you need to be a Sirlinite is an unwavering belief that winning is the most important aspect of competition. Well, that and the belief that you're intrinsically better than everyone who disagrees with your ruleset. Oh, and I notice you still didn't refer to that quotation; don't think I didn't notice that. EDIT: I noticed some things that I forgot to address earlier; I'll make up for that now. 1 ) In post #62, you state that playing lesser players won't get you any better; Sirlin explicitly explains the benefits of playing lesser players in his "Playing to Learn" article. Also, the nature of a bracket dictates that, at some point, you will fight someone worse (or better) than you. Sportsmanlike conduct would be not demoralizing them when you clearly don't have to. I'm sure you wouldn't need to be absolutely devastated in order to know you need to get better, right? 2 ) Also in post #62, you say that SF players don't withhold tactics, and that Sirlin never says to do so. He never explicitly says to do so, sure, but again, that's not what happens. What really happens is that pro players share tactics with each other, and exclude the scrubs. Forums are the exception, since once someone posts a tactic, it's free for everyone to see. Doesn't mean a pro player spamming throws is going to take the "scrub" player under his wing after the tournament and teach him "l33t skill no. 14", especially after the player complains about the throwing; the pro player is just going to label him as a scrub, think it's a lost cause, remember that he's better on a moral level, and go to his next match / play with his pro buddies. 3 ) In post #64, technically, the developer is right by default, until the players disagree; anything can be justified within Sirlinist doctrine. They were tiny things, but things I thought important to at least note.

I don't think your The Force Unleashed comparison is really applicable. If we have an AT-AT battle, and your only choices are "Push X to jump" or "Push anything else to take damage", you don't really have a choice. Now, if you had the choice of "Push X to jump", "Push O to shock", or "Push Square to Saber"... that'd be some gameplay. I think the general argument Cerrax is trying to make (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that in a game, less gameplay is bad. Xenosaga/MGS isn't bad, per se, but they are less game than movie, and in the context of video games, that's bad. Sure, a SMW level will never change, but you always have a choice of how to play it; more "cinematic" games force-feed you Shenmue-style QTEs to the point where the game isn't an RPG or a Tactical Stealth game, it's a... QTE game. ...we should officially start calling certain games "Quick Time Event" games. That'll stop this nonsense.

Ok, go back a few pages and read that quotation, please. If you'd just do that, all of this would make sense to you. ... ... ...done? Ok, we'll move on. Remember, Sirlin's articles all make a few assumptions: A ) The majority, ultimately, is right. It has to be; they're the ones making the rules. Since there is no objective ban criteria (and he makes no attempts to define any), ultimately the majority (or at least, the majority of pros) make the rules. B ) If you don't agree with the rules, you are a scrub. He says it, pretty much flat out in his definition of what a scrub is. The scrub cries foul and says something is unfair. Xyro, one of Texas' top TOs, thinks Metaknight, an entire character, is unfair. He also thinks the IC grabs are unfair. He, aside from being a top TO, is one of Texas' top Samus players. He's a good player, and Sirlin would call him a scrub. C ) According to that quotation, "play to win" is a mindset, a philosophy. Anyone who doesn't agree needs a pro to reform them by beating them. But, according to "play to win", if you're in a tournament match and you DON'T do everything at your disposal to win, you're not really playing to win. Forget if you have no chance of losing because you're playing someone who has never been to a tournament before; you had better pick D3 and chain grab against a wall for 7 minutes, because that's the easiest way to win (it's a "brick wall", according to Sirlin). That kind of behavior makes people not want to play. D ) This entire thread is about sportsmanship, remember? Sirlin's atricles advocate thinking that you have a superior mindset to other people, and history (human history, not just gaming history) proves that people who think they are intrinsically better in any capacity will mistreat people they consider to be beneath them. A pro player who believes in the scrub mentality will, without fail, act in an unsportsmanlike manner. The fact of the matter is that I have proof to this (sure, you have to take my word, but I have staff that will back me up here); you have yet to even admit you've ever been to a live tournament. I don't care if Sirlin doesn't have an article that's named "Playing to Win - Mocking the Opposition"; his teachings will make people do it by their very nature. I also don't care if your in-group of players gradually matured over the course of playing a game with each other, because that is NOT what a pro tournament setting is like at all. At a tournament, pros expect you to be pro, too. If you aren't, you're excluded, unless you're lucky enough to find a pro with a sense of sportsmanship, which can be rare. So, let's boil it down for you, hmm? * "Play to win" sets out a "moral" superiority and a definition for inferior people * People, by their nature, will most likely treat people they are taught are inferior like crap * Treating other people like crap in a competitive environment is unsportsmanlike * Sirlin, though not explicitly (all the time), lays the groundwork for unsportsmanlike conduct * ??? * Profit!!

Let's get one thing straight: there is no player who ever goes to a tournament without liking the game first; I've never seen a noob player come to a tournament and NOT already like the game. By definition, the noob player has either played exclusivly as a casual or has only played low-level competitive matches. Let's take any noob player and throw him up against anyone who knows, for instance, the Ice Climber infinites. IC infinites have a few important weaknesses. First, the IC's have shit grab range. Second, you need both Climbers to do them, and separating them stops the grab (thanks to Nana's craptastic AI). Third, they are tough to time right and have different timings on different characters. Add all these up and the IC infinites can definitely be beaten (even if they can potentially result in a 0-death on the entire cast-the IC's). If ANY noob who does not know the above info gets IC grabbed, I guarantee you, $1000 on the table right now, I'll put it on PayPal, they will cry foul. You can't ignore that. Unless they already read Sirlin (and fell to his wiles), they'll think that's broken, and it's logical that they should! A OHKO grab? In a DEFENSIVE game? That takes away ALL player control? Any logical person, not knowing the weaknesses, would complain about that. But you're expecting me to believe that everyone has the ability to intrinsically know NOT to complain about something as extreme as that? To an unknowledgable player, everything exploitable seems like an IC infinite, even grabs (in some games). That's why they're uneducated, why they're new. No player wants to stay stagnant at a game they enjoy. If you enjoy playing a game (and it's fairly obvious that most people who go to a tournament, noob or pro, love the game there), you always want to get better, even if it's just better than your friends. But, being beaten into the ground and mocked afterward, especially when all you're doing is (basically) asking how something that seems (to you) to be broken is allowed? Yeah, that's enough to make anyone quit playing out of sheer frustration / shame. No one, not even a "scrub", really wants to play a watered-down game; everyone, however, DOES want a fair shot, and when people see things that, from their perspective, are unfair, they have EVERY RIGHT to call foul. Sirlin be damned, I hope everyone calls foul their first time; I'm all for dissent. But, let's be clear on something: you're precious OCR TF2 server and your forums are NOT a real-life, in-person tournament. Go to a 300-man tournament some time, one with a 15$ buy in and a 1000$ sponsorship on the line. Because I've hosted one of those. WHOBO at Anime Matsuri '09. Look it up. I was recording matches there, aside from running tournaments; I saw a lot. Pros at tournaments are dicks, for the most part. They are part of an exclusive club, and they are taught by people like Sirlin that, not because of their skill, but because of their mindset (play to win), they are intrinsically better than others (and you still haven't, btw, refuted that quotation; try to justify how that isn't exclusionary fanaticism, please). Put 1500$ on the line, and see how people act. Go ahead. There are plenty of people that HATE Brawl and still play in tournaments. Seriously. People that detest Brawl as a game that is killing off a superior game in Melee. They still play Brawl not because they enjoy it, but because it makes them money. Don't try to make the assertion that everyone who ascribes to Sirlin's teachings also loves to play their respective game, because that's wishful thinking. Flat out, Sirlin's own writings assert (again, explicitly) that if you complain about anything that seems cheap to you, you are a scrub and need spiritual reformation. That is disingenuous at best. You say that you can be bad and not be a scrub? Yeah, those are the people who already agree with Sirlin. People can learn and get better and still not agree that taking complete control away from a player is fair (IC grabs); to Sirlin, they're still scrubs. So, to him, you can be bad and not be a scrub, but you can be good and still be a scrub, too. It's a no win... unless you agree with Sirlin, of course.

The fact that he even calls uneducated players a name like "scrub" in the first place shows exactly how he feels on the subject. "Scrub" players are lesser players. They aren't playing right. He says it explicitly. You can't think that way and NOT treat people badly; that's textbook superiority complex. Do you even go to tournaments? Serious question. If not, you have no idea how competitive players act in a competitive environment (and internet competition doesn't count, thanks to John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory). On a forum, it's expected that the uneducated lurk moar before they post so that they know what they're talking about; I don't know how many times I've flamed people for not using SWF's search function / reading the stickies. Forums are compilations of information; if someone has a legit question, he shouldn't be flamed, but there's such a thing as reading. In a tournament setting, this is totally different. If you don't understand something, those without iPhones have to ASK, or at least voice something. It's those people that get screwed at tournaments; pro players get their kicks out of playing "friendlies" with noob players and utterly destroying them. Sure, there are some decent people out there (if anyone ever gets a chance to play ANY fighter against T-rex or Mr. 3000 in Texas Smash, please do; they're the most decent pro players you'll ever meet), but the majority like their little Pro's Club, and take every opportunity to show how l33t their skills are. Every pro that ascribes to a Sirlinian outlook by definition has nothing but contempt for anyone labelled a "scrub". It's not up to the scrub to just "realize" he's being a lesser player and not living up to the true glory that is competition and playing to win; it's the pro's job to prove that playing to win is just as fun as playing for... well, fun. They're the one making the assertion; sure, an uneducated player is asserting that something is broken, but you can't lead yourself out of a dark cave with no light, right? If the pro's want people to stop being uneducated at tournaments, you would think they'd step up, as the pros, and do a little teaching.

See, the problem with what Zircon is asserting is that no one who knows a game's mechanics would argue that banning throws is a good idea. But, when someone says "throws are overpowered" (very few would actually go far enough to want them to be banned entirely), they are labelled a "scrub" by competitive players. Competitive players almost instantly and unanimously label a person like that with a name meant, by definition, to demean and make no attempt to educate the person. Maybe he IS playing to win. Maybe not. Either way, he's not a scrub, he's just uninformed, but that can be fixed easily. Well, it can be fixed easily as long as players are willing to teach and not be assholes. Like I said before, I've seen this at tournaments ALL THE TIME. The instant the word "cheap" comes out of a person's mouth, people badmouth, trash talk, etc. the poor guy and refuse to play with him from that point onward (again, with a few exceptions; myself and other TOs I work with try to educate new/uninformed players on any aspect of the game). Quite simply, Native Jovian has it right: competitive players use Sirlin as an excuse to put themselves on a pedestal. That quotation reads like it should come out of some holy war scripture or something; competitive players are ordained by the Gods of Gaming to smite the "scrubs" in the holy name of competition. It's ridiculous. When I was trying to build a ban criteria for ISP (I'm acutally surprised someone here knew about that, ), I ran into the problem of figuring out exactly what was "too broken". We still, technically, haven't. We're working on it, but we have put things in place to mitigate that for the time being. Giving EVERYONE a say in the outcome of the rules helps, but ultimately giving a final call to raw frame/damage/code data is a big part of being successful. The rest of Smash (from what I've read on all the tactical boards) is way more subjective than our project will ever be, but because we are advocating items, we get badmouthed all the time; hell, the very first thread (out of a total of three so far) had to be mod-protected from all the flaming and ended up being shut down since a majority of the posts were people telling us we were idiots for even suggesting alternate ways to play (not even replacement ways!). Ultimately, I think that a player with sportsmanship knows when to pull out all the stops and when not to. If M2K (God Smash player, for those who don't know) meets noob player A in pools and sandbags a little after the first match (the match where he learned there was no way he'd lose anyway), that doesn't mean he's a disgrace to the Sirlinian way; it just means he didn't actively push a new player away from the game by being a dick. Hell, if he shakes the dude's hand afterwards and offers to teach him a thing or two later, THAT'S true sportsmanship; I wish I'd see more players shaking hands after even pools matches at the tournaments I run...

I'e read nearly every one of Sirlin's articles, with the exception of his multiple articles over his changes to SSF2THDR. It's why I think he's so overblown. Not a single one of Sirlin's articles or arguments lays out something that is not only important, but crucial to the survival of any competitive game: an objective ban criteria. When is something "too good"? If the game's code is law, but game code can be glitchy, buggy, or whatever, then it's up to players to fix the problem. But, how many characters have to be made unviable for something to be considered "broken"? 1? 5? 20? All but 1? How strong does something have to be, how many options does it have to shut down, how many frames of advantage must it have, what is the maximum range, the fastest speed, the strongest power something has to have to be "bannable"? Sirlin's entire site boils down to "hey guys, make sure to remember to justify yourselves", but anything can be justified because everything is arbitrary, even the game's code! The first time we ban something the code allows because we think it's broken becomes the point where even game code isn't sacred; at that point, we can literally do anything we want because everything is arbitrary. This is the problem I have with Sirlin and competitive gamers in general. They use these flimsy arguments and lofty logical strings to justify looking down on other players for thinking differently. MvC2 is a terribly balanced game, I'll admit that, and I don't know how to perform roll cancelling so I can't say how hard it is to ban; I'll take your word, though, and say that you can't ban it. Just because you have to use something to play doesn't mean it's unsportsmanlike. What's unsportmanlike is if roll cancelling turns the game into a game where everyone has to use the same team of 3 to play at all. Games become unsportsmanlike when the players would rather win than foster the health of the community. If roll cancelling is so hard to do that it reduces the entire competitive community to the 100 people worldwide who can move fast enough to do it, it's degenerate and the players are unsportsmanlike. Ledgehogging in Brawl is mean, sure, but it doesn't force the size of the community down; it may be mean, but it's not unsportsmanlike because it doesn't hurt the health of the competitive community.

If that's what a scrub is, then there are a LOT more scrubs than competitive communities want to admit to. SWF has right now debates on: * Metaknight * Stages * Chain grabs * Infinites / infinite grabs (not the same as simple chain grabs) * A minor (very minor) kerfuffle over items (still) And these aren't because of casual players registering and bitching. I'm talking about people like Xyro, one of Texas' premiere TOs. Members of the highest eschalon of Smash still complain about parts of our rules (or at least, the Shadowy Board of Pro Players' rules). If wanting to change accepted rules qualifies you to be a scrub, then every player HAS to be conservative all the time. Nothing changes, which means nothing gets better. That, simply put, is BS. Planking (ledgecamping, especially with good ole' Meta) is beatable. Doesn't mean it doesn't devolve the game into a camp-fest and ultimately hurt the competitive environment. What's worse is that this is usually an American problem. Japanese Brawl doesn't have NEARLY the problems that American Brawl has because they have sportsmanship and won't use techs that risk actively hurting the game field. The state of play is more important than a single win. That's what true sportsmanship is: not allowing a single win to be to the detriment of the competitive atmosphere as a whole. Gaming, especially fighters, doesn't have that kind of sportsmanship: they have a kind of sportsmanship that allows them to shit all over lesser players and force them to quit playing before they have a chance to get good (which only helps a pro's odds, btw). Are there any explicit rules that prevent a sports team from stealing and studying their opponent's playbook? No. Would it benefit them? Of course. Would everyone doing it degenerate any sport? Naturally. When it comes right down to it, EVERY SET OF RULES IS ARBITRARY. Every one of them. No sport, IRL or video game, has a set of rules that is any less arbitrary than the other. Sirlin, whether he says it explicitly or not, lays the groundwork for justifying anything you want and having a pre-made argument to shut everyone else's down. Basically, the only counter to a Sirlin "play to win" argument is to be the first person to write the rules.

Technically, Sakurai knew about it, but didn't think anything would come from it, which was why he left it in; his argument was that he'd rather spend the time / effort / money making the rest of Melee awesome than remove an unintended facet of the physics engine that "probably wouldn't" acutally effect the game any. I'm sure if he realized what we did with WD'ing would happen, he'd have fixed it. He respects competitive players, but he respects casuals more, which is evident in all of the anti-competitive stuff he put in Brawl on purpose (like tripping). Besides, there isn't even sportsmanship in local matches. Maybe among the highest eschalon, maybe. Again, at the Brawl tournaments I'VE hosted, top players are assholes to newbies or unskilled players just starting out or trying to learn. I can't even count how many people I've personally heard say "I'm never playing this game again" thanks to pros treating them like shit in game, between all the trash talk and DDD D-throwing them against a wall or something. And Metaknight.

Hey, this is something I know about personally. See, I spend a lot of time playing Smash Bros. competitively (and hosting tournaments)... and that whole community is built on the assumption that not only are people probably going to be dicks, but that if you don't play as a dick on purpose, you are failing as a gamer. The entire fighting game section of competitive games shares this philosophy. They learned it (in part) from a man named David Sirlin. Go ahead and Google him; find his work and read it, and I guarantee you'll want to gag at how self-serving it is. If pro sports IRL worked the way these people view competitive gaming, we'd be looking at a very different world (of sports). See, they call it "playing to win". If you don't do everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) at your disposal to win, you aren't really trying your best to win and are disgracing yourself and the competitive community at large by being a "scrub". They actually ascribe to being a dick in games as though it's something to aspire to. I wish I were making this up. For instance, there is a controversy in Brawl over infinite chain grabs, grabs that combo into themselves infinitely and basically lead to grab -> death. These chain grabs literally make 7 entire characters unplayable in tournaments. If the Ice Climbers pull it off, it's an infinite on the ENTIRE CAST. Worst of all, they're really not that hard to do. Sure, I'm simplifying a bit, but the only reason people aren't just maining IC's, DDD, and Falco all day is because Meta Knight is so stupidly good (and easy to play). Let me re-iterate: 7 ENTIRE CHARACTERS cannot be played AT ALL in a tournament because it's a 100% guaranteed loss to do so. This is perfectly acceptable to competitive fighting game players. Hell, MvC2 is pretty much built off of only using teams that infinite. They don't care that they are basically degrading the game; if it wins, it wins. Pick a new main. Forget the fact that you literally cannot do ANYTHING accept unplug the opponent's controller / punch the opponent in the face once it starts. It's in the game's coding, so it's legal.

Well, then I'm obviously not addressing you. But, seriously. Between the pic posted earlier of all the boycotters on MW2 and all of the people touting the new cracked version, it's obvious that there are PLENTY of hypocrites out there. And I'd really rather they all live in a hole for the remainder of their lives; it's people like them that make life harder for those of us actually TRYING to make change / progress in our industry.

Seriously, when are these PC hypocrites going to admit they didn't have the balls to stand up to IW / Activision and move on? And I don't want to hear any BS about "well, I'm sticking it to the man by playing a cracked game". Bullshit. First of all, if you REALLY wanted to stick it to the man, you wouldn't be playing MW2 at all. Second, those cracked games still report to the IWNet servers, meaning that you're ALL REINFORCING Infinity Ward's original view: that modders and crackers screw over the rest of the community. Go ahead: report you 10k exp per kill matches to IWNet and screw over all of the innocent casuals who just want to play a damn game, go to a leaderboard to see how much work they've put in, and *BAM* broken leaderboards. Way to prove IW wrong, guys. So far, you're only proving that you're self-righteous assholes who don't care about screwing other players over to get what you want (even if that screwing over explicitly involves giving up your beliefs because you weren't even strong enough to stick to a "boycott").