@esemdw what about repeated rulebreaking that causes bracket disruptions, TO headache, and repeated rulechanges? you donโt think said TOs are allowed to do anything about that? if i were deliberately trying to grief brackets i would do almost nothing differently than the things he did
@esemdw the subjective definition of stalling gives TOs adequate space to apply it as they see fit, defining it in a more specific way will not help in the case of a problem player who is obviously attempting in bad faith to stretch the ruleset to its absolute limit.
@esemdw stalling is banned according to most melee rulesets and it was communicated to the banned player that his repeated violation of this rule is why he was banned.
@esemdw the ruleset already bans the thing he did. there is no competitive integrity being sacrificed; there is no reason for a ruleset change in this context. its not a vibe ban because he was banned for consistently breaking the same rule. which part of this is hard to understand?
@esemdw are you capable of reason in any capacity? its a different thing to say the rules should be changed than to say he shouldnt have been banned for consistently breaking the rules in the first place. if you keep arguing like this im blocking your stupid ass and moving on
@esemdw you just pulled a rhetorical trick where you ignored the part where his stalling breaks the rules and keep pretending that heโs employing some alternate strategy of stalling that doesnt break the rules, which no one would have a problem with.
@esemdw i think you dont fundamentally understand the game. if you are behind and you do not approach you are engaging in a losing strategy. the point that he is doing this to win does not then apply. it means he must be stalling to stall, which is against the rules.
@cocosharkfem why even pretend that your infantile bigotry is theoretically sound? just admit you have the same politics as the dumbest coworker you know lmao
@loveologian โtrans women are immutably male and trans men are immutably femaleโ was there ever a premise to this type of reasoning other than trans exclusion as the starting point?