SC, although I've always advocated that the sub is possible non-SC

Voted for SC.
Although I secretely hope it's done nonSC, I just can't believe you've cut ''18 off the current WR! Feel free to prove me wrong  

KVD wrote on 10/30/14 at 05:50:23:


Lol Anton talks too much!  

I was a bit suspicious but I voted that it was a legit Non-SC WR, out of sheer optimism.

But... jumping over the wall is banned? I'm sure I've seen something like that done before in a Non-SC vid. I've never done it myself, so at least I know my own times are legit.

Sportsguy001 wrote on 10/30/14 at 13:49:38:


fixed

Yes it is, and I said that way back in 2000 and something when I hit the WR. I still don't get how can this be illegal and longboost legit.

I'm more inclined to ban the longboost strat than to allow this one. But since I see it is impossible I prefer to leave it all as it is.

It's useless to ask for it to be allowed since most of "us" wanted to keep the current strat as official and that one as SC / prohibited:

http://www.mariokart64.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1346509885

I still think this makes no sense and find all the arguments against it are dumb (especially the "let's not discuss it, it was established long ago" one — sorry but this is really what I feel), but if almost nobody thinks it should be regarded as an official path, it won't prevent me from sleeping well every night.

I don't think it's worth allowing a new strat on the PP, because we'd have to redo the standards, etc. and lots of retired players, who worked very hard for their PRs with the current strat, would either have to come out of retirement and drive a lap with the new strat (while not in their top form), or lose a lot of ranks on CI1. The current rules are what's fairest for everyone.

Even when we banned LB from the main PP competition back in 2011, some of the retired players got shafted, no doubt.

This is why I quit TT'ing MKW. Everytime a new SC strat was discovered, times that I worked hard for a year earlier suddenly fell way behind in the charts. At least they eventually set up a Non-SC chart, but it came too late for all the talented players who were active 2008-2010 and since retired from the game. When I did start playing Non-SC on tracks I'd been used to playing SC, I really felt that I gave a subpar effort.

The makers of the MK7 PP learned from this mistake and wisely banned all SC's off the bat. I will assume the same is true for MK8, which I have not yet played.

But yeah, when you change a rule that's been in effect for many years, it's going to unfairly hurt someone. If we want to maintain consistency and fairness in our rankings through the years, our only real option is to keep the status quo.

I guess the same things will keep coming up after some time has passed. Personally, allow or don't allow it, it should a "majority rules" type thing, and since we already did that once before, why would it change now?

Alicia Kart wrote on 10/31/14 at 17:32:20:


Pierre has a great point to make here. We don't want to start a snowball effect where players will start asking to have more and more strats legalized-- we really have to draw the line if we want to preserve the integrity of our rankings.

I'm ambivalent about the MC2 IB. I actually think that I worked harder for my Non-IB flap than my IB one, and the removal of the IB times possibly benefitted me. But I also acknowledge that there may be some older players who still have not gone back and driven a good LB lap ever since IB was legal. And that may be hurting their overall rank (since, when in doubt, we have to use their Non-NBT flap PR).

I personally am against the legalization of any new strat, as mentioned before, but if the rest of you are going to come to a vote to allow this CI1 wall jump, at least do so as maturely and peacefully as all possible, please? I doubt Sami would approve if you were all childish about it. But if this does pass, I may or may not play SMK again just to redrive CI1 flap... because I might have a point to prove.  

Kartie: the original intention of this topic was not to bring this old discussion at all. But since it slightly moved there I gave my opinion and I have no reason to suddenly think this is acceptable. Because it is just stupid. If it was an intelligent choice / decision there would be reasonable points explaining why jumping over this wall is allowed at some point and not over another. But since there is absolutely none, I will keep on thinking this makes absolutely no sense, and will also (and even more) keep on thinking it's a weak (if not submissive) behaviour to say "it just is this way and we do not have to discuss it". And yes, I think everyone who makes his brain working this way (and I don't care if this represents a majority of people) thinks in a very foolish way.

I could also criticize the way you're reacting on this specific point because you're always answering with the "it has been disallowed for good reasons" point, without explaining what are those "good reasons" are — I guess this is probably because there are none, but you've always been living with that idea in mind, just like someone who's been taught crap as a child and will repeat it ad vitam æternam without questioning himself. And once again you're comparing it with breaking the blocks on GV1, but for fuck's sake, please stop such an off-topic comparison, jumping over a wall thanks to a series of bumpers (that, moreover, have been probably placed there for that) has absolutely NOTHING to do with breaking the blocks on GV1.

This strat is the ONLY one which has always been discussed (apart from the IB situation on MC2), and I think there is no other one in that case. It would absolutely not make people ask for other rule changes because there are no other potential banned strats anyone would like to see suddenly allowed.