>>12426269But a match-up is not my own life, it is an agreement reached between mine and another's. That agreement is called a ruleset, whether you like it or not. This experiment would only be valid if not used in a competitive environment with discrete win-lose states, because then an honour system would not be required. As it stands, one is ("be interesting"), which is completely arbitrary to begin with and thus difficult to define (those very definitions being, again whether you like it or not, rules to begin with), but also contradicts the inherent end-game of the system, which is to win, which means that you know full well what people are going to end up doing, which will not only create the exact boring deterministic situation you're trying to circumvent, and even more quickly to boot, but reject the very honour system integral to your thesis in the first place, and thus the entire point of your experiment.
>>12426275Those weren't my concerns, that was a conversation between other people. I'm here because I, too, am interested in a tier-less system, and I'm sticking around because I'd like to see it through. Despite the rhetoric of freedom, you literally just said "if you have a dissenting opinion, sod off" (note that "bitching about Smogon" does not contain a dissenting opinion, but just that, bitching). And I, in turn, could point out that the counterarguments presented by others have done a great job of addressing *your* concerns, and yet here we are.
