Week 4: Bans

I must say that I am slightly amazed at the concept of a "soft ban"--well, perhaps not at the concept, but I'm amazed at the fact that it works.

I firmly believe in the philosophy that bans, once initiated, should be concrete and strictly enforced in tournament-level play. (Informal matches do not have any clear way to enforce bans, short of an agreement between the players, but that's another topic entirely.) Soft bans, while enforceable, seem to lack this "concreteness"--not in the way the game is played, but in the very enforcement of the ban itself. What should happen if a player breaks a soft ban? What if that player wins, possibly due to the fact that he or she used a soft-banned tactic? Does the player qualify for the title of champion, since he or she was simply playing to win? Did the use of the tactic prevent a marginally better player from winning, simply because the latter felt compelled to obey the soft ban? (If so, then the user of the soft-banned tactic gained an unfair advantage simply by taking advantage of the fact that his or her opponents held themselves back from using the same, or similar, tactics.)

That said, I don't have any qualms about "hard" bans whatsoever. As long as the game has an accepted set of rules available to all players, with clear consequences if those rules are broken, then it's a fair game. Take the hard ban on using Akuma in American tournaments of Super Street Fighter Turbo: if a player attempts to use Akuma, he or she is disqualified. Period. Whether the ban on Akuma was warranted or not is a separate question; but as long as it's made clear whether he is or is not banned, the tournament rules are clear and absolute. If the ban seems unwarranted or unfair, some other tournament will probably not have that ban. (If all tournaments do, it's probably for a very, very good reason.)