This is a very disappointing response from most of the big 5 and not due to the conclusion that they reached...

From how they have responded, it doesn't seem like they did any due diligence to consider what the vast majority of community wants, and why they want it. They seem to have failed to seek or address the counterpoints to their surface level criticisms of the mod, which have been pointed out in the various UCF discussions. To me, while I 100% agree they have the power and ability to enforce the rules at the majors they run, the big 5 seem unqualified to create good arguments/reasoning or represent what the community wants.



Nintendude UCF Explained:

- UCF is in Beta, but what if the community still wants it?

- Have any of you contacted the various locals that have used it without issues?

- Do you even have a comprehensive list of locals that have been testing the latest UCF and contacted them on whether they had issues or not?

- "We Should not require" -> again, what about 80%+ of community members who WANT it?

- I do get that the UCF mod should try to emulate vanilla as close as possible. however, I feel like there should be a choice by the community to accept these VERY small differences, rather than defaulting to shutting down the mod.

- "Dash Back is Largely Misunderstood" - true, but we want ucf not simply because dashback is an issue as a mechanic, but certain controllers will always have that advantage in certain situations and the controller hunt is a problem we want solved.

- "I believe that the Axe/Sung method of shield dropping is strictly inferior to the “straight-down” version" - yeah but most of the community values being able to do this, not to mention that there is a some utility in shield tilting in a certain direction to prevent pokes in some situations.

- "UCF’s “fixes” help certain characters more than others"- yeah so does having a "good" controller. UCF is to make sure everyone has that good controller. Should me being poor and not having 800$ for a good dashback controller be any incentive for me to switch a main because I can't use him to the fullest?



DR Z UCF Statement:

- agree on the legal aspects as a reason. I've personally been favor of the arduino mods on the controller + verifications, instead of software mods for these reasons.

- "The fact that UCF is in beta for me is a strong argument to reject it as a standard"- how about letting the community decide, while meanwhile gathering data on the numerous locals to see if they have any issues or other perceptions of the mod?

- "If UCF causes a malfunction in the finals of a major, we would then be morally if not legally responsible for that because we didn’t adequately demand testing." I don't think you would be legally responsible at all, and it should honestly be based on a community decision to accept the mod and its risks or not. Given the choice and community perception, do you honestly not know what we would rather have?



Juggleguy statement:

This statement is probably the one im dissappointed in the most...

Agree with the 3rd reason, but the first two seems so poorly thought out and egotistical.

" I don't want to see the community go down. I hold vanilla Melee in a sort of reverence; we have played this game since its release without ever modding it for tournament gameplay, and who are we to do so now,"

Lots of personal perception/opinion going into a decision that is opposite to the vast majority of the community thinks. Perhaps your decisions should be based on what the people "want" or "hold" or have "reverence" for? The statement comes across as not trying to represent what the community wants, and basically saying you run the tournaments, you make the rules, so your opinion matters for the decision only. I really dislike that basically either choosing to attend/not attend is the default choice you give us, instead of being able to communicate in order to find a mutually beneficial situation.

"who are we to do so now" - people who want to have it done? locals are doing it, and people seem to like it. Is this not actually a justification you accept? people liking it?

"A 16-year old game played on CRT TVs doesn't need to introduce another hurdle to its own potential growth" - yeah like being able to find a controller good for tournament play. Its not like this mod was created as a solution to make the game more accessible... 800$ dashback controller + shield drop notches vs copying a friends memory card. Teaching newer players to shield drop has never been easier, compared to me telling them they have to get notches.

"I would rather see vanilla Melee played with its flaws than see the community fizzle out due to the final straw in lack of accessibility." - the community thinks otherwise? And they thinks it makes the game more accessible...



Shi Statement:

Probably the only statement I agree with that kind of communicates and considers the needs and responsibilities of the TO's with the wants of the players. Its a simple good response that doesn't inject personal opinions as a justification. I think the community can understand the legal justifications regarding UCF, but the other members of the big 5 using personal opinions and bad arguments contrary to what the community was terrible.



Blur Statement:

"I do not think it is to our communal benefit to have it as the universal standard" - why not ask the actual community what they think and perceive?

"UCF’s latest version is still in beta and very untested, and the technical documentation for the mod is extremely sparse. Simply put, though we know the outcome that the mod hopes to achieve, we do not have the tools and documentation to know exactly how it gets there" This is something I would hope the big 5 would have researched and sought out before making a decision. I also believe, as mentioned numerous times, that I 100% agree the TO have the right to do whatever they want, but that community input should be what is used to allow something like UCF to be used at a tournament or not (barring the legal justification reasons).







TLDR: Legal justifications seem like a legit concern, but the big 5 using personal opinions and justifications instead of community perception/opinion is terrible.



I respect all the TO's for their hard work and dedication to the community, and value them significantly for what they contribute to us. My statements are merely criticisms to their response and not intended to bash them personally in any way. If I have worded my statements in any way that would make the TO's feel or be perceived negatively in a personal level instead of the words they have written, I apologize.