IT'S FINK DUMBASS
OU & NU Leader
As I said in my first post, it is more than just simple "following the precedent" so much as it is the fact that it was a good precedent -- I included the "why fix something that isn't broken" for a reason and with a clear emphasis on the fact that the old format was not broken. If you look at the quoted portion of my post, you will see pretty solid reasoning for why that format fits the desires of the tournament community in terms of what WCOP should be and to reiterate, I will take the specific part of it that stood out to me:how does it matter what the precedent was? this isn't a courtroom, and clearly precedent here shifts at the drop of a hat depending on who's in charge with facts being twisted to fit particular narratives.
the rules are only sacrosanct, until someone important's feathers get ruffled then the site just bends over backwards to accommodate said opinions, so why even bother pretending that there is any semblance of continuity?
Sure, you can argue 4 and 6 does this as well to an extent, but if there was not much of an issue with 5 and 5 last year while accomplishing this and the TDs initially decided for it to be all SM, don't you think it would be fairly drastic to go from potentially all SM slots to even less than last year, cutting it from 100% to 40% of the tournament? On top of this, there have been little-to-no arguments as to why that extra RBY slot makes sense to add-in this year when it was not last year -- Ciele did not expand on that and Hogg merely echo'd him, if I recall correctly.This will allow the tournament to constantly push innovation with half the starters playing in the current generation, while still giving respect to the past.
I am fine with the 4 and 6 format, even if I prefer 5 and 5 (specifically, the extra SM slot over including RBY), but there is much more than a simple precedent favoring the 5 and 5 and you tried to hone in on this in your post without considering actual context.
edit in response to your edit: You still neglect to provide any actual substance aside from the challenging of precedent, which clearly was not the substance of my argument to maintain the status quo. An actual argument on behalf of someone supporting RBY's inclusion would be very much appreciated as they seem to clearly be lacking in the thread as of right now.