REO, I would like to propose a serious FG comparison because I feel like to talk about this in an educated manner we need to back up our arguments with evidence from similar situations (as you have concerning playing the older MK games). Coming from the SSBM (Melee) competitive community, the tournament scene in that game had "broken" tactics that were allowed and "broken" tactics that were banned; one could argue that the deciding factor when the community decided legit vs. not legit was any situation where a player's ability to win (or lose) a match was directly determined by a non-combative character bias.
My two examples would be this: Fox can drillshine to upsmash (a combo that exists within the moveset and parameters of the character) certain characters to death, given he hits the combo and either the opponent has high enough damage for it to be lethal or DIs wrong. In this case, both players are playing within the combative (attack, defense) rules that adhere to their character choice. One is attacking, albeit in a somewhat glitchy (yet avoidable) way, and the other is defending (and their ability to survive depends on their defense). Once the stock is lost, the losing character gets their approx. 1 second comeback invincibility and the advantage is afterwards "neutralized."
Compare this to Peach's wallbombing glitch, which IS banned in tourament play. This is accomplished by getting a life lead and, on levels that allow it, floating to an un-reachable part of the level and side-Bing for the remainder of the 8 minutes until time runs out. Similarly to Kabal's (and whoever else may have it) invincibility glitch, the goal is to get a "stock"/"round" lead and use a noncombative trick to ensure a victory via disabling the opponent's ability to fight during the second round/rest of the match.
Is there a difference between in-round combative/combo tricks (such as 1-round infinites like fox's drillshine on link and smoke/jax/cyrax/whoever 100% metered combo) and postround or interround tricks that interfere with the opponent's ability to fight back? Do you (or anyone else who'd like to have a serious discussion) think that, like in the Melee community, the MK community should consider if we should say there is a large enough difference between these two things to consider one for ban but not the other? I'm aware of your "if it's in the game, it should be allowed" stance on gameplay, but I wanted to point to other places in the FG community where the difference is determined on just this very thing. By saying that "it's a different game and therefore the same logistics for rules can't be applied" you are A. ignoring the question and B. forgetting that, just as the United States law courts work, the most admissible evidence are accounts of similar, relatable occurances.
) ... BUUUUUUT...
