Haha, Janstarblast, I remember how I fooled/deceived BladingSpirit5, by showing my BeyLauncher LR in Left, and talking about Meteo all the time before my match against him, and finally going with Death W145 WD, knowing he would use Revizer Dragooon BD145 RDF.
I CELEBRATED LIKE
THE UNDERTAKER.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well from him, I remember how he plays this so called 'mind game' with his scary entry, to scare him opponents.
Don't most members do that before a battle?
Just a bit differently?

Kai-V: Just out of curiosity, does what wpardin posted (an example of a two minute time limit being equitable for all players in his area), change your thoughts at all? I'm still perfectly happy with the compromise I've discussed but a flat two minutes would be simpler, and most (in particular, that test case) seem to agree that this is probably plenty of time - and I think we can all agree it's not too long to wait for a match, either. Just curious as I'm going to get started updating the OP in a little, haha.

EDIT: Also, any thoughts on how a rule against spying/squealing by friends could be enforced? It does seem quite common, but the only solution I can think of that is fair to both competing players (as redoing selection still leaves the squeal-ee at a disadvantage) only works in RR (the squealer loses their match against the person they squeal on), so I'm not sure what could be done that wouldn't be too heavy handed.

Obviously we will talk more about it within the Committee, but I think there should still be a median, progressive change to three minutes first, and then later we could consider two minutes. At two minutes though, I think it is impossible to have the 'compromise' of T+1 minute where T is the time when a first Blader has finished their selection. Bladers would necessarily have to be allowed the full two minutes.

For me, honestly, there should be a zero tolerance policy on that spying. It is not even everyone who has friends at tournaments who would go do that ...

You did not show your Meteo, but Death [Attack] Quetzalcoatl BD145__, Phantom Orion TH170, VariAres R145RF, as I remember it, were laid out on the Committee’s table sometime after the registration, I believe while you were talking to Spinster. The only match of yours I saw, you used Death Quetzalcoatl. From this, I deduced a likely cause of your early defeat; I was not, at any point, trying to persecute, bash, or mock you.

No, those were just pre-assembled combinations that I was constantly prepared to change if needed, but Spinster wanted to play, so I just lent him those since he had no idea what was competitive anyway. As far as I know, he even got more victories than me, despite those customizations being "out in the open". Blitz also never expected any of the two combinations I used against him, the second choice was just bad. For my third and final match in the Double Elimination, I did think that it would probably be better to use a third, unexpected customization, but since I was also judging matches, I was pressed for time and chose Meteo again, because there was still a chance that my opponent would also believe that I would use something new.

Winding it back gradually is completely acceptable and understandable IMO, as long as it does get down to 2 minutes (3 is a big improvement over 4, but still too long). I agree that at 2 minutes the 'one minute more' minimum would be pointless - being simple is the main bonus of using that instead of the other option we discussed (which I will make more concise when I put it in the OP).

The idea of full disqualification is pretty intimidating to suggest as punishment for anything, even something like spying, but I think as long as, once it is introduced to the rulebook, hosts speak to participants and any participants who haven't played since the last tournament, for say, a couple of months after it is introduced, we would prevent any misunderstandings etc. Hosts might need to be reminded of this in event proposals, on your end of things, but otherwise I agree completely.

Unless anything new comes up in the mean time, I'll update the first post tomorrow to fully reflect the changes to the proposal based on discussion etc.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

I had one guy in my tournament who asked his son to "spy" on other players but since the 2 minutes stalling clause in enforced, he doesn't have much time to change his combo thus now he never ask his son to "spy" on other players.

This is just from my experience as a host. As probably some of you remember, this was discussed before.

---

(click 'LIKE' on the top)

Oh, you know, two minutes will not be enough to annihilate those behaviours everywhere.

Full disqualification for that BeyBattle, at least ?

I have lots of free time out here as I'm on vacations in Goa, so I took my sister, my uncle's BB-10, a BeyLauncher LR, and headed out to my garden this evening.
First, under Stalling Clause, I decided to assemble Phantom Orion 90 MF. Thinking I had only 2 minutes, I went to assemble in a hurry. I dropped my 90 by mistake. It took me some time to find it as it bounced off into the grass. 90 being transparent, made me lose some time. About 25-30 seconds. Same with a CS.

The spying will be useless if you don't have time to assemble the counter for the combo. Thus making them realize that the act of spying will not make them win the tournament but I totally agree with you to disqualify the round if he/she is caught red handed at spying on others.

---

(click 'LIKE' on the top)

So my point is, there should be some special consideration if the parts used are transparent, or if they camoflauge the surface a bit.
These kind of parts 'blend-into-the-crowd', and make it tough to find them. I've already lost a Metal Flat at October's tourney where it became too late(about 5-30 PM, and was turning dark).
I still stand with The Undertaker's Mind Game part.
Please consider that th!nk


No disrespect to you th!nk, but I feel this thread will cause people to use SC and waste more time.

---

That is, if we don't come up with a solution for this time-wasting and manipulation.
There are some not-so-significant ideas that I came with-
For time-wasting-
The judge to do a NASA style classic rocket launch count-down, starting from 20(A little bit like Hide and Seek, kiddo way)
For spying-
The two battlers should be 3-arms distance from the participants, completely quiet, with no hand gesture.

Ah well, we've had quite a lot of spying issues in India.
Now that zeneo says it, I can recall that he himself has been doing that for quite sometime, haha.

Spying is certainly not acceptable.
Reducing the time limit doesn't do much to curb spying. Instead, the judge must be alert and either reprimand the spy, or ask each blader to redo the selection process. If somehow the battle proceeds even after repeated warnings from the judge, the battle should be disqualified.
Because well, sometimes a few enthusiastic friends go in to help by spying on the opponent without their ally telling them to do so.
In other cases, a blader asks a friend to "spy" on him (the blader), but pass out wrong information to the opponent.
However, the most common case is of a blader appointing a spy himself.

So well, it violates the double-blind rule of the Stalling Clause and is hence unacceptable...

EDIT-
zeneo- Losing parts and stuff is counted as a technical issue, for which the judge can make necessary adjustments in the time provided for Stalling Clause issues. You should read the rules bro...
Moreover, its not quite possible to waste time after using Stalling Clause. Stalling Clause was made to prevent people from wasting time; and by lowering the time-limit in Stalling Clause, we are further preventing time wastage.

---

Team IB Revolutions

Thanks to N0body for the avatar and Synth for the signature!

Oh, you know, two minutes will not be enough to annihilate those behaviours everywhere.

Full disqualification for that BeyBattle, at least ?

The issue I see is that people can do this without the beneficiary's permission - in theory it could even be exploited to disqualify a strong opponent, though I hope no one would actually do that. The person who spies should be the one punished, I think, and I cannot thing of anything less than a full DQ from the tournament that would be an appropriate way to apply punishment. Either way, I think the way to go about it is to prevent people from actually spying - if people can be found to have asked someone else to spy for them after we place a clear ruling against it in place, then I think that is something that would deserve on-site reprimands in addition to disqualification. It is a very serious offence IMO.

As for what wpardin said, I'm pretty disappointed an adult would do something like that, that's just... shameful is the best word that comes to mind.

zeneo: I would suggest assembling your beyblades inside a bag or the like to make it easier to find. We can't cater to that kind of thing, to be honest, but the current rule does state "The judge should demonstrate reasonable discretionary power." and that could, in theory, remain in place. Just keep in mind that we don't want to end up with a 500 page rulebook with exceptions and criteria etc - we want (and even expect) people who participate in our tournaments to remember this stuff!
As for this thread revealing these tactics to people, that is an unfortunate side effect, and as I've said, part of why I want to see solutions adopted as quickly as possible.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

Haha, going through all of this, I've decided-
- I'll care about only myself at the tournament.
- No matter whom I face, I won't appeal for Stalling Clause. I'll put my Bey in the Launcher and fight straight.
By the way, I had some things to cover up, which I can complete within this thread-
I think we should keep things like shaking hands/bowing in Japanese style, before & after a match. This would create some amount of respect within a community. I know it's off-topic, but it's a bit convenient.

Making such things mandatory may sound good, but it doesn't quite strike a good impression.
Such things are to be done by a blader/sportsman without being instructed to. Only then it is the actual process of "showing respect and appreciation" and displays good sportsmanship.

By making it mandatory, it becomes a formality.

---

Team IB Revolutions

Thanks to N0body for the avatar and Synth for the signature!

I know. I always try my best to shake hands with participants after I face them, even I lose or win. Or atleast say, "Well played", or, "It was nice facing you.". But it would be good if everyone were to follow suit.
If someone plays with enhancing his abilities, and if that someone would go on to shake hands, he would rather stand out to be a nice example to the community.
It's more of a moral issue you know...

I mean, the way he put it, what we call "deception" is actually "feint".
However, deception (more precisely, fake-outs) is about setting up decoys for your opponent, and then striking when he's distracted. Its like when a player falls down while playing soccer, pretending to have been injured, but then suddenly charges down the field (completely fine) and scores a goal. You don't see that happen, because that is wrong.
Using the same example with reference to Beyblade, is the situation wherein you show your opponent a weak combo, and return with an extremely strong one- thus catching him unawares.

Feint, in reference to your "The soccer player pretends to go or kick left, but goes to the right" example, is much fairer and is actually a way to enhance one's skill. In context of Beyblade, a Feint would be launching a Defense combo aggressively. This scenario, would be considered a feint. You use your own skill to strengthen something which would otherwise be weak and predictable.

That’s an interesting analogy. However, these players usually feign being injured on contact with another player to gain an advantage from the referee, not to fool the other team, and it just looks silly if both teams try to do it at the same time. I think a more accurate analogy would be the player claiming a mechanical malfunction to try and invoke the Reshoot Clause to cover up a bad launch.

I don’t know if I would call shooting a Defense-type aggressively a feint, maybe, but it’s ambiguous. I think I would rather put it on the same level as choosing between having your Attack-type Tornado Stalling or make a Flower Pattern.


I also want to clarify my stance. I’m advocating deception—the one vs. one mind game where you try to convince the other player to willingly play according to your hand—a battle of wits, if you will. I am unequivocally against lying to a judge (about pretending to have your Beyblade set on your launcher, as one example mentioned here), which goes against the rule of competition, and squealing, which is a shameful coward’s tactics; third parties have no business interfering in other people’s battles.


On the subject of publicity, starting with parents. Has there been any formal complaints about this particular subject, I was a soccer referee for a few years during my early teens, and parents generally complain about anything that goes against their kids. They yell at any call against them or their team, praise the opposite, they want you to punish the other player because their own kid could not stay on his feet while trying to take the ball. I’m generalizing here, but they’re as likely to express disapproval because you’re using parts that do not come from the local store.

About sponsors, I don’t know who they are honestly. I’m guessing mostly (group of) members, stores, etc. Members would already know about it before sponsoring (through playing or research), companies would probably not care beyond the rulebook, deception being implicit, they would not know about it, and stores would range from super-involved to just-want-to-increase-traffic, depending on the owner. In any case, it shouldn't matter, deception, as it is under the rule of competition, is not malicious (we might have a different conversation if we were discussing The Art of War); players shake hands after a match, and I haven’t seen any overly obnoxious behavior at AN, but my tournament experience is more limited than yours, from any angle.

You also bring the points of the cheapness of the tactics, isolated from the “parent” variable, used by older people against younger, and how knowledge plays little when deception is used. I have to discard the knowledge point. It is true that deception requires little knowledge against the unknowledgeable, but then again, I don’t need deception against them. On the other hand, against a player with both knowledge of tops and skills of deception, than it adds a new layer of depth, because you truly need to expect the unexpected, as your opponent knows what he does, and he is going to try to make you do what he wants you to do: you want to get first seats in the opponent’s head rather than rely on large amounts of luck and unreliable probabilities. Which brings to your next point, kids are not, or might not, be able to do it, and you need to learn to do it.. As for knowledge, there’s a large pool full of it here, and deception, make them learn how it works; and learning at the same time that not everything in life is what it seems to be sounds like a nice life lesson to me. There are many nice and honest people out there, but many more so are quite the opposite, but I’m getting sidetracked. Truth is I live in Quebec, whose education system revolves around leveling the strongest people down, rather than raising the weakest people up, something I've grown to despise. And I think we would be doing something similar here; instead of teaching them, we just tell them not to worry, that they will not have to learn, because we will simply prevent those that did from using it.

You also say it brings out innovation, and gave an example, but it would really need to be generalized to draw final conclusions, other people are as likely to fall back on the “safe” top-tier out of fear something new and different might not work / be too risky. Alternatively, I advocate deception, and didn't use a single top-tier at AN. I also want to say, and I conjecture (only slightly), but people tend to fall into habits and patterns quite easily, and when they do, they generally tend to think stop thinking outside the box.

Anyway, this should be my last post on this subject, unless I really need to wrap-up something I missed. I’m not one to paraphrase my own thoughts again and again. You want to get this approved ASAP; I don’t want to drag this on forever, and there is no point to it. The decision ultimately lies with neither you nor me. Your mind is set, and a large cohort of followers, and I’ve “made” my point, in a manner of speaking.

---

Beywiki French Portal -- Portail français de l'encyclopédie Beywiki
Compatibility Issues with the Burst System Between Takara-Tomy and Hasbro
My Guide to Beywiki Photography |  White Box #3 (shoe box version)
Dranzer F / Black Dranzer vector Bitchips (PM for larger versions)

A parent complained at last year's AN, which is the most memorable instance for me given the circumstances, but that's by no means the only time it has happened. Yes, it is invariably when their child loses - but surely you can see that in this case they have some believable grounds for it, as opposed to complaining simply because the opponent is older?

Sponsors nowadays include toy stores and related companies - including in some cases the companies that distribute beyblades to a country. We even have contact with Hasbro now.
I would argue that it is malicious based on the statements I've already made. My sentiments on this point, then, echo those of your last paragraph.

I am talking of knowledge about beyblade, the tops themselves and how to use the tops - I think I've been clear on this. I think your assessment of selection as "luck and unreliable probabilities" is excessively dismissive of what a lot of us are comfortable to rely on - studying our opponents tactics and working out what they are likely to do is more effective than you make it sound - and unlike deception, doesn't undermine the effects of their skills with and knowledge of tops.

For kids needing to learn to do this, I feel this gives an unnecessary advantage to older players - your schooling analogy is largely irrelevant because it deals with people of the same age - rather than people at very different developmental stages which relate directly to their ability to lie convincingly and be decieved by lies - the latter in particular is something children are much, much more susceptible to, particularly when lies are told by their elders. Frankly, a lot of these kids are really too young for me to agree that "the world isn't fair either abuse it or get used to it" is a good message to be teaching them - I certainly don't think it's one beyblades associated media would be in a rush to portray. I'm a huge proponent of educating people about tops - I have a history of arguing for action based entirely upon that, be it about beywiki, the customizations forum, the competitive combinations list, or whatever. Trying to get kids to overcome something they're not at a stage to deal with is not raising them up, it's rubbing their faces in the dirt. More, shall we say, mentally mature bladers already have significant advantages in beyblade - easier to learn skills, easier to memorise matchups, think of new ideas to try, and so on. You said in your last post you agreed that successful deception is overpowered, or at least very powerful, if I did not misunderstand you. Can you not see that giving them this advantage as well is excessive?

This is just one initiative focussed on making people think outside the box rather than using cookie-cutter combinations. There's been a lot of progress in that sense thanks to other things we've done to encourage experimentation and testing of a broader range of combinations, and I think that this will only strengthen the effect of those efforts. If people get lazy again, we will address it when it happens. Just as before, I think your negative perception of human behaviour is interfering with your objectivity, causing you to dismiss benefits as pointless in the long run, instead of considering that these things can and will be counterbalanced by members of this community who step up and call it out and help revitalise things, as has continually occurred in the past.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

A parent complained at last year's AN, which is the most memorable instance for me given the circumstances, but that's by no means the only time it has happened. Yes, it is invariably when their child loses - but surely you can see that in this case they have some believable grounds for it, as opposed to complaining simply because the opponent is older?

I have no memory of it, but I left rather quickly after the end of the tournament, and I can't seem to find a post about it right now if there was any. But yes, it is, but I still do not consider it enough, otherwise we would not be arguing. And I also said that many parents generally complain about anything they feel is unfair, even if it is explicitly not in the rules (deception would fall into those implicit gray areas), not just because of age. The WBO has to consider their opinion, of course, given the player base, but with a very heavy grain of salt.

Sponsors nowadays include toy stores and related companies - including in some cases the companies that distribute beyblades to a country. We even have contact with Hasbro now.
I would argue that it is malicious based on the statements I've already made. My sentiments on this point, then, echo those of your last paragraph.

And I would argue it is a simple battle of wits, but we've been at a stalemate on this since the beginning, so there's no point to linger on it.

I am talking of knowledge about beyblade, the tops themselves and how to use the tops - I think I've been clear on this. I think your assessment of selection as "luck and unreliable probabilities" is excessively dismissive of what a lot of us are comfortable to rely on - studying our opponents tactics and working out what they are likely to do is more effective than you make it sound - and unlike deception, doesn't undermine the effects of their skills with and knowledge of tops.

I'm not saying that analyzing the opponent's tactics is ineffective. On the contrary, it's essential. But at a higher level of play, when the two players are unpredictable, I feel emphasis is put on who has the luckiest "draw." I'm not inherently against that in a competitive environment, provided my skills give a wide enough margin of adaptability to cover the majority of the most disastrous match-ups, and I don't think skills in Beyblade are enough to do just that.

For kids needing to learn to do this, I feel this gives an unnecessary advantage to older players - your schooling analogy is largely irrelevant because it deals with people of the same age - rather than people at very different developmental stages which relate directly to their ability to lie convincingly and be decieved by lies - the latter in particular is something children are much, much more susceptible to, particularly when lies are told by their elders. Frankly, a lot of these kids are really too young for me to agree that "the world isn't fair either abuse it or get used to it" is a good message to be teaching them - I certainly don't think it's one beyblades associated media would be in a rush to portray. I'm a huge proponent of educating people about tops - I have a history of arguing for action based entirely upon that, be it about beywiki, the customizations forum, the competitive combinations list, or whatever. Trying to get kids to overcome something they're not at a stage to deal with is not raising them up, it's rubbing their faces in the dirt. More, shall we say, mentally mature bladers already have significant advantages in beyblade - easier to learn skills, easier to memorise matchups, think of new ideas to try, and so on. You said in your last post you agreed that successful deception is overpowered, or at least very powerful, if I did not misunderstand you. Can you not see that giving them this advantage as well is excessive?

My point still remains: you want to remove something I consider to be an additional layer of depth to the game of tops, when I think we should bring them up to par, and I don't think the concept of "he might not use what he's showing you: try to think about what you and he did during the tournament" to be so foreign. Yes, deception is powerful, and you say it's excessive against weaker players; I'll go even further by saying it's overkill. But there's plenty of things that are against these players. For example, using a 4D Metal Wheel against some of the players I've faced at Crusade 2 could have also been considered overkill. The point of the matter being that they're going to lose either way.

I'm not questioning your dedication to providing knowledge to others, not at all, I am aware of your record. I'm starting to think we share a similar goal, but we're just going in two opposite directions on how that should be achieved.

This is just one initiative focussed on making people think outside the box rather than using cookie-cutter combinations. There's been a lot of progress in that sense thanks to other things we've done to encourage experimentation and testing of a broader range of combinations, and I think that this will only strengthen the effect of those efforts. If people get lazy again, we will address it when it happens. Just as before, I think your negative perception of human behaviour is interfering with your objectivity, causing you to dismiss benefits as pointless in the long run, instead of considering that these things can and will be counterbalanced by members of this community who step up and call it out and help revitalise things, as has continually occurred in the past.

That's commendable, and I agree. I'm all about being creative, outsmarting your opponent with out-of-the-box thinking and surprising them with new and effective combinations. However, I would blame the players for the lack of it, rather than deception tactics. I'm not much up-to-date on the metagame, but Dragooon seems to pop up everywhere, and has been for quite a while now. Do you mean to tell me that players are still fooled by deception that incites them to pull a Dragooon-advantageous combination? If that is the case, do you not see fault with the Bladers in this?

My perception of human behavior has little to do with the core of my argument, which is about how I feel deception adds complexity to the game, just as you feel the same for a game without it. Which brings us to my previous point that we're going on about the same thing in two different ways. We'll just keep arguing into circles.

Hopefully, this is as good a wrap-up as any. You're obviously welcomed to make your counter-arguments, but I will not reply, unless clearly asked to.

Edit: Grammatical mishaps and sentence blanks.

---

Beywiki French Portal -- Portail français de l'encyclopédie Beywiki
Compatibility Issues with the Burst System Between Takara-Tomy and Hasbro
My Guide to Beywiki Photography |  White Box #3 (shoe box version)
Dranzer F / Black Dranzer vector Bitchips (PM for larger versions)

Young kids can get better beys, and a number of them do have good part access, but the difference there is that there is relatively little we can do about poor part access, though the WBO does try (the beylotto is an example of that). The fact deception is heavily slanted against their favour, though, we can address.
In terms of the problems I mentioned about development, they are still generally going to be more susceptible to deception whether or not they are aware of that concept - they are less likely to be aware that something could possibly be a trick, for example. Being significantly less able to pull it off effectively is the most relevant part of this to the age ranges we're talking about here, though - the subtlety and sleight of hand, in addition to finding gaps in the rulebooks that allow different methods for deception, are the biggest stumbling blocks that come to mind.

Yes, most players will inevitably take the easy route of cookie-cutter combinations, that is their fault and not the games, but cookie-cutter combos generally have their counters or susceptibility to more creative things which I believe this will promote. Players who experiment and try new things will be rewarded more.
Part of the reason Dragooon is common though is that it's pretty versatile, so I wouldn't even say for sure that people are just relying on cookie-cutter things. I would also point out that Left-Spin BD145RDF combinations are a relatively recent development, so we can see examples of new types evolving there - things that work will inevitably become common, so we will likely always see relatively same-y lists with slow transitions between what is common and what isn't. I expect removing deception to bring larger numbers of more versatile combinations to prominence, however.

I will admit, upon giving it consideration, that with the removal of deception, usage of pure attack type beyblades will drop at least initially, at least in areas where defense types are reasonably common. The way I see it though, the emergence of more versatile, less-specialised combinations will likely give them greater purpose in the end. Also, looking at the winning combinations thread they don't exactly seem to be thriving right now anyway - might end up, given some time, more popular than they are now. Of course, with an increase in balance types (which usually require some skill to be reliable against certain things) or tactics which allow more versatile uses of standard types, the average skill level, shall we say, should at least remain steady - and I suspect it will increase (while the 'knowledge level' should increase dramatically). Of course, given our disagreement on whether deception should be considered a beyblade skill or not, I can understand that you would disagree.

I think it also helps that right now we don't have new parts coming in (aside from the tiger one), so we'll likely see things experimented with more thoroughly, rather than people rushing to the newest update to the standard combination lines instead - give them more reason not to use those standard combinations, and I think we'll see the benefits.

You are correct that we have reached an impasse (and yes, likely trying to achieve the same ends), however I still felt it necessary to address your points (and mention the attack thing they made me realise) in response to explain my own.

EDIT: Oh apparently the specific complaint thing I mentioned was two years ago. Others have happened, of course, but yeah.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

Okay so I think the topic has been discussed about as much as it can, so I'll do an update to the OP later today. However, there are two other things I want to raise in relation to why double blind selection should be standard:

First off, Deception 'tactics' have gone from 'staring at one bey and then using another' to "attaching one bey you intend to use to a launcher, showing the judge, attaching a second to show your opponent and deceive them" and "attaching a beyblade to the wrong prongs to fool your opponent" (which is now illegal despite this other stuff not being) - basically, it has become a contest to see who can push the rules the farthest. I think Hazel put this best when he touched on it off-site (with slight edits for site-suitability): "Exploiting rules in an unsportsmanlike way isn't being deceptive or a tricksy hobbit or mastering your bitbeast, it's being a bad sport cut it out."

The other point is that unlike methods double blind would allow, there's very little inherent risk to using deception - now while I will admit that finding holes in the rulebook to the length people have is impressive, the fact is they have little to lose whilst doing so, and an incredible amount to gain. This just seems completely unfair to me.

That's about it, so I'll go update the OP when I've come up with a better way to condense the time thing, and written up the spying thing.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

Uhm, I didn't intend to revive this thread, but, there was something which caught my attention-
Kai-V's 2nd last post in 'What to buy in MFB : A Revamp'.
When talking about BeyLauncher L/R Heat Red Ver., she says it can be taken to tournaments in order to reduce the baggage. It's prongs can be used as deception tactics.

I haven't Quoted her exactly, but as you may see, The Head of the WBO feeling fine/discussing about deception tactics gives the impression that WBO is fine with that. Arguements welcome.

BB-115 Beylauncher LR Heat Red: Having a Beylauncher that can spin both Left and Right is extremely useful, especially for tournaments where the equipment you can bring along with you is limited, and it also allows you to do deception tactics more easily.

Nowhere does she mention prongs or discuss deception tactics; she simply says the Beylauncher LR makes it easier to perform deception tactics.

---

Spoiler (Click to View)

This is what we all want, Brad.

Yes, but it does state deception tactics.
I'm not talking about making deception tactics 'easier'.
And that posts of hers simply contradicts to th!nk's idea of anti-deception, skill based, fair metagame.

So what do you propose we do about it? Ban the Beylauncher LR altogether?

If your only issue with her message is the fact that it sounds like (to you) it's promoting the use of deception tactics, then wouldn't it make more sense for you to take up your concern with the author directly via PM? We all know that draft was written well before this thread's existence, so it's not like Kai-V deliberately incorporated that tidbit of the launcher's summary to promote the employment of deception tactics.

---

Spoiler (Click to View)

This is what we all want, Brad.

I do agree with you Insomniac. - . = Insomniac, but that post of hers would lead to misleading.
Kai-V= The head
th!nk= advanced member
amount of people believing The Head > amount of people believing an advanced member.
I hope you get what I'm trying to say.
Also, I remember how disgusted Kai-V was with me when I sent her a PM that she had posted "...In cities like India."

Well... i havent read the whole thread but what about if somebody had a rigged launcher thats left spin and can launch right spin beys? i know its against the rules but I have one. would having a right rotation bey on that be wrong?

Well... i havent read the whole thread but what about if somebody had a rigged launcher thats left spin and can launch right spin beys? i know its against the rules but I have one. would having a right rotation bey on that be wrong?

A Beylauncher LR can launch both right-spin and left-spin Beyblades legally. You however can never use a right-spin Beyblade on left-spin prongs, and vice versa.