+- World Beyblade Organization by Fighting Spirits Inc. (https://worldbeyblade.org)
+-- Forum: World Beyblade Organization (https://worldbeyblade.org/Forum-World-Beyblade-Organization)
+--- Forum: Discuss worldbeyblade.org (https://worldbeyblade.org/Forum-Discuss-worldbeyblade-org)
+--- Thread: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal (/Thread-Remove-Displacement-of-part-components-that-have-give-to-them-by-hand-Proposal)
Pages:
1
2
Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - ICrazyEater - Jul. 30, 2022
Currently, the format rulebooks have a section that mentions that parts can be physically modified if "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." The main offender of this rule is "Bentguard" or "Vanbent" as fans have called it, this part is when you bend the inner tabs of the Vanguard disc from burst downwards it increases the burst resistance of a combo by a significant amount. In fact, one of the main reasons this rule was added was because of "Vanbent".
The main reasons against it being banned are that the WBBA allows it, and that it can still be beaten. For the WBBA allowing it, while true, does not mean that we should allow it either. It is good to take inspiration from the WBBA and see how and why they do things, this is something we always have done and always will do, however it does not mean that we have to be just like them. As for it not being unbeatable, this applies to many things that could be added, this does not mean it’s a good addition. We could allow DB beys in BGT under the basis that they can be added, but as I’m sure many will agree, it would not be a good addition.
We do not allow broken parts or other intentionally modified parts such as painted parts or beys that have clearly been damaged by means such as launching them on concrete, so I see no reason why using your hands to change or bend parts should be any different from these rulings.
Another thing to think about is how would new players feel about this? Many players, including myself, thought of this as unfair when we first heard about it. How can new players expect to know about this technique or that it would even be allowed without hearing about it from members in the community. I know new players that I introduced were surprised about this when I first told them about it, and not in a good way. There are also younger players in the community who may be completely incapable of bending these parts, making this something only accessible to older players creating an obvious unfair advantage. Overall it creates an unfair environment for players that are new to the competitive scene.
This rule has also caused more confusion by players than it has helped due to how the sentence is worded.
This rule also opens up the opportunity to use it with other parts, this should not be something that players have to worry about. There is already so much variation between parts, weight, weight distribution, molding errors, and probably a lot more, it's unfair to expect players to be able to fairly play against things that have been heavily altered but are still legal because of this rule.
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - th!nk - Jul. 30, 2022
Bentguard adds a lot more variety to layers in GT format, significantly broadening the meta. It has also traditionally been legal in the WBBA which to me is the best indicator of product intent - I am unconvinced in Vanguard's case that it was entirely unintended due to the unique design used.
There haven't been any game breaking issues as a result of the rule either, and numerous instances of it are very hard to police, especially when things can come bent in the box (sparking chip prongs etc). Furthermore, I think your argument about product variation kind of plays against this - we already have large product variation, including some parts that can come bent or have performance differences like this out of the box... How do we determine cause in many of these cases, and what is one more thing to consider when the range of parts and ways they can arrive and awaken are so broad?. Bentguard is extreme, sure, but the design could also have easily been made to avoid it...
I believe the rule covers Savior awakening too, as while it is detachment it does not place the part in a broken state (whereas most displacements involving detachment do so, Savior has the awakening documented and is not considered broken in this state).
If we consider the argument about S Gear bending (which has gone nowhere, btw) this could also happen naturally, but still by manual displacement, by just removing it or forcing it into fixed mode awkwardly enough times - they can become slightly distorted. Will we ban those natural occurrences? Tell people they can't use them?
The rule is part of us trying to simplify the steps required in checking beyblades to move tournaments along faster and make judging easier. Overall, given the lack of negative impact (and tbh, positive overall impact), the outcry about this rule really feels to me like much ado about nothing 🤷♂️
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - Cindercast - Jul. 30, 2022
I don't have an opinion just yet but however there is something about "new players" that will be there pretty much regardless. They will always be at a disadvantage assuming that the new player is 100% new, not just to tournaments but the competitive scene as a whole. Tilting your launcher when launching a rubber flat is a technique that new players will not be aware of. Maybe the choice to either use it or not can exist?
The only thing I'm aware of currently is the issue with Vanguard. This disc is pretty good for bearing combos and with the rule it allows Metal Fight remakes to be used for offensive capabilities. If it turns out that Vanguard is the only part that creates a higher advantage then maybe the rule can stay since it's only restricted to BGT (Vn is either banned or outclassed in other formats). I heard the S gear can be bent some way to increase burst resistance somehow? But DB beys don't burst that much anyways so i'm not so sure how much that affects BST meta.
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - Shindog - Jul. 30, 2022
I currently don’t have strong feelings about this rule. The best way to talk about “other parts” that may be affected by this rule is to show specific examples in my opinion.
I think some ppl did discuss bent S gear on discord, but I’m not sure if that actually does what ppl claim bent S gear does? I can’t remember. I do know that since bent S gear was talked about, I haven’t seen any bent S gears.
We are not the WBBA and we don’t have to be the WBBA. We do adopt many rules from the WBBA and there is nothing wrong with going along with the game maker’s intent either. The “We are not the WBBA!” and “The WBBA does this!” battle cry has been made too often and really mean nothing at all. They can support both sides of an argument, every time.
Also the OP says we don’t allowed painted parts. That isn’t entirely correct in the WBO…. Pretty sure you can paint MFB/PLA/HMS parts. I don’t like the ability to paint parts much personally, but I have been told it really helps with ppl’s self expression.
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - JCE_13 - Jul. 30, 2022
I personally believe this is a mod that should fall under illegal in ranked tournaments. If it adds unfair burst resistance by modding it I don’t think nor understand why it would be allowed in ranked, even though it’s outclassed in all but one format?
Anyways if Bentguard gives an “unfair” advantage to a player, I just don’t think it should be allowed. It doesn’t quite seem like the WBO rules to allow this in our ranked tournaments. I understand that the WBBA may allow it, but since we have our own ruleset regarding modifications to drivers (such as wear and hand awakening) I think we should ban Bentguard only because it makes sense. I just want the meta to stay as fair as possible, and I personally don’t think we should start allowing disc mods now.
Again, this is just my opinion. I only want Beyblade to be the best it can be.
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - PinkSkulls - Jul. 30, 2022
As a part? I like it. Makes remake layers more viable, in a very specific format. Gives it more variety, makes it more fun.
But a big part of me is constantly nagging, saying that it goes against the spirit of the rules. It's completely unnatural wear, made by man made force, specifically with intentions to enhance performance way beyond usual. The fun part of "awakening" and "modifying" beys is through legal wear and tear. It's within the scope of the game, it's done through time and effort, and it can make drivers or things like Savior much better. Bending a part, outside of a "game" of Beyblade, is not awakening, that's just someone breaking it and bending it out of shape. It's just weird to allow man made, forced warping of a part legal when we have several more rules specifically about illegal ways to wear or modify your parts.
However, I like the part. It's fun, and adds variety. So personally, I want to keep it as a part to be used. I'd say just make a specific part allowance to allow bentguard and bentguard only.
I only dislike the ruling because I don't want to see other stuff get bent. A meta where parts could be better through forceful warping totally blows, that doesn't feel like Beyblade. I do like Crazy's points about younger kids not being able to recreate it, it's something I didn't think of before. But on the other hand, kids also won't be able to afford certain parts too, or know certain techniques. Not being able to bend vanguard doesn't limit their variety of beys anymore than their budget did in the first place.
I personally feel like I'd only allow bentguard since its the only of its kind and provides layers which normally wouldn't be used at all an opportunity to shine in competitive. That was the spirit of the Burst GT format in the first place, and I think bentguard achieves that really well.
Most things probably can't bend at all. Even if they could, they probably wouldn't be able to bend in a way that would provide any competitive viability. That being said, I just don't want to have open floodgates just waiting for bending parts all over the place. It kills the spirit of it all when you aren't even using the parts for the parts anymore, but whatever warped shape you can squeeze it into.
TLDR: I like the actual bentguard part, but don't like the ruling. Just make bentguard a specific exception. I don't like the rule as it is since it invites more bending.
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - th!nk - Jul. 30, 2022
(Jul. 30, 2022 7:37 AM)PinkSkulls Wrote: As a part? I like it. Makes remake layers more viable, in a very specific format. Gives it more variety, makes it more fun.
But a big part of me is constantly nagging, saying that it goes against the spirit of the rules. It's completely unnatural wear, made by man made force, specifically with intentions to enhance performance way beyond usual. The fun part of "awakening" and "modifying" beys is through legal wear and tear. It's within the scope of the game, it's done through time and effort, and it can make drivers or things like Savior much better. Bending a part, outside of a "game" of Beyblade, is not awakening, that's just someone breaking it and bending it out of shape. It's just weird to allow man made, forced warping of a part legal when we have several more rules specifically about illegal ways to wear or modify your parts.
However, I like the part. It's fun, and adds variety. So personally, I want to keep it as a part to be used. I'd say just make a specific part allowance to allow bentguard and bentguard only.
I only dislike the ruling because I don't want to see other stuff get bent. A meta where parts could be better through forceful warping totally blows, that doesn't feel like Beyblade. I do like Crazy's points about younger kids not being able to recreate it, it's something I didn't think of before. But on the other hand, kids also won't be able to afford certain parts too, or know certain techniques. Not being able to bend vanguard doesn't limit their variety of beys anymore than their budget did in the first place.
I personally feel like I'd only allow bentguard since its the only of its kind and provides layers which normally wouldn't be used at all an opportunity to shine in competitive. That was the spirit of the Burst GT format in the first place, and I think bentguard achieves that really well.
Most things probably can't bend at all. Even if they could, they probably wouldn't be able to bend in a way that would provide any competitive viability. That being said, I just don't want to have open floodgates just waiting for bending parts all over the place. It kills the spirit of it all when you aren't even using the parts for the parts anymore, but whatever warped shape you can squeeze it into.
TLDR: I like the actual bentguard part, but don't like the ruling. Just make bentguard a specific exception. I don't like the rule as it is since it invites more bending.
This isn't directly at you but really anyone, so don't take it as an interrogation, just me wondering from people.
Shin asked this on discord - realistically, how many more parts that can be impacted by this rule to advantageous effect are we going to see?
So far Vanguard and Savior are the only significant impacts. The former seems to be a net positive. The latter is, I have been told by a lot of players, something that was happening before this rule anyway. If you twist the nubs rather than cutting it is basically impossible to tell that without tenuous arguments about realistic wear levels.
It may be that we actually don't get any more, and we do all this, hurt a number of important and very cool layers and strategies in GT, encourage a lot more debate about how someone's Savior was awakened, if those chips were bent naturally or by hand... For what?
Is there actually a concern enough to make this change? Does it do anything positive for the game itself? Does it actually make judging and playing easier or better?
Also, in terms of new players hearing about it... We actually used to use BeyWiki to an extent as something of an expanded rulebook for PLA for example (which has a lot of undocumented legal gimmicks). The Wikia isn't quite as controllable, but noting this gimmick of Vanguard for example there might help.
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - Shindog - Jul. 30, 2022
Another interesting concept I see discussed here is how people view “fairness” with a bendable part like vanguard. If both players have vanguard, is it fair? If both players have “bentguard” is it fair? If one player only has vanguard but the other has bentguard, is it fair? I think people have pretty different takes on this, which is interesting to see. Is Beyblade a fair game when one player just have more access to parts than the other? Beyblade isn’t really ever going to be chess in my opinion. Is Beyblade a fair game when one player has more knowledge than the other? (In this case, knowing about the bending.)
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - Hollowmind13 - Jul. 30, 2022
Quick question about that rule: Let's say I have Ultimate, would it be legal for me to make the rubber more "jagged"/less smooth with my nails (Pressing my nails on the rubber, creating a more rough surface)? If not, why?
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - Shindog - Jul. 30, 2022
(Jul. 30, 2022 3:57 PM)Hollowmind8 Wrote: Quick question about that rule: Let's say I have Ultimate, would it be legal for me to make the rubber more "jagged"/less smooth with my nails (Pressing my nails on the rubber, creating a more rough surface)? If not, why?
I suppose you can. I do trust our judges to make the calls ultimately, personally. If the modification looks completely outrageous, I would trust our judges to make the appropriate ruling. We trust our judges to spot questionable relaunch calls, right? Why can’t we trust them here? If they are trustworthy for tough calls then, then they can trusted with this now?
Also, if ppl really want to make this hard…. What is a “hand?” If someone has a prosthetic hand, is it still a “hand?” Or are we going to take on the local disability act such as the American with Disability Act? In the end, there are many modifications ppl can make at home that may be unfair, but hard to impossible for the judge to spot or rule as illegal. We all play beyblade for some points you cannot eat, and some generally small prizes. If someone insists on gaining advantage in a unfair manner, they will manage to do it. If winning next to nothing means that much to ppl, I doubt we can stop ppl from gaining unfair advantages. I do wonder what is the drive to win that way at Beyblade tho? What are you winning really?
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - JCE_13 - Jul. 30, 2022
I’m seeing some great points by Shindog. I agree with the part about how it brings more variety to the meta, but I think it’s becoming less of a meta game if we continue to allow mods like this. I get that the point here is that we’re trusting our judges to know when a mod goes too far, but why does it have to come to that at all? What is the positive side of allowing a “rough” ultimate layer or a bent vanguard?
In the past, ranked has been all about testing a players ability given the circumstances and the allowed parts. “Bentguard” is not and official Takara Tomy or Hasbro Part. I don’t understand why we are allowing it in ranked. Personalization? Imo, that’s why they make recolors. If you want to make a combo your own, mix around the colors. No modding needed. Is it to make a combo better? There are parts for that.
My point here is that the game is good enough simply without allowing illegal modifications, even with a hand. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Why would we go from a ruleset that disallows anything unofficial to adding this rule? Are we going to start allowing games in ranked?
That’s enough from me, but I just strongly believe this rule should be abolished. I get it may not be ruining the meta, but it’s just completely unnecessary.
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - Shindog - Jul. 30, 2022
I do agree that the biggest argument here is if this rule really represents the core value of the WBO. The points that people bring up about 1) fairness, or 2)WBBA does this/we are not the WBBA do not really speak to me at all.
If we are going to abolish this rule, then I want our values to be consistent. To me, that means no more painting beyblades. Paint, I would argue, is not the hand and it is beyond the hand.
If we abolish this rule now, since it has been in place for a bit. What would a judge do if they see a bentguard? How bent is bentguard? Putting a rule in place for even a little bit of time will have consequences. Are players going to be asked to bend it back? If so, how much? Or is that bentguard now dead to the WBO? If they have to bend it back, does the player do it? Or the judge? To whose satisfaction? I would assume the judge?
Some ppl have gotten bearings and drifts that come out the box crooked. You can bend those straight or not? Ofc there is no way to police anyway. Just a philosophical question, to see how far no bending goes.
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - CrisisCrusher07 - Jul. 30, 2022
(Jul. 30, 2022 4:05 AM)Shindog Wrote: I currently don’t have strong feelings about this rule. The best way to talk about “other parts” that may be affected by this rule is to show specific examples in my opinion.
I think some ppl did discuss bent S gear on discord, but I’m not sure if that actually does what ppl claim bent S gear does? I can’t remember. I do know that since bent S gear was talked about, I haven’t seen any bent S gears.
We are not the WBBA and we don’t have to be the WBBA. We do adopt many rules from the WBBA and there is nothing wrong with going along with the game maker’s intent either. The “We are not the WBBA!” and “The WBBA does this!” battle cry has been made too often and really mean nothing at all. They can support both sides of an argument, every time.
Also the OP says we don’t allowed painted parts. That isn’t entirely correct in the WBO…. Pretty sure you can paint MFB/PLA/HMS parts. I don’t like the ability to paint parts much personally, but I have been told it really helps with ppl’s self expression.
I have an interesting question about the whole "Painted parts" thing. So I have sen that people are starting to get really good at dying burst parts. Where would that fall under the whole "Painted parts" ordeal? It's not like Dying parts ads an extra layer or probaby much if any weight to the part. So would that me a illigal modification?
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - Shindog - Jul. 30, 2022
(Jul. 30, 2022 5:38 PM)CrisisCrusher07 Wrote:I would rule dyed parts as illegal in burst myself. I would allow it in other gens. This is based on the rules we have and my interpretation of them.(Jul. 30, 2022 4:05 AM)Shindog Wrote: I currently don’t have strong feelings about this rule. The best way to talk about “other parts” that may be affected by this rule is to show specific examples in my opinion.
I think some ppl did discuss bent S gear on discord, but I’m not sure if that actually does what ppl claim bent S gear does? I can’t remember. I do know that since bent S gear was talked about, I haven’t seen any bent S gears.
We are not the WBBA and we don’t have to be the WBBA. We do adopt many rules from the WBBA and there is nothing wrong with going along with the game maker’s intent either. The “We are not the WBBA!” and “The WBBA does this!” battle cry has been made too often and really mean nothing at all. They can support both sides of an argument, every time.
Also the OP says we don’t allowed painted parts. That isn’t entirely correct in the WBO…. Pretty sure you can paint MFB/PLA/HMS parts. I don’t like the ability to paint parts much personally, but I have been told it really helps with ppl’s self expression.
I have an interesting question about the whole "Painted parts" thing. So I have sen that people are starting to get really good at dying burst parts. Where would that fall under the whole "Painted parts" ordeal? It's not like Dying parts ads an extra layer or probaby much if any weight to the part. So would that me a illigal modification?
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - CrisisCrusher07 - Jul. 30, 2022
(Jul. 30, 2022 5:40 PM)Shindog Wrote:(Jul. 30, 2022 5:38 PM)CrisisCrusher07 Wrote: I have an interesting question about the whole "Painted parts" thing. So I have sen that people are starting to get really good at dying burst parts. Where would that fall under the whole "Painted parts" ordeal? It's not like Dying parts ads an extra layer or probaby much if any weight to the part. So would that me a illigal modification?I would rule dyed parts as illegal in burst myself. I would allow it in other gens. This is based on the rules we have and my interpretation of them.
That's fair. Me and geetster99 were having a conversation about painted parts and stuff. And he was saying that in MFB you could dye the parts different colors and they were still legal.
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - Shindog - Jul. 30, 2022
(Jul. 30, 2022 5:43 PM)CrisisCrusher07 Wrote:He is correct imo.(Jul. 30, 2022 5:40 PM)Shindog Wrote: I would rule dyed parts as illegal in burst myself. I would allow it in other gens. This is based on the rules we have and my interpretation of them.
That's fair. Me and geetster99 were having a conversation about painted parts and stuff. And he was saying that in MFB you could dye the parts different colors and they were still legal.
This is the wording in the PLA/HMS/MFB rulebook:
- Painting/Clear-coating: Painting or clear-coating parts for aesthetic reasons is permitted. The coat must be light, non-textured and not affect the Beyblade’s performance. Bladers who intentionally modify the performance of their equipment will be disqualified and potentially banned from future WBO events.
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - CrisisCrusher07 - Jul. 30, 2022
(Jul. 30, 2022 5:45 PM)Shindog Wrote:(Jul. 30, 2022 5:43 PM)CrisisCrusher07 Wrote: That's fair. Me and geetster99 were having a conversation about painted parts and stuff. And he was saying that in MFB you could dye the parts different colors and they were still legal.He is correct imo.
This is the wording in the PLA/HMS/MFB rulebook:
It’s been like this as long as I can remember. Ofc, one can argue you will alter the performance period, maybe just not by much.
- Painting/Clear-coating: Painting or clear-coating parts for aesthetic reasons is permitted. The coat must be light, non-textured and not affect the Beyblade’s performance. Bladers who intentionally modify the performance of their equipment will be disqualified and potentially banned from future WBO events.
It's weird because I don't see anything in the Burst Rulebook that says either way. You have one part that says:
"Foreign Substances: Beyblade and launcher parts cannot be painted or coated in any way that affects their performance except in the methods explicitly outlined in the green section below. Bladers who intentionally modify the performance illegally of their equipment will be disqualified and potentially banned from future WBO events"
But then in the Green section there is nothing stated about the parts themselves being painted. It talks about launchers and grips, and applying nailpolish for stickers.
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - Shindog - Jul. 30, 2022
You are correct. The rule is different for burst. I guess we only care about self expression some times?
I did say I like consistency in my old age.
What is the core value of the WBO in regards to minor modifications? Are ppl looking back far enough or wide enough?
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - CrisisCrusher07 - Jul. 30, 2022
(Jul. 30, 2022 5:53 PM)Shindog Wrote: You are correct. The rule is different for burst. I guess we only care about self expression some times?
I did say I like consistency in my old age.
What is the core value of the WBO in regards to minor modifications? Are ppl looking back far enough or wide enough?
Good question. I personally like consistency myself. I rather rules not be made for one thing but then not be used for the other. I think things need to be on the same page as the others.
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - JCE_13 - Jul. 30, 2022
I agree with the above statements.
Like shindog said, if we outruled bentguard, since it’s a modded part, what would be the problem with either bending it back to where it wouldn’t affect the beyblade or bending not back to exactly the way another one looks? Or even having them bring out another vanguard if applicable, or lending one? I didn’t know about the painting rule but I feel like there are enough recolors to where that isn’t really necessary, but I personally don’t really have an opinion about that.
WBO rules say that parts can’t be awakened to where it changes the shape of the bottom of the driver. But disks and layers can now? It just seems unnecessarily inconsistent which I don’t think is what we want in ranked.
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - Shindog - Jul. 30, 2022
The WBO adopted the WBBA rule on driver wear essentially. We used to put up WBBA’s images in our rulebook. We changed the WBO wear language to be consistent with WBBA a few years ago.
This is the legal wear language:
- The tip of the Driver is worn but still remains the primary point of contact with the stadium floor, including to the point of changes in performance.
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - JCE_13 - Jul. 30, 2022
(Jul. 30, 2022 8:11 PM)Shindog Wrote: The WBO adopted the WBBA rule on driver wear essentially. We used to put up WBBA’s images in our rulebook. We changed the WBO wear language to be consistent with WBBA a few years ago.
This is the legal wear language:
Please, I don’t need to be reminded “we are not the WBBA”. I am super aware and already mentioned that in this thread. I am only showing the “WBBA does it” because these are the facts and we did copy them. Not really a commentary, just giving the facts.
- The tip of the Driver is worn but still remains the primary point of contact with the stadium floor, including to the point of changes in performance.
Am I saying that? I agree with you and that we do adopt some of the rules, my point is that it’s not about comparison, it’s about staying consistent with our rules, and allowing these things just don’t seem like it.
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - Shindog - Jul. 30, 2022
(Jul. 30, 2022 10:37 PM)JCE_13 Wrote:(Jul. 30, 2022 8:11 PM)Shindog Wrote: The WBO adopted the WBBA rule on driver wear essentially. We used to put up WBBA’s images in our rulebook. We changed the WBO wear language to be consistent with WBBA a few years ago.
This is the legal wear language:
Please, I don’t need to be reminded “we are not the WBBA”. I am super aware and already mentioned that in this thread. I am only showing the “WBBA does it” because these are the facts and we did copy them. Not really a commentary, just giving the facts.
- The tip of the Driver is worn but still remains the primary point of contact with the stadium floor, including to the point of changes in performance.
Am I saying that? I agree with you and that we do adopt some of the rules, my point is that it’s not about comparison, it’s about staying consistent with our rules, and allowing these things just don’t seem like it.
My point is the WBO isn’t consistent. I think Crisis’s question clearly uncovered that. If the WBO was consistent about staying in its own lane or just following in the WBBA lane, then the arguments “WBBA does it!” Or “we are not the WBBA” would be extremely relevant arguments.
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - Arconic - Jul. 31, 2022
I want to play against the best possible competition, so long as it isn't overly dominant. I think bentguard is a cool thing to try (maybe more from a hobby perspective) because it also adds a small extra layer of customization.
I'm neither for, nor against the idea, so I'm fine with whatever we ultimately decide in regards to legality.
RE: Remove "Displacement of part components that have give to them by hand." Proposal - Abellia - Jul. 31, 2022
Hmmm. Changes like this tend to be QoL changes that could be considered more innocuous than this rule. Things like launcher modifications to improve their durability, the trimming or filing down of MFB prongs to prevent beyblades from getting stuck, the clipping off of "flashing" (excess material on injection molded parts), the addition of some kind of light coating or shimming to mfb parts in order to ensure a tight fit, etc - that could very well be legalized and improve the longevity of older generations. There is also a history of beyblade having had similar legalities, such as tip inversion in bakuten.