I'm saying the community can set whatever rules they want for any tournament they themselves are responsible for. I am not arguing that Akuma should be allowed in every tournament, I think that would be stupid. But Sirlin's article spends 99% talking about not limiting yourself from viable strategies or tactics and take every advantage allowed to you by the game rules… and then he is contradicts himself by trying to justify Akuma being banned because he is well aware that it flies directly in the face of his stance. Following his reasoning he should be stating Akuma is a playable character and its very existence flattens out the game so the best player wins period, rather than some characters having an attack combos that one or more other characters are weak against, or superior defenses. When everyone is playing exactly the same character only the person with the fastest reflexes and best read on their opponent rises to the top.

By justifying Akuma's ban by essentially saying it is overpowered he justifies the same argument being applied through out his article. So what happens when you show up at a Call of Cthulhu tournament and the TO has banned the Cthulhu faction because it is "overpowered" despite FFG having done nothing of the sort? Is that fair? Is that justified? For Warhammer: Invasion the Poland tournament has rejected a FAQ entry on one of the cards and substituted their own. Is that fair or justified? What about those people who disagree with it but are now forced to play in their nationals without the legal interpretation of the card? What happens when the winner of the Polish tournament shows up at worlds where everyone else is playing the legal version of the card?

House ruling something only works when every body agrees on the need and the way the change is implemented. When you start fracturing the game like this you invariably end up with people playing differently which causes problems when members of different groups play each other each using the rules they know and arguing or feeling disadvantaged when the TO doesn't take his or her side.

Of course the thing is, most people play games to enjoy themselves. Arguing about overpowered cards/characters and constantly finding yourself on the losing end is pretty antithetical to fun. So people adjust their behavior or create new rules to minimize the conflict and maximize the fun. When you are playing within a small group there is nothing wrong with this, and telling people they are doing it wrong when they play a game for fun is ridiculous.

Sirlin does have some VERY salient points in his article, but the thesis of it is flawed because he fails to keep it in context and examine the larger picture. IF you are playing a game or sport (or engaging in business or social interactions) with a specific goal you should be working towards that goal. Every time you are not working towards achieving that goal that is energy wasted. When you fall short of the goal do not blame others around you for doing things you could have done to achieve that goal. Own up to your mistakes or your willing handicapping of yourself. Don't make excuses.

That is what the article should have emphasized, and simply used the competition aspect of it as an example.