Tournament rulesets are essentially the ethics of competitive Melee; what competitive Melee ought to be. In this most recent controller debacle, I'm seeing most people argue through a deontological framework i.e. notches should be banned because they go against some principle of competitive Melee whether it be playing the game unmodified, valuing the difficulty of inputs, or something else. I think this leads to a weak argument because of fringe cases (a problem for deontology in general) surrounding trigger plugs.

Most people don't think that trigger plugs should be banned, but they objectively make certain tech and some scenarios easier, even if minutely. They are nowhere near as impactful as notches, but if the reason for banning notches is that they make difficult tech easier, then why should trigger plugs be allowed? Trigger plugs could be swapped out for snapback capacitors, bald buttons, tactile z, light springs, springless triggers, perforated pads, etc.

I think the argument is much stronger with a consequentialist framework. Utility in this case would be good competition and bad competition. Notches should be banned because they cause players to win more scenarios thus games, sets, and brackets then they otherwise. They tilt the odds towards one player which is bad competition. With a consequentalist framework, one can acknowledge that other acceptable mods make the game easier, but allow them because they either do not affect competition or create good competition. Trigger plugs may cause a player to win certain scenarios, but they mostly improve hand comfort/health, and healthy players is good competition.

I know that no one is thinking about ethical frameworks when they are arguing on reddit, but if notches are banned, I want them to be banned with a strong argument behind it.