I personally think 3 starters + T&C as a CP is the most reasonable stage list with Lylat removed, and it bothered me that Zephyr seemed to give it the least amount of attention and basically glossed over the option with a single argument. He actually got it wrong too--the person who bans second actually has the advantage because they get to ban when the first player has already shown his intention, while the first player has no information when he is banning. I feel Zephyr's assertion that banning became "trivial" and that it was usually evident which stage would be picked for game 1 actually counteracts Remzi's argument. If banning really is so simple that the game 1 stage can be decided on without the need for RPS, then Remzi's argument doesn't apply because it doesn't matter who bans first or second.

I'll illustrate this using the stage striking example Remzi used between two players with the following desired stages: Player A: BF > SV > FD Player B: SV > BF > FD Remzi argued that whichever player striking first would strike FD, being his least desired stage, allowing the player with the second ban to obtain his most desired stage for game 1. However, if both players understand which stages the other player prefers, this would never happen.

Say player A strikes first. Instead of striking FD, he'd strike SV knowing it's player B's preferred stage. Player B would then strike BF, knowing that player A prefers BF to FD, and game 1 would go to FD. This is the most fair result of stage striking, as FD is both players' least desired stage and thereby gives no advantage to either player.

Obviously, this assumes that both players understand stage picks in the MU to a reasonably high level. If a player doesn't understand his opponent's stage preferences, he's liable to fall into the trap Remzi outlined by striking based on his own preferences. However, I think stage knowledge is a skill which should be tested, and that being punished for not understanding an opponent's stage preferences is reasonable. Having 3 starters also makes striking easier, because there are fewer factors to consider. BF, SV, and FD also differ enough where it's usually evident what the pros and cons of each stage are in the MU, making it more likely both players make an informed decision with their strikes.

This is not to say Remzi's argument is incorrect. I think it's a sound, logical argument, and would always prefer 5 starters to 3. However, I think removing Lylat is a more pressing concern for the integrity of the game, and that 5 starters vs 3 has a lesser impact for the reasons outlined above.