Seems like an interesting list but you'll have to explain a couple of things to me: What's "Stage striking 2-3-1" and "3 bans +DSR"?
It's about the process of deciding stages. Stage striking is what you'd normally do on the first game of a tournament stage to decide the opening stage. Both players play an RPS, after which the winner strikes 2 stages he/she doesn't want to play on; then, the loser strikes 3 stages he/she doesn't want; and finally, the RPS winner then decides where to play out of the two remaining stages, hence 2-3-1 (2 strikes; 3 strikes; 1 strike). Normally up to this point it was always 1-2-1 because there were always 5 starter stages in previous games, but I think with Ultimate it's time we expand the list.
The counterpick part is for games after game 1, and from then all of those stages are available. Before the loser of the last game gets to choose the stage counterpick, the winner can ban 3 stages he/she doesn't want to play on. "DSR" stands for "Dave's Stupid Rule". I don't know where the name came from, but it was a rule where you can also not counterpick a stage you've already won on that set; but the Modified version is a newer take on it where you can only not pick the last stage you've won on. In the end, it's a little complicated and maybe we could do without it if you'd please - having a proper stage list means we're always gonna be playing on decent stages even without counterpick bans. Personally, I wouldn't mind not having them, and I'm probably one of the most competitive players around here.
I don't inherently mind 7 stages, but I don't think it's fair to say that Game 1s will always default to PS2 as basically every widely accepted Smash ruleset has had 5 or fewer starting stages. We'd also probably need a more complex banning process with 7 stages, and given that a simpler ruleset is probably better for a league where a lot of people probably won't be particularly familiar with competitive play, I'm a little iffy about embracing 7. Not totally opposed though.
Maybe FoD/Lylat won't actually be buggy post release, but until we know that they are, I really don't see why we should take the risk and include them. There's plenty of legal stages that can take their place, and there's no reason why we have to chance having a buggy stage screw up a game when we're assured a fine match with something else (say Hazardless Frigate Orpheon or something).
Well, the accepted Smash 4 ruleset had 5 starting stages and they always started in Smashville, so, there. The banning system isn't really more complex than with 5 stages (1-2-1 for 5 stages, 2-3-1 for 7 stages), but I think if people here don't wanna go through that, they can just straight up pick a stage they agree on.
...Yeah but the thing is, no stage in Smash history has ever been added to a stage list. It's literally never happened, so it's unreasonable to believe that somehow, this time, the community will be able to embrace a new stage popping up on the stagelist just because its glitches have been fixed. If anything, I find it more likely that people will create new excuses to keep said stages banned. In the end, I think bugs are something we'll just have to deal with this early in a game's lifespan - it was the same with Smash 4, which early on had a lot of different mechanics such as Vectoring-DI, DACUS, and that bizarre Wario Waft glitch. It's just how things go at this stage... I'd rather risk having all these stages there, and only ban them if they do prove to be problematic and aren't fixed post-release. Also, Hazardless Frigate Orpheon is already on the stagelist in the first place, saying it should replace FoD or Lylat is nonsense since they're vastly different stages.