Heysup

I'm not ignoring your argument - You're arguing fixing glitches, and I'm arguing that fixing glitches is simply a restatement of game improvement.

Defining what is a "glitch" is impossible because a glitch is DEFINED as the opposite of developer intent. We can define what we want to fix that we think might be a glitch- but that is exactly the same as defining what we want to fix, which we still have no criteria on. The only criteria that makes sense is "improving the game" - and that leads to the rest of my argument.

If you can conclusively argue that there is an instance when the Pokemon community would want to fix a glitch that does not improve the game, go ahead. I have seen no initiative to patch Shoal Salt, or to return Explosion to its former strength, or anything like that. Shoal Salt is notably the only "confirmed glitch" because it contradicts its own in game description.

As for asserting opinions as facts, literally every single "glitch" you have described is an opinion and not confirmed because developer intent defines the line between glitch and feature.

It's neither. I'm saying that fixing a glitch is logically equivalent to making improvements (since we don't fix EVERY glitch, and we assume things are glitches that might not be and vice versa). Because of that logical equivalence, and the fact that we are limiting the amount of improvements we are trying to make to the game, in order to define a "line" we need to find criteria to decide whether or not an improvement is made to the game. The only real criteria for that is size of improvement...

Not every argument with a conclusion is a slippery slope fallacy, and not every argument that differs from your statement is a straw man.

But then you get into "why do you fix glitches?" The only reason to fix a glitch is to improve the game; if there is no improvement no one is going to seriously push to fix a glitch even if Nintendo said so. Arguing about whether or not a designer intended it to be that way is not going to work because that's not what anyone cares about, nor is that remotely verifiable, so ultimately "glitch repair" boils down to "improvement". At which point, the improvements we implement are at best arbitrary, rather than "all improvements" or "improvements only greater than a certain magnitude".

The statement has no definition whatsoever, which means that no arguments would ever be resolved with any degree of consistency.

Here are the two analysis' Desumasu and Cleffa

lol yeah, but back then poke lab had a server !

i still think PL is the best gen 4 simulator out there, damn shame cathy had to take the server with her when she quat

Hey, I was just wondering if you could give this a look. I finally got around to fixing it up and you said that you were probably fine to QC stamp it once it was fixed up.
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75847

hey, can you play now?

Haha agreed man ;p Kinda sad that Beldum only has 5 moves to choose from and poor Speed. Do you suggest I test a more defensive spread although that would mean getting rid of some Attack that Beldum much needs.

Can you please check this whenever you can, thanks alot man ;)
Beldum

can I get a QC check here please ^^

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67884

Was just looking at your thread in UT about LC and had a question I didn't think was appropriate for the thread-- you listed rotom for the example, but rotom isn't being considered allowed in LC is it?

By the way I added the Scarf set onto the Budew Analysis. After making it I realized that Budew actually kinda outclasses Bulbasaur in a way (lol) since it has higher base speed :). Kinda... but not really... Post what you think about it.

Can you give me the OP of this thread, I asked the author(metric) if he would mind me continuing the analysis as it was left around for awhile. He said yeah(check my vm for proof) so if you could give me the OP or should i make a new thread? thanks

Hey,

Can you check my Pichu analysis? I've edited a lot of helpful suggestions, and I think its ready for you to check it.

I know you have. Appreciate it, thanks.

(If, after you look it over, you could convince the others to take a look too that would be great. -w-)

Hey man, I know you've got a lot of people asking you to check stuff, but I unfortunately have to throw one more bundle on the load. :0 I need approvals (or reasons why it can't be approved, at least) for my Trapinch LC analysis. I can't seem to get the thread any attention whatsoever, can you give me some suggestions on how to get it noticed by the other QC mods? :0 I'm sorry to keep bothering you about this, but as far as I know, you're the LC mod who hates me least... >.>

Trapinch

Heysup, could you check out my Hypno update please?

Heysuppppp, can you please check my Dragonair UU analysis. thanks a bunch!!

a pro tip (not sarcastic for facetious or trying to burn anyone, serious):

if you want smogon PO, get everything one needs to start a server ready, in one place, and easy to reference so someone can impulsively set it up one day, rather than demanding people start talking about it. "be the change you wish to see"

Thanks for yet another intelligent post that refrained from personal attacks or any kind of condescension.

As for the "on topic" question: I don't think we should use the simulator right now for Gen 5 because it seems like at best the developer's integrity is questionable. (The whole "fake virus" thing, the whole "i'm not releasing gen 5 oh wait i am oh wait i'm not" thing, etc. are what I base this value judgement on)

With more time, we may find that either he doesn't pull this shit anymore or that we are more desperate to simulate Gen 5 than before.

All of my "assumptions" are things you could pretty easily research or look up to verify.

You can't drag an argument in one direction and claim I'm off topic when all I'm doing is directly addressing what you said. If you don't think what you said hand any merit as to whether or not implementing Gen 5 via this software is a good idea, why did you say it?

Many of your assumptions used to form your point are false.

First, PO is slightly less accurate than PL/SB.

Secondly, "intelligence" is not a simple linear thing. I'm a very intelligent person yet I've been banned 5 or 6 times from Smogon. Programming a Pkmn simulator doesn't mean you're smart enough to not randomly decide to announce to the world that you put a fake virus in your program, for example.

Third, he stated no reasons in his "we're pulling back a feature we already released instead of working out the bugs while people use it" post.

SB2 is absolutely not an indication of the time it will take to implement PL, because SB2 was a complete server and client rewrite designed to implement multiple Pkmn mechanics. Because of that long task done before, implementing a new set of mechanics will go a LOT faster because the entire program isn't being rewritten

A lot of your assumptions come from a misunderstanding of what it takes to program a Pkmn simulator and engine