[Zarel*]

Originally Posted by Fat david stone

I support version 1 of the clause. It is the most basic and straightforward clause. I think it's the player's responsibility to not use strategies where they can lose instantly.

I think it's also the ruleset's responsibility not to artificially introduce ways to lose instantly that didn't exist before.

Originally Posted by Fat david stone

You say that it's not fair that a Choice Breloom could instantly lose if they Spore a Wobbuffet / Chandelure / Dugtrio, but maybe that's a sign that the player shouldn't use Choice Breloom or shouldn't just blindly Spore the foe.

Technically, I didn't say that. In fact, that's beside the point I'm making.

I'm going to quote Characteristics of a Desirable Pokemon Metagame again:

Adherence [...] We are not making a new game, we are metagaming the existing game of Pokemon.

It doesn't matter that it's fair that Choice Breloom could instantly lose. It matters that in Pokemon, instant losses aren't a thing.

Originally Posted by Fat david stone

You say that clause version 1 is the only form of the clause that can add a situation in which a player loses and cannot recover, but that's kind of a silly analogy. There are many situations I've been in for any generation where I've made a mistake and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, such as [...].

No, there have been many situations in which the combination of "you made a mistake" and "your opponent was a good enough player to capitalize upon your mistake and win the game" led to your defeat.

Taking out the second requirement is undesirable, and violates the "Skill" Characteristic of a Desirable Pokemon Metagame.

Originally Posted by Fat david stone

I've also been on the other side. I'd assume that people who find clause 1 unacceptable are also in favor of banning Mean Look + set-up move? There have been many games I've been in where I trap the opponent with Mean Look and either set up or Baton Pass to a set-up Pokemon.

This is entirely missing the point.

There is a difference between a strategy that is designed to be viable in Pokemon, and a strategy that wasn't viable but was artificially made viable by Sleep Clause.

In fact, this difference constitutes the entire point of my objection to Cathy's Sleep Clause and a significant proportion of my previous posts, and I find it at least a bit puzzling that you did not understand this point. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did read my posts: Were they unclear?

Originally Posted by Fat david stone

Your baseball analogy is flawed. If it's bottom of the ninth, the bases are loaded, and the team up to bat is down by 3, then the pitcher making a mistake can instantly lose the game

This also completely misses the point. Of course it's possible to lose a game. No one would ever say otherwise.

My point is that, when you're not down to your last pokemon (or, in the baseball analogy, when it's not the ninth inning), it shouldn't be possible for a viable strategy to risk an instant loss.

Originally Posted by Fat david stone

The kind of mistake that's more closely related to using Spore twice is more like the pitcher throwing the ball at the umpire while the rest of the team moons them.

Err, I think you're missing the point of an analogy, which is to draw a comparison between two situations.

Using Spore twice in Cathy's Sleep Clause something that's risky but can pay off. Throwing the ball at the umpire while the rest of the team moons them is analogous to forfeiting - that's possible in Pokemon as well. The point is that viable strategies should not risk an instant loss.

In conclusion, the vast majority of your post appears to be a straw man fallacy, and you should be better than that. :|