Policy Review Policy Review - Polling

Co-authored by tennisace and DougJustDoug
Proofreading by Deck Knight and Wyverii

If you are not an experienced member of the CAP community, it is strongly recommended that you do not post in this thread.

This thread is intended to contain intelligent discussion and commentary by experienced members of the CAP project regarding CAP policy, process, and rules. As such, the content of this thread will be moderated more strictly than other threads on the forum. The posting rules for Policy Review threads are contained here.

Click to expand...

Introduction

The purpose of this policy review thread isn’t to make a sweeping reform in the way we do polls in CAP. Well, in a way I suppose it is, however, this PR is meant to address 9 smaller problems I’ve come across as a mod recently. So while this may seem like a large, rambling, long-winded PR thread, it really isn’t. It’s the compilation of smaller changes that aren’t tl;dr. So please, read each individual part because they’re all equally important.

Table of Contents
Part 1: General Polls
[jump=1]I. Poll Length[/jump]
[jump=2]II. Poll Options[/jump]
[jump=3]III. Legal Types of Polls[/jump]
[jump=4]IV. Posting in Polls[/jump]

Part 2: Specific Poll Changes
[jump=5]V. Movepool Poll[/jump]
[jump=6]VI. Ability Polls[/jump]
[jump=7]VII. Secondary Type Poll[/jump]
[jump=8]VIII. Art and Sprite Polls[/jump]
[jump=9]IX. Pokedex Entry Polls[/jump]

Part 1: General Polls

[a]1[/a]I. Poll Length

All polls (and threads for that matter) must stay open a minimum of 24 hours. This is a fairly common sense rule of thumb that I feel needs to be a solid rule. It’s a fairly simple and logical rule that wasn’t followed a couple times and people got really mad. All it does is allow people of all timezones a chance to contribute and vote. This is a no-brainer.

[a]2[/a]II. Poll Options

There are two changes that pertain to the number of options in a poll. The first change is that the TL must choose at least four options for a first poll. This is because 4 options is the smallest number to have a sufficiently diversified slate, and almost always force a second run-off poll. Besides, if the TL cannot choose four separate options, I don’t feel like the TL is sufficiently exploring all options for accomplishing the concept. Though this is now the “strong TL” model, and TL’s are welcome to pick whatever they want for a slate, I feel like this minimum should prevent a total choke-hold on the process and make it more democratic. If the TL could pick only two options for a first and final poll, he/she could easily just choose his/her favorite and a totally undesirable option (like Fire vs Poison for a Pokemon that relies totally on offensive coverage).

On a side note, I’d like to add a bit about this to the TL Guide. Some former TL’s were accused of gaming the polls completely to their liking. While yes, this is the strong TL model, and yes, you do have “free reign” over the slate, just know that the mods are watching for any shenanigans with gaming polls. Having the one reasonable option you like plus three out of the blue crap options is no longer acceptable. All options must have somewhat heavy support in the discussion thread, by either the TL or the general public.

The second change is that any poll with more than 6 options should always be a multiple choice poll. This may seem odd at first -- but here's the reason: With large polls (more than 6 options) there's going to be another poll anyway. So, it's really just a question of determining which options have enough support to move on. In a large poll where users only have one vote -- they are very tempted to not "waste" their vote on something that has little support. Even without that bias -- a single-voting scheme in a large poll does little to indicate where spillover votes will go for the options that don't advance. By allowing multiple votes, everyone can express not only their favorite, but their "spillover votes" too. This ensures that we put the right options through to the next round. This brings us to the next point.

[a]3[/a]III. Legal Types of Polls

Which is getting rid of undesirable poll types entirely. We will have two voting styles ONLY -- Single vote click poll, and unlimited multi-vote.

Single vote click polls are simple and are the easiest option for polls with less than 6 options. However, there is no advantage to having multiple choice click polls over bold polls. Bold polls are easier to regulate generally, since users have to post to participate in them. In addition, they can have any number of options. So they’re always the better option over multi-click polls. As an addendum, all single vote click polls must be public, i.e. you must be able to see who voted for whom. This will become apparent with my next point.

As for multiple choice bold polls; with the vote counting script, there is no real advantage to limiting multi-votes to a set number (like "Pick 3"). Yeah, there are some people that vote for every option - and others that only vote for 1, even though they should vote for more. But, allowing unlimited multi-votes is by far easiest to moderate, and people tend to "self-regulate" on this stuff anyway. Meaning, they only vote for options they like. And when it comes to narrowing the field -- we want to advance the options that are "most liked". Just allow unlimited votes and use the counting script.

Cut all this bullshit with preferential ranking, which encourages shady voting practices like down-voting someone intentionally so your favorite makes it through, and/or forcing people to choose a set number of options. If it's not a simple click poll, then make it a multi-vote bold vote and be done with it.

[a]4[/a]IV. Posting in Polls

The final general change is one that’s been annoying me for a very long time. I want to completely eliminate posting opinions (including who you voted for) of any kind in all polls. Recently, poll threads have turned into discussion threads. If you still have something to say about an option, then clearly the discussion thread wasn’t left open long enough. The focus of CAP shouldn’t be the polls themselves, but the discussions about the options. By shifting all opinions to the discussion thread, it allows it all to be in one place. The discussion threads would remain open during the polls just in case people have last minute points they want to get out.

The other reason for not allowing opinions or posts of any kind (other than votes in bold vote threads) is that generally, all I find is spam when I look at the threads. Many people have received warnings from me saying “That’s nice, but you need to explain why you voted for x.” In a click poll, that information is easily available by clicking on the vote total. In a bold poll, it’s even easier to see because you’re posting your vote so that it’s out in the open to everyone. Your explanation should be well thought out in the discussion thread already, meaning that re-posting your opinion is just another way of threadhogging.

Part 2: Specific Poll Changes

[a]5[/a]V. Movepool Poll

This is the only really controversial suggestion in this thread. As the previous movepool poll has shown us, most final movepools only differ by one or two VGMs and some flavor. For example, in the last poll, the only real difference was that one movepool had Ice Beam and Sucker Punch, while the other didn’t.

I feel that with the new VGM system keeping the relative size in check, it can “replace” the Complete Movepool Poll as the finale to the movepool polls as a whole. So instead of having movepool creaters come up with a complete movepool with flavor moves built in, I propose that they come up with a VGM list, which would have all of the VGMs the Pokemon would be able to learn, in addition to any dependancies a full movepool should have. An example of this would be Mean Look and Baton Pass being illegal on the same set; it would be clearly spelled out that a final movepool could not allow those two together, but must include both. Then, after the Sprite Poll and Final Product thread but before the Dex Entry Poll, a Complete Movepool Submission thread and set of polls would take place, using the chosen VGM list as a concrete basis. This separates the flavor somewhat, but doesn’t remove it completely. I feel like this will bring the movepools even more into line with “real Pokemon” while still keeping the competitive aspect in the forefront.

[a]6[/a]VI. Ability Polls

As a general rule, No Secondary Ability is generally an option on the first Secondary Ability Poll. This should be a hard rule, with an addendum. The official option should be “NSA/Flavor Ability”. The reason for this is that flavor abilities (which I define as having zero competitive use in singles battles) are essentially the same as having NSA. The only time they would actually make a difference is if someone accidentally puts it as the ability (or not accidentally if we eventually get CAP Doubles, at which point the list will change accordingly).

I have compiled a list of flavor abilities, and they are as follows:

• Honey Gather
• Illuminate
• Lightningrod
• Minus
• Pickup
• Plus
• Run Away
• Stench
• Storm Drain
• Sturdy (OHKO Clause is always on. In BW this will supposedly change.)

In addition, “Flavor Ability” should always be an option in the first Primary Ability Poll. This is so that if we want to make a very powerful Pokemon, we can give it two useless abilities and go from there.

If Flavor Ability (or combo NSA/Flavor Ability) wins either poll, there will be a separate discussion and set of polls after the Complete Movepool Polls but before the Dex Entry Polls. There are few enough options (10 flavor abilities plus NSA if applicable) that a bold poll could include them all; no discussion is really needed since whichever one fits best will be apparent (it’s flavor).

[a]7[/a]VII. Secondary Type Poll

This is the shortest proposal! No Secondary Type should be required to be on the first poll of the Secondary Type Poll. Common sense really, see above section for more info.

[a]8[/a]VIII. Art and Sprite Polls

This rule, though we’ve followed it for a long time, should get set in stone. All legal submissions must be included in the slate for art and sprite polls. Personally, I think all polls that are pure flavor, should basically be a completely democratic community decision. I realize Name polls and Dex Entries are shitstorms, and there's just no way to allow everything into the poll. But, presumably the Topic Leader is not picking their personal favorites there anyway, but is picking the ones that have the most support from the submission thread. I realize that isn't really true in practice, and TL are picking their faves -- but I think we should discourage that. When it comes to art and sprite, it doesn’t really matter what the TL thinks is "best" or not. We do not have any objective reason to restrict art and sprites. I think it should be 100% community voted (from the legal options, that is).

[a]9[/a]IX. Pokedex Entry Polls

I know that I kinda just threw this into CAP11 haphazardly, but I felt that there was really no reason for it to have been taken out in the first place. I know that, yes, it has absolutely no competitive bearing (unlike flavor abilities or complete movepools), and, yes, it takes up time. However, there is no reason not to have it for fun, just have it after every other item that needs to be completed. This would include: Sprites, Complete Movepool Discussion, Complete Movepool Polls, if applicable Flavor Ability Polls, and Final Product/Server Implimentation.

This is how the Pokedex Entry Polls should work:

• 1. A discussion thread is opened where people can submit ideas. Standard discussion thread rules apply.
• 2. People choose one entry to make a final submission, and mark it so in the thread.
• 3. The TL chooses a slate of 10 or so choices (give or take a couple) and makes a bold poll.
• 4. The top 3 choices by percentage are chosen as the dex entries (Diamond/Pearl, Platinum, HGSS).

This is both smooth and short in terms of time, since it isn’t that important as a step, but is still fun!

Conclusion

Some of these changes are long overdue, and some were thought up on the fly. However, all are important, and I believe that all of them should be added to the CAP process because they’re all logical and helpful (or fun)!

Appendix

This would be the complete new Order of Events, with my changes (note that the numbering and order are subject to change):

• Topic Leader Nominations
• Policy Review Committee Applications
• Topic Leader Selection
• Concept Submissions
• Part 1 (Concept Poll)
• Concept Assessment
• Part 2 (Main Type Poll)
• Part 3 (Secondary Type Poll)
• Part 4 (Stat and Movepool Limits)
  Art Submissions
  Stat Spread Submissions
• Part 5a (Ability Discussion)
• Part 5b (Ability Poll)
• Part 5c (Secondary Ability Discussion)
• Part 5d (Secondary Ability Poll)
• Part 6 (Stat Spread Poll)
• Part 7 (Art Poll)
• Part 8 (Counters Discussion)
  Name Submissions
• Part 9 (Name Poll)
  Sprite Submissions
• Part 10a (Attacking Moves Discussion)
• Part 10b (Attacking Moves Poll)
• Part 11a (Non-Attacking Moves Discussion)
• Part 11b (Non-Attacking Moves Poll)
• Part 12a (VGM List Discussion)
• Part 12b (VGM List Poll)
• Part 13 (Sprite Poll)
• Part 14a Complete Movepool Discussion
• Part 14b (Complete Movepool Poll)
• Final Product Thread
  Misc (Pre-Evos, Height, Weight, etc.)
  Flavor Ability Poll (If applicable)
• Server Implementation
  Playtesting
  Analysis
  Dex Entry Submissions
• Part 15 (Dex Entry Poll)

I. The 24-hour minimum seems natural on paper, but there have been time-zone-related complaints nonetheless for some reason. It would have been a lot more helpful if people specified why 24 hours weren't enough for them, but since they haven't, there's nothing we can do about this.

III. I agree with this as well. Adding to what was said, unlimited multi-voting allows people to express what they want in a more specific manner, without an easy way to game them like with preferential polls. However, I'd like to propose the additional rule that each vote should be weighted so that each person gets the equivalent of one vote. i.e. If you vote for n options, each counts for 1/n vote. Maybe this is a little crude, but the idea is that a voter can't increase his/her "influence" by voting for multiple options.

IV. I personally used the poll threads to give a reason and leave it. However, sometimes people ask questions and such, and it's hard not to turn the thread into another discussion then. Thus, I completely agree that this proposition is for the best.

V. I actually completely agree with this. All bias aside since I used this method to build my CAP 11 movepool :P, the situation as it is is some strange mix between flavour and competitive reasoning, and they should definitely be separated.

VIII. I guess that the main argument against this is that artists technically don't have to pay attention to the rest of the process. Whether aragornbird ever actually considered what Krilowatt's stat spread was when he submitted his art, for example, is anyone's guess. This leads me to wonder whether artists should be required to explain how their art submissions fit with the other aspects of the CAP that have already been decided (i.e. stat spread and abilities).

IX. Over the weeks spent on IRC, it seems to me that the opposition to the Dex poll is simply, "It's stupid." It's a kind of flavour that isn't used to advertise the product. Ultimately, though, people evidently do see this as an endeavour worth pursuing for fun, and considering where it is in the order of events, it really, really shouldn't be a problem.

II, VI, VII. Completely agree. I don't have anything to say about these.

I hope that this was a sufficient enough post :)

I'll only be posting thoughts on things I want to expand or disagree on. If I don't mention it I either agree or am nuetral.

Generalities:

I. Length of Polls:

I know I blitzed through the polls at 24 hours each, but going through it I now think the first poll on any process item should be 48 hours (and a maximum of 5 will continue on) and all other polls will just be single click for a day, since that's self managing. This means the most effort is expended at the beginning for the bold polls, which allows more time for thought and gives the highest numbers for determining support.

III. Legal Types of Polls:

Multi-vote pick any number options fail to provide a critical element to improving submissions: feedback. As you well know CAP attracts a lot of users who have come out of lurking to vote in the CAP polls, it's often their first or second post. If you can bold any number of options and someone bolds five of nine or seven of nine, all that tells the contributor is that the poster in question is pretty indecisive.

The reason I selected preferential polls last CAP is because it puts a roadblock to "picking all the flavors." If anything the multi-vote anything goes polls are more susceptible to up-voting than prefential polls are to down-voting. Want you submission to advance? Find a way to contact some of the newer users and get them to edit your name onto their vote. They're excited and you probably did a decent job, and there's no pressure to select who you think was the best.

I suppose we could head that off by saying editted posts are invalid, but the point remains is that down-voting is either a) mythical or b) impossible to avoid anyway. About the only time downvotes come into play is the TL selection where it's 14 votes instead of 140.

Furthermore, there's no such thing as a "downvote" on the sheer scale of these polls. If you want to "downvote" when the TL has requested you pick 3 out of 9 options, you don't include the option you don't want to win. That nets that option zero points. There is an assumed level of honesty that the poster has actively considered the options and voted accordingly.

Finally, the preferential polls, at least how I conducted them, were designed so that those who did really well would see how they stacked up relative to the other submitters. When all names have equal weight in each vote, only the final tally tells you how you've done. Though we could remove the weighting element, but I fail to see how this provides good feedback to submissions. Everybody tends to like the CAP regular submissions, only a preferential poll allows you to put a high preference on a newer or more obscure contributor.

Here's the thing though: Eventually the poll gets to the point where only your number one preference is getting through. No matter how generous you are in ackowledging all submissions in the first poll, at the end of the day one option is going to win that poll and if you want to get it there, preferential polling allows you to assign it the highest value at the first stage. Is it a pain to count? Not if you have the right tools. Attached to this post are the two spreadsheets I used for the preferential polls. It took my six and eight keystrokes respectively to count each post. It may not be easily scriptable but I feel it provides the strongest feedback mechanism. If people are too dense to read and follow the OP that's their problem. I know it's a hassle but mutli-vote bold polls are worthless when it comes to feedback.

IV. Posting in Polls

I will freely admit before the strong TL model I abused the hell out of this. It was an extremely effective way to sway opinions because your premise basically went unchallenged at least until your reasoning swayed a few votes. This is less true now with a more active grip on the process, but still within the realm of possibility. Keeping the discussion thread open will eliminate this possibility, so I support it.

What I would append is that if you want to give your reasoning, you link to a separate post in the discussion thread, or possible we could set up a place in the social group "The Kitchen Sink" for it. I don't know about this though, I agree it has too much potential to sway a poll, especially a click poll if you do it early enough and they see thread activity. It's probably a net negative to continue to allow it.

Specific Polls:

V. Movepool Poll

I'd like to tweak this slightly. I'm sure I'll take heat for this but I think upon my latest inspection Jibaku's movepool has too many VGMs. I'm not sure if there were stuck in at the last minute and evaded my detection or I missed them the first time. In any case I think if we made a VGM Master List of say, not more than 7 moves over the limit and people could select VGMs from that list and append their own copy at the end. This would make it easier to count and self-verify.

However, I still think the movepools should be done by each submitter. They will decide what is important and what the flavor is. A big incentive for contributing is having your name on part of the final product. Unless I have misunderstood, this basically removes competitive differences between movepools and boils down solely to flavor. None of our hardcore submitters would support that model. They have very strong opinions on what is and is not "too much" for a CAP movepool, and to make them basically flavor jockeys is not going to improve the process. I'd like the votes to be based on important competitive differences, not who has Spike Cannon vs. Pin Missile.

VIII. Arts and Sprite Polls:

This is where I think unlimited bold multivote works, provided there are enough options. Unlike the competitive polls which require some discretionary latitiude, the minimum requirements for these should simply be adherence to the submission rules. I still believe in some limits (I always selected mine based on choosing the Top 33%), but these two polls are special cases.

IX. Dex Poll:

I agree this was done haphazardly. Having messed it up a little, I think the easiest way to do this is to check for Dex grammar before updating so that poor/unorthodox grammar aren't barriers. Content should still be a legitimate basis. No Pokedex entry for example should contain the words "killing machine." I tried to make the rules and apply discretion as far as more complex words than Pokedex entries use (The Pokedex for example never refers to anything ironic, it's pretty strait-laced and descriptive).

In any case if there were more preparation we probably could have avoided some errors there, but I think making all entries that aren't removed on content grammar updated for the OP would save grief.

The Dex Poll should also take place in the same step tier as Server Implementation, with Dex Submissions along with the Final Product elements.

I likely have a lot to say about a lot of parts of this PR, but I will start with the ones that I care the most about. As much as I hate the PR stages of the CAP forum, I must confess that shoving nearly a dozen very important topics into one PR thread is both convoluted and unfair to the PRC. That aside...

V. Movepool Poll

As much as I, someone deeply involved in movepools, would love more opportunities to get chances to win movepools, I have a different solution to this that I discussed at length with Doug one day and I think would be the better way to go.

First...This is a big shift. Instead of the NAM and AM threads listing what are allowed on movepools, they define the actual VGM movepool. Whether AM or NAM came first should be up to the discretion of the TL based on what kind of concept we have and how we've executed up to that point. For instance, Fidgit's NAM would obviously be first, while Stratagem would get AM first.

This then changes how movepool submissions work...While this might seem to be a purely flavor venture, I think having an official movepool for a CAP is very important for comparison with other CAPs, maintaining meaningful stats, and so that random battles are not only picking from VGMs. Basically, having a complete movepool has competitive merit as well as flavor merit, which is why we should pursue it.

Effectively, all stipulations as defined by the AM/NAM threads would be required on all movepools submitted. This makes it really easy to sort the legality and competitive viability of the CAP because everything is the same except flavor stuff.

VI. Ability Polls

I strongly disagree with having some preformed list for this. I think that the issue can be solved with two clean-sweeping rules that are faster, more efficient, much cleaner, and more logical than what the OP proposes.In this manner, the people vote for whether they'd rather no secondary ability or a flavor ability for the secondary ability. So this means, for example, in Voodoom's polls, NSA would forcibly be an option alongside Lightningrod. This curbs the artists' issues with "being forced to adjust their concepts for some arbitrary ability", because they could totally vote for NSA and not have to worry about it. I do not like the option of having "flavor ability" in a poll to be decided later because of something. This leads perfectly into my next suggestion, which is important for allowing meaningful flavor abilities onto a CAP...This is important if we choose to go with a competitive ability that really isn't doing anything very meaningful or valuable for the CAP in question or for pure flavor abilities. Let's say Voodoom had the ability to get Steadfast and Inner Focus in the primary ability poll because we wanted to gimp him intentionally. The TL would be able to have the following as options:

• Volt Absorb / Motor Drive / Shockproof
• Steadfast / Inner Focus / Super Luck

In this sense, Steadfast, Inner Focus, and Super Luck count as one slot, and if that option wins, a second poll goes up to decide between the three. Similarly, if VA/MD/SP wins, then those are in the next poll. This sort of allowance is important because it effectively allows us to vote for "directions" for the CAP's ability at first, then home in on which specific ability we want afterward. In my above example, the votes are either for "cover Electric-type attacks somehow" or "use ability that isn't necessarily competitively helpful, but is competitive".

Let's look at how Voodoom's secondary ability poll would've been with these two rules in place...

• Insomnia / Inner Focus / Steadfast
• Lightningrod / Run Away
• No Secondary Ability

Looks a lot better, doesn't it? Basically, in that example, the secondary poll would be between "second competitive ability that really isn't that useful", "flavor ability", or "no ability". It is possible to further compress the "flavor ability" and "no ability" into one slot if others feel that way (like Dan does below). This way, the poll would look like...

• Insomnia / Inner Focus / Steadfast
• No Secondary Ability / Lightningrod / Run Away

...and you'd effectively be voting for "second competitive ability that really isn't that useful" or "flavor ability".

IX. Pokedex Entry Polls

I strongly oppose the inclusion of the Dex Entry stage in the actual CAP process. I am willing to accept both the art and sprites stages as necessary for the standard CAP process because the art unifies many parts of the CAP and also provides the basis for the sprites, which all battlers associate with Pokemon. People might argue that we could always use question marks, but we cannot, because people associate that little 80x80 sprite with all there is about the Pokemon when they battle it. That is so crucial, that we can never dissociate the art/sprites stages from the process, nor can we do so with the name; we need to have something to call it when typing about the CAP, just as we need the sprites for when we are battling with or against it.

However, unlike these things, the Dex Entry stage does not function competitively or associatively in a meaningful way for players or users. The Dex entries are, more or less, for 'fun'. I have nothing against fun, but I am strongly against the holding up of playtesting and everything else simply so we can have some fun with the flavor of the CAP.

I suggest that we keep the pure flavor and unnecessary aspects of the CAP apart from the actual process. I encourage us to explore these flavor things, however, but that they should be done as a small project on the side - most importantly, in tandem with playtesting and not before. During this stage of "flavor stuff" we can vote and decide exactly upon pre-evolutions, how many, what level they evolve, pre-evolution moves, dex entries, and so forth. We could even go so far as to decide on movepools and stat distributions for the pre-evolutions. (Maybe sprites?) This small project doesn't even necessarily have to be lead by the same TL, but it could be someone else (much like how we do with pre-analyses). The nice thing is that playtesting lasts for 2 whole weeks, which gives us a lot of free time to explore these things. (And we could extend the flavor stuff into the PR after-stage for more time and a constant flow of creativity and excitement in the forum!)

There are two changes that pertain to the number of options in a poll. The first change is that the TL must choose at least four options for a first poll. This is because 4 options is the smallest number to have a sufficiently diversified slate, and almost always force a second run-off poll. Besides, if the TL cannot choose four separate options, I don’t feel like the TL is sufficiently exploring all options for accomplishing the concept. Though this is now the “strong TL” model, and TL’s are welcome to pick whatever they want for a slate, I feel like this minimum should prevent a total choke-hold on the process and make it more democratic. If the TL could pick only two options for a first and final poll, he/she could easily just choose his/her favorite and a totally undesirable option (like Fire vs Poison for a Pokemon that relies totally on offensive coverage).

Click to expand...

i disagree with this because there simply aren't always four good options, especially in typing polls. i point to the cap9 typing poll as an example - plus is often accused of throwing normal on, knowing that it wouldn't win, to stop people from whining about having too few options. whether he did this or not, plus saw that dark and ground were the only good options at that stage of the process. to be honest, in his place i wouldn't even have put normal on there and i would really hate to be forced to come up with another garbage option that won't win. it's usually possible to come up with two good options, but expecting there to always be four is a huge stretch.

i also don't see how fire vs poison is any different than fire vs poison, normal, and flying.

i agree with r_d except i think nsa should be required to be merged with the flavour abilities instead of as a separate option (as he said, going in the direction of only one ability). also agreeing with him about pokedexes. stop editing your post goddammit

I agree with all of these points, but I do have to say something about a point or two.

IV. Posting in Polls
I absolutely agree that polls shouldn't be used as the second discussion thread. However, often times, a poll does not necessarily reflect the final state of the discussion thread. An example being the Fighting type in the main typing poll, which wasn't discussed in the last 3-4 pages of the discussion thread at all, nor it being mentioned by the TL. With the poll open to discussion previously, at least it was easier to get attention from everyone to still hope to sway votes, because everyone pretty much has to be in the voting thread once anyway. However, if the poll gets locked for posting purposes, and people have to check up on the discussion thread as well, I think it's probably too little, too late, and most of the votes will probably have been cast anyway.
There is a simpler solution to this and that is to say that 1) the discussion thread remains open and 2) people also get the ability to change their vote in the poll after going through the discussion that has arisen from seeing the final slate.
Another option is more of a policy and that would require the TL to say something like: "If I were to make a poll now, I would choose X, Y and Z in the poll as my options. You have 24 hours to convince me otherwise." That would lessen the need for major discussion once the poll starts, since people shouldve already been aware what is going up, as well had enough time to respond already. Therefor, the need for discussion should have been over.

VI. Ability Polls
I completely agree with this one, even more so the nuance that Rising Dusk has added about merging options.
However, 1 thing I don't agree about with RD is that certain flavour abilities should be not included/flavor abilities should be pre-picked.
At this point, I agree more with Tennis that there is one option on the poll called flavor ability, and that flavor ability gets chosen at the end, from a list of all possible abilities. This to give the artist as much artistic freedom as possible.

Quoting RD: "What the shit is Honey Gather doing on a Fighting/Dark Pokemon?!"
Well, what if there was an artist that was toying with an idea in his head "Something of a beedrill looking pokemon, but a little more brawling inclined to showcase the fighting part and a bit of emphasis on dark colors to show the dark part. Boom, Honey Gather suddenly would've made sense on a pokemon like this.
If you still allow all flavor abilities to be chosen, and you chose them at the very end, you can take the art and sprites as your basis and then proceed to think about what flavor ability would fit that art best. To me, this makes the most sense. Basing flavor on just two typings does not make sense at all to me.

So with this in place, the secondary voting poll would've looked like this:

• Insomnia / Inner Focus / Steadfast
• Flavor ability (To be chosen after X)
• No Secondary Ability

which is almost the exact same as RD describes it, however it pushes the flavor part completely back, to allow as much artistic freedom to the art makers as possible. (No more need to think about how you would make that Lightningrod fit in)

Yllnath said:

IV. Posting in Polls
There is a simpler solution to this and that is to say that 1) the discussion thread remains open and 2) people also get the ability to change their vote in the poll after going through the discussion that has arisen from seeing the final slate.
Another option is more of a policy and that would require the TL to say something like: "If I were to make a poll now, I would choose X, Y and Z in the poll as my options. You have 24 hours to convince me otherwise." That would lessen the need for major discussion once the poll starts, since people shouldve already been aware what is going up, as well had enough time to respond already. Therefore, the need for discussion should have been over.

Click to expand...

IV. Posting in Polls

I agree with most of this. Polls should definitely not be used as extensions of discussion threads. But if we are to close off all forms of communication during a poll, then we better make sure that the transition from discussion to poll is smooth and well timed.

However, I do not like the idea of keeping the discussion thread open through the poll, as will just lead to "garbage time," where the same points will be mulled over repeatedly. The idea behind keeping it open, of course, is that it allows some cushion in case the poll choices are too different. But instead of planning for upsets, we should instead see to it that the transition is smooth. If, at the start of a poll, the majority of the community feels that there is more to discuss, then that means that the TL did not give enough time or was too abrupt in the transition. Instead, I think what would suffice is your second suggestion.

It should be the responsibility of the TL to make the transition from discussion to poll smooth. I think the following two steps would ensure a smooth polling experience.

1. The TL should give a clear 24 hour notice before closing the discussion thread.
   This is crucial, as it serves two important purposes. Firstly, it lets the community know when the TL feels that a discussion has (nearly) run its course. This will guarantee that there are no complaints regarding timing when a poll goes up. Secondly and most importantly, because there will be no further exchanging of opinions beyond this thread, this forces the members to present their thoughts in a final, coherent manner. It will serve to improve the quality of discussion threads, as they will be the one and only place to sway public opinion.
   
   
2. In this notice, the TL should give a preview of what the slate is going to be, with clear explanations for choices that greatly deviate from public opinion.
   While the Strong TL model grants the TL freedom to pick the slate that he/she feels is best, it also increases the TL's level of responsibility for the decisions made in the process. If a TL strongly feels that a certain popular option should not progress or if a certain unpopular option should, he or she should clearly explain why. It would be abrupt and irksome to the community if a slate deviates from consensus without explanation and also closes off all forms of input. So, while I don't think it's necessary for the TL to explain all of the choices (though that certainly is helpful), it should be made necessary in the case of large deviations.

With this, we ensure that the polls remain clean, the public is well informed of the reasoning behind the TL's decisions, and the transition from discussion to poll is also smooth. If this is done correctly, then there would be no reason to allow changing of votes in a click poll. There will be no further discussions to sway opinion, and if you vote before reading through the full discussion, then that's your fault.

I agree with the suggestion to post a clear "Poll Notice" at least 24 hours prior to the closing of the discussion and the beginning of the poll. That notice should give everyone a definitive description of what is in the poll, and why some things were left out. And everyone has a minimum of 24 hours to post objections or suggestions to the TL. The 24 hour window ensures everyone worldwide has a chance to get in their opinion on the slate.

I think this will even be good for Art and Sprite polls too. People get very bent out of shape when someone's art or sprite is rejected due to rules violations. Even though we post warnings to people to check the guidelines, and even send PM's to people sometimes -- people still get pissed when their favorite art isn't on the slate when the poll opens. And they bitch about it in the polling thread. By posting the full slate 24 hours in advance, then everyone has time to get their shit together and fix their entries or whatever. At the very least, it will serve notice to all the non-artists which entries are rejected and why. They can then spend 24 hours trying to convince their favorite artists to fix the problem. What I don't want to get into is a cycle of "Ok, I think I fixed it. Is this Ok?" "No." <wait a day> "Ok, how about this?" "No, still illegal." <wait a day> etc...

That's one reason we don't post specific rules violations right now. Because, any artist that can't follow the clearly posted rules to begin with -- that person is possibly going to drag things out when they are notified of rules violations. And it usually is an issue with lineskating the rules anyway -- where people are trying to bend the rules as much as possible without breaking them. Honestly, we don't have time for that nonsense. I generally feel that if your art even calls the rules into question, you probably broke the spirit of the rule by a mile, even if adherence to the letter of the rule is somewhat of a close call. So, when we determine that something is illegal according to the letter of the rules, we just reject it and move on. Going back and forth with rules lineskaters is very frustrating for moderators in any situation, not just CAP art. People need to follow the spirit AND letter of the rules. And if they get caught skating too close to the line -- then that's too bad.

With a 24 hour notice period and a single warning for violations -- I think we achieve a happy medium. We give everyone a chance to fix their problems, but we also have a clear cutoff to ignore people that try to tweak their submissions ever-so-slightly in an attempt to barely move into compliance and perhaps fail. My suggestion will be that people make drastic and clear alterations to get their art into conformance, because there will be no second notice, or back-and-forths with "Is this OK now?" etc.