Action Locking

[Frosty]

I will address the matter really quickly, since, seriously, everybody knows what we are talking about.

This matter was discussed on IRC a bit too much and I am kinda sick of it not being dealt with, which is why I am bringing this up without it being covered on feedback.

The first question is: Should the player ordering last be able to edit freely their actions until the reffing is done?

The current policy is basically answering "yes" to that question. If you think the answer is yes, then the discussion is done and we keep things as is. Hopefully without the subject being brought up every other day.

BUT

If you think the answer of the above should be no, then I provide you this second question: When should occur the lock?
a) When the post is done (or within 15min, which is the period any edit is done without leaving tracks)
b) After X minutes/hours/days
c) Whenever the other player posts locking actions.


Discuss?

I will pitch in later.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

I think that a player ordering second should be allowed a reasonable time frame to edit their orders after posting them. However, I also think we should be encouraging people to post their best order sets at the time of first posting; improve the quality of their actions. Furthermore, a player ordering second currently has a significant advantage over a player ordering first: the player ordering first may have only twenty minutes to edit before the second player posts while the player ordering second may have as much as four days to edit - I think we would do well to correct this inequality, not necessarily to balance it exactly but to make it something less extremely imbalanced. Finally, I also feel that issues pertinent to a match should be posted in the match itself. Rulings clarifications, notes to the ref, all such related matters belong in the thread and shouldn't have to be privately messaged in the hopes that the opponent doesn't see it. Moreover I find it unethical to use information your opponent has posted for the ref, information you would otherwise have no way of knowing, to affect your orders in an edit.

For these reasons I support action locking, and recommend a moderate restriction on it. I would like to see an action lock of 12-24 hours on the second order action set. This provides the second player a significantly large opportunity to come up with better strategies or realise mistakes, and provides an effective compromise for the other player to post comments, notes to the ref, etc. Furthermore, I think that this action locking should occur without the need for anyone to post an action lock. Requiring the opponent to specifically action lock creates a negative culture of vulturing on others mistakes; in comparison, simply locking automatically at the end of a given time frame puts the onus of editing and effective orders on the one who made them, creating a culture of improvement and effective orders.

tl;dr, re-implement action locking, do it automatically after 12-24 hours, this solves a whole host of problems and rights certain wrongs.

 

[Canis Majoris]

I don't think the second order should be able to freely change orders (this would give them a new advantage they don't even need most of the time). I do agree with Texas in that there should be a half day-one day lock, but I also think we should do something to fix the current inequality on first orders - allow the player that orders first the same time period, so that if they sense a mistake in their first order, they have a chance at fixing it. Otherwise, we'll be experiencing the same problem we do already - first orders barely getting minutes of second thought, and second orders a much longer time. This will make things much easier for the player ordering first. Might slow down matches a bit, but matches are already slow so a half-day/day won't make much of a difference.

Though, if some players don't enjoy this - why not make a new clause for time before action locking? The standard could be 12-24 hours (particularly for things like tourneys), but in other matches players could agree on this timer and figure out what would work best for their particular case.

 

[ZhengTann]

I agree auto-locking (w/o a need to post "LOCK", since jump-ordering-second is basically the same thing) should be implemented since timestamps on edits are right there. Would like to suggest that either:

1. Your "lock-free" period as the battler ordering second should be as long as the time you allowed your first-order opponent (eg. If you jumped on second-order to exploit stuff within 30 minutes of your opponent posting, then you should only have that same 30 minutes to figure out how to abuse it further), OR
2. Your "lock-free" period is dependent on DQ time (half of DQ time sounds decent, except for the fact that reffs sometimes jump too), OR
   
3. What Canis said - pre-mediated by battlers or tournament organizers.

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

I agree auto-locking (w/o a need to post "LOCK", since jump-ordering-second is basically the same thing) should be implemented since timestamps on edits are right there. Would like to suggest that either:

1. Your "lock-free" period as the battler ordering second should be as long as the time you allowed your first-order opponent (eg. If you jumped on second-order to exploit stuff within 30 minutes of your opponent posting, then you should only have that same 30 minutes to figure out how to abuse it further), OR
2. Your "lock-free" period is dependent on DQ time (half of DQ time sounds decent, except for the fact that reffs sometimes jump too), OR
   
3. What Canis said - pre-mediated by battlers or tournament organizers.

I like the idea of option 1 there, with a limit that you cant edit past dq of course

 

[Mowtom]

Supporting ZT's Option 1 as well.

 

[Elevator Music]

Chiming in to say: I think it should be ok (in general) to "action-lock" someone if they post orders right at DQ time. Like, if you had 3 days to come up with orders, posted at the last second, and then think of something better later... tough? Player 2 should get to post orders right after DQ time.

Put another way: I don't like the idea of someone getting 3 (or w/e) days to order, and then also getting X time after that to refine their orders in peace. That seems really annoying and just has the potential to drag on already slow matches even more.

Could maybe see exceptions to this in cases of LoA's, even then I still think you shouldn't get extra time over your actual DQ. Admittedly I care about DQ too much.

 

[JJayyFeather]

imo Actions lock automatically either when (a) the ref begins reffings or (b) The full DQ interval for the player ordering second has passed

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

"The ref begins reffing" is a very vague description though, unless the ref has to post locking actions

 

[JJayyFeather]

Not vague at all. When a ref starts reffing, he uses the actions he sees when he begins, regardless of any edits that occur in between. This almost fucked me over in AOT extremely hard against Frosty, but I got lucky that VV's comp/net had problems and he had to restart reffing with my new actions.

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

Not vague at all. When a ref starts reffing, he uses the actions he sees when he begins, regardless of any edits that occur in between. This almost fucked me over in AOT extremely hard against Frosty, but I got lucky that VV's comp/net had problems and he had to restart reffing with my new actions.

The issue is that the posted orders will be different from the reffed ones, leading to confusion.
Or maybe the ref looks at the thread the moment you post your orders, but you change it a minute later. However, said ref then leaves the tab open and starts reffing it tomorrow.
Or sometimes the ref takes a break but has the 1/2 reffing saved as a draft, and then an order change forces subs to interact differently but he doesn't remember the original orderset.

this is all things that have happened to me before (second one is a thing i do often to remind myself of a reffing i gotta do)

 

[ZhengTann]

Necrotime! I'll jump Frosty and direct discussion.

From what I can gather:

1. Discussion is not ending because everyone hates to be the first-order, gets jumped on in less than 15 minutes, then watches 3 different second-order-sets as reff dallies around.
   
2. Action locking should be automated, without requiring the need for second-order players and/or the referee to post "LOCK".
   
3. Getting orders done right the first time should be encouraged, along with some leeway for the first-order as well.

So, how can we implement action-locking? Well, I liked EM's post above, and I think it should be put forward as a prerequisite:

Your "freedom to edit orders w/o being action-locked" period should NOT extend your DQ time. If your DQ kicks in first, that edit-freedom is automatically NULLIFIED.

No point in agreeing on a DQ if we're going to abuse the anti-action-locking clause on it, right? If you disagree, please write up a post explaining your reasons.

And we've seen quite a few options proposed to handle this "free-edit" interval.

1. Texas: Allow second-order a fixed time period of free edits before action lock. 12, or maybe 24 hours. Applies without exception or amendment throughout all battles. (you might not mean it that way Tex, I know)
   1. Canis: Amending to allow first-order the same time interval as well.
2. Canis: Putting in a pre-mediated clause stating the duration of the free-edit time agreed upon by all parties involved. Said parties may include RP Managers, battlers, referees, Tournament organisers, etc. Applies to both first-order and second-order.
   
3. Zt: Free-edit time being a universally agreed-upon fraction of the stated DQ interval. No need for pre-mediation in Canis' proposal, similar to Tex's universality. Applies to first-order and second-order.
   
4. Zt: Free-edit ends for first-orders when second-order posts. Free-edit time for second-orders is the time between second-orders posts, and the first-order's post timestamp.
   
5. Jayy: Free-edit ends for first-orders when second-order posts. Free-edit ends for second-orders when referee begins reffing.
   
6. Jayy: Free-edit ends for first-orders when second-order posts. Free-edit ends for second-orders when full DQ interval passes.

Alright, based on what we have at the moment:

• Do you have anymore new ideas?
• What are the (objectively) pros and cons of each/any individual idea listed, and which would you support?

I think it is unlikely that more than one idea will be implemented. Council votes in the end, but your feedback may be crucial in winning people over to your stance. At the very least, this pads out your future Council app resume. So fire ahead!

If nobody else have any more arguments to be made, then I'll move all six to Voting after 72 hours or more passed since the last post. But hopefully we can get a smaller slate to work on ^_^

 

[Stary02939]

72 hours has passed, but this isn't locked and I don't see voting, so here are my thoughts ...

Option #6 - this encourages second-order jump posting in a really bad way. Second order can write crappy orders and post 15 seconds after first order posts and then have days to revise.

Options 1-3 (any option involving free-edit time) will slow matches down if people are fast posters, because it necessitates a wait period before the next person can post and before the next DQ interval starts. However, it does give first-order a chance to revise, and clearly locks second-order actions without the need for an action lock post.
(also keep in mind that flashes really, really, really don't want a mandatory free-edit period, so maybe adjust 1 and 3 to exclude flashes or go with 2. Also also battlers should be able to waive free-edit time)

Option 5 - what we have now, doesn't really prevent or discourage second order from jump-posting, and as Fort said can be kinda vague.

I like option 4 because it discourages jump-posting and is clear about when second order actions are locked while not making people wait. However, if first order posts right at DQ, second order is still penalized for jump ordering even though some people think that second order should be able to jump in this case.

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

72 hours has passed, but this isn't locked and I don't see voting, so here are my thoughts ...

Option #6 - this encourages second-order jump posting in a really bad way. Second order can write crappy orders and post 15 seconds after first order posts and then have days to revise.

Options 1-3 (any option involving free-edit time) will slow matches down if people are fast posters, because it necessitates a wait period before the next person can post and before the next DQ interval starts. However, it does give first-order a chance to revise, and clearly locks second-order actions without the need for an action lock post.
(also keep in mind that flashes really, really, really don't want a mandatory free-edit period, so maybe adjust 1 and 3 to exclude flashes or go with 2. Also also battlers should be able to waive free-edit time)

Option 5 - what we have now, doesn't really prevent or discourage second order from jump-posting, and as Fort said can be kinda vague.

I like option 4 because it discourages jump-posting and is clear about when second order actions are locked while not making people wait. However, if first order posts right at DQ, second order is still penalized for jump ordering even though some people think that second order should be able to jump in this case.

I think the worries about flashes isnt really needed, as people are almost certainly going to just say "it doesnt matter" in a flash and have the interval be bypassed regardless of what is chosen.
The status quo is interesting, but I've already said my peice on how its vague so I won't continue there.
Option 6 is just wierd and imbalanced

Personally, I like options 2 and 4 the most, because they are balanced etc.
4 might be wierd with post deletion and reposting etc, but otherwise it encourages a healthy fairness imo.

Also, PROPOSAL: add a clause into whatever we choose to allow first order to waive this period at will (if they are super uber confident, per say)
also First Order's action unlock should end at DQ for him/herself even if 2nd order never posted.

 

[ZhengTann]

I apologize for busy life :(

To address Stary and Fort's raised concerns (with my own personal opinions of course)....

• About stripping skinny-dipping flashing, yes I think we can all agree that free-edits are totally unnecessary. Which is one of the reasons a universal mandatory clause is not too feasible.
  
• And yes, EM raised the point - "free-edit periods" do NOT extend DQ, and DQ automatically NULLIFIES said period.
  
  • Since this is not official it'll probably have to go through Voting just because we're bureaucratic, though.
• Good points on the drawbacks on option 4 (namely, encouraging first-order to post right at DQ and second-order to delete-repost).
  
• Adding the first-order-waiver is kinda unnecessary, Fort? Since this still is Smogon and people are going to eke out every advantage they have. If you think there are other reasons besides speeding up battles for this, do feel free to elaborate further.

* * * * * * * *​

Right, now to review the initial slate:

• To avoid flashies being silly flashy exceptions, I am looking at discarding option 1 because option 2 is the same, except for enforced universality. All we have to do with Canis' proposal is to set a default - someone please try to catch Canis on IRC or PM and see what he thinks, or simply ninja in.
  
• I am putting in a one third (1/3) as the default fraction to option 3 that I proposed, since standard DQ time is 3 days and even a 2-day-DQ gets a nice 16 hours which is more than 12 already.
  
• Personally retracting option 4. It might look nice on paper, but it encourages terrible, uh, ethics in practice, which far outweighs the potential advantages.
  
• Merging options 5 & 6 because that might be what Jayy really intended - someone please try to catch him on IRC/PM for clarification. Also, this should be the status quo, I think?

To be frank, even if this Discussion ends with status quo being retained, players can do Tower matches that adds a special clause as an arena effect or something. So if you have a beef, play serious Tower matches, okay? :P

Your "freedom to edit orders w/o being action-locked" period, if any, should NOT extend your DQ time. If your DQ kicks in first, that edit-freedom is automatically NULLIFIED.
Agree
Disagree

To lay down the ground rules before we actually get to the goodstuffs.

Preferential Bold Voting.
a) Putting in a pre-mediated clause stating the duration of the free-edit time agreed upon by all parties involved. Said parties may include RP Managers, battlers, referees, Tournament organisers, etc. Applies to both first-order and second-order. Default time, if unspecified, is x hours.
b) Free-edit time being a pre-mediated fraction of the stated DQ interval. Applies to first-order and second-order. Default time, if unspecified, is one third (1/3) of the DQ interval.
c) Within the DQ interval, free-edit ends for first-orders when second-order posts. Free-edit ends for second-orders when referee begins reffing.

See I halve the slate on my own :D Don't try this at home though.

Someone please hound after Canis, Jayy, and maybe Tex to see if they want their proposals re-included or edited in the slate. If there is no noise here I will move the slates to Voting thread by Labour Day (or another Council member is welcomed to speed up this process by doing it after 48 hours or more passed since this post).

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

i decided that this was a stupid idea and a stupid rule that brings very little positive tangible impact and a lot of potential negatively impacting crap and it was a dumb idea and maxim was right and we should have voted this

c) Within the DQ interval, free-edit ends for first-orders when second-order posts. Free-edit ends for second-orders when referee begins reffing.


re vote y/n

discuss

 

[Ooraloo]

Everyone is already more or less ignoring the rule.
Please don't make a slow game even slower.

 

[JJayyFeather]

Going back to what I said when this was initially discussed, I still think this rule was unnecessary and I stand by my first suggestion of leaving things as they be, but this time from having experienced the change. My biggest problem by far with this change is that I believe that if you are bothering to post orders, then those orders should be considered as final, and the fact that I've been having to delay both ordering and reffing because of this waiting period, even though the last person has posted, is ridiculous when that just might happen to be the time at which I'm most available to handle the responsibility. All this waiting period really does effectively is delay the battle, since now everyone has to wait because "Oh no, the person who last posted may want to edit." If they wanted to make changes, they shouldn't have posted the orders in the first place.

 

[Frosty]

The rule is fine. We are just not used to it.

If speed is a problem, then just include as a rule of the battle that the edit period will be 1 hour, or 10 minutes or 5 minutes. That is a possibility within the current rules. It is just not being used. You should try using the full-extend of the possibilities the rule brings before deeming it as the worst idea ever conceived.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

I disagree with you completely

The rule is fine. We are just not used to it.

This is complete crap. The rule has been in place for over three months. We've had plenty of time to adjust to the rule and to form opinions on its results.

If speed is a problem, then just include as a rule of the battle that the edit period will be 1 hour, or 10 minutes or 5 minutes. That is a possibility within the current rules. It is just not being used.

Valid, but not particularly meaningful. Default times are default because they have been determined to be the standard most applicable to the game and the one expected to be most commonly used. The current standard is excessive and hindering to the game. A free edit period of 1 hour would be much more amenable than an edit period that currently defaults to a full day but, guess what, that's not the case because the standard suggests otherwise.

You should try using the full-extend of the possibilities the rule brings before deeming it as the worst idea ever conceived.

How on earth does a rule being able to be modified to be better mean that the original idea isn't a bad one? If anything that's more supportive that the original idea is flawed if you have to modify the rule to be satisfied. Furthermore, do not misrepresent what I say; I said that the result of the rule has been a lot of negative and little positive. I voted for the idea, obviously I didn't think it was the worst idea ever conceived, but my opinion has now changed such that I believe it was a fundamentally flawed idea that should be removed or revised.



In theory the situation we voted on was a good idea to try and give some equality between orders. In practice this has become unnecessarily limiting on the ability of users to post when able by forcing them to wait an entire day in most cases before they can order. I was wrong to support the proposals. Rereading my arguments I see that I even suggested that orders posted should be posted as final. To touch on ooraloo's point, the majority of people have completely ignored this rule as a result of it being so unnecessary and hindering to the flow of the game.


I believe that going forward we should go with one of two paths:

Option A: Remove this rule and return to the previous system wherein actions were locked for Player A once Player B posted and were locked for Player B once the ref began to ref
Option B: Significantly reduce the free-edit period to 1 hour after posting, with edits past the 1 hour mark being disallowed.


Choosing the former option admits that limiting order opportunity like this was a dumb idea and it's better to let the players regulate themselves.

Choosing the latter option suggests that the original idea had merit but was too draconian in implementation, that we should encourage orders at posting to be as good as possible while acknowledging the possibility for noticing unintended errors, and that we should under no circumstances be unreasonably preventing users from making orders or refs from reffing a round outside of a 1 hour grace period.


Whichever we choose the current situation is and will continue to be untenable and a source of frustration with unnecessarily bureaucratic limitations on a game that already fundamentally suffers from taking a long time to participate in.


(P.S. As a sidepoint, when rereading the discussion on this issue I find myself considerably underwhelmed with the quality of discussion and lack of thorough examination of the given ideas. The discussion was literally T: I think this should happen; C: I agree, plus this; Z: Cool, here's some possibilities; no further analysis or discussion on if those are good ideas or potential downsides.

What we implemented was a proposal that had no analysis of negatives done whatsoever and attempting to dismiss this satisfaction as being "unused to it" is disingenuous to the critique of what has lately become a very clear downside to the original idea.)

 

[Frosty]

*shrugs*

We took 2 years to get used to the rule that forbids switch phases from being used twice in a row (rule is from 2011, end of discussion from 2013). If you bother to check things before calling stuff crap, you will see that even Mods at the time disagreed with it. It took us a council decision years after the rule for the subject to be dismissed and we accept the rule as something we should account for. Same thing for the speed tiebreaker rules: they were around forever but they were only enforced relatively recently. We are talking years here. Not 3 months.

If you think three months (actually, implementation came June 28th) is enough to get used to anything here, then there is not much I can say. There is no point in arguing so I won't bother. You are here since 2012, you should know better than this.


Other things that ought to be mentioned:

1) "Keep it as is" is always a path to be considered here. This is a previous council decision. I don't care if that option is discussed here or not, it will be on the voting slate even if I have to edit it in. Just a heads up, as any decision made without that being on the slate will be redone. You are proposing to review something after less than 2 months since implementation. There was no serious battle that began and ended during that time period. Your experience on the matter is made by flashes that serve as very questionable parameters. I won't deny the rediscussion because hey mistakes can be made. But "keep it as is" will most definitely be a voting option. This is valid for any and every rediscussion of previous council decisions.

2) If you want to discuss the "standard edit-free period" then be my guest. A third is indeed a fuckload of time for afterthought. But I'd like to keep the option of setting up a different time-frame for when I am not in a hurry. Or when I don't want to have a match decided on my opponent sending out a lucario with soothe bell instead of solar ray due to muscle memory, only to edit it in a couple minutes later after remembering that things changed.

3) Players regulate themselves is bogus and you know it. When things boil, most players will use any kind of option to get the free win. Enforce a DQ, a mistype, abuse when an opponent forgot to mention the pokemon they are switching to, even when the orders are obvious on that regard etc. I don't trust anyone to deny themselves a victory due to "common cortesy", nor I suggest you trust me on it. It is a very sad thing yes, but I doubt anyone will disagree that things are like that, unfortunately.

4) I really hope people get to heart the notion that nothing should be implemented without proper discussion. Instead of tagging me everywhere to fiat stuff.

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

I do agree with the idea that the free-edit default should be shorter; tbh even 5-15 minutes is really enough. All the logical and calculation things should've been done already, and this free-edit thing is mostly because its easier to see a mistake after you're done.

however i think some form of free-edit should stay, simply because it really is that much easier to see a typo after you hit post fsr.

 

[Frosty]

IMO I like 15 minutes (IIRC the time in which the forum doesn't even register the edit as an edit) or 1-2 hour as options. If I were to choose, I would say 2 hours (at least 1). Enough time to cool down the head after thinking too much and then revisit the orders without being an unreasonable wait.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

*shrugs*

We took 2 years to get used to the rule that forbids switch phases from being used twice in a row (rule is from 2011, end of discussion from 2013). If you bother to check things before calling stuff crap, you will see that even Mods at the time disagreed with it. It took us a council decision years after the rule for the subject to be dismissed and we accept the rule as something we should account for. Same thing for the speed tiebreaker rules: they were around forever but they were only enforced relatively recently. We are talking years here. Not 3 months.

If you think three months (actually, implementation came June 28th) is enough to get used to anything here, then there is not much I can say. There is no point in arguing so I won't bother. You are here since 2012, you should know better than this.

Do me a favour, don't ever fucking condescend to me like this again. You are not God. Your personal interpretation of what amount of time is "acceptable" is not law. Your cherrypicking of policy topics that took time to resolve is not representative of the way every policy topic resolves.

Do not forget, I was your predecessor as head of policy. I know how this forum works and I know that shit only takes time to be enforced when people don't care enough. The truly controversial things get resolved quickly because the instigator cares.

Know how long it took me to set up the ASB Council? A matter of weeks. To transition the forum to Gen 6? 6 weeks. This forum is not so slow moving as you imply and to suggest that I should "know better" (read: I should follow your way) is condescending to the point of insulting to someone who has done more for this forum from a policy standpoint than anyone barring Deck Knight.

Other things that ought to be mentioned:

1) "Keep it as is" is always a path to be considered here. This is a previous council decision. I don't care if that option is discussed here or not, it will be on the voting slate even if I have to edit it in. Just a heads up, as any decision made without that being on the slate will be redone. You are proposing to review something after less than 2 months since implementation. There was no serious battle that began and ended during that time period. Your experience on the matter is made by flashes that serve as very questionable parameters. I won't deny the rediscussion because hey mistakes can be made. But "keep it as is" will most definitely be a voting option. This is valid for any and every rediscussion of previous council decisions.

I agree and did not suggest otherwise. Mine was a statement of belief about what we should do going forward, presenting two options. Not dictating the only options.

For the record, it is not necessary for serious matches to have been completed to form an opinion on this topic as this topic is not contingent on the completion of matches, only individual rounds. And there have been many, many individual rounds that could have pottentially been effected by the implemented rule.

2) If you want to discuss the "standard edit-free period" then be my guest. A third is indeed a fuckload of time for afterthought. But I'd like to keep the option of setting up a different time-frame for when I am not in a hurry. Or when I don't want to have a match decided on my opponent sending out a lucario with soothe bell instead of solar ray due to muscle memory, only to edit it in a couple minutes later after remembering that things changed.

If the option is pursued to have the standard free-edit order perior be 1 hour I would not be opposed to allowing a clause that could increase the free-edit period of time to 3/6/12 hours for instance, though I would oppose anything greater than 12 hours and strongly oppose anything greater than a day.

3) Players regulate themselves is bogus and you know it. When things boil, most players will use any kind of option to get the free win. Enforce a DQ, a mistype, abuse when an opponent forgot to mention the pokemon they are switching to, even when the orders are obvious on that regard etc. I don't trust anyone to deny themselves a victory due to "common cortesy", nor I suggest you trust me on it. It is a very sad thing yes, but I doubt anyone will disagree that things are like that, unfortunately.

And yet this system of self-regulation worked in this context for years before anyone brought up the issue. It can't even be argued that action locking was even shady behaviour, it was always expected that once you posted your orders you were responsible for what was in them and that if you wanted to change them but the opponent had posted too bad, you were out of luck. There was never room for abuse that would circumvent actual competitive play as it would with the other things you mentioned that would be let go due to courtesy.

4) I really hope people get to heart the notion that nothing should be implemented without proper discussion. Instead of tagging me everywhere to fiat stuff.

Quoi?



iirc the forum delays either 5 or 10 minutes before registering an edit as such, can't recall which but its one of the two


(P.S. Just because I know it'll probably be read otherwise, I'm not angry at you and you and I are both arguing level-headedly, my curse is intended as a significant point of emphasis on a statement I expect to be taken very, very seriously.)

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

Imho Texas has the knowledge and experience to back up his perspective and since he admits that he had a change of opinion on the topic, it gives further significance to the point he is mentioning as to why an experienced ASBer had a change of heart. Lets chillax and have a look at it, nothing hurts us more than having to revisit / revise a rule at a later date. We might as well have a look at it now than later.

From my perspective, all points discussed so far have merit. (1) We wouldn't want someone to action lock us into an order that is ineffective, but checking the order before posting the first time is our responsibility. (2) We wouldn't want to wait if the orders are already in place, but we should be considerate of players involved in the battle.

Although from a personal standpoint, I believe that competitive ASB should not encourage hasty orders (coming from me that is like cutting off my legs, but *shrugs*). And competitive ASB shouldn't change its rules for accommodating more people, eventually people will join and stay based on what they like in the game.

If we hypothetically split the Tournaments from rest of ASB, then I would like some relaxation to the battles because everyone wants to play in a Gym Battle, a RP or a TLR. These battles can be competitive with respect to player skills; but the general rules can be relaxed a bit to give everyone a chance to, at the least, make a fun attempt at it (without the fear of getting clobbered).

Tl;dr. Have strong rules that encourage competitiveness in Highly competitive battles like Tourneys. Have liberal rules that encourage participation in Moderately competitive battles like Gyms, RPs, TLRs. => Waiting period only enforced in Moderately competitive battles.

That is just my opinion, and I know that most of you won't agree with it fsr, but its okay yo. I got used to you guys so much, that nothing really matters; other than having loads of fun.