Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk III

[JJayyFeather]

WARNING: Post will be long and may accidentally transform into a rant. I will try to avoid this, but there will be a TL;DR for all you lazy people

So, I have a serious problem with the Anti-Pedant Clause that ASB uses.

If a substitution looks to be traditionally illegal due to an improper syntax, but can be reworded to be a legal substitution without the logic of the substitution changing, then the substitution is considered to be legal. If it cannot, then the substitution is considered to be illegal. This includes substitutions that are considered to be two substitutions but worded on one line.

It seems great in theory, but in actuality it is immensely frustrating to ref/play around for me. The reason being is because I'm certain that everyone has been taught that you are to say what you mean, which is why you are given words to use. But, as per the way this clause works, it makes it okay for people to write subs almost what I would call lazily, and have them be entirely valid for what they want, and calling out the obvious error in what is being said there isn't allowed because it can somehow be made into a legal substitution. At first I loved this clause, but when clear gaps in the substitution writing process were being cleaned up, I felt the need to address this.

I think my biggest problem with this clause is the way that is has been stretched and molded to fit everyone's needs. The wording of the clause says that it cannot adjust the logic of a substitution if it is going to be applied to it. However, as you will see in my case 1 (and in every other battle with that same sub writing error), this is commonly ignored.

Case 1: LCT R2 ~ Deadfox v Lucy
Sure nothing actually came of this, but it bothered me because I know how it would have had to have been interpreted. That second substitution on Misdreavus is so bothersome, because one reading makes you laugh, and the other makes you frustrated (until you realize that neither reading activates because Chance Clause vs Priority things). If you take that substitution literally, that means that Misdreavus would check for Gastly actually using Hypnosis, then attempt to Magic Coat, which is incorrect on the grounds that Misdreavus is actually faster than Gastly, and thus would not be able to see it act. However, the common reading of that substitution transforms it into "IF Gastly is to use Hypnosis, AND it is not already asleep, THEN use Magic Coat that action and push back," which still isn't legal, but at least it is closer to what was intended. But that ultimately affects the way the substitution would interact with the action. If you remove the "AND it is not already asleep" clause from both versions of that substitution, you can see that the originally written substitution should not trigger since it awaits the usage of the move before trigger, while the translated version I have provided as per common conception allows the sub to function perfectly fine, which is not what the Anti-Pedant Clause is supposed to do.

In addition, assumptions should not be allowed to be made in the process of interpreting any substitutions for the purpose of ordering or reffing. See the following case and explanation for my reasoning why.

Case 2: DYAE R3 ~ Mowtom v Texas Cloverleaf
For those of you who followed DYAE, you remember this substitution raising hell in policy and, once being combined with the phoenix subs, caused a huge discussion on how to rework substitutions. Gripe that I have with this, and that I should have noticed way back when this was reffed initially, and I hate to disagree with mods, but there was actually a much cleaner intepretation to all of that, and none of us saw it at the time. Look at Granbull's third substitution. Notice how it says IF NOT Taunt while you are faster. Granbull's substitution did not specify who was to be NOT using Taunt or Pain Split, which means that since it was set to use Taunt on all 3 actions, that substitution should have never activated. However, since assumptions were made in the interpretation of a substitution, things like that were missed.

So maybe my gripe is with the clause, or maybe my gripe is with how the community has interpreted the clause separately from the way it was written in the Handbook. Here's what I will say. I very strongly like the idea of completely removing the clause in favor of something that comes from the OP of the Battle Pike thread, and how I ultimately feel ASB should work.

Players will concisely indicate their move sequence (e.g. Night Slash | Psycho Cut | Night Slash) and will clearly indicate their substitutions.

In the vein of ruthlessness, referees are free to interpret orders literally in order to etch out advantages. "Teleport" can be very different from "Teleport (Evasive)".

I appreciate the saying, "Say what you mean" or even the quote from The Giver, "Use your words (Jonas)," and on that line of thought believe that is how a game with so much logic going into it should be played.

TL;DR
The Anti-Pedant Clause has been misinterpreted too much, and I feel it needs to be removed

Thank you for your time. :)

 

[Maxim]

WARNING: Post will be long and may accidentally transform into a rant. I will try to avoid this, but there will be a TL;DR for all you lazy people

So, I have a serious problem with the Anti-Pedant Clause that ASB uses.

It seems great in theory, but in actuality it is immensely frustrating to ref/play around for me. The reason being is because I'm certain that everyone has been taught that you are to say what you mean, which is why you are given words to use. But, as per the way this clause works, it makes it okay for people to write subs almost what I would call lazily, and have them be entirely valid for what they want, and calling out the obvious error in what is being said there isn't allowed because it can somehow be made into a legal substitution. At first I loved this clause, but when clear gaps in the substitution writing process were being cleaned up, I felt the need to address this.

I think my biggest problem with this clause is the way that is has been stretched and molded to fit everyone's needs. The wording of the clause says that it cannot adjust the logic of a substitution if it is going to be applied to it. However, as you will see in my case 1 (and in every other battle with that same sub writing error), this is commonly ignored.

Case 1: LCT R2 ~ Deadfox v Lucy
Sure nothing actually came of this, but it bothered me because I know how it would have had to have been interpreted. That second substitution on Misdreavus is so bothersome, because one reading makes you laugh, and the other makes you frustrated (until you realize that neither reading activates because Chance Clause vs Priority things). If you take that substitution literally, that means that Misdreavus would check for Gastly actually using Hypnosis, then attempt to Magic Coat, which is incorrect on the grounds that Misdreavus is actually faster than Gastly, and thus would not be able to see it act. However, the common reading of that substitution transforms it into "IF Gastly is to use Hypnosis, AND it is not already asleep, THEN use Magic Coat that action and push back," which still isn't legal, but at least it is closer to what was intended. But that ultimately affects the way the substitution would interact with the action. If you remove the "AND it is not already asleep" clause from both versions of that substitution, you can see that the originally written substitution should not trigger since it awaits the usage of the move before trigger, while the translated version I have provided as per common conception allows the sub to function perfectly fine, which is not what the Anti-Pedant Clause is supposed to do.

In addition, assumptions should not be allowed to be made in the process of interpreting any substitutions for the purpose of ordering or reffing. See the following case and explanation for my reasoning why.

Case 2: DYAE R3 ~ Mowtom v Texas Cloverleaf
For those of you who followed DYAE, you remember this substitution raising hell in policy and, once being combined with the phoenix subs, caused a huge discussion on how to rework substitutions. Gripe that I have with this, and that I should have noticed way back when this was reffed initially, and I hate to disagree with mods, but there was actually a much cleaner intepretation to all of that, and none of us saw it at the time. Look at Granbull's third substitution. Notice how it says IF NOT Taunt while you are faster. Granbull's substitution did not specify who was to be NOT using Taunt or Pain Split, which means that since it was set to use Taunt on all 3 actions, that substitution should have never activated. However, since assumptions were made in the interpretation of a substitution, things like that were missed.

So maybe my gripe is with the clause, or maybe my gripe is with how the community has interpreted the clause separately from the way it was written in the Handbook. Here's what I will say. I very strongly like the idea of completely removing the clause in favor of something that comes from the OP of the Battle Pike thread, and how I ultimately feel ASB should work.

I appreciate the saying, "Say what you mean" or even the quote from The Giver, "Use your words (Jonas)," and on that line of thought believe that is how a game with so much logic going into it should be played.

TL;DR
The Anti-Pedant Clause has been misinterpreted too much, and I feel it needs to be removed

Thank you for your time. :)

[22:00] <Maxim_6> !no
[22:00] <+ASBot> Never, not in a million years, absolutely not, no way Jose, no chance Lance, nyet, negatory, mm-mm, nuh-uh, uh-uh! And of course my own personal favourite of all time, man falling off of a cliff: NNNOOOOOOOOOoooooooo.......

While I do see where you're coming from, I think outright removing the clause would be a rather bad idea. As I recall, we originally made the clause because there were too many complaints of substititions getting thrown out because of a minor grammatical issue (heck it's bad enough nowadays when you decide to sub for Spite instead of Sucker Punch...). Reintroducting that sort of strict grammar would hurt the metagame far more than it would help, partly because it would make it even harder for new players to get used to substitions, and partly because substitutions are hard enough to make without having to be paranoid about every single word. If we do anything, it should be to enforce the second part of the clause a bit harder, but suffice it to say I'd be strongly against this.

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

Wrt to what Skyla said, I really don't think there's something wrong with writing a "Lazy" sub because not everyone wants to format things identically. Also wrt to your case 1, I've alwqays considered "if x uses y" to be identical to "if x is to use y" because like... just... really now.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On a separate note, I think that the thing in subs where you can't have a NOT move clause for a opposing mon if there isn't a "yes" move clause is unnecessary for blocking ridiculous subs and starts to infringe on reasonable subs like

9:05:42 PM <Rainman> If Glalie is under the effects of Endure, and Safeguard is not up on the opponent's side, and Glalie does not use rest on any action, use toxic and push actions back

or

IF Magenzone is under the effects of magnet rise, AND magnezone is not to use thunder wave, THEN smack down and push back.

I think the "1 move clause per mon per action" rule covers the most ridiculous sub effectively now (IF NOT under p/e AND NOT under d/e, THEN attacking move), so I feel like we should remove the offending clause.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

I've always been a supporter of correctly worded subs being a thing of skill, making orders such that you can't get fucked over etc.

I thought old old sub rules were fine and just needed a fix to allow to sub for "and not encore the next action" but then we went ahead and rewrote the whole thing

I'd like to see serious discussion on this because imo the whole "just throw out the sub if it's illegal" thing is bunk

 

[JJayyFeather]

Looking back at what I said last night, I probably went a little over the deep end, beyond what I actually intended. So here's what I'm actually thinking on the matter.

If the Anti-Pedant Clause is designed to make alterations to the syntax of a substitution without changing its logic in order to make it legal, then keep it there. Don't start applying assumptions and attempts to understand intent into the way the clause works. That's when ill-written substitutions rise, and your opponent and the ref should not have to make Heads or Tails of what you subbing for.

Basically, I just want the way the clause is used to be tied to its current wording, and not used in places that do not apply (see: both cases in my previous post (i should probably find another uses v is to use case))

 

[Frosty]

Case 1 has absolutely no usage of the anti-pedant clause. The sub is illegal because it has a condition sub that is checked at priority 0 and it calls for a move at priority +2. I read your explanation three times to find the point in all the rambling to no avail.

Case 2 also has nothing to do with anti-pedant clause. Assuming stuff = / = reworking syntax. If Texas pushed that the sub wouldn't apply because yes taunt from granbull, he would have a favourable ruling. I remember making the same mistake as Mowtom on a battle against Someoneelse and he abused of it and enforced that since my pokemon used the move I put on the sub, it would apply normally, and I obliged, since he was right. That has nothing to do with anti-pedant because, again, it didn't come to place at any moment, and it has nothing to do with legality of the sub, because the sub is 100% legal, it is just backfiring (and when mowtom asked me about the sub, he didn't mentioned the orders on it). So this is merely a case of a mistake that wasn't noticed.

Both cases has you going against assumptions and the anti-pedant clause has nothing with it:

1) The first assumption, that the usage of "uses" instead of "is to use" is a result of we forgetting to specify something on the sub shift. You see, the previous sub rules had stated that "Is to Use" = "Use" = "Uses" = "used" = "MOVE", since everybody did it in a different way. The rule came only to make a custom explicit. On the shift, that explanation was removed, partially due to forgetting and partially because it was still a custom and no one ever bothered with it.
2) The second assumption, that a move without a specified user must be used by the opponent is...nowhere to be found? There is no custom of that order, nor previous or recent rule. Again, that was an oversight of all parties involved. A mistake. And those will happen regardless of the rules you have up. There is no assumption here.


I fail to see the point in your post, jay. OK, you have half a point for the first thing and I will go state it explicitly in the handbook that use=uses=used=is to use=upon MOVE=MOVE=ordered etc regardless of the tense of the verb, unless it is explicitly specified otherwise. But it was already a rule. For the second point, I don't see where the rules failed. And for anti-pedant, I looked really really hard, but I can't seem to find where it comes in the whole she-bang. It seems like you are blaming the wrong thing here.

EDIT: Let me make it extra clear to everybody seeing this:

THE ANTI-PEDANT CLAUSE DOES NOT MAKE THE PARTIES INVOLVED OBLIGATED TO TRY TO REWORD THE SUB TO WORK "AS INTENDED". YOUR INTENTION IS WHAT IS WRITTEN. THE BATTLE DOES NOT CARE FOR WHAT YOU HAD IN MIND, BUT FOR WHAT IS IN YOUR POST. THE ANTI-PEDANT CLAUSE IS THERE ONLY TO PREVENT SYNTAX ERRORS, NOT YOUR OVERALL LACK OF ATTENTION.

I mean, it is on the rule stated clearly that:

"If a substitution looks to be traditionally illegal due to an improper syntax, but can be reworded to be a legal substitution without the logic of the substitution changing, then the substitution is considered to be legal."


Sorry if this is me being mean again, but this gotta be the 1209238059238059230523095238th time someone misinterpreted something on the sub rules. It can get irritating at some point.

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

This probably got ignored in the storm about jayy's stuffs:

On a separate note, I think that the thing in subs where you can't have a NOT move clause for a opposing mon if there isn't a "yes" move clause is unnecessary for blocking ridiculous subs and starts to infringe on reasonable subs like

9:05:42 PM <Rainman> If Glalie is under the effects of Endure, and Safeguard is not up on the opponent's side, and Glalie does not use rest on any action, use toxic and push actions back

or

IF Magenzone is under the effects of magnet rise, AND magnezone is not to use thunder wave, THEN smack down and push back.

I think the "1 move clause per mon per action" rule covers the most ridiculous sub effectively now (IF NOT under p/e AND NOT under d/e, THEN attacking move), so I feel like we should remove the offending clause.

 

[YellowAdminSilver]

Hey guess what! something needing clarification that has nothing to do with sub rules! Ohmaigad!


09:31 <ducky_momo> Dogfish halp
09:31 <ducky_momo> If ditto copies an everstone mon
09:31 <ducky_momo> Can it use everstone and gain the benefits of it?
09:32 <dogfish44> ooh, that's a fun one
09:32 <dogfish44> no clue~
09:32 <ducky_momo> That would be dum as fuck
09:32 <dogfish44> my instinct would be to say 'no' tho? Like, Ditto uses ditto's sig items =_=

I agree with df but since he said "ask IAR/Frosty" I'll just ask everyone and hope one of them comes here soon-ish.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Can Ditto gain the effects of Light Ball in-game?

Find that out, there's your answer.

 

[Frosty]

Ditto is either considered ditto, enabling the powders or not ditto enabling the sig items of the mon it is transformed into. For it to be both ditto and not ditto, it is silly, unprecedent and unnecessary.

EDIT: Point being: Powders affect ditto after transform, which means that the other sig items won't. That is the route we picked.

And yes if smeargle uses transform everstone should boost it. Considering the new stats (think aegislash). And hilarity ensues.

Edit: I think ingame shouldnt be reference since powders dont affect ditto aftr transform iirc.

 

[JJayyFeather]

Wait so is the proper interpretation here that if I give Ditto an Everstone and it copies a Sableye, it gets the +2 Atk and +2 Def from Everstone on Sableye?

 

[Frosty]

Maybe I wasnt clear: sig items are enabled without considering transform.

 

[YellowAdminSilver]

In my defense, powders ingame work differently fron ASB, and god knows Everstone works much much differently than ingame, so I think the question was valid. Also a couple people on irc thought it might be the other way around, which is why I asked dogfish which is why I asked here.

In any case, clarification is appreciated. Thank you.

 

[Leethoof]

Can we tone down stickies in the tournament subforum? Perhaps require tournament managers to provide links to all relevant threads in the most recent OP of that tournament - would make it easier to find things like previous rounds, signups, and team threads that way too.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

a) not a matter of policy, you speak to frosty privately about that

b) no u

 

[Birkal]

Is there an official rule on cascading rolls versus rerolling when it comes to reffing? I've seen it come up a few times, and it's always handled inconsistently. I don't overly care which method is chosen, and there are advantages to both. I just wish we'd pick one.

 

[JJayyFeather]

I've been told multiple times that you should be rolling things separately and that once a roll has been assigned to a check, you do not reassign it. This is also what I endorse because it prevents RNG tilting because of mundane errors like rolling crits on Shell/Battle Armor or rolling accuracy when all modifiers make it >=100% accurate.

 

[deadfox081]

I agree with Jayelt. Each roll should be treated as an individually random number anyway so it should make no difference to roll after effects separately

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

The "official" policy is "whatever you prefer." I 100% support and use each roll independently, however.

 

[Frosty]

I seriously feel we have better things to do than find out a policy for how we roll rng. Simply because we can't really enforce it. Also, because random is random. Push all RNGs back, don't, treat things independently, don't. Still random, given that the original rolls are random.

This dogfish44's turf, so go bug him if you really really feel that this should make the list of things important enough to warrant official policy

 

[LouisCyphre]

petition to amend the NDA or a similar resource with "Battle Hall Rank"

It could be renamed and used as tiering in other roleplays if that is found to be useful, as well.

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

On lou's train of thought, it is a pain to dig through that list.

Can we separate it into 5 tabs for 5 ranks or something? Or maybe list them in separate tabs by /something/ maybe even just put all of r1 into a separate tab because listing 90% of LCs before getting to stuff you thats not obvious is kinda annoying to scroll through. Especially if you're not on a computer

 

[JJayyFeather]

smh you could always just copy it into your own file and separate it yourself (like I have)

 

[Frosty]

I should introduce you to the wonders of ctrl+f

I am heavily against ammending the NDA to include non-broad use information, since:
a) NDA already had a lot of stuff. Some of those with dubious utility
b) Battle Hall is not more special than other RPs to deserve that kind of special treatment. And then if other RPs were to need this kind of data, we would need to put them also in the NDA for consistency, and it will do us no good.
c) This one is the most important one by far: I'd rather not demand that the head of Battle Hall have NDA access to do their stuff properly. Since I can't (iirc) limit access in the NDA to specific areas, if the guy has access to the NDA, it has access to all of it. And having someone capable of changing moves and items simply because they are head of one single RP is kinda...eh. And I hate the other option of they needing to ask someone with access everytime a change needs to be done on the rank list. Let me remind you that 2 years ago, the head of Battle Hall was not someone active with NDA access and doggie-boy won't be head of battle hall forever. We can't assume it will happen that way.

With gen VII being a reality somewhat, that rank list will need to be revisited entirely for some time until a good stable place is reached. For the sake of the data on the nda, I would rather if that happened outside of it

 

[LouisCyphre]

This one is the most important one by far: I'd rather not demand that the head of Battle Hall have NDA access to do their stuff properly.

Easily the best response I've gotten so far. Thanks anyway!

I'll have to bother someone with access to the Hall Rankings sheet itself. Ctrl+F only works if and when Google Sheets feels like loading the bottom 2/3rds of the page, and only for PC users (as opposed to, say, mobile).