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.
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.
TL;DR
The Anti-Pedant Clause has been misinterpreted too much, and I feel it needs to be removed
Thank you for your time. :)
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.Handbook said: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.
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.Battle Pike Thread OP said: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)".
TL;DR
The Anti-Pedant Clause has been misinterpreted too much, and I feel it needs to be removed
Thank you for your time. :)