This is the edited log of a "debate" between the two candidates. I probably should have thought of this earlier, but whatever. If you need to change your vote, delete your old post and post again in this thread.
Question 1: How will you carry out the new role of TL?
Deck:
Essentially what I want to do is start with extra attention to the concept. I fully intend to analyze each concept and then give a paragraph on why I do or do not think that is a viable concept for a project.
The problem we had in the last CAP is the concept was entirely directionless. We go through a smattering abilities with only a vague idea of why they were "approved" or "unapproved."
This dissertation would help focus the project and open the floor to ideas to improve the concepts that are accepted.
With nothing concrete to work with at this moment, it is difficult to expand upon, but lets just use our titular "Kingdra in the Snow."
For me this is difficult because Hail and Rain are entirely different beasts. The speed boost Rain confers is what makes Kingrda dangerous.
So I'd need more specification as to what "Kingdra in the snow" would mean outside of "pokemon with a powerful Blizzard"
This leaves room for custom abilities, but that is a serious, serious poll jump.
Given a choice of more viable concepts to choose from, Kingdra in the Snow would be in the bottom of acceptable entries.
Plus:
What I would like to do for TL is to start off with a concept thread that will catch the reader's eye as to what exactly I want as a concept. I'm basically just looking for something that we can actually learn from, rather than the usual "mixed sweeper" or "great tank of china". The concept thread is definitely the place where all the cap projects turn sour, and it sucks since it's the beginning of the project.
Some problems that rose from the past caps is that people were throwing shit at a blank piece of paper, really. They dont even give a fuck about what they want to learn, because its not in their mindset, so it makes sense that our concept threads are pretty directionless.
Deck:
Well they've been directionless largely because we've let them become largely open slates. Fifty-Two concepts? Cyberzero is my friend and all, but really? Fifty-two? You can't have a coherent discussion of Fifty-two subject matters...
Plus:
With the new policy on TLs it's definitely going to be better
Deck:
I agree, but it still requires a discretion which I'm sure both of us will excercise.
Plus:
That's a given.
Question 2: With the new process being applied to CAP 9, how much, and exactly what kind of influence do you see yourself exerting over the project?
Plus:
I'm planning to throw most of the issues I feel about the metagame into each topic, basically giving everybody my overview on the matter. I'd let people interpret it and distort it to their liking, as long as it is fresh, creative, and something we would be willing to test.
So you could say that I'm willing to give direction, however that does not mean i will not watch over the rest of the discussion. There are lots of idiots on cap and it's inevitable. tennisace, darkie, and Gen Empoleon (names edited), just to name a few.
So I'd throw my opinion whenever the discussion gets terribly out of hand or a misconception happens, (which happens very frequently)
And again, I think my views of the metagame are sufficient enough to warrant a good discussion.
Deck:
I fully endorse Doug's conception of the Topic Leader as a director. I want to get feedback and suggestions from everyone during the CAP process, new users and old alike. There will always be a few repeat offenders who offer little substance. However, I ultimately believe that a laser-like, continuous focus on fulfilling the concept and shaping it to perfection is required.
For this reason I intend to stick my considerable heft behind each element of the process. I want to inspire people to argue passionately for their choices and to fully support the reasoning behind them. The topic leader should inspire leadership in others, and the best way to lead is by example.
It's pretty hard for me to cool my jets, but I do exercise leniency and respect the opinions of better battlers or people with specific insight. I'm essentially looking to start as a central figure and then slowly fade into the background as the project continues.
That is what I think a good director does, inspire others to bring their own intelligence and passion to the project, making sure the end product stays razor-sharp in the process.
From the outset I intend to give full disclosure on every step along the way, and I expect agreement or disagreement backed by reasoning. The final slate is my decision, the voters choose among that set of elite options.
So in summary I would take a very direct, hands-on approach.
Plus:
Discussion is primarily based off of interest, which again ties to the beginning stages of a CAP. If it's interesting, it will usually generate discussion, both intelligent and non intelligent. The role of a TL should obviously be to weed out the non intelligent discussion and try to shape it into a more meaningful discussion. If encouraging discussion is needed, I would lead by enforcing the ideas of the current cap (the concept) .
Question 3: Where do you stand on stat spread submissions and movepool submissions; ie how many would you allow, and what would be the necessary criteria.
Plus:
I'd allow what is needed. Different concepts take different directions, different directions take different paths to a pokemon. I currently don't have a necessary criteria, because there isnt really much to base the criteria off of. As for how many I'd allow, I'd say roughly 5. The past caps had terribly similar stat spread for each. The thread quickly became a giant tl;dr.
And, it's not like each spread has a totally different direction. Picking 5 of the best would unclutter the thread, hopefully promote discussion, and it's the TL's job to enforce such.
Deck:
I'd select whoever contributed the most over the course of the project at that point, up to a limit of 6 or 7. As far as criteria, depending on the concept I would do as much as possible to curtail superfluous moves. We have scads of support moves going unused because we've dumped every move ever made onto the pokemon, and sometimes diluted its ability to do one thing coherently.
I'd also look for the most diverse stat spreads, if not specifically request someone's vision. I intend to be more strong-armed towards extemes given the absurd number of middle-of-the road Bulky Offensive caps.
Question 4: If, at any point, a loss of direction or discussion occurs, how do you plan on handling these situations
Plus:
A loss of direction could mean misinterpreting a concept, in which I would clarify and basically steer into the right direction. Should things get into a heated, off topic argument which has no merit to the overall project, I would simply cut it short and tell them to discuss what obviously needs to be discussed. As for discussion, I would ask some educated posters of cap who have overall interesting opinions on a certain subject to step up and present
I will not shoot down anyone for voicing their opinion, but I will shoot people down if what they are saying is totally irrelevant or should not be factored into the current cap, ex. flavor competitive arguments.
Deck:
Close monitoring would avoid a lot of that, and when I start seeing things go downhill I tend to strike like lightning already whenever there is something in dispute. It is usually easy to tell when something has gone on a tangent, and the best thing to do in that case is confront it directly, explain why it is not important, and immediately refocus attention to critical issues.