1. Welcome to Smogon! Check out the Smogon Starters Hangout for everything you need to know about starting out in the community. Don't forget to introduce yourself in the Introduction and Hangout Thread, too!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.

Clauses in Generation V

Discussion in 'The Policy Review' started by Firestorm, Oct 16, 2010.

  1. Kristoph

    Kristoph

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,730
    Many competitive players despise the notion of a metagame with "significantly more variety" than 4th gen OU already had. Most others probably don't care one way or the other. There is some minority that actively craves a metagame with a greater number of viable teams, and out of those, maybe four or five are out there preaching that "removing" Species Clause is the way that this should be done.

    I am very much operating under the assumption that we should not implement Species Clause unless there is a reason to implement Species Clause. We know, however, that the only benefit you're suggesting (besides a simpler ruleset) basically has no "market" for it in this community. Even if we polled Uncharted Territory and they decided that Species Clause should not be implemented in the beginning of 5th gen, my impression would be that they just thought it was potentially superfluous, or that it could be "interesting/fun to mess around with," and not because of some belief that the increase in variety brought about by its non-implementation is competitively preferable. In other words, I can only foresee the community supporting a no-Species Clause initial metagame under false pretenses--once players realize that the clause is not superfluous, and indeed restricts a number of otherwise-viable team strategies (something that I feel they are largely in favor of), it will be re-implemented.

    I guess I could be wrong, and really everyone is clamoring for much much more variety without me knowing it. Okay, then it becomes a question of whether the increased variety (which can now safely be considered a "benefit") outweighs the potential issues I spoke of earlier. We aren't at that point yet at all, though, because the "benefit" you're suggesting is a controversial one at best.


    I'm tired, so sorry if this doesn't address your points precisely, or if it restates things I already made clear or whatever. could easily be both >_>
  2. Firestorm

    Firestorm I did my best, I have no regrets!
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    7,307
    If nobody objects, I'd like to start the poll on October 24th and end it on October 30th with 66.00% or more votes required for the "start without" options to win. If you have an opinion on the subject, could you please chime in? We have hundreds of Policy Review members and very few have put up an argument here.
  3. Hipmonlee

    Hipmonlee Have a rice day
    is a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,339
    I dont see how we could test a Species clauseless metagame. At the outset we are pretty much assuming the ruleset will be broken regardless, and going to and from species clause will be too big a depature to actually reuse anything gained in the testing up til that point.

    For the rest (or even for species clause, since it has no chance of passing), lets do the polls.

    Might as well include the starting banlist while we are at it.

    Have a nice day.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)