Jibaku, it is my understanding that people are aware of who the host is in the battle. What this means is that information that they should have to be able to determine what to do, we aren't giving them. In other words, we aren't escaping from the "changing game mechanics" thing.
But if it is a glitch, if it wasn't intended in the game, then why not just ignore the glitch. And banning a move such as Pursuit or effects such as weather is stupid because they were intended to be in the game. Throwing away one or two key components of our metagame just for a stupid glitch is just plain wrong, much more wrong then banning a move or weather effect that isn't even broken.
Because it doesn't matter what the developers intended. Using the game itself is objective and stable. Using developer intent means that they can come out at any time and tell us that Scyther was supposed to be able to finish off its foes with False Swipe if it just concentrates hard enough.
Also you didn't address my previous point. Double Team, Sheer Cold, Fissure, Rayquaza, and Groudon were intended to be in the game, so banning them must be stupid.
Now you're just twisting my words, or what I meant by them anyway.
I can't argue against the points you intended to make, only those you actually make. I am not, however, twisting your words. What I am doing is a proof by contradiction, also known in this case as
reductio ad absurdum. I temporarily assume your premises are true for the sake of argument, and then show that they lead to absurd results when taken to their logical conclusions. I know you never specifically said that we should stop researching game mechanics, but it is an inescapable conclusion from saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.". I don't believe that what we have now is broken (if you don't consider an imperfect simulator broken, which by your idea that we shouldn't implement all game mechanics I must conclude you believe), therefore, we should stop trying to fix Shoddybattle and the SmogonDex.
You're not thinking about the implications, without stuff like Pursuit, shit like Gengar, Starmie, Azelf etc etc reign supreme, without weather pokemon like Tyranitar are left without an ability.
Imagine if the discussion were about putting Kyogre into the game.
You're not thinking about the implications, with stuff like Ludicolo, Kingdra, Zapdos etc. etc. reigning supreme.
In other words, if a Pokemon is broken, it will be banned. If a Pokemon is not broken, it will not be banned.
Also Tyranitar wouldn't be left without an ability, it would be banned completely. It's impossible to have Tyranitar without Sand Stream, so if we decide to ban weather, then Tyranitar, Hippowdon, Hippopotas, Abomasnow, and Snover would all have to be banned. This is only if we ban non-Rain weather, rather than Pursuit, and rather than deciding we can live with this glitch and just banning Castform and Cherrim.
This is really a conundrum. From my point of view, the opposing position I'm up against says that we should implement something that is unfaithful to the game of Pokemon because not implementing it would be unfaithful to the game of Pokemon.
That's a straw man of our position. Your premise that the glitch is unfaithful to the game is wrong. It's impossible for anything in the game to be unfaithful to the game. There is no higher metric for "faithful to the game" than what's actually in the game. Not implementing the glitch is unfaithful to the game; following what's in the game is.
@ Obi, you're trying to twist my words because you believe that the intent of the glitch isn't 100% clear just because Game Freak has said nothing on the matter. I disagree with that. To me, intent is 100% clear because the entire Pokemon franchise has defined what Pokemon is, and I believe that the glitch isn't Pokemon.
How did I twist your words? My post with regard to you had two major points:
1) When I was quoting you, I was showing how contradictory your own words are. At one point you are arguing against the evils of implementing this glitch because it's unfaithful to the game, while in the sentence immediately before it you state that we have no way of knowing 100% what their intent is, other than what's in the game, and at the beginning of your post you say that we should implement anything where intent is not 100% known. Do you see the contradiction of your own words? Just because I point out that your argument leads to an absurd conclusion doesn't mean I'm twisting your words; it means that your positions are contradictory and lead to illogical conclusions (and thus you must have a false premise).
2) When I was quoting Serebii, I was showing how anti-competitive your position is. What Karen says at the Elite Four doesn't matter any more than the anime telling Pikachu to aim for the horn. I literally had just read the Serebii thread about an hour or two before reading your post, and I had linked it to a few people to laugh at how ridiculous the thread was. Then I read your post and all I could think was "fuck smorgon! tiers hurt pokemon's feelings! the butterfree analysis made my sister cry!". There is are several reasons Smogon is the #1 competitive site, not Serebii, and one of those is that we don't accept non-competitive arguments for anything, and one such argument is "Karen in GSC says...".
By the way, by arguing that the uber tier and clauses are against the spirit of Pokemon, you're indirectly saying that setting rules to make Pokemon competitive is against the spirit of Pokemon, and that WE are against the spirit of Pokemon. If that's the case, then what's the point to our existence? I know that what you said is sarcasm, but that's not a good comparison to try and destroy my position.
That's not the point I'm making. My point is that if we follow the logic of your post, we
must remove tiers from the game. At the very least, we have to unban Garchomp, Latios, etc. and ban Celebi, Jirachi, etc.. To do anything else is contrary to the spirit of the game.
Again, this isn't my plan, but it is the only logical conclusion to what you've posted.
I have a question to everyone who wants to take developer intent into account.
Do you support no longer using Shoddybattle? The intent of the developers is that we play the game on the cartridge. In fact, there is more evidence to support the idea that playing Shoddybattle is more against the developer's intent than any in-game glitch.
Especially now that Wi-Fi is available, Shoddybattle cuts into their market. Their first goal is to make money, and it seems likely that simulators such as Shoddy cut into that margin.
The NSider forums--the official Nintendo forums--explicitly banned discussion of any simulators. This is the strongest evidence to support the idea that the developers do not want us playing on simulators.
In other words, people who care about developer intent should not play or talk about Shoddybattle. If this is true, then they also should not care what mechanics Shoddybattle implements. Therefore, any arguments factoring "developer intent" as a universal truth are self-defeating with regard to Pokemon simulators.