Moving Forward (Re: "Putting My Foot Down")

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
So my most recent thread in The Policy Review has (as expected) caused some commotion. Once again, I'd just like to apologize to everybody for that. I still stand by what I did though, and I believe what I proposed is the best way to move forward as a community. However, I realize that my decision might have shaken some your faith in me as a leader. In fact, in a way it has created an impasse, because some users will simply not allow our processes to continue peacefully until this matter has been settled (no, "putting my foot down" did not settle anything, as we need the community to be on board too). This voting thread is my way of settling it (and the setting up of this subforum should stand to be useful for Policy Review in the future regardless of our decision, so be sure to thank Misty for setting it up for us!).

A good leader should be able to get the trust and support of his or her people. If I do not have the trust/support of this community, then I do not believe I'm fit to lead this area of the site. Even if I put my foot down here and we move on, every future decision of mine will be questioned, and it will just bog down the system. That is simply not good for the community, and I would much rather someone everybody (or at least a majority of people) trust take my place.

Please do not let any personal bias affect how you vote here. I promise you that I will not take it personally if you don't support me -- in fact, I can totally understand why you wouldn't. This is a very important poll, and I would much rather you be completely honest than try to be my friend.

I would like each of you to post which group you most closely identify with (I realize everybody has their own unique stances, but please, you're all smart enough to know what each group essentially means):

Group A

Regardless of how I voted in the Smogon Philosophy poll, I support Philip7086 and trust that he made the right decision given recent events. I am willing to stick to a philosophy which enforces strict in-game mechanics for simplicity's sake in policy making, even if it means sacrificing some things like Classic Sleep Clause to do so.

Group B

I think Philip7086 was out of line in overruling a supermajority vote, and I do not think it was the right decision to make. I am not comfortable with Philip7086 having unilateral power to do such things. I would much rather see the original vote be upheld, or at least some sort of a re-vote happen.
I understand that some of you support me, but would still like to see a re-vote and might be torn by these two options. If that sounds like you, please put down Group B. I did not include this in Group A because I do not plan on putting this issue up to a re-vote, so supporting me will not yield one.

Simply typing Group A or Group B in your reply to this thread will suffice. If you would like to add a comment as to why you voted the way you did, you are welcome to. Also, if you want to abstain from voting, but would still like to leave a comment, you are welcome to do so as well.

Don't post twice just because you do not see your post! This is a moderated subforum, and as such, you will not be able to see yours or anybody else's posts until this thing is over.

Also, if you are a Super Moderator or an Admin, please soft-delete your post after you make it, as your posts will be public otherwise.
 
#3
Group A

At this point, I'd be happy with whatever it takes to get this resolved as quickly as possible. Lesson learned and all that as far as everything else is concerned.
 
#4
I don't think you were over the line.

You made it clear that the use of changing ingame mechanics was exceptional and for nothing fundamental but trolling started just after with the CH thread.

It being only exceptional would mean it's a problem everyone is aware and so it should be fair enough to say that the exceptional problem would be brought up by at least you, or one of your cabinet to you, and so only allow initiatives about the mechanics change to come from there.

I'd say i'm in spirit in the Group A and support you except I still want the old sleep clause and would really like a solution to be found about it. But if it comes down to only one of the two options and we have the risk to lose you, assume I'm in group A and forget what I said above.
 

evan

I did my best -- I have no regrets
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnus
#5
I support Group A. However, I think that opening this issue of "strict cartridge rules" v. "change wiggle room" is a red herring and don't think should have a real bearing upon this poll. This is something that, as the policy leader, you should be discussing with the programming staffs of the potential simulators as they hold the ultimate power on this issue. We as a community can issue our preference, but unless the programmers of the simulators are willing to go along with that, then our preference means nothing until someone builds another simulator which will incorporate our philosophy.

If the programmers should allow for some wiggle room and people had wanted that, then you, as the leader, need to take the responsibility to present those options to the PR public where we can vote on them. If, however, they don't (as I suspect they are generally reluctant to) then we have wasted all of this time and drama over something that we had no control of in the first place.

As far as the actual content, I come from a metagame whose most prestigious tournament is played on the carts which means that at least for that metagame I want to see strict adherence to the rules of the carts (of course, the biggest issue of sleep clause implementation doesn't apply to that meta). As far as Singles goes, while I don't like the idea of being unable to remedy unstable bits of the game as they come up, for the sake of us actually moving on to policy that can actually make a difference, I think that's something that is pretty easy to swallow.
 

Matthew

I love weather; Sun for days
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
#8
Philip is a giant fatty. Like fucking huge.

I am Group A, however. While not a direct part of the site anymore, I like Pokemon and I like playing Pokemon. What Philip did was the best move for competitive Pokemon, which Smogon is the figurehead of. So... 'duh'
 
#15
Group B

I support you Phil, and as you may have read I have a neutral stance on game mechanics (as I posted in the original vote thread), I just think that in this type of situation it was simply not the best decision to ignore a supermajority vote, even though you do have reasoning for doing so. I still believe that you are doing a great job with the task at hand, just that this situation should have been handled differently.
 

Super

This space for rent
is a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
#16
I pick Group A. While I don't care about how sleep clause is implemented, I don't want any other thing to be up for grabs. Pardon my obvious "other game experience", but I hate the way many PR players have been approaching policy.

Whenever something is so much as slightly uncomfortable, people want it removed from the game without even attempting to deal with it. I have no issue with stuff like starting on an untested ban list, but stuff like mechanics on a simulator, which is supposed to by definition simulate something, should never, ever, be edited on a whim.

Another issue is that the poll in question digs deeper than mere rulesets or configurations. Rulesets are part of server configuration and are relatively flexible and easy to change. Behaviors of mechanics take more work, and are prone to breaking and becoming an issue through updates.

I also made a post somewhere else (in private) that I think explains my viewpoint better. It was posted during that heated time a little while back.

Super said:
Most of you will likely not enjoy what I have to say next. All of you are arguing over nothing. You're arguing over implementation game mechanics when the vast majority of you are not programmers and wouldn't be able to enforce any results of anything you decide except for simple stuff like classic sleep clause. A lot of people seem to think that Smogon is a single entity and that anything Smogon decides Smogon does. And a lot of you continue to believe this while also spouting propaganda that contradicts this belief. Smogon isn't a single entity, it's a group of volunteers that do what they want when they feel like it. If the volunteer with the technical ability to enforce a decision doesn't feel like doing it, you can't force him.

Currently, the relevant sim is Pokemon Online. And don't think for a second that Coyotte won't be insulted if you ask him to implement mechanics changes that all of you have "decided" is the best course for competitive pokemon. You may decide to ask me to implement changes in Pokemon Lab, or to edit the hard code of Pokemon Online, however I am one of those "purists" everyone is so quick to hate. Outside of sleep clause, I will almost certainly say "no, find someone else to implement it" and that's it.
 
#17
Group A

I feel Philip made the correct decision in "Putting My Foot Down". The PR forum was becoming a cycle of arguments with an indefinite end, and naturally his leadership position had to come in to put us back on track. I also want to take the opportunity to add that in no way I want to get rid of critical hits. I know this sounds hypocritical but bear with me; I feel my vote in that thread didn't reflect my complete viewpoint on critical hits, and I believe my post in that thread towards the end shows my true opinion. I also want to point out that my post in the previewable teams thread didn't use anime battling as my main point for backing up non-previewable teams. I used it to support simply what I like about Pokemon, and that includes the surprises. I find it sad that by being idealistic(looking at Pokemon as I saw it back in the day) in my post certain users took advantage of what I said to make it seem "stupid". The fact that users resort to attacking others is a characteristic of the Smogon Community I don't condone; honestly I could careless about attacks towards me since this is a game, but towards others who truly try their best is "fucked up"(like Philip). Instead, we should learn how to use constructive criticism. In short, I'm willing to follow the game mechanics, including Gen 5 preview teams, as long as it's for the best at the end of the day!

Just my opinion.
 

Firestorm

I did my best, I have no regrets!
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
#19
Group A

I don't agree with all the choices you'll likely make going by some of the clause topics, but I'm much happier with a Smogon headed by someone with a clear vision than someone without. I wholeheartedly believe that leading a site following a vision that the leader doesn't believe in is doomed to fail and that the results of the poll did that. This situation could obviously have been handled better, but it was a learning experience. I would like to move on as soon as possible as this is why I believe we asked Doug and Philip to take leadership roles in the community.
 
#20
Group B

I think we should be able to change the game in case of emergency. I believe we can avoid incidents similar to the Critical Hits thread through establishing definite limits on how much we can change the game.
 
#24
Group A

I don't want us purposefully changing the sim to something that isn't replicable in the game. Also, the discussions that can potentially arise from having no clear boundary waste time, even if we decide against the ideas proposed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.