-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Official Moving Forward (Re: "Putting My Foot Down")
- Thread starter Philip7086
- Start date
- Status
i like the way you worded those. i was worried you'd word them like "yo phil you're my bro" and "yo dick get da fuck out and put someone better in charge"
Group B
i've always been anti-single leader. so this has nothing to do with you i have disagreed with "we need someone to b leader" since the beginning. we need someone to set up votes that's what we need. we're a community we should do things as a group there should be no one with the power to overrule a majority of policymakers that's just my opinion.
Group B
i've always been anti-single leader. so this has nothing to do with you i have disagreed with "we need someone to b leader" since the beginning. we need someone to set up votes that's what we need. we're a community we should do things as a group there should be no one with the power to overrule a majority of policymakers that's just my opinion.
Abstain
First, some general comments. This situation was obviously handled poorly, so here's some constructive criticism for the future. One of two things should have happened:
1) Phil puts his foot down from the get-go and decides to adopt what he believes is healthiest for the community (100% adherence) without starting a poll at all.
2) Phil honors the poll results he asked users for, or (at the very least) holds another poll with more clearly defined options after the drama started surfacing.
Asking users to decide an issue and then vetoing what a supermajority arrives at because the leader personally disagrees is backwards and unprofessional. It’s only natural people would be angry about this kind of inconsistency. The Critical Hit topic wasn’t a reason to panic either, since the poll clearly showed the community doesn't support adopting radical changes like the ones proposed in that thread regardless of how “persuasive” some of the arguments might be. If anything, the discussion proved that common sense actually can govern when called upon. All that being said, I don’t think Phil is unqualified to lead. I’m confident he’ll be able to maneuver around sticky situations like this with ease after he’s had a little more time to settle into the role. It’s extremely difficult to run things, and we shouldn’t lose sight of that fact. Phil’s a respected battler and (though I may disagree with him on a number of policy issues) a pretty level-headed guy, and I genuinely believe he’s acting with the best of intentions. I may not approve of his recent decisions, but I do support him overall as a Generation 5 Policy leader.
I am abstaining from this tally instead of aligning with Group B because I’m not entirely sure whether I want another poll created. Though I’m fundamentally opposed to the methods Phil used to arrive at it, letting the current decision stand might ultimately be the simplest solution now that we’ve seen all the commotion this has caused. I wish things had been done differently, but after watching PR these past few days, I’m not positive changing them now is the best course of action.
First, some general comments. This situation was obviously handled poorly, so here's some constructive criticism for the future. One of two things should have happened:
1) Phil puts his foot down from the get-go and decides to adopt what he believes is healthiest for the community (100% adherence) without starting a poll at all.
2) Phil honors the poll results he asked users for, or (at the very least) holds another poll with more clearly defined options after the drama started surfacing.
Asking users to decide an issue and then vetoing what a supermajority arrives at because the leader personally disagrees is backwards and unprofessional. It’s only natural people would be angry about this kind of inconsistency. The Critical Hit topic wasn’t a reason to panic either, since the poll clearly showed the community doesn't support adopting radical changes like the ones proposed in that thread regardless of how “persuasive” some of the arguments might be. If anything, the discussion proved that common sense actually can govern when called upon. All that being said, I don’t think Phil is unqualified to lead. I’m confident he’ll be able to maneuver around sticky situations like this with ease after he’s had a little more time to settle into the role. It’s extremely difficult to run things, and we shouldn’t lose sight of that fact. Phil’s a respected battler and (though I may disagree with him on a number of policy issues) a pretty level-headed guy, and I genuinely believe he’s acting with the best of intentions. I may not approve of his recent decisions, but I do support him overall as a Generation 5 Policy leader.
I am abstaining from this tally instead of aligning with Group B because I’m not entirely sure whether I want another poll created. Though I’m fundamentally opposed to the methods Phil used to arrive at it, letting the current decision stand might ultimately be the simplest solution now that we’ve seen all the commotion this has caused. I wish things had been done differently, but after watching PR these past few days, I’m not positive changing them now is the best course of action.
Group A
However, that doesn't mean I wouldn't like some kind of re-vote. I want the community to explicitly accept or reject an idea something like this: No element or mechanic of Pokemon is so sacred that it isn't worth debating and potentially changing, regardless of the length of time and the amount of energy those debates require.
However, that doesn't mean I wouldn't like some kind of re-vote. I want the community to explicitly accept or reject an idea something like this: No element or mechanic of Pokemon is so sacred that it isn't worth debating and potentially changing, regardless of the length of time and the amount of energy those debates require.
After some deliberation on this issue, I'm going to have to go with Group B. I originally supported your decision to 'put your foot down', because I feel that there is a reason that we have a leader for this whole process and that the leader should be vocal enough to decide on certain issues. Even though I strongly disagreed with your take on the philosophy of following in-game mechanics, I was willing to accept this decision on the basis of moving forward with Gen V.
However, I have come to believe that this decision was wrong. Although I believe that the chief executive in the Gen V deciding process should reserve the right to make such decisions, I am not comfortable with a leader overturning a supermajority such as the one we had because of his own deeply-rooted ideological views. I feel that there should have been more behind the decision, be it majority's support or more sound logical conviction. As I mentioned before, I am strongly against those who say that modifying the cartridge mechanics in any ways will constitute a shift away from Pokemon into "Smogonmon", as the game is still the game if we make such a miniscule shift that does not change the fundamentals at all. With that said, your justification for ruling the way you did was nothing but a poorly supported (by the PR forum, not the reasoning) dissenting opinion. It's equivalent to the US President bringing a controversial law to Congress, seeing that a supermajority wants to pass it, and then being able to veto anyway. I'd like to think that there is a reason for this forum, and that we participants have a say in the issues that cannot be brushed aside like this.
Again, I support a powerful leader as Gen V develops, but certainly not on cases like this where we have a clear consensus in one direction on an issue that is not as complex as it is being made out by some people to be. I generally would support an action like this, but this situation seems unacceptable to me and I agree wholeheartedly with Group B.
However, I have come to believe that this decision was wrong. Although I believe that the chief executive in the Gen V deciding process should reserve the right to make such decisions, I am not comfortable with a leader overturning a supermajority such as the one we had because of his own deeply-rooted ideological views. I feel that there should have been more behind the decision, be it majority's support or more sound logical conviction. As I mentioned before, I am strongly against those who say that modifying the cartridge mechanics in any ways will constitute a shift away from Pokemon into "Smogonmon", as the game is still the game if we make such a miniscule shift that does not change the fundamentals at all. With that said, your justification for ruling the way you did was nothing but a poorly supported (by the PR forum, not the reasoning) dissenting opinion. It's equivalent to the US President bringing a controversial law to Congress, seeing that a supermajority wants to pass it, and then being able to veto anyway. I'd like to think that there is a reason for this forum, and that we participants have a say in the issues that cannot be brushed aside like this.
Again, I support a powerful leader as Gen V develops, but certainly not on cases like this where we have a clear consensus in one direction on an issue that is not as complex as it is being made out by some people to be. I generally would support an action like this, but this situation seems unacceptable to me and I agree wholeheartedly with Group B.
Great Sage
Banned deucer.
Group A
Group B
in general i think we should follow in-game mechanics but following ones that are unimportant (mainly classic sleep clause) is a bit dumb. the main reason i voted for group b is because i don't think you should have veto power. i know you'll generally make good decisions, but it isn't fair for him to be able to go against the majority of the community in my opinion.
in general i think we should follow in-game mechanics but following ones that are unimportant (mainly classic sleep clause) is a bit dumb. the main reason i voted for group b is because i don't think you should have veto power. i know you'll generally make good decisions, but it isn't fair for him to be able to go against the majority of the community in my opinion.
Group B
I trust your judgement on these matters, especially when there is a deadlock. But I think that common sense rules that a supermajority verdict was significantly enough to show what we wanted. More than anything else, I'd like to see that when we actually, as a community, manage to make a decision, we don't just immediately backtrack because a minority disagrees. That's not going to work. As much as I'm an avid monarchist, and I will support whatever your final decision is on this, I have to vote which way I think is best for the community.
I trust your judgement on these matters, especially when there is a deadlock. But I think that common sense rules that a supermajority verdict was significantly enough to show what we wanted. More than anything else, I'd like to see that when we actually, as a community, manage to make a decision, we don't just immediately backtrack because a minority disagrees. That's not going to work. As much as I'm an avid monarchist, and I will support whatever your final decision is on this, I have to vote which way I think is best for the community.
i want to abstain my vote
well in my opinion i have no doubt philip is the best name to lead PR, (just see what he do to this community) but i can not agree with some changes like sleep clause, smogon's philosophy on competitive pokemon etc, those clauses are fine just the way they are.
and yea of course will have some changes for 5th gen but this things are are involved in the mechanics of the game and gameplay
seriously, Critical Hits (and other such sources of "hax") its ridiculous to be considered important to be discussed, ch's are on pkmn at the first gen and until now they wanna remove ch's just because they hates to lost to hax? then why exist secondary effect's lol
just some of my opinions and yea i agree phil is the best the to lead PR but i can not agree with those changes that's why i want to abstain my vote :3
well in my opinion i have no doubt philip is the best name to lead PR, (just see what he do to this community) but i can not agree with some changes like sleep clause, smogon's philosophy on competitive pokemon etc, those clauses are fine just the way they are.
and yea of course will have some changes for 5th gen but this things are are involved in the mechanics of the game and gameplay
seriously, Critical Hits (and other such sources of "hax") its ridiculous to be considered important to be discussed, ch's are on pkmn at the first gen and until now they wanna remove ch's just because they hates to lost to hax? then why exist secondary effect's lol
just some of my opinions and yea i agree phil is the best the to lead PR but i can not agree with those changes that's why i want to abstain my vote :3
Group B
Group A
While i voted the opposite, I still support this decision. As others have said, it was a mistake to have a public poll and then overrule it IMO, but its understandable. You're new to the role so a mistake isn't a big deal at all. Having a leader that doesn't conform to the crowd and tries to lead us in an ideal direction is exactly what we need.
While i voted the opposite, I still support this decision. As others have said, it was a mistake to have a public poll and then overrule it IMO, but its understandable. You're new to the role so a mistake isn't a big deal at all. Having a leader that doesn't conform to the crowd and tries to lead us in an ideal direction is exactly what we need.
- Status