Philosophy of Smogon: A First Draft

Status
Not open for further replies.

Misty

oh
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Okay, so chaos wanted somebody to write this, and I figure, given my capability with words, and my copious spare time, I should give this a shot. The intent of this argument is to address 5 main points:

[21:20:32] <+Noobster> A) philosophy + what competitive battling really is
[21:20:32] <+Noobster> b) user mentality
[21:20:32] <+Noobster> c) what defines a standard
[21:20:32] <+Noobster> d) gimmick sets
[21:20:32] <+Noobster> e) counters to common arguments
v
The current state of the article is intended to address the first 4 points - this is already crazy tl;dr and I want to get some comments on this before moving on. So, without further ado...


In some ways, it is very difficult for some people to understand why Smogon is the way it is. It has been given a lot of labels, such as "elitist", and some of these labels are 100% accurate. But it can be hard to grasp that this is often intended and, indeed, somewhat necessary for Smogon to "work", to perform at its highest effectiveness. These behaviors are not from a sense of cruelty or bias, but from a sort of entitlement, earned through hard work and experience. This document is intended to give some insight into Smogon's philosophy, and an understanding of what Smogon intends to do for its users. The end of the document will serve to dispel certain myths about battling and Smogon itself, so the reader will understand common arguments and misinformation and our responses to them.

It is often stated that Pokemon is not a "serious" game, but rather a child's game, meant to be played with a certain mildness that does not hold a place for the serious, and sometimes "cold", manner with which many of the users of Smogon hold themselves to. This is not entirely incorrect - indeed, it should be recognized that the casual fan is one of the largest buyers of Pokemon and the reason for its phenomenal success. However, the other side of its success is that it *can* be taken seriously, a testament to the incredible depth of the stat system, the myriad modes and teambuilding options, and the well-calculated balance that Game Freak has intended to bring to the game. No better proof can be demonstrated for the justification of the competitive style than Emerald - a game that has added numerous extras, all for the enjoyment of the competitive player. The Battle Frontier was always intended to feed on the competitive aspect, to nurture it and give it 7 different methods of application, to give competitive players an incentive to purchase and become valuable customers. It seems very unlikely to this author that any casual fan has ever acquired a Gold Symbol - the acquisition of even 1, let alone all 7, demonstrates a commitment and knowledge of the inner workings of Pokemon that can only be the result of a drive for excellence. In the same way, multiplayer battles can be and are approached with a competitive spirit. However, in this arena, the stakes are higher - a human being is often a much more difficult and unpredictable opponent than an AI, making the victory much more satisfying and desirable. If both players subscribe to this doctrine, then the result is inevitable - competitive battling, as Smogon has come to view it.

Smogon, which is comprised of players who have battled competitively since the old days of Red and Blue, has a great deal of experience with this particular area. It has taken into account many rules - some of them subscribed to by Game Freak itself in its Battle Towers, as well as various rules that were designed in the Stadium series. The "OU metagame" is the result of a search for a balanced game, where player skill, teambuilding skill, and a certain amount of luck combine to execute victory. The "OU metagame" is in no ways perfect, but it should be pointed out that 99% of multiplayer games are often plagued by imbalance and the resulting "tiers", and it is fortunate that Pokemon's detailed depth, combined with the intelligent minds of its players, working to prevent various abuses, is capable of producing a diverse and enjoyable arena. However, there is still a search for betterment - the "UU metagame" is an attempt to give a more interesting look at Pokemon that may not compete well with the stronger Pokemon of the game; on the other side of the spectrum, the "uber metagame" exists to develop an understanding of Pokemon's strongest and most brutal combatants. However, the "OU metagame", an entity that has existed in an official state since Pokemon Stadium's Poke Cup, is the main concentration of this document.

In all metagames supported by the site, there exist various "standards" as defined by Smogon's elite. These standard sets have been tested through numerous battles, careful design work, and lengthy discussions. This is not to imply that these standard sets are perfect - indeed, new developments arise constantly that require a shifting or rethinking of these sets. New sets arise from a shift of the current standards and the approach of the players - the "Tyraniboah" set is an excellent example of how a new standard set is materialized. Ultimately, this is really the desire and the point of Smogon - it is not so much to "enforce" the standards, but to give its users the skills necessary to make new ones! The saying goes "two heads are better than one" - indeed, hundreds of heads are far better than just the ones of the small circle of Smogon's elite. It is also not desired to merely "give" people the standards and expect them to be used; but for people to understand the standards and why they work. It is with this knowledge, and this knowledge alone, that a player becomes a strong battler. Smogon is not a "boss" of the player, but a teacher - a valuable teacher, imparting knowledge that would require years of experience to attain otherwise.

Still, sometimes it is the inclination of players to rebel against the "accepted standard", for a multitude of reasons. Players find flaws, whether perceived or real, in the state of the OU metagame, and attempt to forge their own path, and develop their own designs based on their current knowledge. Once in a while, this results in an effective new design; other times it merely results in the same standard, or one of the standards, that was already designed. However, many times it results in an inferior design, an artifact of ignorance and poor planning. This experience, ironically, can be valuable - for, by learning the hard way, the player will realize their error and become smarter because of it - but stubbornness thrives in these conditions, and the result is a player who is continually refusing to accept the error of their ways and the wisdom of the accepted standard. It is times like these where arguments result and bad feelings arise. It is not the intent of the author to teach openmindedness and diplomacy - indeed, if these things could be taught so simply, the world would be a better place. However, one should always take a step back before continuing an argument, and contemplate whether their position is valid. One who accepts their mistakes is rarely ridiculed, but often thought better of for having a virtue.
 
It would be totally bad ass if you came up with just one more line at the bottom. Something witty...That'd just be the nail on the coffin.
 

chaos

is a Site Content Manageris a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Programmeris a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis an Administratoris a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnus
Owner
it's a good read, but I'm not sure the first paragraph is the best way to start that. it seems to "start things off on the wrong foot," if you get my drift. i would use elitist over arrogant too since that is the monikier i see more often.

Smogon does not "apologize" for being arrogant; to do so would be to apologize for being "better" than people who have earned its distaste, usually through failure to understand what it is about, combined with an unyielding stubbornness
perhaps leave this part out? if the essay doesn't skirt around the issues, then it will be obvious if it apologizes or not.

edit: mop, the whole end of the essay is dedicated to rebutting common arguments.
 

Articuno64

1 to 63 were taken
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
I really like this. Is there a specific target audience in mind? Obviously there are new users who may have heard varying opinions about Smogon, and there are the "disgruntled" GGFan types who reject everything that Smogon says. There's also the regular users who would appreciate this insight into something that they probably have some basic understanding of already.
 
Still, sometimes it is the inclination of the player to rebel against the teacher - to forge their own path, and develop their own designs based on their current knowledge. Once in a blue moon, this results in an effective new design
I don't think the excessive sort of "cliche" lines in the last paragraph are necessary, they sort of cheese up the ending of the essay.

Also I doubt the effectiveness of "player" and "teacher", I think student in place of player would hit harder. Or teacher replaced with something more suitable.

However, one should always take a step back before continuing an argument, and contemplate whether their position is valid. One who accepts their mistakes is rarely ridiculed, but often thought better of for having a virtue.
Although this is a good ending, its much too "read this to be enlightened". The more argumentative nature of the essay in the previous paragraphs does not continue, and it almost says, "We forgive you, listen to this, and go along." I guess if this essay really wants to make a strong impact, the ending would have to be less gentle.

Although the language may be a bit too advanced for our target audience. Inside Scoop members might know what zeitgeist means, but I doubt a user like Kristy Haruka would be able to understand it. Users like that are probably this essay's target audience, and the language barrier might be a problem.
 

Altmer

rid this world of human waste
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
Yeah, that is originally a German word, may be hard to understand for some people...
 

DM

Ce soir, on va danser.
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnus
Hmmm, I ctrl-f'ed DoomMullet but I didn't show up. It's obviously lacking in depth.

But for someone like me, that's an informative (and amusing) read.
 

Misty

oh
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
lol, I knew I wouldn't get away with zeitgeist, but I love the word so I left it in the first draft.
 
Misty I warned you about using big words for small people. I'm not going to lie, I didn' tknow what it was either..(and maybe some others) but I just went along with it.
 

Sarenji

leaf-faced
is a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Misty said:
Smogon, which is comprised of players who have battled competitively since the old days of Red and Blue, has a great deal of experience with this particular arena.
Area?

Misty said:
Once in a blue moon, this results in an effective new design
I agree with CoolTrainer - this sounds awkward, as does "player" in the sentence prior.

Repeated quote said:
This word is used a lot!




I mean no offense by this, but while this would be great for something like college, the article reads like an old biology book - not good for our target audience. Turning it into somewhat of a written speech can help a lot. Some techniques you can use are: direct address, humor, personality, simpler words, etc, things to get the message across and get the reader involved.
 

Misty

oh
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Unfortunately, I have long been taught to write in a very technical and high-level fashion. Perhaps it is arrogance on my part that inclines me to do so, but I have my own way of getting my point across.

After this is done, I may make a "tl;dr version" that strips away a lot of the wordiness and just gives the points, at the expense of accuracy and standard writing conventions.
 

Carl

or Varl
is a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion
I fully support the concept behind this document and its contents. I also think that Misty's style of writing is actually very fitting for the message. I think it displays a level of intelligence that we respect and expect around here. It shows that we are serious about this game and not in the way of "use six standards to win." In my opinion, the final paragraph could do without the cliche. As for "dumbing it down", I'm not so sure that's necessary but I do understand why others would think it is. Maybe we could leave this as is and at the end or something highlight in bullet forms the main points as Misty offered up.
 
This is somewhat 'late' since it was dumbed down before I even replied but

I fully support the concept behind this document and its contents. I also think that Misty's style of writing is actually very fitting for the message. I think it displays a level of intelligence that we respect and expect around here. It shows that we are serious about this game and not in the way of "use six standards to win." In my opinion, the final paragraph could do without the cliche. As for "dumbing it down", I'm not so sure that's necessary but I do understand why others would think it is. Maybe we could leave this as is and at the end or something highlight in bullet forms the main points as Misty offered up.

Agreeing with pretty much all of this.


I might be looking at this metaphorically, but the idea of 'dumbing down' the message that pretty much says 'we're not going to dumb down our community for you' seems sort of counterintuitive to me. I really think it's better that it is written the way it was... some of the cliches should go for sure,(as they don't really belong in high level writing anyway) but I like the flowery language and the effect it has on the tone. If anything, I'd probably go back through and heighten the language a bit, not lower it.
 

Jumpman16

np: Michael Jackson - "Mon in the Mirror" (DW mix)
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Top Team Rater Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
i have a few comments about tone and delivery but something tells me they'd be more helpful as finishing touches unless you really want them now
 

DM

Ce soir, on va danser.
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnus
I'm agreeing 100% with Carl and Synre, they really touched on how I felt it when I read it.

Don't rewrite it TOO much.
 

Misty

oh
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Okay, I rewrote the last paragraph a bit, trying to make it a bit more "serious" and more in line with the rest of the essay.

In response to Cooltrainer20 - my intent is actually to *not* be argumentative, which is why I softened the initial paragraph. This article is not meant to start arguments, but rather to end them; and gentleness, I think, is necessary when doing this. I have attempted to be fair and balanced in my assessment and explanation of each argument and hopefully pre-answer any questions that a dissenting (and reasonable) reader may ask.
 

Jumpman16

np: Michael Jackson - "Mon in the Mirror" (DW mix)
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Top Team Rater Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
i still can't help but wonder if we can replace the word "elitist" in the smogon lexicon...while you dont have to remind me that it's not necessarily a bad thing, its connotations are mainly pejorative and that will never, ever change.

considering we're leading off this philosophy with such a tone, our readers may find it hard to separate our "warranted elitism" from a smug, "i'm right you're wrong" mentality. for a specific gripe:

"But it can be hard to grasp that [elitism] is often intended and, indeed, somewhat necessary"

nobody "intends" to be elitist for the sake of being elitist, that is dangerously misleading. we intend to help others to learn the best ways to be a competitive battler, and as a result we tend to come off elitist. that's different from actually trying to be elitist though — you can teach someone without being elitist about it.

that said i have a feeling that most of "us" won't have a problem with the elitist label so im probably preaching to the wrong group

edit very funny change my avatar back heatran sucks tia
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top