The entire reason for this argument right now is that what we're doing in this topic is really poorly defined. The main consequence of this now is that people are questioning each other's "ulterior motives" or whatever. It's pretty clear that this is just a matter of fundamental differences in opinion. Birkal, Theorymon, etc. generally want to give the CAP metagame more exposure to the rest of Smogon, while others like Rising_Dusk don't prioritize that goal. Conversely, Rising_Dusk wants to preserve the CAPs as they were as a testament to their processes, and keep the CAP community together, while his opponents don't prioritize that goal. The takeaway from this for me is that these goals do not actually contradict each other, but the measures that have been proposed may contradict one or the other. It's really disingenuous to belittle the other party's credentials (e.g. "notice how everyone who agrees with this is not really a battler") or motives (e.g. "you just don't want progress"). Wanting to do nothing doesn't mean one "doesn't care" about the CAP metagame, just as wanting to revise the CAPs doesn't mean one "doesn't care" about the historical value of the CAPs. But at this point there seems to be nothing left to do other than more clarification. So that's what I'm going to do. The way I see it, three main motives are in play here: Learn something from tinkering with the CAP metagame in some fashion Keep the flavour canon of the CAPs consistent Retain the historical value of CAPs where they are seen the most (which presumably is right on the CAP ladder) The currently proposed methods to achieve these goals can be summarized as follows: Do nothing. "Update" the CAPs. (i.e. Make minor changes to the CAPs so that they make more sense in this gen's canon) "Engineer" the CAPs. (i.e. Make changes to the CAPs for competitively relevant reasons for the purposes of experimentation) The proposal to make three CAP metagames attempts two or all three of these methods, but I see it as a clunky solution and a messy compromise. I think that it unnecessarily splits the playerbase just to have everyone satisfy themselves with their own versions of the solution. I think we can do a bit better than this. Again, I would like a new thread focusing on the revision policy itself before diving into any suggestions I might have, but as far as I see it, these are the issues and goals that the CAP community is working with as it currently stands.