Putting My Foot Down

[Philip7086]

Recent events have been keeping me up at night. I currently have what is arguably the hardest (and most frustrating) job on Smogon, and I have been trying my best to be as fair as possible and listen to every opinion before making a decision. I have even put issues up to a vote, despite me knowing beforehand what the outcome would be and that said outcome would go against my fundamental beliefs about how we should play the game. I have done this because I put a lot of trust in the community to make the right decisions and to not abuse any results. Unfortunately, things have not gone this way. By deciding on a philosophy which allows us to make changes to the game's mechanics (even with subjective parameters like "on rare occasions" and "nothing drastic"), we have really opened up a can of worms. This philosophy opens the door to so many game changing possibilities, and the worst part is, every change now has a legitimate justification. We have turned Pokemon policy into something much more complicated than it already was, and I believe this philosophy change will end up costing each and every one of us gray hairs and countless hours of our lives. Every time we think to change something about the game, it will lead to an argument that will divide the community and cause a lot of commotion. At the end of the day we will find ourselves with a metagame in which hardly any users agree with every change (or lack of a change) made and almost everybody will be unhappy about SOMETHING. I do not want to see this happen.

I was put in charge to do what I think is best for the community. I will not sit around and watch as we continue to question every facet of the game in an attempt to make all the changes possible to make Pokemon more "competitive". As much as I hate the slippery slope argument, the fact that a significant alteration attempt (with good arguments backing it up) has already been made goes to show that this is a legitimate concern that should not be ignored. For the sake of making sure everything is clear and defined with no wiggle room for opinions on how to "improve" this game, I am putting my foot down and making this Smogon's philosophy regarding simulator and WiFi play:

Smogon is a website which focuses on competitive Pokemon battling. For the sake of creating the most balanced and competitive metagames possible, Smogon exercises its own set of rules, or clauses, and list of banned Pokemon who we find to be "broken" (as defined by our characteristics of a desirable metagame) in certain tiers. Smogon also endorses the use of online Pokemon battling simulators to play the game. Official Smogon simulators aim to directly imitate the mechanics of cartridge Pokemon battling to the best of our knowledge, with absolutely no exceptions.

If someone can do a better job at writing this up, I welcome that, but the underlying philosophy itself is not to be changed. My decision has nothing to do with what I feel is the "right" way of playing Pokemon through simulators, and I hope you have enough faith in me to just take my word for it when I say that. I made this decision with the sole intent of keeping things as simple as possible in terms of policy making, and therefore preventing any threat of "going too far" and unnecessary arguments in the future which might lead to a confused, angry, and divided community. Yes, I am doing this because I truly believe it is what's best for the community. With a strict and defined philosophy like this, there is no room for interpretation and no room for abuse. Besides, let's look at exactly what "controversial" things this philosophy entails:

Acid Weather

Yes, this philosophy would mean we have to deal with Acid Weather in DPP, but we're moving on to the 5th generation now which does not have Acid Weather anymore! This really should not be a big concern anymore, and the activation was rare in 4th generation play anyways. I do not view this mechanic, be it a glitch or not, to be a big deal.

Sleep Clause

Yes, this philosophy would mean we have to follow Cartridge Sleep Clause instead of Classic. Yes, I would likely make this clause as simple as possible, with only one exception: "If a Pokemon cannot switch and cannot change moves, it cannot break sleep clause". Is this change really that big of a deal? I don't think so. So now you can't spam sleep moves to save PP unless you want to be risky. So now you have to be more cautious about spamming a sleep move against a Pokemon like Blissey or Starmie who might not have Natural Cure. The only reason we're even considering these scenarios to be "bad" is because we have gotten used to how things were on previous simulators. Worried about misclicking and putting two Pokemon to sleep? Don't. I have already declared many times that the simulator may easily act as a judge, and therefore I will make sure a warning prompt pops up any time you are at risk of breaking sleep clause with a selected move. Is it really a struggle to not use bad strategies like Assist with a Pokemon in your party who knows a sleep move, or Metronome? Is it REALLY that hard for you to not use Magic Coat against a Pokemon who can learn a sleep move after you've already put an opposing Pokemon to sleep? Every one of these arguments are very ridiculous if you ask me, and I doubt most players will see such strategies used successfully in their lifetime. The ONLY legitimate concern I have seen is a Choice item sleeper Pokemon like Scarf Breloom becoming risky because someone can switch Dugtrio in on the sleep move and force a forfeit, which has been taken care of by the only exception to the rule. Besides, once a fully updated stadium game is released which supports a sleep clause like Classic Sleep Clause, then we can easily justify adopting it.

Let's be honest, these two issues are the core reasons of why Smogon needed a philosophy on whether or not it strictly follows in-game mechanics to begin with. Can you honestly tell me you're legitimately concerned that you might be forced to forfeit a match by your opponent "making" you put two Pokemon to sleep? Give me a break. Are you willing to sacrifice hours upon hours in future debates about how far we should go to correct Pokemon and make it more "competitive", or dealing with everybody's interpretation of what our philosophy allows us to do, just so that you don't have to worry about being forced to forfeit a match (which probably will never even happen anyways if you're a smart player)? The benefits of opening our philosophy up to allow tweaks to mechanics are severely outweighed by the costs.

I realize that this decision will likely make a lot of users angry, and I'll probably be one of the least liked users on Smogon for it. However, like I said, I was put in this position to do what I think is best for Smogon. The most popular decision is not always the right one, and I would be betraying my duties if I did not act on this. I refuse to lead Pokemon policy on Smogon if I am forced to do it in a way that I believe would be detrimental to the community. If the community completely disagrees with me here and feels like it is in fact me that is being detrimental by pushing my views on them, then I can accept that and am willing to step down and put the reins in the hands of the next most qualified user. I usually hate ultimatums like this, but I firmly believe that if I cannot elicit the community's trust in the fact that I'm making the best decision for the for them, then I'm not the right person for the job.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

<3 Phil.

Never has a better decision been made.

 

[Umbreon Dan]

this thread is what the luvdisc button exists for

 

[Great Sage]

I supported Phil posting this.

It's all fine and good that everyone gets a shot to be heard. However, everyone needs to realize that at the end of the day, a decision must be made, and that decision will not necessarily please everyone. This is particularly difficult in cases where both sides have good arguments; a good argument is not an entitlement to anything. There are cases such as this when it becomes expedient to make a decision that is not in accordance with the popular will. If you disagree with your decision, that is your prerogative. However, hold off on the hasty condemnations of tyrant, autocrat, or even kakistocrat. Any progress is better than hours of useless, cyclical bickering.

 

[Firestorm]

I am very happy with this decision. I was going to say in one of those topics, the more Smogon drifts away from the mechanics of the cartridge, the more irrelevant Smogon was going to become in the wider community. Policy Review members may play primarily on simulators, but the majority of the Pokemon fanbase does not. Even on our site the WiFi section sees by far the most amount of traffic. All these players use Smogon rules and the website for guidance. It felt like we were getting to the point where none of what we wrote was going to be applicable to those players. Not specifically Acid Weather or Classic Sleep Clause, but some of the talk has been worrying.

For Acid Weather, can we add Cherrim and Castform to the Gen 4 Self-KO Clause as was discussed on IRC a while back so that the player who sends it out in Acid Sun or Hail and thus making the game unable to continue take the loss? Or should this be for another thread?

 

[Iconic]

I don't really understand the proposed exception for Cartridge Sleep Clause. Having a Pokemon not break Sleep Clause if it cannot switch out or cannot switch moves is no different than implementing Classic Sleep Clause, as it still changes in-game mechanics. I personally think that if we're going to adopt Cartridge Sleep Clause on the basis of maintaining consistency with the actual game itself, this "clause within the clause" should be scrapped, or else we may as well be using Classic Sleep Clause.

Regardless, I trust your judgement Phil and I support what you're doing despite being slightly disappointed after voting with the other 70%. I think I speak for most people, however, when I say you're doing a commendable job in handling such an arduous task.

Just to clarify, this isn't one of those "Phil is the man!" posts, but rather my point is that if this is what it takes for us to go anywhere with PR in Gen 5, I'm okay with it. I do agree with loco and Jabba in that I'm disappointed that the supermajority was disregarded, but at the end of the day Sleep Clause is so minor that I don't think it's worth the months wasted debating it. Given the opportunity though, I'd be overwhelmingly in favor of the poll format for decision making.

EDIT: SDS, I was under the impression that the second Sleep move would fail, so my mistake there. Although I'm not a big fan of it, since having a Sleep Clause in which a scenario where two Pokemon can be put to sleep is possible makes the clause obsolete in my opinion, I guess it still adheres to in-game mechanics. However, doesn't forcing the opponent to switch on the third sleep move alter these mechanics? The whole idea opens a can of worms that overcomplicates the clause, which is why I've been a proponent to Classic Sleep Clause. Either that or straight Cartridge Sleep Clause would be ideal I feel, as the only negative consequence would be that it punishes users for using Choiced Sleep moves or a Sleep move against a Pokemon which can use Encore. The responsibility really should lie on the user of the Sleep move.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

Iconic: Think of it this way: If you trap a Pokemon encored or choiced into a Sleep move and then switch out, you will have 2 Pokemon asleep, but your opponent will not forfeit. Example: Your opponent uses Spore with Scarf Breloom as Dugtrio switches in. If you then switch to Tyranitar and it also gets slept, your opponent will not forfeit, you'll just have 2 Pokemon put to sleep as a consequence of choosing to switch out of a trapped Sleep-locked Pokemon. However, once they are able to switch, they are obligated to switch out instead of putting a third Pokemon to sleep. It's irrelevant, since in the long run Dugtrio is better off just killing Breloom by either forcing it to Struggle or spamming a move until it wakes up. It doesn't violate mechanics, since it doesn't stop the move from being used, it just prevents the opponent from gaming the system for a win with a trapper.

It's a good change, and one I was actually going to suggest.

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

Sorry I'm just really disappointed as this just comes across as a big "fuck you" to 70% of policy review members. I don't want to go over the top like I would have just a few weeks ago and I saw this coming from a mile away really. But I'm just disappointed it had to go down like this and I really don't support this decision at all.

There was a major poll. We were exploring our options following that poll. A general consensus was being reached. Then the rug was pulled out from under us and now we can't even discuss these things on what is pretty much the whim of one person. After the whole you know what debacle i thought we were past things like this. Once again I'm disappointed.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

So you think the best thing do is ignore what ~70% of policy makers wanted and make an entire metagame in the way that 30% of users want? It sounds like you should step down, because you obviously aren't ready to lead the community as a whole if you're willing to alienate that many people. This is exactly why more than one person needs to be put "in charge" of pokemon policy- so that decisions as unpopular as this one don't get forced upon 70% of users. I honestly can't believe that the few users who don't play the game are being allowed to weigh the community down so heavily.

Whether you support this decision or not, this was an absolutely terrible way of going about it. It will be the same as what is happening right now, and we won't have to pretend like the users have any say in their metagame. This is the opposite of what we needed when we appointed someone to head up the decision making process. We even had a supermajority against using 100% game mechanics, which is apparently infallible when discussing things in PR.

"Putting your foot down" doesn't do much of anything when the problems you're trying to stamp out don't exist. There is no slippery slope, and I'm pretty sure the overwhelming 90%+ majority against removing crits says that we are quite capable of dealing with things ourselves. The "costs" you say that come with making our own rules are made up. We're here for fun, not to satisfy the needs of pedantic ideologues that don't play the game. We've been tinkering with the rules for more than 4 generations of pokemon now, suddenly changing this is not to be taken as lightly as you are taking it.

The only people saying they support this decision are the ones who voted for 100% game mechanics.

Do you want to know the real slippery slope? Letting one person dictate policy in the game that thousands of people play. Philip just made a slippery slope by ignoring everyone for what he wants. If he can ignore people about game mechanics, whats stopping him from ignoring people with clauses? or with ban lists? Where do we draw the line between what Philip wants and what the community wants?

 

[locopoke]

Are you honestly going to ignore the polls in which the majority of Policy Review members voted to deviate from the cartridge mechanics in certain cases? You could have at least saved us the time of voting in a poll if you were going to end up making the decisions on your own in the end anyway. Ignoring what the majority wants and deciding policy on your own definitely isn't in the best interest of the community. I thought this was the exact reason why we were opposed to Cathy leading Pokemon policy.

 

[Synre]

This post is sort of of questionable value since I'm not really jumping in on the issue so much as giving commentary, but...

Seriously, Phil. Either ask for public opinion or don't. Nothing good comes out of allowing a poll and then overriding a majority decision. Either shut it down early because you don't want the issue on the floor, or don't allow a vote to begin with. Of course, in this case it's particularly amazing because you actually made the topic to ask for PR's opinion to begin with and then completely disregarded it anyway. You pretty much held out a carrot and then pulled it away as a majority of this forum was grabbing it.

I won't be voting in the future. Little point in bothering if it doesn't count anyway.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I didn't vote on the pole, since frankly I think both options in that pole were "splitting hairs" in regards to pokemon, and you are all (both sides) blowing this issue out of proportion.

That said, and I will remind you all of this:

In both IS and PR there was a unanimous consensus that Smogon lacked direction and leadership since chaos left-- that we needed someone to come in and put their foot down so we could move forward.

We picked someone. We backed Doug, and we all backed Doug's decision to follow Phil on Policy Review.


It's easy to cheer and applaud when a leader is decided, but it's absolute bullshit to jeer and oppose when he goes and does EXACTLY what we asked him to!

I think this is good that this happened so we can really talk about Smogon decision making here. Are we as a group actually willing to follow the leaders we say we'll follow, even when he makes unpopular decisions, or are we actually just going to argue out everything?

 

[The Grand Babido]

Yeah, I am kinda annoyed that we actually have the ability to voice our opinions in PR, and then in the end they don't matter at all...

I respect your judgement Phil, but I am unsure whether that this really is the best decision.

 

[lilyhollow]

This is a really great decision and a really great OP, I completely agree with everything that you said and support this fully.

Jrrrrrrr, a community poll suggested, pretty decisively, that we needn't start gen 5 with a banlist--a decision that was just as decisively reversed by a PR-exclusive poll. Clearly the community does not always, or even often, fall completely in line with the opinions of the Policy Review forum. This isn't the only reason you are wrong, of course, since it's entirely possible to make an unpopular decision that benefits the community in the long run, but the point is that your entire premise that "how dare you make an unpopular decision" is horrible and unsupported to begin with.

You could have at least saved us the time of voting in a poll

I'm sorry, but who do you think you are?

 

[Heysup]

The Poll results were used. We tried it out, and it was proven that we, as a community, were kind of wrong about the whole thing.

In case some of you forgot, someone posted a PR thread about critical hits with some serious intents of removing them from the game. This is factual evidence that the people who voted yes in the polls (I wasn't one of them) were actually right - people are going to throw common sense out the window and post absurd shit about changing the game. We have people starting to actually change the game, not for convenience or in a practical sense.

This is actually why we have Phil here. He needs to have the ability to tell us all to shut the fuck up if we are doing something absurd. If you're upset about the way this was handled, I'm sorry you feel that way, but you can direct your anger to the critical hit thread because that was essentially the "last straw".

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Jrrrrrrr, a community poll suggested, pretty decisively, that we needn't start gen 5 with a banlist--a decision that was just as decisively reversed by a PR-exclusive poll. Clearly the community does not always, or even often, fall completely in line with the opinions of the Policy Review forum.

That was a horribly flawed poll, which was pointed out on the first page of the thread but allowed to continue anyways. I would have personally voted for no banlist over the "yes" option, which was a mystery banlist that nobody knew at the time.

This isn't the only reason you are wrong, of course, since it's entirely possible to make an unpopular decision that benefits the community in the long run, but the point is that your entire premise that "how dare you make an unpopular decision" is horrible and unsupported to begin with.

Ignoring the blatant condescension, I am not only upset with the decision, I am also upset in how the decision was made. He put up a poll because he wanted our opinions on the topic, then after getting a supermajority, he ignored the opinions anyways. There's honestly no point in anything this forum has ever done if we're going to leave everything up to one person.

I'm sorry, but who do you think you are?

Maybe he thinks he's one of the >66% of people who got their opinions ignored in the other topic?

In case some of you forgot, someone posted a PR thread about critical hits with some serious intents of removing them from the game. This is factual evidence that the people who voted yes in the polls (I wasn't one of them) were actually right. We have people starting to actually change the game, not for convenience or in a practical sense.

No, it is factual evidence that this PR subforum is more than capable of exercising common sense when making policy decisions. 7% of users voted to ban critical hits, most of which don't play the game but voted on philosophical reasons. It should be noted that 7% is almost exactly the same chance as getting a critical hit, which most people would consider an anomaly in Pokemon. Most of the people posting in that topic were outraged that someone would even consider eliminating crits. We don't have a slippery slope. It just amazes me that Phil would put his foot down here instead of in the Evasion/Sleep/OHKO/Species voting polls, I honestly don't have any words for the audacity of the decision. This is exactly why so many badged members have been leaving recently.

 

[Deck Knight]

I support Phil in this.

What the hell kind of forum is Policy Review going to be if every time a new Gen comes out, everyone who ever complained about Hax is going to make us vote on whether or not we like critical hits?

Our flagship metagame mechanics are not a matter of what we like, it's a matter of what is in Pokemon. If you want to play Psuedo-Pokemon with no crits and no "hax" then go and build a simulator with those mehcanics changes and go and do that.

Point blank we should be discussing which elements of Pokemon as they exist should be in and out of our flagship metagame. This means moves with high crit rates have those crit rates, Shadow Tag traps everything except Shadow Tag and Shed Shell users, Light Ball double's Pikachu's offensive stats, OHKO moves OHKO, Evasion Moves boost Evasion, and on and on. Either we exclude something because of its mechanics or we keep it in as it exists rather than change its mechanical characteristics.

As to the 70/30 thing? Yeah, that's a) just who was allowed in Policy Review and b) was believed by most people to address crap like Acid Weather, not critical hits. I sincerely doubt the 72 people who voted for us not diliberately following cartridge mechanics envisioned we'd be whining about critical hits when they voted.

 

[Ulevo]

I'm supportive of Philip in his decision, and I think it's the right one. People here will be sour about it now, but it will prevent situations like this from resurfacing in the future.

For those of you who are proposing that Philip basically ignored the wishes of 70% of the voting pool in Policy Review, I'd like to add that the poll was tallied under false implications to begin with. Maybe I'm incorrect in assuming this, but I don't believe even half of those voters would have voted against complete adherence to the cartridge if it weren't for the fact that it would directly violate our ability to implement classic Sleep Clause.

You could have at least saved us the time of voting in a poll if you were going to end up making the decisions on your own in the end anyway.

I feel it is necessary to note that Philip wouldn't have had to ignore the poll vote in the first place if the Policy Review members accepted the terms of the poll result. With all the controversial debate spawned from the creation of this thread I think it is fairly obvious that wasn't the case. I'm not sure what else you should really be expecting.

I saw this happening the moment the poll reached a conclusion, and it wasn't because I lacked faith in Philips decision making. It was because I knew the community would take the terms and conditions of the policy for granted, and that is what happened.

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

The Poll results were used. We tried it out, and it was proven that we, as a community, were kind of wrong about the whole thing.

In case some of you forgot, someone posted a PR thread about critical hits with some serious intents of removing them from the game. This is factual evidence that the people who voted yes in the polls (I wasn't one of them) were actually right - people are going to throw common sense out the window and post absurd shit about changing the game. We have people starting to actually change the game, not for convenience or in a practical sense.

This is actually why we have Phil here. He needs to have the ability to tell us all to shut the fuck up if we are doing something absurd. If you're upset about the way this was handled, I'm sorry you feel that way, but you can direct your anger to the critical hit thread because that was essentially the "last straw".

Can I just reiterate once again that there were a whopping 7 people that wanted to get rid of crits. 7 people. There are always outliers in a large group who want to do things drastically. Just because there are outliers does not allow for such a drastic response as this. It seems more like an opportune excuse rather than legitimate reasoning if you ask me.

 

[Synre]

The only people saying they support this decision are the ones who voted for 100% game mechanics.

jrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr said a lot of stuff that was unnecessarily extreme that I don't agree with, but quoting this for emphasis, because while not true in every situation, it is certainly true for the majority of the people posting here and on IRC.

The Poll results were used. We tried it out, and it was proven that we, as a community, were kind of wrong about the whole thing.

In case some of you forgot, someone posted a PR thread about critical hits with some serious intents of removing them from the game. This is factual evidence that the people who voted yes in the polls (I wasn't one of them) were actually right - people are going to throw common sense out the window and post absurd shit about changing the game. We have people starting to actually change the game, not for convenience or in a practical sense.

And if even 20 or 30 percent of the posters in that thread had voted to remove critical hits I wouldn't have any posts in this thread. 92.71% of the people who responded voted against it. Only seven people thought it was a good idea, which included someone who was pretty obviously making a point in order to get the result in this topic to happen and another who recently made a serious PR post referencing anime battles to try to justify competitive Pokemon policy. It wasn't reasonable posters who were supporting that to begin with and it wasn't even close. A handful of people making a ridiculous topic does not justify a policy change, especially considering that, contrary to what I bolded in the above quote, the system worked perfectly here. Some people had a bad idea. It was shot down by the majority of the people in this forum because it was a bad idea. That's what's supposed to happen.

In case you forgot, we didn't unimplement CHs.

 

[locopoke]

I feel it is necessary to note that Philip wouldn't have had to ignore the poll vote in the first place if the Policy Review members accepted the terms of the poll result. With all the controversial debate spawned from the creation of this thread I think it is fairly obvious that wasn't the case. I'm not sure what else you should really be expecting.

Why should the fact that that thread was created matter at all? If anything, the results of that poll prove that classic sleep clause isn't a slippery slope and that we can safely tweak certain game mechanics to improve competitiveness without going "over the line".

 

[Huy]

I fully support my boy Phil in his decision.

Just because we play our own metagame does not mean that we should be changing the game mechanics. Our job should be to accurately simulate in-game mechanics so that we don't end up with a situation like

This was the point in the game I developed a brilliant end-game strategy: get the Choice Scarf back onto Metagross to give it speed back, blow up on his Pokémon and walk away with the champion plaque.

This is what really happened: “Choice Scarf only allows the use of Trick!”

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

I didn't think Metagross would be locked into Trick at all. I guess I'm too used to buggy Shoddybattle.

this all over again. What sense does it make to play with made-up mechanics?

As for the 70/30 thing: Okay so like 50 people out of a few thousand people that make up the entire smogon community voted on it and apparently the majority is being ignored? By changing the game mechanics we would be alienating one of the biggest parts of the site -- WiFi. Why is there a need to make this gap even bigger? WiFi is severely underrepresented in PR. There is a whopping 0.8 percent of PR users who are WiFiers.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

As for the 70/30 thing: Okay so like 50 people out of a few thousand people voted on it and apparently the majority is being ignored? By changing the game mechanics we would be alienating one of the biggest parts of the site -- WiFi. Why is there a need to make this gap even bigger?

We've been playing with classic sleep clause and without acid rain for years, and wifi is the biggest part of the site. This "gap" doesn't even exist.

 

[Deck Knight]

We didn't unimplement CH's, but there's still the matter of "and other elements of hax" which have yet to be brought up (but were in the topic title so).

Point being that it's too open-ended when people construe "not neccesarilly conforming to catridge" to "conformance need not apply." Yes, the CHs were defeated and Phil closed the thread.

Then obi reopened it with more arguments after the overwhelming defeat. So is Phil in charge or isn't he? There is clearly an undercurrent that believes we can still play competitive Pokemon if we remove elements of the game we find undesirable, no matter how much it makes our metagame deviate from what we will face in tournaments.

Can we really call ourselves a competitive Pokemon site if we ban critical hits? Really? Is that going to be the case in Wifi or in tournaments? Of course it isn't. It has no precedent in the games, and it just sets a bad example.

I don't actually see Phil saying anything about you not making any more relevant topics on clauses/moves/Pokemon, provided we implement them in ways that have precendent (which only applied for clauses really). Nowhere does Phil state he is Smogon's new God, nor is he trying to lord his position over us and claim our contributions are irrelvant or dated.

 

[LonelyNess]

I just want to say how disappointed I am that we go through a 3 week long debate, have a vote of all the policy review members, wind up with a decision that a supermajority of the policy makers agree on, and then have it just up and overturned because of a vocal superminority.

Way to waste all of our time and effort. =\