Please try to keep discussions on topic and civil, as discussion will be moderated. Any violators will be eaten by a Gogmazios.
Kudos if you get the reference.
We have met here today to discuss an unusual issue. A few gym leaders have recently attempted to join the qualifiers for other gyms, offering to drop their current gyms IF they win the qualifiers for the new gym. This has caused some debate, so I've moved the discussion over here.
For the main arguments, start with this thread, starting from about post 16 to post 24.
To summarize the main arguments: Frosty, after talking to the gym committee, decided that current gym leaders would have to drop their current gyms to participate in the qualifiers, regardless of if they won or lost. Birkal countered with several arguments opposing that.
On the pro-leader-participation side, the argument is that gym leaders should be able to change gyms if they qualify, as if they lost the qualifiers then they would have to requalify for their old gym, which bogs down the system. Additionally, there has been precedent where a gym leader has kept his gym until he earned the new one.
On the anti-leader-participation side, the argument is that if gym leaders keep changing gyms, then the new positions never really get filled, as each change ends in a zero-sum of open gyms. There's also some debate as to how "permanent" a gym position really is. Not to mention that since most gym leaders are veteran players with experience running monotype, there could be a slight skew in results towards the former leaders.
Some questions for thought:
1. Should Gym Leaders be able to keep their current gym while participating in qualifiers? Why or why not?
2. If the original ruling from Frosty stands, should the gym leader have to go through qualifiers again to obtain their original gym?
3. How do you believe qualifiers would be affected by gym leaders participating in them? Should there be a risk to their participation?
4. Is it our goal to have 18 Gym Leaders at some point in time?
NOTE: Please do not discuss Champion/E4 for this question, as it is irrelevant to this discussion.
Kudos if you get the reference.
We have met here today to discuss an unusual issue. A few gym leaders have recently attempted to join the qualifiers for other gyms, offering to drop their current gyms IF they win the qualifiers for the new gym. This has caused some debate, so I've moved the discussion over here.
For the main arguments, start with this thread, starting from about post 16 to post 24.
To summarize the main arguments: Frosty, after talking to the gym committee, decided that current gym leaders would have to drop their current gyms to participate in the qualifiers, regardless of if they won or lost. Birkal countered with several arguments opposing that.
On the pro-leader-participation side, the argument is that gym leaders should be able to change gyms if they qualify, as if they lost the qualifiers then they would have to requalify for their old gym, which bogs down the system. Additionally, there has been precedent where a gym leader has kept his gym until he earned the new one.
On the anti-leader-participation side, the argument is that if gym leaders keep changing gyms, then the new positions never really get filled, as each change ends in a zero-sum of open gyms. There's also some debate as to how "permanent" a gym position really is. Not to mention that since most gym leaders are veteran players with experience running monotype, there could be a slight skew in results towards the former leaders.
Some questions for thought:
1. Should Gym Leaders be able to keep their current gym while participating in qualifiers? Why or why not?
2. If the original ruling from Frosty stands, should the gym leader have to go through qualifiers again to obtain their original gym?
3. How do you believe qualifiers would be affected by gym leaders participating in them? Should there be a risk to their participation?
4. Is it our goal to have 18 Gym Leaders at some point in time?
NOTE: Please do not discuss Champion/E4 for this question, as it is irrelevant to this discussion.
Last edited:
