I don't know where to post this, but I feel that this discussion needs to happen somewhere. Please move this if there is a place to put it. I'm noobcubed and I'm fairly well-involved with the Doubles metagame's C&C, with one published analysis, amchecks on many other analyses, and a couple more in the works until about a week ago, when I promised myself a break from Smogon until generation VI was properly up and running. However, curiosity pulled me back to see how my former analyses were going under new authors, and I came across a situation I had never seen before - the QC checks for an analysis were requesting that the analysis be reassigned due to the author's incompetence. (I refer to Kingler12345's Doubles Blaziken analysis for those who want to trawl through the wreckage.) Now, several times I have seen QCs rejecting analyses because the subject does not deserve an analysis; I have never seen a QC rejection due to shoddy work. I am not criticising either party here: I appreciate any willing input to the site, as I know that an analysis is hard work, what with testing, drafting, writing, and arguing over tiny details with QC and GP to make sure that the finished product is as polished as possible. Kingler is a tireless and eagle-eyed GP worker too. Likewise I thought that the QC members handled the situation tactfully, and I am fairly confident that relations have not been soured. My question then, is this: what is competence? Particularly: - How good a battler do you have to be to contribute? Is ability in the relevant metagame even necrssary? What are the relative values of battling skills and writing skills needed? - Who reads the analyses? What do they look for in an analysis? Does the analysis give them what they are looking for? Does it give them what they need? I'll illustrate the problems I have with some quotes from the QC checks: "Even after full checks by 3 full qc members... this still isn't at the level it needs to be." How good is good enough? No analyses are perfect. Isn't it good enough that the level of knowledge in the analysis is better than that of the people reading it? "QC is here to point out errors and biases in judgment in analyses, yes, but they can only do that to a certain extent before the writing becomes muddled and self-contradictory with no clear voice." I disagree. In my experience (one analysis!) a full write-up requires the input of at least ten people. Isn't it the author's job to combine the ideas of the contributors and his own views into something comprehensive and readable? (Personally, I hate the idea of ownership, and I would love to see a Wikipedia-style Smogon where anyone can edit the analyses, cutting out the ownership altogether. However, this isn't the place to discuss that.) "The bad news is you probably will never get enough experience through ladder play because the ladder is shit." Well this is just plain wrong. I learnt the metagame 99% by playing on the ladder. But, quite apart from this, there is something even more that I have an issue with: aren't the majority of people reading these analyses going to be ladder players (and probably mid-level ladder players looking to make a step up, say 1600 to 1700). So isn't the advice of a higher ladder player (1900, say) much more valuable? Isn't it even better when he gets the advice of a high-ranked ladder player mixed in with the insights of tournament players? In some respects, isn't it more useful for them than the advice of people who refuse to play on the ladder because it's "shit"? The only reason I can think of for QC rejection in the case of a viable, but poorly done, analysis, is the fact that the QCers don't like it when they read through it, because they would have written something different. But if it's still helpful for the people reading it, why can't these analyses stay? So in conclusion, I feel like the bar is set too high for new contributors. It is hard enough to find willing helpers - to expect them to immediately be competent writers isn't easy. The QC system already exists to stop subpar work getting through, so why does the main author have to be so proficient?