Whether or not it was unfair by your standards really doesnt matter. The illegal movesets were allowed and nobody wanted them.
If someone puts up a separate ladder with these allowed, what exactly would this be trying to prove? How would it be proven? What evidence would we need to determine whether or not some moveset is broken or not? These are things we should determine beforehand to prevent even more arguments from coming up.
I agree with X-Act, otherwise what basis would there be for Shoddy forcing all illegal IV combinations to be illegal?
Anyway, upon doing more research into this, I found that the Mimic Glitch allows any Pokemon with Mimic to get any moveset they want.
lolme on page 1 said:If we allow this glitch to be used, then we should allow 99% of the 3rd gen Pokemon, Chatot, Mime, Jr, to learn every move in the game, because there's a Japanese glitch that involves Mimic -> Transform -> KO = Learn whatever moves you want
I already responded to this sort of reasoning:My stance on this is that something that was not intended to be in the game should not be in the game, even if it's not broken.
Author intentionality never matters, and the very concept seems to unravel when you give it anything more than a cursory glance.About glitches in general, I will say this: What makes something a glitch? Is it the lack of intention? Let's suppose that pokemon X can kill pokemon Y in one hit with Ice Beam. Did Nintendo intend this? Did they sit down and say "let's make the game mechanics such that pokemon X can kill pokemon Y in one hit with Ice Beam"? I doubt it. Instead, they sat down and developed a damage formula and this is merely a consequence of that. Let's consider something like this Ditto glitch. Did they sit down and say "let's make all combinations of egg moves possible"? I doubt it. But they did develop game mechanics that directly led to this being possible. In both cases what we mean by "intent" is actually indirect and irrelevant. That something is a "glitch" is a designation based purely on intuition and does not play into whether something should be banned.
If this glitch is the same one as the one that allows you to get every move on these pokemon then it is clearly broken (I was originally told they were not the same glitch).
...and you might as well be hacking if a pokemon is going to have any egg move it wants in the entire game.
Who draws the line regarding which glitch that doesn't exist anymore is acceptable and which glitch that doesnt exist anymore is unacceptable?
If so, then you can have those moves on the pokemon, but it'll never be alive to use them anyway.
Author intentionality never matters, and the very concept seems to unravel when you give it anything more than a cursory glance.
Actually, I already developed the argument why it doesn't matter:You keep saying this. What you're saying implicitly is that author intentionality never matters to you, Colin. It clearly matters to a lot of us here. It seems as though you're hoping that if you state your opinion often and with enough conviction, it will become fact.
Rather than paste this repeatedly I thought it would be simpler just to repeat the final point of it. But I'll be sure in the future to copy the text from all of my earlier posts in a topic into each new post.About glitches in general, I will say this: What makes something a glitch? Is it the lack of intention? Let's suppose that pokemon X can kill pokemon Y in one hit with Ice Beam. Did Nintendo intend this? Did they sit down and say "let's make the game mechanics such that pokemon X can kill pokemon Y in one hit with Ice Beam"? I doubt it. Instead, they sat down and developed a damage formula and this is merely a consequence of that. Let's consider something like this Ditto glitch. Did they sit down and say "let's make all combinations of egg moves possible"? I doubt it. But they did develop game mechanics that directly led to this being possible. In both cases what we mean by "intent" is actually indirect and irrelevant. That something is a "glitch" is a designation based purely on intuition and does not play into whether something should be banned.
I don't intend on implementing this change anytime soon (if ever). Aldaron just brought it up in the main chat and I thought it deserved broader discussion.But none of this seems to matter to you. And since it doesn't matter to you and you have control over the main Shoddy server, why don't you just implement your suggested change? There's no point in us talking about it if you've already made a decision. I strongly doubt that any of us is going to convince you that this is a bad idea on the grounds of author intent.
Actually, I already developed the argument why it doesn't matter:
Let's consider another implication of this focus on intent. Suppose that in the next version of DP ("Platinum") some learnsets are switched around, so that a pokemon can no longer learn a move it can learn in Diamond and Pearl. You could trade it over. However, since this move was removed, it was clearly unintentional and should hence be banned from all future play. Right?
In pokemon, maybe (though I think it's a mistake to ban gliches per se as they aren't a real category of things, as I've shown above).The precedent in pokemon and video games in general is that glitches are not allowed, as zerowing pointed out.
Reasonable games have built-in rules and simply do not allow illegal moves to happen in the first place. Tournaments for reasonable games sometimes have to impose extra rules, but they keep this list as clear and as short as possible. There are games that are just for “fun,” because you can’t “win” them or make reasonable tournaments out of them. These games—while interesting—are not within the scope of this book.
A player should use any tournament legal move available to him that maximizes his chances of winning the game.