"Slippery Slope" tends to be a logical fallacy, though. It's not a good foundation for your objections.
-
The moderators of this forum can be found in the CAP forum staff directory.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
EVO 1 - Process Vote
- Thread starter DougJustDoug
- Start date
- Status
"Slippery Slope" tends to be a logical fallacy, though. It's not a good foundation for your objections.
Firstly, there is no proof of fanboy-whatsoever being the dominant factor, or even being a problem in the project. Without that, why did we decide to go this route? Not only that, but "attempting to do the pokemon justice" is equal parts fanboyism to whatver you may be asserting.
Second, there is no fix for fanboyism. So, we decide to redo this project. Then what? Ban Farfetch'd from ever being chosen as a pokemon to be evolved? Then the fanboys will never get the chance to evolve their Duck Samurai :P, and cheers to all?
Using color tags to obscure part of your post is stupid. It's a good reason to quote posts.
Also, no it isn't. Doug and darkie still want to maintain order, they aren't going to let total mayhem overtake future EVO processes. This is a special case. I love how everyone argued that this was disrespectful to them but now people are implyign they are a) giving preferential treatment b) going to do this in the future.
Because, at least in my mind, we are using the same exact process for EVO that is used for CAP. I am 100% certain that if we restart, there will be no more major problems like this. The CAP process has not had any major failures, and I trust that Darkie+ will know how to adapt those to the EVO project.
The main problem was, this was not started the same way as CAPs are.
Here is how the last CAP was started.
Here how is how the EVO project started.
See a difference?
You're right, it's still early. But if it does turn out that over half the community thinks we made a mistake, will you agree that a restart is in the best interests of the community and the project as a whole?
I guess I don't understand CaP and EVO, so feel free to strike my vote please, but are we supposed to be evolving pokémon with the goal of a healthier, less centralized metagame? Is that the purpose of CaP and EVO?
Yeah, I don't really have any room to stand on here. Sorry.
Yeah, I don't really have any room to stand on here. Sorry.
I'm not going to bring in the fact that I don't agree with you. I'm just wondering where was everyone when the thread was brought back up? It seemed that at one point, Doug, eric the espeon, and I were the only ones seriously working on it. Everyone seemed more concerned with what Pokemon should be eligible.
What everyone also needs to get is that unless we have a "registered voting" system of some sort, there will always be new people registering and blindly voting with no clue whats going on. Thats basically what caused this whole mess: uninformed voters. This is basically the second time we've had a problem with this (First time was the mass alts.). I brought it up around CAP 4. Nobody wanted it. Can we take another look at it?
EDIT:
RB Golbat said:
Thats how it was designed, for that exact same reason. The CAP project hasn't had any major failure, save the alts. Its relitively stable. The start is always the hardest part, since we start with nothing. However, we're starting with something in an evolution; In theory it should have been easier to kick off.
Ok, people seem to think I should vote, so I will, but I am going to give a lot of reasoning..
Firstly I dont want a Farfetch'd evo. I just dont like the idea, I like Farfetch'd as he is. He is the classic rubbish pokemon and always has been. Some pokemon have to suck, and Farfetch'd is those pokemon's idol. And I love how he relishes the role, always puffing out his chest and carrying a leek.. He is just cool. An evo would not be..
I also generally like to see the right decision being made, even if it means totally screwing up a lot of work, or just making a mess of things. I dont care what kind of message it sends, I just want to see the right decision made.
So I am going to vote to recount, because I think Farfetch'd is the wrong decision, just because it is Farfetch'd. If it was Fearow or Dodrio I'd totally be behind this. Because making a flying/fighting poke doesnt really seem to me to be an urgently bad decision. It will be an interesting change to the metagame, it may not entirely be in line with the original goals of the evo project, but like I mentioned before I dont care. I don't see why an evo shouldnt be a new type if that's what people want. I also dont see why if you think Torkoal would be a better choice you can't just wait till next time.. The only reason I feel that there should be urgency in this case is because I specifically dont want to see a Farfetch'd evo. I dont think the majority of you agree with me.. And if you dont you should probably be voting to stick with what you've done. Unless there's something I'm missing?
Have a nice day.
Firstly I dont want a Farfetch'd evo. I just dont like the idea, I like Farfetch'd as he is. He is the classic rubbish pokemon and always has been. Some pokemon have to suck, and Farfetch'd is those pokemon's idol. And I love how he relishes the role, always puffing out his chest and carrying a leek.. He is just cool. An evo would not be..
I also generally like to see the right decision being made, even if it means totally screwing up a lot of work, or just making a mess of things. I dont care what kind of message it sends, I just want to see the right decision made.
So I am going to vote to recount, because I think Farfetch'd is the wrong decision, just because it is Farfetch'd. If it was Fearow or Dodrio I'd totally be behind this. Because making a flying/fighting poke doesnt really seem to me to be an urgently bad decision. It will be an interesting change to the metagame, it may not entirely be in line with the original goals of the evo project, but like I mentioned before I dont care. I don't see why an evo shouldnt be a new type if that's what people want. I also dont see why if you think Torkoal would be a better choice you can't just wait till next time.. The only reason I feel that there should be urgency in this case is because I specifically dont want to see a Farfetch'd evo. I dont think the majority of you agree with me.. And if you dont you should probably be voting to stick with what you've done. Unless there's something I'm missing?
Have a nice day.
A) The purpose of this poll is not for people to determine whether the pokemon is a legitimate target for evolution. The poll is to determine the value of the process.
B) We would have many chances to "make right decisions" because if the process had not been derailed at this stage we would have many more EVO projects planned.
C)
I agree
D) You too.
I voted firmly "yes". In light of the arguments for why Farfetch'd would be a poor choice (and, to a lesser extent, the presentation of a better candidate), restarting the poll is the best option.
There's one other thing I'd like to emphasize. We should be very careful about whatever changes we make to the process guide. I've seen a number of very unsettling comments so far - "the best time to revise it is once you've done it", "we shouldn't throw out the work of everyone else", "we'll learn from our mistakes once we're done", "we should follow the process to be fair to everyone". By themselves, they seem innocent enough, but once you put them into context, it becomes very apparent that these aren't characteristic of strong-minded thinking that is bound by a reasoned process in which we have confidence in and seeks the best possible route at all times, but of weak-minded thinking that simply follows the process because it's there and isn't ready to do differently.
It rings even more true when you consider all the unfair criticism aimed at gorm ("why didn't you say anything earlier?" and some of the snipets from above). Making changes to the process guide will not address this problem. We don't need a guideline to tell us we can make a change mid-way if we realize we made a mistake. That's preposterous. (and ffs, all of you need to stop worrying about irrelevant shit like "precedents")
I know I'm echoing gorm now, but I can't help it. Some of you just don't seem to "get it".
There's one other thing I'd like to emphasize. We should be very careful about whatever changes we make to the process guide. I've seen a number of very unsettling comments so far - "the best time to revise it is once you've done it", "we shouldn't throw out the work of everyone else", "we'll learn from our mistakes once we're done", "we should follow the process to be fair to everyone". By themselves, they seem innocent enough, but once you put them into context, it becomes very apparent that these aren't characteristic of strong-minded thinking that is bound by a reasoned process in which we have confidence in and seeks the best possible route at all times, but of weak-minded thinking that simply follows the process because it's there and isn't ready to do differently.
It rings even more true when you consider all the unfair criticism aimed at gorm ("why didn't you say anything earlier?" and some of the snipets from above). Making changes to the process guide will not address this problem. We don't need a guideline to tell us we can make a change mid-way if we realize we made a mistake. That's preposterous. (and ffs, all of you need to stop worrying about irrelevant shit like "precedents")
I know I'm echoing gorm now, but I can't help it. Some of you just don't seem to "get it".
Yeah, that was my point, I dont see anything wrong with the process. But I am just the sort of dude who will vote that the process should be changed because I didnt like the outcome.
I am not sure what point your point B is refering to.
And thanks!
[edit] - yeah, I also was under the impression that the process wouldnt be changed, it would just be restarted with more emphasis being placed on the difference between an EVO and a CAP project. Or will there be a legitimate change in process that I missed?
I am not sure what point your point B is refering to.
And thanks!
[edit] - yeah, I also was under the impression that the process wouldnt be changed, it would just be restarted with more emphasis being placed on the difference between an EVO and a CAP project. Or will there be a legitimate change in process that I missed?
I haven't posted here since Revenankh's creation and don't want to vote on this, but I wanted to point out something:
darkie voted to restart the poll.
The Topic Leader for the project actually voted to restart the poll. Shouldn't that be reason enough to start over because the TL wants to start over?
After all, the TL can create whatever secondary/spillover polls s/he deems necessary. Shouldn't restarting a poll also be within the TL's discretion?
Then again, darkie also voted for Houndoom. Hmm...
That brings up an interesting point. Why should the Topic Leader be allowed to vote in the polls if s/he can decide to restart it? One would hope that the TL would be reasonable in restarting a poll, but there's a potential conflict of interest here. Hmm...
Anyway, there's the point of view of a curious outsider. Take it as you will. I have no opinion on whether the poll should be restarted or not. (I actually changed my mind as I was typing this post.) Still, this situation looks from here to have already turned into a huge mess...
darkie voted to restart the poll.
The Topic Leader for the project actually voted to restart the poll. Shouldn't that be reason enough to start over because the TL wants to start over?
After all, the TL can create whatever secondary/spillover polls s/he deems necessary. Shouldn't restarting a poll also be within the TL's discretion?
Then again, darkie also voted for Houndoom. Hmm...
That brings up an interesting point. Why should the Topic Leader be allowed to vote in the polls if s/he can decide to restart it? One would hope that the TL would be reasonable in restarting a poll, but there's a potential conflict of interest here. Hmm...
Anyway, there's the point of view of a curious outsider. Take it as you will. I have no opinion on whether the poll should be restarted or not. (I actually changed my mind as I was typing this post.) Still, this situation looks from here to have already turned into a huge mess...
Could you please explain to me why the process should not start off like CAP? What benefits would it gain? Personally, I think that just naming the pokemon to be evolved is not enough and that some good reason should be given to justify why you chose it. To my knowledge, was not done to the same extent that is done in the CAP. That is the most important part of the process, but it ended up to be just one giant clusterf*** this time.
All I am saying is we need more concrete reasons like gorm used in his Camerupt post. Those are very convincing and would make people think more before voting on a poke.
I don't really care whether Farfetch'd or Houndoom wins the poll. I voted Houndoom because I thought there was more substantial, competitive arguments for it [plus Houndoom won the coin toss ;)].
I voted to restart the poll because it was inherently flawed. In my opinion, I made a mistake; I was far too lenient in allowing support.
I voted to restart the poll because it was inherently flawed. In my opinion, I made a mistake; I was far too lenient in allowing support.
Because in most cases the Pokemon up for evolution already had a role/niche, save really crappy stuff like Spinda, Unown, Ditto, Castform, and Farfetch'd. That was a mistake, overlooking those. However, when helping make the list of Pokemon to evolve, I tried to make objective criteria, even though I was subjectively selecting them.
As for the fact that there should have been more justification, darkie has said that he didn't moderate the thread enough. People gave concrete reasons, however, bandwagoning won in the end.
Well this certainly is an interesting turn of events. The major proponent for Farfetch I debated against concerning EVO project goals has suddenly turned 180 and now is speaking for a more competitve, rational process.
Well Im certainly for it since it goes along with everything I had said in the previous polls.
Well Im certainly for it since it goes along with everything I had said in the previous polls.
I'm not sure you are understanding what I am saying. Rather then using the "concept" for the pokemon being evolved, We use that style of nomination for individual pokemon. And also moderate it a little better (Sorry Darkie+)
frankly i think you are placing too little blame on a process you yourself desinged to work "like cap but for flavour". darkie was pretty much following an untested process that is *designed* to be unremarkable compared to cap.
what were you expecting would happen if we are just in it for the cool art/amount of awesomeness if borne upon a random poke.
hoesntly i respect the amount of work that has gone into cap but almost all the results have been arbitrary. people are like *hey this would be cool to beat poke x/y* and then you create something compeltely new and alien and expect it to fit in? starting from scratch is WAY harded than what were trying to do in EVO1 and honeslty i guess i just expect alll cap pokemons to be bad because theyre completely arbirtrary almost always. metagame trends can influence them but carving out a niche for an alien input into the metagame is always gonna be impossible. with evo we have the rare gift of foresight/better planning as to how this will fit in with minor controlled discrete boosts of stats/movepool ,and not complete paradigm shifts like fetchd
When you have evidence to support that a pokemon not in the poll would bring more to the metagame than the pokemon in the poll, and no argument against, there has to be something flawed somewhere. So I voted yes.
EDIT: Then for me that raises the question - what could be done differently in the submission thread to make sure this doesn't happen again?
EDIT: Then for me that raises the question - what could be done differently in the submission thread to make sure this doesn't happen again?
gogo first smogon post (ive been floating around since Fidgit started, but smogon apparently hates my hotmail address, so i have not participated until now)
while i am personally against restarting the process because somebody kicked and screamed loud enough (good reasoning or not, you can't deny there was a lot of kicking and screaming involved), i support a restart as i have been led to believe that the first steps of the process are flawed.
deck knight's proposal i hope will be followed through on. we hold an initial vote to find out which pokemon we WANT to evolve, like we have already done, and the top 5 go through. we then have a DISCUSSION on the five candidates of what their evolutions would bring to the table. THEN we continue with the polls to see who goes through. it will cut down on uninformed votes as well as baseless fanboy proposals.
ps. while im not against fetch, doom or camerupt, my personal favourite proposal was qwilfish =P
i voted no, and i stand by that. i agree with the notion of sticking it through and ironing mistakes out later, as was successful with syclant and revenankh. i think there is a major difference in opinion about how EVO should differ from CAP, and thats fine...but this isn't the place for working it out.
i do think that if restart is chosen, we cannot just proceed with EVO as it is. there needs to be a decision about what exactly EVO is so that this doesn't happen again immediately with the next round. so, go to CAP6, and put up a process thread about EVO.
just my opinion.
i do think that if restart is chosen, we cannot just proceed with EVO as it is. there needs to be a decision about what exactly EVO is so that this doesn't happen again immediately with the next round. so, go to CAP6, and put up a process thread about EVO.
just my opinion.
- Status