Sleep Clause: Clarification, or exception.

Carl said:
Freeze clause is sort of a carry over from RBY since nothing ever thawed out in that generation and fire moves did nothing to help you.
Click to expand...

It's more of a Stadium carryover, since the Stadium series of games (including our most recent, PBR) all have a Freeze Clause that can be enabled. (And Fire moves do thaw you in RBY... there's just no standard pokémon that uses one in their normal moveset.) It's never been necessary, even in RBY, simply due to the rarity of a freeze occuring and there is no Freeze-only status move unlike for other status effects. Funny, Freeze is no better than Sleep these days...

The entire rest of this topic is dumb.
 
D3FAULT said:
It has always been my understanding that a Pokemon that is put to sleep by Effect Spore does not count towards Sleep Clause. Like I said in the first post, if I'm incorrect here, then this thread is basically useless.

For example, Serebii's (yes, yes, I know...) Stadard Rules thread says this, regarding Sleep Clause:
"...Sleeping being caused by Effect Spore or Rest are disconsidered from Sleep Clause."

I know Serebii is not the authority here, but that's been my understanding, and I've seen it in more places than Serebii.
Click to expand...

Yeah once again I don't know how it is officially implemented, I was just trying to show that the situation you gave is consistent with what you posted in the OP...with "by you" being the key words.
 
Gay Dolphin said:
You're looking at it from the wrong angle. You, the Effect Spore Breloom user, are knowingly creating a situation where your opponent has a chance to be put to sleep. I'll just repeat what I said up there- using Effect Spore Breloom is the same thing as using a 10% accurate Sleep Powder.
Click to expand...

Is this to say that if you have already put an opposing poke to sleep, that you can no longer use Breloom until it wakes up? What about 3rd gen when all it had was Effect Spore?

Though no one has mentioned it yet, I'll just point out that using Magic Coat to bounce back a sleep move doesn't break sleep clause on Shoddy, which I agree with, but I've seen people argue otherwise for it.
 
This is how I would jot down the merits for the clause:

  • Someone under "Rest" is not considered Sleep, therefore you can use a sleep inducing move, only if they have someone on 'Rest status'
  • Effect Spore is an exception because YOU are not sleep inducing them, the opponent is attacking you therefore you are not breaking any clause. Its 1/3 chance, I think, Sleep, Poison and Paralyze.
  • When using Sleep Talk with that Cresselia, its YOU thats using Sleep Talk to sleep induce them, therefore you are breaking the clause.
I think those would be the "exceptions" for the clause.
 
The best you could possible do is some kind of "percentage of happening"-line. If, on a wifi match the effect of a move has more than 50% chance of putting a second non-resting pokémon to sleep, it is violating the clause.

The rule "if you're the one doing the move that could possibly put your opponent to sleep you're violating the clause" is much to complicated.
For example, the forementioned switching scenario of you switching Breloom in on a contact move. If you got 6 pokémon left your opponent should know there's 20% chance you switch in Breloom, but you know there's about 50% chance your opponent uses a contact move'. That just gets way too complicated.

You could go on and on in bizarre speculations like this. For example your opponent uses Metronome and get's U-Turn, then falls asleep thanks to Effect Spore. The opponent then switches something in that immediatly gets hit by your Spore that was meant to hit the previous pokémon.

Now you're the one that induced a 100% sleeping move on a pokémon after another one was already put to sleep, so you're definately disqualified. You should've anticipated the small chance that your opponent was weird enough to use Metronome and that it could pick U-Turn which could activate Effect Spore.

This rule really needs more clarification.
 
I think a good way to think about it (at least, the way I think about it) is this.

If you use an attack, that breaks sleep clause on your team, it is not a violation.

Examples being YOU selecting an attack that ends up with two of your teammates being asleep, such as attacking an effect spore breloom with a contact move or using rest. You used the move, therefore your opponent can't be held responsible.

If you use an attack, that breaks sleep clause on another team, it IS a violation. Or, if your opponent uses a move that breaks sleep clause on your team, it is a violation.

For example, you select sleep talk and it shifts the sleep onto the opponent, it breaks sleep clause IMO. Just like if you had selected hypnosis. Because YOU selected the move in the first place, the effect of the move is on you.

IMO the randomness of any particular move shouldn't be a factor. It should just be whoever selected the move. Even the idea of mirror coat not breaking sleep clause isn't so questionable, because it's the user of hypnosis/spore/etc. that actually selected the sleep move so in effect they are putting themselves to sleep, just as if they had used rest. If THEY hadn't used a sleep move, they wouldn't be asleep.


As for freeze clause, I wouldn't force someone to forfeit over wifi if ice beam froze a second pokemon; I'd just chalk up the loss (if I indeed ended up losing) to horrible hax. And on shoddy of course it's not a problem because it just won't freeze the second pokemon in the first place.
 
Another problem I see is that with the current Sleep Clause you could actually force your opponent into breaking it. You could Encore a sleep move, or PP stall your opponent into using a sleep move.

It's a bit of a long shot, but so is Effect Spore Breloom.


and hhjj, I believe Freeze Clause is hardly ever used in wifi matches because there aren't any moves that specifically induce Freeze.
 
In the case of Encore, I think Sleep Clause would force the user (of Encore) to lose, as it was through their doing that more of your Pokémon may fall asleep. It was under no intention of the opponent for that to occur.
 
Flashstorm1 said:
In the case of Encore, I think Sleep Clause would force the user (of Encore) to lose, as it was through their doing that more of your Pokémon may fall asleep. It was under no intention of the opponent for that to occur.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, the Encored pokémon still had the possibility to switch out. So he chose to use Spore a second time, in a way.
 
And then there's the chance that the Encored Pokemon is trapped or is the last Pokemon.

And remember guys.. Serene Grace Ice Beam/Ice Punch (Blissey/Jirachi) has a 20% chance to freeze.
 
Objection said:
Choosing not to switch =/= choosing a sleep move.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the Pokemon who was Encored KNEW that if he/she did not switch out, he/she had a chance to break Sleep Clause if the opponent switched out. Therefore, he/she had an option to not break Sleep Clause and not get DQ'd.
 
I think it's fairly obvious that the current Sleep Clause definition is way too subjective. Maybe if we could get a few badge wielding members into this we could try to make a better definition.
 
In the case of Wi-Fi, another obvious scenario is if Dugtrio switches in on a Scarfed sleep move (hypothetical) then switches out again, thus forcing the opponent to put a second Pokemon to sleep. I personally don't think that should count as violating Sleep Clause either, I mean by switching in to begin with the Dugtrio user already has their prediction rewarded with an easy kill, it shouldn't go as far as being rewarded with an easy win as well. In such a scenario, the Dugtrio user should be punished for being an idiot.
 
But the definition of Sleep Clause states when "you" put 2 Pokemon to sleep, you are DQ'd.

In the Dugtrio case, you took the risk of using a sleep move on a Scarfed Pokemon, knowing or not knowing your opponent had a trapping Pokemon. In the former case, you took the risk of using a sleep move knowing of a possible outcome like this. In the latter case, you had to execute the sleep move causing you to break Sleep Clause.

These are some tricky cases. =\
 
.//enigma said:
But the definition of Sleep Clause states when "you" put 2 Pokemon to sleep, you are DQ'd.

In the Dugtrio case, you took the risk of using a sleep move on a Scarfed Pokemon, knowing or not knowing your opponent had a trapping Pokemon. In the former case, you took the risk of using a sleep move knowing of a possible outcome like this. In the latter case, you had to execute the sleep move causing you to break Sleep Clause.

These are some tricky cases. =\
Click to expand...

If it's taking a risk of being stuck on a sleep-inducing move for whatever reason without any alternative (including switching out) then the player is not at fault, no matter what other factors there are.

The only time disqualification should happen is if the player has already slept one of his opponent's pokemon and selects a sleep-inducing move other than Secret Power (because that one can hit but not cause sleep) when he or she definitely has another choice. Any other case of a sleep move being triggered in a way that would violate Sleep Clause is not the player's fault.
 
Maybe the sleep clause needs to be retooled a bit.

Should psycho shift count as a sleeping move? or should it be able to put your opponent to sleep even if there is another one asleep?

I personally believe that effect spore should be allowed to sleep all 6 of your opponents pokemon for one good reason.

It is based on complete and utter luck. The odds are too low to have this taken advantage of. The sleep clause was made so that you cant take advantage of sleeping moves and have a huge advantage. Effect spore forces the effect spore user to take damage, just to get a low chance of putting your opponent to sleep. It cant be taken of advantage of practically to inflict sleep.


Psycho shift on the other hand CAN be taken advantage of to inflict sleep. In scenario x your opponent already has a pokemon asleep from your sleeping move such as spore. YOur cresselia used rest, and you are about to sleep talk. You shouldn't be allowed to in a wifi battle, as it is like using a sleep move with a 33% chance to hit (assuming you have 4 moves). Shoddy on the other hand should just have it fail, allowing you to sleep talk, but not be able to abuse sleep. Psycho shift + sleep talk should be counted as a sleeping technique in wifi, and therefore illegal to use after you have used another sleeping technique. Psycho shift + sleep talk should fail on shoddy.

Psycho CAN be taken advantage of to inflict sleep, effect spore CANT.
 
I think an important factor to consider here that hasn't been is the motivation behind having the Sleep Clause at all; this isn't a rule enforced by the game itself, it's one the players put into effect for some reason.

And what is that reason? The idea behind the Sleep Clause is to promote 'fair play', sportsmanship, and to make Wifi battling more enjoyable. Without any Sleep Clause, we would probably have everyone using Scarfed Breloom leads or something. Sleep abuse makes the game unfun, as it would frequently mean the only way one player could participate at all would be through Insomnia or Sleep Talk.

Given this motivation, it then seems errant to allow one player to 'beat' his opponent by forcing him into a situation where he breaks Sleep Clause. That would be abuse of the Sleep Clause in exactly the same sort of fashion that the clause is trying to prevent abuse of sleep.

Consequently, I think the best definition for the Sleep Clause is that it outlaws the conscious independent use of a sleep-inducing move if they have already put an opponent's pokemon to sleep.

This way, any effect employed by the opponent to fish out another Sleep attack (Tricking a Choice item, Encore, trapping a Choiced sleeper, etc.) does not force the opponent into breaking Sleep Clause. I've heard the argument "They still have the ability to switch out", but I feel that manipulating an extrinsic player-imposed rule in this way to force people to switch is against the real motivation of the clause in the first place; switching is a strategic decision and as such should be left independent except where moves specifically dictate otherwise (Mean Look, Whirlwind, etc.) Furthermore, the same argument can be applied in reverse, and say that the opponent had the choice to do something other than forcing the sleep clause breach. I feel this is making the Clause messier than it was intended.

The one case that is still uncertain under this interpretation is Sleep Talk-Psycho Shift/Sleep Move. I'm inclined to say that this would not count as an independent choice, and would thus not be banned. I could be argued around on this particular point, though. I think it would be easier to test what happens with this being permitted, and if it causes ridiculous Rest-Talk-Psycho Shift/Sleep abuse, then revise the rule to get rid of it.


tl;dr version: Sleep Clause is about preventing abuse of Sleep status, not about adding an extra strategic rule. Only deliberate, controlled use of Sleeping moves (not random ones like Metronome/Assist/Sleep Talk) is DQable. Any influence from the opponent to force a DQ by Sleep Clause permits the violation.
 
In terms of Shoddy, I think the psycho shift situation should remain unchanged. I agree with MrIndigo, abusing a clause meant to stop abuse is just backwards. Regardless of being able to prove intent or abuse, 33% is simply too high a chance to not be a violation. Not a hard rule, but if a poke is carrying psycho shift and sleep talk, its likely bulky enough to even attempt several sleep shifts. Its a unique case that deserves a unique ruling, and I think it would be a regression from the Sleep Clause's primary purpose to allow additional sleeping this way. I really think sleep clause should also stop Mirror Coat from inducing a double sleep. Any capacity for a clause to be broken should be shut down, and since they are artificially implemented clauses anyways I see no problem in being discriminating.


Dont play wi-fi but I'd say the same rules apply. Forcing your opponent to violate a clause is about retarded, and glad to hear that the tl;dr version doesnt count that as an automatic win. If you are really worried about Effect Spore giving you that second slept pokemon, learn which moves make contact and avoid them.

I dont actually understand how that encore case can present itself. If you are slower than the sleeper, you dont encore because you fall asleep. If you are faster, you either encore a different move or your encore fails because the sleeper just switched it (and then you still cant encore its sleep). If you are a faster sleeptalker, you are put to sleep, choose sleeptalk which then selects encore and the opponent stays in, I guess you have a problem. However, in that scenario, I dont see why the sleeper would choose to stay in. Even if it did, as enigma said, it is still choosing to select the sleeping move and thusly at fault if the opponent switches. If that sleeper was the last poke available and cant switch, it hardly seems to be anybodys fault. However, if you know its your opponents last poke and you encore its sleeping move with resttalk, then switch to knowingly get slept, it is your own problem and not, in my opinion, a violation.
 
Lemmiwinks MkII said:
In the case of Wi-Fi, another obvious scenario is if Dugtrio switches in on a Scarfed sleep move (hypothetical) then switches out again, thus forcing the opponent to put a second Pokemon to sleep. I personally don't think that should count as violating Sleep Clause either, I mean by switching in to begin with the Dugtrio user already has their prediction rewarded with an easy kill, it shouldn't go as far as being rewarded with an easy win as well. In such a scenario, the Dugtrio user should be punished for being an idiot.
Click to expand...

How exactly can the Dugtrio user always know the opponent is Scarfed? If he didn't know it's not his fault for trying to save Duggy.
 
Dekzeh said:
How exactly can the Dugtrio user always know the opponent is Scarfed? If he didn't know it's not his fault for trying to save Duggy.
Click to expand...

True, the Dugtrio user may not always deserve to be accused of attempting to abuse Sleep Clause, after all he/she may have a good reason for switching Dugtrio in and out to take a sleep for the team. But the point remains that the sleep inducer should not be forced to forfeit due to a violation of the clause that was completely beyond their control. Once Dugtrio switches in on the first choiced sleep move, the user has no other option but to pick the move again. On Wi-Fi though, there could be times when the presence of a Choice item can only be proven after the battle has occurred, so you're right in that it could cause some ambiguity.

In my opinion, Sleep Clause should only be violated when there are two instances of one player sleeping the opponent's Pokemon that satisfy two key conditions:

1. The player selected a move with greater than 0% chance of resulting in the opponent's Pokemon falling asleep, when there was an alternative available that had 0% chance of this outcome.

2. The player's move was the direct cause of sleep.

The second condition is there in particular to avoid scenarios such as 'it was your fault for not switching Breloom out of my contact move' and similar things.
 
tophway said:
I dont actually understand how that encore case can present itself. If you are slower than the sleeper, you dont encore because you fall asleep. If you are faster, you either encore a different move or your encore fails because the sleeper just switched it (and then you still cant encore its sleep).
Click to expand...
This can happen if your opponent is faster and uses a sleep move on a poke that has Encore and a Lum/Chesto Berry:

-Opponent uses Spore
-You fall asleep
-Lum/Chesto wakes you up
-You Encore

If your opponent decides to stay in to Spore again, you switch to Dugtrio to take the Spore. Now, your opponent is locked into Spore and can't switch, so you switch to something to take a second Spore.
 
Now I think of it, about the previously mentioned Metronome or Assist, what if Metronome or Assist chooses an evasion/OHKO move? Does this count as violating a clause?
 
hhjj said:
And don't forget Secret Power's 60% chance of freeze in certain environments when wielded by Serene Grace Pokemon, like Jirachi.
Click to expand...

But, IMHO, the field that Shoddy tries to simulate (maybe PC's second floor, because I don't have fourth gen games) won't freeze your butt via Secret Power. (indoor means paralysis, IIRC)

As for Incarnation's case, I think we can safely remove Assist, because Evasion/OHKO is pretty much a standard clause in Shoddy, right? (dunno with WiFi) Plus, the chance to pick one is 5% (assuming you have one). Quite a chance, right? And, while nearly nobody in Shoddy uses Metronome, the chance is still there: DT, Acupressure (12.5% chance, assuming it's chosen), and Guillotine and co. Maybe the chance is just about a percent, but hey, the chance still exist. It's just unwise to rely on a 1% chance.
 
Incarnation said:
Now I think of it, about the previously mentioned Metronome or Assist, what if Metronome or Assist chooses an evasion/OHKO move? Does this count as violating a clause?
Click to expand...

As I mentioned previously, it should not count if Metronome violates the Evasion/OHKO clause.

Assist would though, those moves shouldn't be on your team anyway.

Acupressure is another interesting case. What if it raises your evasion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top