Competitor and Arceus

[Yoko Rains]

merubin, sorry for trying to be exact, but you know as well as I do that the large majority of players uses an AR to clone, and that cannot be disputed.

 

[obi]

Its the same as those rare new players that ban SkarmBliss merely because they dont like seeing them, the only thing that it does is make those skarmbliss users either change their entire team, or lose what could have otherwise been a fun battle. Despite arceus's, at worst, illegality, its the same as the skarmbliss ban. anyone who uses arceus to complete their team's synergy cant even battle anybody who uses the new clause now.

It's not despite Arceus's illegality, but because of it. This is an important distinction.

And you wouldnt ban skarmory and blissey, so why ban arceus? illegality just seems like a wall to hide behind with no real reason to it, and you know very well that arceus's illegality is alot different than say, thunderpunch poisonheal breloom's illegality.

I don't know this. Care to explain?

merubin, sorry for trying to be exact, but you know as well as I do that the large majority of players uses an AR to clone, and that cannot be disputed.

Making up statistics does not make anything "more exact", because you have nothing to back it up. You might as well say "There is a 94.644354% chance that disallowing Arceus will make Nintendo sue every one of us!" for all the convincing your invented statistic will do. You could just say most and I would take your word for it, but false precision does not help.

Moreover, whether most people do it is irrelevant. It's still hacking, regardless of how many people do it.

 

[Yoko Rains]

Obi, AR cloning is not hacking. I'm merely getting a Pokemon I bred/SR'ed for myself, and simply making a copy of it. Even if I use an outside device, it shouldn't be considered hacking. You're one of the very few that thinks otherwise, and you're opinion does not represent everyone else's. You may think its hacking but the majority's opinion (I won't use percent's it seems to offend others) its not.

 

[merubin]

You're confusing your terms. AR cloning is clearly hacking, even with cloning also being available via the GTS. It's just not a type of hacking which the majority of the people are against. As Obi said sometime last page a little more eloquently than I did, "'Semi-legit' is just a term used by people who don't want to admit to hacking. This is primarily caused by the community's desire to unnecessarily conflate 'hacking' with 'morally wrong'."

 

[Yoko Rains]

You can't put a Poke'Sav'd Arceus on the same level as an SR'ed for Arceus. Semi-legit is not an excuse for people who don't want to admit to "hacking". You still spent time SR'ing for a good Arceus. You didn't just hack it and generate it within seconds.

 

[Darkflagrance]

Gamefreak made those combos illegal for a reason, and allowing them would significantly change the way they intended those Pokemon to be and their usefulness in battle.

We don't actually know that the combos are illegal for a reason. All we know is that by oversight or the vagaries of chance as move-learning opportunities changed from generation to generation, certain combinations of moves became illegal. For all we know in the future the 4th gen battle frontier will have a move tutor that allows these to become legal. These move tutors might not have been released yet to give gamers who bought older versions an extra incentive to buy the third one, as may have happened in Emerald's case.

I'm not disputing the illegality, just the observation of purpose where it does not necessarily exist.

 

[Namtar]

You're one of the very few that thinks otherwise, and you're opinion does not represent everyone else's. You may think its hacking but the majority's opinion (I won't use percent's it seems to offend others) its not.

Majority opinion does not define "hacking."

I still haven't seen a good reason why the rationale for Arceus doesn't apply to other pokemon. Shaymin is unavailable on the vast majority of cartridges but can be obtained through exploitation of a glitch due to a programming accident on some Japanese cartridges. Not really that different.

Darkrai at least has been released, but (if I understand the details of his release correctly) there is a finite number of them and it is very unlikely that it will have the IV's one might use on a simulator. So in Darkrai's case we're still simulating something that's unobtainable.

NYPC movesets seem even worse to me--I've gotten conflicting information as to what was actually available. And it was still put into the game by an outside device. The device's name wasn't "Action Replay" but really I don't see why that matters. Outside is outside.

 

[Surgo]

Darkrai at least has been released, but (if I understand the details of his release correctly) there is a finite number of them and it is very unlikely that it will have the IV's one might use on a simulator

You can SR for it. In the future, if you ever think you might have to say "if I understand the details of X correctly", go double check.

Shaymin is unavailable on the vast majority of cartridges but can be obtained through exploitation of a glitch due to a programming accident on some Japanese cartridges. Not really that different.

And it hasn't been allowed in the recent Smogon holiday tournaments for this very reason.

You can't put a Poke'Sav'd Arceus on the same level as an SR'ed for Arceus.

Yes I can. Because you still had to use X hacking device to get the SR'ed Arceus. You just decided to, for some weird reason of "honor" or something silly like that, take a more roundabout way of getting it.

 

[Kijin]

I don't think Obi is wrong at all for wanting to disallow Arceus, even if this is not the original point of the thread.

Arceus, at this time, is not an obtainable Pokemon at all in the game. The same is true for Shaymin (barring one cart released Japanese glitch). It is not unreasonable to ask either to be "claused" out, as its reasonable to clause out anything you'd like to test in the format (I used the previous examples of Tyranitar or Blissey) with prior consent on the party asked to battle. Is it inherently illegal and not something that can/should be tested? Of course not. There is nothing saying Shaymin will ultimately be released, yet it is generally not held under any clauses (though I'm assuming Competitor's Arceus clause also includes Shaymin from a previous statement ITT?). However, both Pokemon exist in game as more than "glitches." Is it reasonable, therefore, to test for them? Yes. Is it unreasonable to not want to battle either, in the event that no such event for them ever comes to pass? Most certainly not.

 

[Yoko Rains]

@ Namtar, actually it does. For example, Smogon allows AR cloning since the majority doesn't seem to mind it. On other sites, like PokeCommunity, the majority doesn't like AR cloning, and due to that, it is prohibited. AR cloning does not mess up the legitimacy of a Pokemon in any way. On top of that, I'm not cheating. I'm getting a Pokemon that I worked hard to breed, and simply making a copy of it. Not giving it flawless IV's, etc.

I agree with you on the point that Arceus isn't the only thing that should be barred. If Arceus is barred, then that should go for Shaymin and possibly Darkrai. However, I wouldn't go as far as saying NYPC moves are prohibited. Those are official. Its being too extreme to say "outside is outside" for that.

@ Surgo, lol mods seem to share a similar theory on that. You have experience with hack checking right? So if I were to hack the flute and SR for Arceus, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't show up as hacked. PokeSav means I can give it 31 all around. SR'ing for it is just like SR'ing for anything else.

Also, another note. I can see Obi's problem if he doesn't like Arceus being used on Wi-Fi (Nintendo DS battle). However, on Shoddy...it doesn't make sense. You can generate flawless Pokemon, and as someone mentioned earlier, Pokemon with natures and moves that don't correspond (Wish, etc). If Arceus is such a huge threat, use it yourself. Nobody is stopping you from adding him to your team, and using his amazing moves [which I have no knowledge of since I don't do ubers].

@ Everyone, sorry if I sound offensive lol, I'm not, just pointing out my view =D

 

[Surgo]

So if I were to hack the flute and SR for Arceus, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't show up as hacked.

Yes, it would. Arceus can not yet be obtained without a device that modifies your game, so the moment my eyes saw Arceus I would know it was hacked.

That probably isn't what you were going for, but that's a part of hack checking.

 

[obi]

Seems to me that the only difference between directly hacking a Pokemon and breeding for one and then duplicating it with an AR is the the first is far more effective. If you're going to hack, hack well. Taking more steps doesn't mean it's somehow legit. It doesn't matter if the result is the same, because saying something is hacked is not a statement of the final product, but rather, the method used to obtain it. If you walk somewhere vs. run somewhere, you still get there, but that doesn't mean that walking is the same as running.

 

[Yoko Rains]

Lol Surgo you know what I mean. Hex code, etc. =D

Obi you're like a Pokemon/AR extremist lol. Action Replay cloning is not hacking. If you check a Pokemon that was AR cloned, it will show up as legitimate. You are not hacking, simply making a copy of what you bred yourself.

If you hack the Pokemon yourself, it would show up as hacked, not legitimate.

And then how else would people be able to clone their Pokemon?

 

[Jumpman16]

something about your post history tells me that you are ignorant yet again of a certain fact about pokemon: the GTS glitch allows you to clone pokemon without an external device. search is currently disabled but im sure you can find it on gamefaqs or something

i think much of your argument hinged on your assumption that absolutely everyone was using an AR to clone, lol

and you do realize that you're saying "you cannot tell that i cheated, therefore what i did was legitimate" right

 

[Chou Toshio]

Yup, not everyone is cloning via AR, and GTS glitch was definitely more popular at one point. Just that AR cloning is so much faster . . .

but people who want to have GTS clones can still request it, as it can be considered hacking to AR clone. I still do it though because it's widely accepted. However it's best not to consider "Widely accepted" as "Unhacked."

IMO though, cloning is part of the lifeblood of the wifi community, and without hacking or glitching, it's impossible to do.

Because of this, we are left with the unfortunate situation where we cannot truly abolish glitch-abusal on anything, because it would mean we'd have to question our position on cloning. Which is why no one wants to smack down glitch-users who get Shaymen/whoever that way I'm guessing . . .

 

[Synre]

Action Replay cloning is not hacking. If you check a Pokemon that was AR cloned, it will show up as legitimate. You are not hacking, simply making a copy of what you bred yourself.

If you hack the Pokemon yourself, it would show up as hacked, not legitimate.

And then how else would people be able to clone their Pokemon?

While I frankly couldn't care less about the issue I felt the need to comment because your logic here is absolutely terrible - how else would you be able to clone without using a cheat device(or a GTS exploit)? You wouldn't, obviously, because you aren't supposed to be able to clone. The ridiculous amount of Pokemon ethics topics we have had on this forum lately is begining to get disgusting but I think it's fairly obvious that we were not supposed to be able to duplicate Pokemon. It's accepted pretty much everywhere on the internet because the pokemon economy here just wouldn't work if you had to breed and a fresh Pokemon every time you wanted to make a trade like you are 'supposed to.' I don't know how you can really think cloning isn't cheating if you do.

Kind of, seeing as this was originally "why people be disconnecting on shoddy" instead of "WHAT DO YOU DEFINE 'INTENDED' AS?"

Except that isn't what the point of the topic was, as the point of the topic was stated fairly clearly in the original post:

My stand on that is this: If it is acceptable within the game's coding, it is acceptable in simulators. That's probably sounding very dumbed-down, but as long as the Pokemon is possible to obtain, even if the means to obtain it isn't (yet, might I add), it should be allowed on simulators.

So what's your stance on it? If it isn't possible to obtain except through the use of hacking devices, should it be allowed? Do we follow the game's word or Nintendo's?

Discuss.

The topic was intended to be about what people think should and shouldn't be allowed on simulators. That is a topic of discussion that could be fruitful if explored.

A lot of what is getting discussed here does not fall under that 'could be fruitful' phrase there, particularly including the anecdotal crap about Obi. Yes, I realize a battle with him was what spurred the topic, but that's not actually what the topic was intended or should be about. Focus on the issue, not the people who were involved in getting the topic started. You were right later in yoru post when you said

When a thread becomes a series of circular arguments and semantic debates divergent from the thread's original intent and purpose, you wind up with a thread that really leads no where where people will continue posting the same things

Except you've largely been part of the problem instead of solution. If you guys want to debate the issue that's fine but this has been a circular pokemon and battling ethics debate for almost the entirety of this thread and I think at this point both in this thread and many others it has been proven to exhaustion that these video game moral debates we are so fond of getting into don't really go anywhere. If you need to use morals to justify your position it normally only weakens your position but throw them in if you must.

Sorry if I came off a little harsh here(and I don't mean to single you out Kijin, your post was just the best one to use for this... with the preceding few paragraphs I mean to refer to almost everyone in this thread as a whole) but lets try and stick to the issue, please, or I am just going to close this circular debate.

I'll quote it one more time for those of you wondering where to get started:

My stand on that is this: If it is acceptable within the game's coding, it is acceptable in simulators. That's probably sounding very dumbed-down, but as long as the Pokemon is possible to obtain, even if the means to obtain it isn't (yet, might I add), it should be allowed on simulators.

So what's your stance on it? If it isn't possible to obtain except through the use of hacking devices, should it be allowed? Do we follow the game's word or Nintendo's?

Discuss.

 

[Yoko Rains]

something about your post history tells me that you are ignorant yet again of a certain fact about pokemon: the GTS glitch allows you to clone pokemon without an external device. search is currently disabled but im sure you can find it on gamefaqs or something

i think much of your argument hinged on your assumption that absolutely everyone was using an AR to clone, lol

and you do realize that you're saying "you cannot tell that i cheated, therefore what i did was legitimate" right

But using the GTS glitch is abusing something that wasn't intended to be there, which is considered bad.

And yes, nearly everyone uses AR to clone. As I said, I don't even own an AR, but have had Smogon cloners clone it for me.

And I don't cheat, nor do I support cheating. My definition of cheating is directly hacking a Pokemon. SR'ing for Arceus is not cheating IMO.

@ Teifu, exactly. We aren't supposed to clone Pokemon. So how can some previous posters imply that GTS cloning is allowed, but AR cloning isn't? That was one of my points all along. I'll stop posting here now, I don't want to get in trouble.

 

[chaos]

Action Replay cloning is not hacking. If you check a Pokemon that was AR cloned, it will show up as legitimate. You are not hacking, simply making a copy of what you bred yourself.

If you hack the Pokemon yourself, it would show up as hacked, not legitimate.

And then how else would people be able to clone their Pokemon?

are you serious? you aren't serious.

 

[Chou Toshio]

@Yoko-- I think you're getting caught up in the passion of the SRing dude. You are an honest guy who doesn't like to cheat, but I think you're misunderstanding something: What makes things legit or not is not how much work we put into it-- it's what method we used.

Whether we SR'd for Arceus or pokesav'd it, we still hacked. Either way, you used the AR to accomplish it. That's why an Arceus met with a hacked flute is no different than an arceus caught in the grass on route 225 using the encounter code.

Shaymin uses a glitch, as does GTS cloning-- and that's a critical distinction because it does not require an outside device. As Obi says, it's doable with just the DS and the cartridge. Therefore it's possible to make a distinction there.

Why make the distinction there?

Is it possible to say that glitch-abuse is cheating too?

Well, yes. Yes you can.

Can you say glitch abusing and hacking are the same thing?

You can, but if you don't want to you can also say they're different. Why? Well, because they are different in that one uses a device and the other doesn't.

Are we just drawing the line there for our own convenience so that we can happily clone away without thinking our stuff is cheated?

Yes, yes we are. Nothing wrong with that.

We need rules and distinctions that apply to all uses of the game. If we can't make consistant rules, then there's no point to having any-- we might as all play with wondertombs. We're drawing the line at glitching ok and hacking not because we can and it's convenient.

You have to remember though-- distinctions aren't made by the number of hours we spend SRing for something. Distinctions are not made on hard work-- but the facts.

That said we AR clone anyway just because it's generally accepted-- not because it's not hacking.

 

[Lee]

There is nothing saying Shaymin will ultimately be released,

That's a weak argument in relation to Arceus, because Shaymin has already been previewed in the anime. I know that we don't particularly respect the anime in relation to the game, but it does show that Shaymin is a genuine Pokemon that Nintendo intends to release.

I can see no such evidence for Arceus. The only reason we even know he exists is due to the hacking and exploration of game data.

 

[dende5416]

That's a weak argument in relation to Arceus, because Shaymin has already been previewed in the anime. I know that we don't particularly respect the anime in relation to the game, but it does show that Shaymin is a genuine Pokemon that Nintendo intends to release.

I can see no such evidence for Arceus. The only reason we even know he exists is due to the hacking and exploration of game data.

Before Shaymin was previewed, though, the same woulda been true for it. This course of the argument really serves no point either way. its somewhat of a dead end.

 

[Lee]

Oh, and since we've decided that we can use Arceus based on this game exploration data, should we just go and whack "???" Arceus in the metagame now?

Research has shown that it is programmed into the game...it has a sprite and everything.

But then again, ??? Arceus is completely unobtainable and we have no idea as to whether or not Nintendo will ever release it.

...

Sounds familiar.

 

[Chill]

While the a group holding a majority opinion doesn't always make them right considering that this is pokemon shouldn't you just go with whatever opinion they are holding?

Arceus isn't banned now so instead of dropping out of a battle why not just say "No Arceus plz" beforehand? I was looking at the the list of clauses considered standard. There are some people who wish to play with rules that are not standard. So before a battle they introduce the new rules because standard clause users wouldn't know what they are. If you don't want to battle Arceus why not just say so?

 

[Kijin]

Except that isn't what the point of the topic was, as the point of the topic was stated fairly clearly in the original post:

My point at large was that the thread isn't a semantic debate.
Also, I never brought morals into it, but you're quoting me and then saying that I'm part of the problem and bringing morals into this. The only "morals" I've brought in were "don't DC on people for no reason because that's a douche thing to do." In regards to being a problem, I've just been flailing my arms saying we're in a loop and the topic is degenerating because of it.

That's a weak argument in relation to Arceus, because Shaymin has already been previewed in the anime.

I was just using it as an example, as it's the only other Pokemon in D/P that does not currently have any event available to acquire one and can only be caught using Japan Glitch or hacking. While its entirely possible that there will be an event tomorrow and it's even likely there will be one in the near-ish future, I wasn't trying to argue a point. I was just making an example with the only other example-possible Pokemon without either inventing a new Pokemon or bringing up Pokemon Center stuff.

 

[Namtar]

You can SR for it. In the future, if you ever think you might have to say "if I understand the details of X correctly", go double check.

I'll double check or not as I please, thank you very much. And I wouldn't know where to look anyway...

My understanding was that the event Darkrais were released in cherish balls and not obtained through the member's card. If there was a different event, I don't know about it, hence my "understanding of the details."

And it hasn't been allowed in the recent Smogon holiday tournaments for this very reason.

And that's consistent. I have no problem with the rationale if it's consistent.

@ Namtar, actually it does. For example, Smogon allows AR cloning since the majority doesn't seem to mind it. On other sites, like PokeCommunity, the majority doesn't like AR cloning, and due to that, it is prohibited. AR cloning does not mess up the legitimacy of a Pokemon in any way. On top of that, I'm not cheating. I'm getting a Pokemon that I worked hard to breed, and simply making a copy of it. Not giving it flawless IV's, etc.

You're conflating the definition of a particular word with the standards of a particular community. What is allowed or disallowed is not necessarily the same as what is hacking or isn't hacking. My point stands, but I'll admit it's probably semantic...

I agree with you on the point that Arceus isn't the only thing that should be barred. If Arceus is barred, then that should go for Shaymin and possibly Darkrai. However, I wouldn't go as far as saying NYPC moves are prohibited. Those are official. Its being too extreme to say "outside is outside" for that.

"Official" was not part of the "unobtainable" rationale. And I'm not saying that the NYPC moves should be prohibited (actually, I think maybe they should be, but it's not the issue I was raising). I'm saying that they're unobtainable without an outside device.

The same applies to Manaphy, for that matter, and it's "official" of course. Actually, it even applies to Weedle, which can be obtained when a Leaf Green cartridge is in the second slot on the DS, but isn't normally obtainable in Diamond or Pearl. Sure, the outside device in this case is another pokemon game, but it's outside by the strictest definition.

My whole point was that if Shaymin escapes the rationale on the basis of being obtainable without an outside device (and not even in the non-Japanese versions of the game at that), then the rather arbitrary criterion still excludes other things aside from Arceus.

Of course, this could be solved by specifying (even further then has already been done) that the outside device is named "action replay." But then as soon as Arceus is obtained through some other device with a different name, we run into the whole problem all over again. While it would be easy (or at least reasonably possible) to comprehensively specify criteria that would exclude Arceus and only Arceus, why bother? If the goal is to simulate the battle experience available in the games, why not just exclude Shaymin too (and include Shaymin as part of the extended clause bit, of course)? It's only fair.

Shaymin uses a glitch, as does GTS cloning-- and that's a critical distinction because it does not require an outside device. As Obi says, it's doable with just the DS and the cartridge. Therefore it's possible to make a distinction there.

Okay. But even Dusknoir isn't obtainable with just the DS and the cartridge. A second catridge and DS are needed. So the identity of the outside device would need to matter for this, as I already mentioned in this post...

Why make the distinction there?

Is it possible to say that glitch-abuse is cheating too?

Well, yes. Yes you can.

Can you say glitch abusing and hacking are the same thing?

You can, but if you don't want to you can also say they're different. Why? Well, because they are different in that one uses a device and the other doesn't.

Are we just drawing the line there for our own convenience so that we can happily clone away without thinking our stuff is cheated?

Yes, yes we are. Nothing wrong with that.

Well, it seems a bit silly, but I agree. Nothing wrong with that.

We need rules and distinctions that apply to all uses of the game. If we can't make consistant rules, then there's no point to having any-- we might as all play with wondertombs. We're drawing the line at glitching ok and hacking not because we can and it's convenient.

Actually, that's a good point. The outside device used to get Arceus has to hack the game to provide it, which is technically unique to Arceus. It is a bit arbitrary, but it is consistent...

I'm not sure though. If one hypothetically builds a device capable of mystery gifting the azure flute to the game, is it no longer hacking? Not that it's happened, but this whole discussion is dealing in hypotheticals anyway. And if that's still hacking, how is it any different from the official mystery gifting other than the "official" part. I personally would consider the "official" part important, but if it is, then we're back to Shaymin being an inconsistency.