I agree. For such a big change such as this we should test it out first instead of theorymoning different things about it. It would allow for more users to get involved, used to it, and it would reduce the chances of us missing something important. Perhaps we could try:EDIT: Can we at least get all of the commotion to halt until this has been implemented and tested? I really am tired of all this theoretical "omg the new sleep clause is awful !" before we've even had a chance to experience it.
I agree completely. Pretty much what I've been saying since the last topic.I don't see what the big issue is for making an opponent instant-lose because they play in a manner that allows them to be manipulated to the point of an instant-loss. The more "manipulatable" scenario occurs in ubers, a place where broken pokemon and strategies are allowed.
And honestly, these kind of "loopholes" are so situational that a player has to dedicate many team slots and positions in the OU metagame to make it even feasible to manipulate.
This definition has a little more focus on the opponent. This would be saying that if the player has some role in putting two of his own Pokemon to sleep, an auto-loss would not occur. This prevents people from abusing loopholes and otherwise unorthodox strategies, whilst keeping the battles more similar to link battles. The use of moves is mentioned so that a switch cannot contribute to the sleep. Otherwise, one could argue that a switch at any point in the match would influence the use of Sleep moves, and no one player would be at 100% fault. Plus it makes the clause much easier to implement on shoddy; only moves need to be taken into account instead of switches and abilities.You lose if you put an enemy pokemon asleep with a move that specifically induces sleep, and an enemy pokemon you previously put asleep with a move that specifically induces sleep is still sleeping.
The only reason they aren't used in link battles is because the abuse of the current sleep clause on wifi hasn't really hit the majority of players, since they're so used to the "safe zone" that Shoddy Battle 1 affords them. They may know the "Blissey has Serene Grace" dilemma, but the idea of using Encore and a Trapping pokemon to force an instant loss doesn't usually occur. Even when it's successfully pulled off, the opponent who it happened to usually would pack a fit and just DC rather than take the (single) loss. Or so would your "everyday" wifier, anyway.Whilst I do agree that loopholes regarding this clause are situational, and are usually unorthodox, they promote the use of strategies that would otherwise be completely unfeasible in standard play. Such strategies will never be seen in link battles for obvious reasons, and the purpose of the change in the sleep clause is to make shoddy battles more similar to link battles.
I don't see why it will never be seen in link battles, so it's not obvious. Please explain why no one will ever use this on a cartridge?Whilst I do agree that loopholes regarding this clause are situational, and are usually unorthodox, they promote the use of strategies that would otherwise be completely unfeasible in standard play. Such strategies will never be seen in link battles for obvious reasons, and the purpose of the change in the sleep clause is to make shoddy battles more similar to link battles.
There is never a situation where the opponent is 100% to blame. "He could have switched to his sleeping Pokemon!" or, if trapped "He could have not switched out his original sleeping Pokemon to begin with!". Trying to assign blame is silly, and impossible to do.I think a definition along the lines of this might be more appropriate:
If a player has two of his Pokemon put asleep by his opponent, and the opponent was 100% to blame for putting the opponent to sleep through the use of moves, then the opponent automatically loses the game.
When referring to blame, I only mean blame "through the use of moves." That is to say, it only refers to when accounting for the moves made by the Pokemon; I probably should have made it clearer in my post that switching (and forfeiting) are not a part of this.There is never a situation where the opponent is 100% to blame. "He could have switched to his sleeping Pokemon!" or, if trapped "He could have not switched out his original sleeping Pokemon to begin with!". Trying to assign blame is silly, and impossible to do.
Most people who play by link cartridges use the standard in-game rules. That is to say, they don't care if they put two opposing Pokemon to sleep, if they use Double Team etc. If we disqualify people for people who abuse our clause on shoddy, people will try to avoid breaking this clause, and may change their Pokemon teams and strategies accordingly. As well, new strategies may become viable as a result of this clause i.e. loopholes in the clause, in which people abuse the clause to force the opponent into disqualification. Most people will adjust their teams so that the clause cannot be used to exploit the team and force the player into disqualification, but there will always be some teams that could be exploited, probably noob teams. Strategies involving exploiting the clause wouldn't work in link battles, because there is no clause to exploit in the battle.I don't see why it will never be seen in link battles, so it's not obvious. Please explain why no one will ever use this on a cartridge?
I agree with your logic, and that this clause should be as fair as possible i.e. you shouldn't lose if your opponent forced you to put two Pokemon to sleep. However, the word "specifically" concerns me, and it could be argued that moves like Sleep Talk and Metronome are allowed, as inducing Sleep through such moves is not intentional and is not the specific use of the move, but rather the move could have many potential uses; the move is not specific in nature. And it wouldn't be fair if a player has two of his Pokemon put to sleep by Sleep Talk, and there was nothing he could to do avoid this, so he would be playing the rest of the game with two Pokemon out of commission.I figured I would post the wording of how I think Sleep Clause should be implemented:
Unless you had no other possible move on the turn you used the move that would otherwise cause you to lose, you lose if you put an enemy pokemon asleep with a move that specifically induces sleep, and an enemy pokemon you previously put asleep with a move that specifically induces sleep is still sleeping.
'No other possible move' doesn't include forfeiting obviously (my Computer Science professor says forfeiting is always a valid move and counts as a move so I figured I should mention it, it probably isn't worth mentioning in the definition though).
The idea behind this is that there is never a situation where a player is forced to lose by his opponent; s/he must always be able to choose whether s/he loses or not. For me, this takes preference to the chance that there may be a legal situation where two Pokemon are put to sleep by the opponent. There is an issue with this where the player would attempt to set up a situation where he could legally sleep two Pokemon, but that's what I mean by taking preference - I think the capability of 'forcing' losses through anything other than KOing 6 Pokemon shouldn't be a result of any rule we use, and that allowing two Pokemon to fall asleep under the clause is more fair than being forced to lose.
..I don't know where you're basing your assumption on, but you're terribly misinformed. People "enforce" sleep clause in link battles all the time, forcing the person who breaks it to forfeit, usually. You make it sound like people that don't use shoddy are a bunch of random lawless players that spam Mewtwo and Rayquaza in standard battles, lol. Anyways, the fact that WiFiers also use sleep clause makes the universal applicability of this new clause a priority, albeit a low one.Most people who play by link cartridges use the standard in-game rules. That is to say, they don't care if they put two opposing Pokemon to sleep, if they use Double Team etc. If we disqualify people for people who abuse our clause on shoddy, people will try to avoid breaking this clause, and may change their Pokemon teams and strategies accordingly. As well, new strategies may become viable as a result of this clause i.e. loopholes in the clause, in which people abuse the clause to force the opponent into disqualification. Most people will adjust their teams so that the clause cannot be used to exploit the team and force the player into disqualification, but there will always be some teams that could be exploited, probably noob teams. Strategies involving exploiting the clause wouldn't work in link battles, because there is no clause to exploit in the battle.
This probably depends where your from. America and Japan would have many less lawless players than anywhere rest in the world. Most Pokemon players in Australia, where I'm from, are actually random lawless players (if they decide to play with rules, they usually just ban the Pokemon that Battle Tower bans), and I'd figure this would be the case in most countries, but not in America and Japan, where most professional Pokemon battlers are from...I don't know where you're basing your assumption on, but you're terribly misinformed. People "enforce" sleep clause in link battles all the time, forcing the person who breaks it to forfeit, usually. You make it sound like people that don't use shoddy are a bunch of random lawless players that spam Mewtwo and Rayquaza in standard battles, lol. Anyways, the fact that WiFiers also use sleep clause makes the universal applicability of this new clause a priority, albeit a low one.
Smogon has no control over the rules of any battling community other than its own, so I'm not really sure why you brought that up. This discussion is for the sole purpose of developing the parameters of competitive play within Smogon, which, last time I checked, includes the WiFi forum as well. Also, as far as I know, people battling through Smogon's WiFi forum follow standard clauses, unless otherwise agreed upon. That being said, I really feel like we've strayed away from productive discussion, so I will leave it at that.This probably depends where your from. America and Japan would have many less lawless players than anywhere rest in the world. Most Pokemon players in Australia, where I'm from, are actually random lawless players (if they decide to play with rules, they usually just ban the Pokemon that Battle Tower bans), and I'd figure this would be the case in most countries, but not in America and Japan, where most professional Pokemon battlers are from.
Either way, I already discussed what I would believe would happen if the clause would be upheld in link battles.
This definition isn't bad. My main concern about it is Encore. It doesn't prevent people from losing due to Encore, or more specifically, Mean Look + Encore, trapping a Pokemon and forcing it to repeat it's sleep move. The same applies to Wobbuffet. I'm alright if a person loses if one of his sleep moves is Encored, but not when he's trapped at the same time.Sorry I was tired and misinterpreted something, I only noticed just now. Ignore the previous proposed definition I gave, I meant to change Colin's, not the current one. Here is what I meant:
Unless you had no other possible move on the turn you used the move that would otherwise cause you to lose, at the end of every turn, if more than one pokemon is asleep on your opponent's side, and if at least two of those pokemon were put asleep by your side's moves, excluding Magic Coat, but including Yawn, then you automatically lose. If both sides qualify, the game ends as a draw.
Sorry about the confusion!
Then we can have some clarifications, based on this as the guiding principle. Note not all of these are finalised. You are welcome to argue that my own principle should lead to different conclusions for them.If you intentionally put two or more of your opponent's Pokemon to sleep, you lose. Intention applies to team building as well as battle actions.