Policy Review Create-A-Pokemon Policy Review

[DougJustDoug]

If you are not an experienced member of the CAP community, I highly suggest you do not post in this thread.

This thread replaces the old Process Guide Workshop thread as the place for discussing the CAP process, the CAP forum rules, and any other policy-related issues that pertain to the CAP community.

This thread is intended to contain intelligent discussion and commentary by experienced members of the CAP project regarding various CAP policies. Anyone who wants to be a leader in the CAP community, should track this thread very closely. As such, the content of this thread will be moderated more strictly than other threads on the forum.

Here are a few rules that must be followed in this thread (which is a bit ironic, don't you think?).

• Posts that demonstrate a lack of knowledge and/or familiarity with CAP project rules and operating procedures will be moderated. Ignorance is not an excuse here.
  
  
• Although we will frequently question rules here -- this is not a place to ask questions about rules. There's a difference. If you have a question, see the stickies or lurk more -- don't ask for information here.
  
  
• All posts must make a significant contribution to the discussion. This really applies to all threads, but will be closely monitored here. If you are going to comment on policy, you better make a real contribution. Keep the short, unsubstantiated comments to yourself.
  
  
• This is not a catch-all topic for everything related to the CAP project. This is for discussing matters of CAP policy only. If you are considering posting something here only because you can't find a "better place" on the forum -- don't do it.

All of the above rules will be strictly enforced.

 

[DougJustDoug]

I would like to add two new rules to the CAP forum, but I'm not sure how to define the scope properly.

The first rule would be to discourage some of the negativity that gets posted in our creation threads. The CAP project is very dependent on momentum. It's hard to maintain momentum when certain naysayers are continually posting comments like:

"This pokemon is terrible."
"That idea is completely broken and will never work."
"This project can't do anything right."
"This will fail like all the other projects."
"This project is a total mess."​

I'm fine with constructive criticism -- with emphasis on constructive. Posts that put down the project, an entire class of members, or an entire class of posts -- are not acceptable. The various know-it-alls that seem to always post this sort of thing, need to be discouraged from spreading hate here. I've talked about curbing negativity before. I would like to make an addition to the rules to make it an infractable offense.


Second, I'd like to make an explicit rule about "poll jumping" -- posting commentary or submissions on an aspect of the pokemon prior to the scheduled discussion or polling thread. It also applies to people that quote and/or reply to "poll jumping" posts, thus extending the diversion. This really got out of hand on the last project, but it's been a problem for a while.

Technically, these are simply off-topic posts, so there's already a rule about it. However, I think it would help to have a very clear rule about jumping the gun on the creation process, since that is the most common form of off-topic posting in the CAP forum. It creates a lot of confusion, and it makes it difficult for the project to create pokemon in an organized fashion. When people start jumping ahead of the current process, the project turns into a free-for-all and is unmanageable.

The CAP project has been around a while, and we have a lot of reference information posted in the forum. People need to abide by the CAP process, or be subject to moderation.


I'd like to hear some other member feedback on these two issues before writing something up.

 

[Time Mage]

About the first rule: Discouraging negativity is definitely good, but make sure to not discourage criticism that, although doesn't give an alternative, can argue what's bad and how it is bad about whatever they are criticizing. I find that that's also constructive criticism. You probably though of that, but I considered it would be worth mentioning.

About the second: There's a line, that has to be defined, between "poll jumping" and just discussing the next step of the process in the final stages of a poll. If that line is clear, I think that a rule on "poll jumping" will be very useful. For that line, I propose that nothing other than the current poll can be discussed during at least the first 10 hours or so (or an equivalent number of votes on the poll, after which most polls have stabilized), and after that, only the current and next step can be discussed.

Since I don't have time lately for more, I guess I could at least contribute to this ;)

 

[User 12783]

The first new rule suggested: I agree with Time Mage here. We should discourage negativity, but we shouldn't basically control their criticism (get carried away). This project is a reflection of the community, and so in the process of making a Pokemon, people should provide helpful opinions, not discourage it. You should be allowed to state what is wrong and why you think so, but the Project should ban meaningless posts like your examples, if they don't provide a well thought out opinion.

Second rule: "Poll-jumping" should not be allowed. I know people have there eyes set on the goal of creating a new Pokemon that will possibly help the metagame, but you should go one step at a time. The process to create a Pokemon has been finalized and since it has, we should go by the flow it sets. In discussions, I see people jumping polls a lot, and then people get excited only to be put down again. You should have the current topic on mind before posting anything.

 

[tennisace]

I agree with the first new rule. However, how will the line between constructive criticism and negativity be defined. Say i posted something like: "This project is going in the wrong direction from the original concept, for reasons x, y, and z." Yes, it is negative, but at the same time, pointing out the flaws of the current project in a constructive manner.

As for rule two, poll jumping shouldn't be allowed. Would we enforce this the same way as negativity, via infractions? Also, only the person who got the discussion off track should be infracted.

 

[Hyra]

For negativity, I think latinoheat's posts are a good example. Nothing against him, but he posts very harsh criticisms without offering much help.

eric the espeon (please capitalize your name) is a good example of constructive criticism. He often holds the same views as latinoheat, but offers ways to fix what's going on.

 

[latinoheat]

i agree

Poll-Jumping though is kinda needed at times because it helps give a direction to the project and an aim to reach for, without it we get a pokemon who is at times just a jumble of the different polls and results in something that doesn't stick to the concept.

Also with all these rules coming in and especially with something like concept which has already gotten out of hand, this forum probably needs more moderators. This is obviously out of are hands and up to chaos, but i feel its something that doug could bring up as he cannot do all this himself.

The whole TL concept is getting a bit ridiculous as well, as it gives the projects a clear bias to what one person wants to see. Things like concept are really narrowed down based on what the TL likes the most, i think as opposed to one TL there should be one group.

 

[Elevator Music]

I agree with the first new rule. However, how will the line between constructive criticism and negativity be defined. Say i posted something like: "This project is going in the wrong direction from the original concept, for reasons x, y, and z." Yes, it is negative, but at the same time, pointing out the flaws of the current project in a constructive manner.

As for rule two, poll jumping shouldn't be allowed. Would we enforce this the same way as negativity, via infractions? Also, only the person who got the discussion off track should be infracted.

Tennis, anyone can point out flaws. That's not the point. The better way to handle it would be to take it one step further and point out possible solution(s).

And I agree with Time Mage as well. However, I think the line is already pretty defined. There's almost no point in bringing up somethnig that should be referenced in a later post, unless people are already voting for something that you disagree with (and it's winning). For example, a lot of people were voting Air Lock on Revenankh because they thought with Ice Punch it would help neuter Chomp (Not that it needs to be neutered here), when in fact with the given stats it wouldn't pose a very good switch-in to Chomp anyways. So someone (I'm pretty sure it was Dane) pointed this out. Further discussion on this is needed though.

Negativity is good to an extent (isn't everything?). It's easier to constructively criticize when you are negative for part of a post. But as long as the possible solutions (and the whole post as well) are presented in a way that doesn't offend the criticized, it shouldn't be an issue. There's ways to be negative, yet still be constructive and not offend people (hai pessimism). Though that is my strict opinion and I probably missed the point completely.

EDIT- latinoheat, the TL concept is far from ridiculous. The people chosen are supposed to be as objective as humanly possible. That doesn't mean they won't have a bias (do you think you wouldn't per se), but usually their bias is well-deserved anyways. And although a group would seems to function well on paper, it's just more work. The already slow process would take even longer (the group will not always agree). Also, choosing one person takes long enough. Choosing a group that would in theory work well enough together to make it through the process would take practically forever.

 

[DougJustDoug]

A negativity rule would be very similar to existing trolling and insult rules. What is the difference between a criticism and an insult? Not a lot, but most people know it when they see it. Smogon rules prohibit insults to an individual member and trolling behavior. The new rule would be intended to discourage insults to the project and processes, even if not specifically aimed at an individual.

Criticism is a vital part of a community like this. It will never be moderated, if presented in a constructive way. I'm just sick of the bitchers and whiners that add very little to the community, other than throwing a wet blanket on discussions that are otherwise filled with enthusiasm and interest.

As for poll jumping, it is quite normal to have one poll discussion segue into the next poll discussion. That will be fine. I think there should be some time at the beginning of a poll, where nothing but that poll discussion is allowed. After that, the next poll discussion can be referenced. Anything beyond the next poll, would be considered poll jumping.

These rules would be enforced through the infraction system. Most likely they will be 1 point infractions for "Forum Specific Rule" (for those of you familiar with receiving infractions).

Regarding project leadership -- I think we are in pretty good shape. Mekkah is a Smogon super-mod and regularly moderates this forum. The CAP forum focuses on specific projects, and appoints a TL for each creation project. The CAP server has several moderators to control things there. We have other task-oriented leaders like Sunday (pokedex analysis) and eric (tournaments). I'd say we have plenty of empowered leaders in this community right now.

I wish we could implement a "No noob commentary" rule here like we have on the CAP Server. Unfortunately, I don't think such a rule could be written and enforced fairly. But, it would sure help a lot to eliminate some of the dumb stuff we get around here.

 

[Cooper]

The whole TL concept is getting a bit ridiculous as well, as it gives the projects a clear bias to what one person wants to see. Things like concept are really narrowed down based on what the TL likes the most, i think as opposed to one TL there should be one group.

Yes and no. I agree in the sense that TLs do have the power to make stupid and often detrimental decisions. Not to toot my own horn, but in my opinion I feel like I was the only one who did things right. Hyra completely omitted several types of pokemon in the name of making something new, thus limiting the creative spectrum. And I will never forgive GT for closing the art thread so quickly. However, having a designated TL is the only possible option for running the CaP, because a group would quickly get in each others' way and bring the process to a stall. As such, I feel some rules need to be decided on how a TL should do things. As the participants, we give them full control of the project, and often defer to their opinions of things, but here's what I feel should be established:

• A minimum amount of days a poll/thread must be left open: we've done this three times already and have worked out many of the unnecessary steps, there's no need to worry about rushing things
• What options can be omitted from polls: as I learned the first time through, multiple threads for a single poll are tiresome, but not bad. Have all the types open for voting. Most likely the community will decide on something new anyway, so don't worry about running into repeat typing. This also applies to abilities, movepools, etc.

Also, something I need to get off my chest about the art polls, I feel all pictures should be colored or none colored at all. People don't necessarily look for creativity when they judge art, they sometimes look at how pretty something is. In the words of my summer school art teacher, people are monkeys, and monkeys like shiny things. Elagune and Cartoons! were the obvious choices, not because of their design, but because they had colors (no offense to the artists). Blu had an awesome design that I feel was overlooked, and KoA clearly stated that his art would've done better had GT posted the colored version. This should truly be an equal playing field.

...What were we talking about again? Rules and such?

 

[Hazmat]

Also, something I need to get off my chest about the art polls, I feel all pictures should be colored or none colored at all. People don't necessarily look for creativity when they judge art, they sometimes look at how pretty something is. In the words of my summer school art teacher, people are monkeys, and monkeys like shiny things. Elagune and Cartoons! were the obvious choices, not because of their design, but because they had colors (no offense to the artists). Blu had an awesome design that I feel was overlooked, and KoA clearly stated that his art would've done better had GT posted the colored version. This should truly be an equal playing field.

Honestly, I know where you are coming from. I really do.

I just don't think you should tell people how to do their art. This seems like a problem with the voters, and not one of the artists.

 

[eric the espeon]

For negativity, I think latinoheat's posts are a good example. Nothing against him, but he posts very harsh criticisms without offering much help.

eric the espeon (please capitalize your name Why?.. maybe sometime...) is a good example of constructive criticism. He often holds the same views as latinoheat, but offers ways to fix what's going on.

I personally think that negativity is needed if we wish to improve the process, things like
"This Pokemon is terrible."
"This project can't do anything right."
"This will fail like all the other projects."
Are not what I advocate as they are inaccurate and very strongly disparaging, however things like:

"That idea is completely broken and will never work."
Only if the idea is obviously broken or well put.
"This project is a total mess."
not so much, but if it is a total mess and it has not been pointed out yet.

when backed up by intelligent arguments, ether by the same person or by a different person can be very valuable.

I fear that having a rule like this could make people to scared to point out flaws in our system, even if well argued points will not be infracted.

Also mildly against the "no poll jumping" rule, if it is clear which option will win (as it often is after only 2 hours or so) why not discuss future aspects of the Pokemon? Obviously not make unreasonable assumptions about future polls, but, for example getting, a "feel" for what moves are lightly can help with with choosing the ability.
I think it is covered well enough by "try to stay on topic".

Right now for my suggestions:
For concept poll

1. Move it until after typing and secondary typing (by doing this it would also go after the TL is picked)
At the moment the concept poll is, frankly, a disaster. With nothing to focus the ideas people are just saying whatever pops into their head, ok so this could be solved by other rules but I think that the best way is to know what type the Pokemon we are making is before picking the role.

2. Limit ideas to one per person. (possibly two)
This would decrease the amount of crap ideas the TL has to wade through, but more importantly make people think more before submitting their only idea and so improving the quality of ideas.

I also have some ideas about redesigning the Type Polls but they can wait until currant issues are sorted.

 

[latinoheat]

Also in order of events why has stat spread submissions been put before both Build,Style and the Stat rating polls, that is a complete waste of time.

 

[Mekkah]

I personally don't feel this forum needs more moderators. It's not Stark Mountain with idiocy around every corner. Posts are much more subjective and are allowed to be much more so because the goals of the forums are set like that. Plus there is generally only one or two threads going on at all, so if there is something infract-worthy it hardly goes unnoticed. That is compounded by the fact that one offending post never goes alone, so if there's a skirmish going on it will be easy to find and trace back.

Also, something I need to get off my chest about the art polls, I feel all pictures should be colored or none colored at all.

Yes, I agree. And since rushing should be discouraged, I would recommend taking the time for the art poll and allow everyone to work out both if needed. There's a lot of space with this one.

 

[Cooper]

2. Limit ideas to one per person. (possibly two)
This would decrease the amount of crap ideas the TL has to wade through, but more importantly make people think more before submitting their only idea and so improving the quality of ideas.

I was reading through the last page of the concept thread, and I saw one particular infraction of the rules where someone posted a very specific "CONCEPT: This pokemon will be a Normal/Dragon type with Insomnia, who has access to x, y, and z moves, with base stats 100 across." It wasn't that exactly, but close enough. With that being the case on a lot of posts, I think moderators (moderator? is Mekkah the only one?) should be given more permission to delete posts. The TLs job is a difficult one when it comes to sorting through al the junk in threads, and if a moderator just quickly scans through and delete blatant infractions, it would make their job a lot easier.

The negativity rule is a good one. There have been numerous instances of flame wars in the threads because someone posted something like "This pokemon sucks," which people then take by flaming them and their ideas. Like, page-long flame wars. Again, moderators should feel free to regulate on these posts. But the devil's advocates shouldn't be prosecuted in any way. Heck, I would've appreciated it if someone had gone into the Revenankh thread and said that it would be too insane if it was allowed to get in some Bulk Ups due to Shadow Sneak and Hammer Arm.

So what I'm asking for is increased power to the mods to regulate on people who break the rules.

 

[X-Act]

I agree on the CAP subforum requiring more mods.

 

[tennisace]

I'm neutral on the more mods matter. As Mekkah and Doug said, between the two of them, all infractable offenses are usually covered. However, if a new mod is made that is close to the project and knows the specific aims and goals of the project, it would ease the load of Doug and Mekkah, and allow Mekkah to mod in other areas more often.

Edit: This thread should be stickied.

 

[Mekkah]

and allow Mekkah to mod in other areas more often.

Nice of you to be concerned about that, but I don't have a set quotum of time dedicated to moderating or a limited amount of time available or anything. When I'm away for extended periods of time, such a few weeks ago when I had finals, or somewhere in the near future where I'm going abroad for a month, then yes, we may require more moderators. So yeah

[18:52:40] <DougJustDoug> I'm fine with adding mods. There are several badgeholders and mods of other forums that participate in the CAP project.
[18:53:06] <DougJustDoug> But, it's not really required.
[18:53:48] <Mekkah> I don't have anything against it, and to be honest since I'm going on holidays at one point you will be on your own sooner or later anyway for a while

 

[darkie]

"Poll Jumping" to a certain extent I feel is okay. Talking about Ability, Movepool, even Art or Name, during Typing poll, for example, is unacceptable. On the other hand, discussing the next poll when discussion for the current poll is waning, then I think that the "jumping" is not necessarily a bad thing. It just means that the discussion has ended and the TL needs get with it.

Negativity is an issue, agreed. However, some negativity is good, namely constructive negativity/critisicm. Other forms of negativity, the kind that is baseless, is terrible and should be heavily discouraged against, perhaps even infractable for 'flaming (the project)' or 'trolling'.

Artwise, I feel the problem lies with the voters, not the artist. Though coloring should be encouraged for all entrants, it is really the voters who do not see that they are (consciently or sub-consciently) being biased/influenced by the colors. Cooper is right in saying "[the voters] are monkeys, and monkeys like shiny things."

As for Mods in this forum, I don't think it is necesary, but if Doug and Mekkah feel they are overwhelmed by any mass of stupidity, etc, then new moderators would be good.



Agreeing with tennisace; this should be sticked.

 

[Mekkah]

Artwise, I feel the problem lies with the voters, not the artist. Though coloring should be encouraged for all entrants, it is really the voters who do not see that they are (consciently or sub-consciently) being biased/influenced by the colors. Cooper is right in saying "[the voters] are monkeys, and monkeys like shiny things."

If it happens sub-consciently, then you cannot really fault the voters. And in the end, they will vote for what they like best. There is no set of ethics according to which they are forced to vote, and I'm not going to force them to analyze every art subject and try to compare apples with oranges since one is colored and other is not.

Voters can probably not help this problem, or if they can, the majority will be too lazy to do it. Therefore, I believe we have to change something about the art submission.

 

[darkie]

Yes, without a dot (and without brackets )

Therefore, I believe we have to change something about the art submission.

In that case, what can we do? All we really can do is to encourage the coloring of the art. Honestly, I don't think it should be forced upon the artists, but rather leave a kind of true 'threat' at the bottom of the thread, saying something to the effect of that if the art isn't colored, people probably won't vote for it.

 

[ShravanP]

I think that the choice is best left to the artists. If they do not color their sprites, they risk being outdone by colored ones.

 

[DougJustDoug]

I've noticed a few short "chime in" posts already being made here in this thread. I don't want this thread to be a "conversational" discussion thread like that. If you are going to post a comment, please flesh it out and make a full statement of your position on the matter. Posts that say "I disagree with that." or "I like this idea." -- I don't want that here, unless you back it up with reasoning.

I want the style and weight of this thread to be different than other CAP threads.

When posting in this thread, imagine that you are a representative in the government of the project. You have been given the floor by the chairperson, and you are addressing everyone in the room. Present your full position on an issue (or issues), and then sit down. If you don't have a significant statement to make, then please do not ask for the floor.

I tried to make this clear in the OP, but I guess everyone doesn't fully understand the goal of "Policy Review".

 

[ShravanP]

My apologies. I will elaborate.

If it happens sub-consciently, then you cannot really fault the voters. And in the end, they will vote for what they like best. There is no set of ethics according to which they are forced to vote, and I'm not going to force them to analyze every art subject and try to compare apples with oranges since one is colored and other is not.

Voters can probably not help this problem, or if they can, the majority will be too lazy to do it. Therefore, I believe we have to change something about the art submission.

I agree with Mekkah in that the burden falls on the artists. However, I don't think we need to change anything about the way submissions work right now; art submissions should be left completely open to the artists. As it stands, art submissions begin right after types and run alongside stat spread discussions. Types and a general idea about base stats provide enough information to get started on making some solid concept art for the pokes.

Since there is plenty of time to create and submit the art (4 full polls between the start of art submissions and art polling), the artists should have the responsibility of taking their time to make submissions as attractive and applicable as possible. The voters will obviously pick whatever looks most attractive, fitting, or "badass," not whatever looks most creative. The burden of thoroughness falls on the submitter for all other submission threads, so why not this one as well?

As for whether art looks better when colored or uncolored, that is also up to the skill of the artist. For example, both the final choices for the Revvy art were black and white drawings. So I feel that it doesn't really help anything to introduce new rules about coloring on art submissions.

 

[X-Act]

I didn't want to elaborate on my telegrammatic post because I wanted to keep my views to myself, since I thought they might hurt a few people. But since I was told to be clearer on my stance, here's the reason... in as diplomatic a way as possible.

To be frank, I think that this particular subforum sometimes verges too much into noobland.

Take the recent concept thread in CAP4 as an example. It attracted a lot of first-time posters. This is actually a good thing since having new users post in the Smogon forums is always desirable -- everyone was new at some point and not _every_ first time poster is a bad poster. However, you saw for yourselves most of the concepts that were posted by newbies. I think the level of some posts here gives a not-so-good image of this particular subforum to the Smogon 'veterans'. Do you see how many 'old' Smogon users post here? Very few. I think this is partly due to this fact.

To add insult to injury, these same new people then end up voting in our CAP polls, and my fear is that if they outnumber the people that know what they're doing, we might see some very disagreeable things happen to our CAP Pokemon. I'm not advocating removing the democratic part of CAP -- all I'm saying is to give food for thought about this, because it may quite well happen that new people vote for the 'fanboyish' ideas and win because they outnumber the people who voted judiciously. This happened already, to a certain degree, with Syclant, in fact, although it's somewhat understandable because it was the first CAP project and it was barely organised. Looking at the process guide now and comparing it to what happened then, it shows the progress the CAP project has done in only 2 or 3 invented Pokemon... which brings me to my next point.

I post and contribute to this project because I think that it has got potential. I wouldn't have gone through all the research I've went through just for the sheer hell of it, and for sure I wouldn't be typing this explanation right now. Since I believe in the potential of this forum, I wanted (and still want) to help change the impression that this forum is ovverrun by noobs, by helping to provide a better foundation to things like stats and movepool. When people see how the CAP people organise in detail the process of Pokemon creation (not just for stats and movepool, but for everything), the project gets more respect, and I tried to help in that.

However, when certain posts get unmoderated for a long time, it's no wonder that this place gets scorned by the veteran Smogon community... which is why I suggest having more mods here. This place is not a shithole where you place your worst posters and forget about it... there's Trou for that. This place deserves respect. With all due respect to Mekkah and to Doug, they're both doing a sterling job, but a grand total of 2 mods are not enough to manage what this subforum has rightly turned out to become. I support this subforum to continue to enlarge and improve, but to do this will inevitably need more people to moderate it.

That's it. Hopefully nobody got offended.