Policy Review Create-A-Pokemon Policy Review

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just have to say that if private polls become favoured, they should not by any stretch be applied to all polls for reasons that became apparent during the course of this project. From the process of CAP4 it has become apparent that typing polls are an example of polls that are under great risk of having options gain popularity due to "fanboy" reasoning.

Before people start jumping on me for this, I know not everyone voted Dragon on the secondary typing poll purely because of fanboyishness, so I'm not saying they all did. However, it is clear that many of the Dragon votes were drive-by votes with the main reasoning of "because it's cool". The same poll also demonstrated that making a bold-text voting system does not necessarily deter the fanboys.

What I'm saying is that I think that if that poll had been a private poll, less of the anti-fanboy voters would have changed their votes to Ground to prevent Dragon from winning in the end. I think that having it as a public poll acted as a safeguard to this in a way and I believe that the fanboy-susceptible polls should still remain public.
 
Ongoing poll results cannot be kept private. Individual votes can be made to be hidden in click polls, but the current tally is always visible.

Watching vote totals is a part of the CAP project, and it's a good one. It's very exciting to watch a close poll. It encourages people to "check in" on CAP progress and that, in turn, promotes involvement in the entire project. Hiding vote totals might be a fairer way to conduct a vote. But, we're trying to build a community here.

I am not in favor of reducing the number and type of click polls to the point that no casual observers can vote and lurk in the project. If we make every poll a bold poll, and figure out some way to make click polls hidden -- that's going too far.

The voting system is working OK. If you ask me, I think we should have MORE click polls, not less.
 
I'm finding it incredibly difficult to create a base stat spread whose BST is 555 or less and that it's better than 'Quite Good', because my stat spread has low HP and high defenses. I know that 'Quite Good' might actually end up to be the one that people vote for, but, for future CAPs, can the '555 BST limit' be removed? All it does is to force you to make a stat spread that has normal to high HP, and penalises low HP/high defense stat spreads, which isn't fair at all. I don't think people are required to force themselves to create non-low HP spreads just to conform to an irrelevant bast stat total limit. :(
 
X-Act said:
I'm finding it incredibly difficult to create a base stat spread whose BST is 555 or less and that it's better than 'Quite Good', because my stat spread has low HP and high defenses. I know that 'Quite Good' might actually end up to be the one that people vote for, but, for future CAPs, can the '555 BST limit' be removed?
Click to expand...
Doug mention there isn't a BST . That "limit" was more of a suggestion than any true rule. The reason why everyone else is following it is because they sorta believe it is a rule/limit.
 
I tried to make it clear what I meant by the "limit request" I made. Here's the psot where I clarified it:

DougJustDoug said:
That "limit" I mentioned was just an opinion of mine as a concerned CAP project participant. We do not have any rule regarding BST limits, and I won't presume to impose one at the last minute in the middle of an ongoing CAP project.

I may bring up the issue in Policy Review for comment, if others support my suggestion. But, please don't think I have forced a new limit on BST as a result of my earlier post. I'm just speaking as a project member here when I implore stat spread creators to keep their spreads under that cap.
Click to expand...

You are not obligated to follow any BST limit X-Act. And perhaps if your spread is chosen, and reaction is positive, it will prove my fears to be unfounded.
 
Here's an idea I first posted in the stat submission thread, but I'm told this would be a more appropriate place for it:

Should we consider making different forms of our new Pokemon in the process somewhere, similar to Deoxys and Wormadam? The additional things we'd have to consider would be the different stat spreads, designs, and movepools.

It could be an interesting way to reasonably give some of our Pokemon larger movepools. I was thinking about our utility Poison/Ground in particular. Also the fact that people are suggesting quite a range for the base speed. Anyway, that's where the inspiration came from.

It might be nice to include this if only for completeness' sake. Perhaps this could be something to vote on/decide on after the Pokemon has been implemented into the server already. This way we can see what works and what doesn't, and thus come up with an alternate form with different stats, and maybe even typing, to make the pokemon better fit our original idea of what we wanted it to do. Just an idea.
 
tennisace0227 said:
Yeah, and in reality, it probably won't happen in the CAP project. It could happen in the CAE project as a Castform evo or something.
Click to expand...

This. It's really too much to take on in one project unfortunately, although it could be fun.
 
Similar to how back in the first or second project there was a thread for voting and a thread for discussion, I'd like to suggest two threads for art. One for actual submissions and one for discussion / suggestions / critiques. The art thread has 648 posts as of this post. You'd be lucky if even 5% of those posts are submissions. The actual art gets lost in posts saying "I like that one", "Doesn't look like poison", "Where's the ground", etc etc.

I feel sorry for Sunday if he hasn't already been keeping track of submissions, and even if he has I hope he doesn't accidently overlook anything in the sea of one liners, quotes, and the such.
 
I second Dane's suggestion.
That post count and the content inside the thread has been driving me nuts as well.
Of course, I wasn't pondering a way to fix it.
I don't feel like scavenging for certain concepts I've missed over twenty-some pages.
 
Dane said:
Similar to how back in the first or second project there was a thread for voting and a thread for discussion, I'd like to suggest two threads for art. One for actual submissions and one for discussion / suggestions / critiques. The art thread has 648 posts as of this post. You'd be lucky if even 5% of those posts are submissions. The actual art gets lost in posts saying "I like that one", "Doesn't look like poison", "Where's the ground", etc etc.

I feel sorry for Sunday if he hasn't already been keeping track of submissions, and even if he has I hope he doesn't accidently overlook anything in the sea of one liners, quotes, and the such.
Click to expand...

Actually, thats a good idea. Another way you could tackle that is by putting links to all the entries on the OP, but that works better.

RiptideFugitive said:
Anyone CAN interface with the Shoddy source directly. It's an open-source program, isn't it?
Click to expand...
Yes and no. They can fool around with the source code as much as they want, but they can't run it unless its on their own server. So no they can't interface directly with Doug's unless Doug gave them access. At least, I think thats how it works.
 
I'm not too fond of negative commentary in voting threads for community member submissions -- particularly Stat Spreads, Art, and Sprites. We have discussion threads to vet the submissions and post criticisms and commentary. In the voting threads, I think it is detrimental to the project to criticize submissions.

In the three areas I mentioned, the submitters put a lot of time and effort into their submissions. This is all voluntary. I want to encourage lots of people to contribute to these parts of the project. It's very demotivating to submitters when their work is criticized while it is actively "on display" in the voting threads.

If the work truly is not very good, then the votes will reflect that. Lack of votes is sufficient negative feedback to the submitter. We don't need others to "rub it in" by criticizing the submission as well.

If the work is good and is receiving lots of votes, then it is frustrating to see people "trash" the submission in an effort to boost another submission that is receiving less support. This case is the worst, because it is a slap in the face to someone who obviously is capable of making good submissions (as evidenced by the votes), but is put off by the negative feedback and campaigning. Perhaps they don't participate again. That's a loss to the community.

This just came up in the stat spread poll, which is why I am raising the issue here. I've seen this in the art threads in the past. I've been the recipient of negative campaigning efforts against my art designs, so I'll admit I am biased. Some of you may remember a scathing rant I made about this at the end of the CAP 2 art polls. I've made no secret of my distaste for this sort of thing. In fact, in the TL Nomination thread I explicitly forbid negative posts against TL candidates. There is no good that comes from it. It can only serve to insult or hurt.

The irony is that the people lobbing the criticism usually are far less active than the people submitting. So what does that achieve? It demotivates the active project contributor, just so some less-active poster can exercise their "freedom of speech"? Fuck that. Sure, you can argue that submitters should have thick skin. "If they can't take the heat, then they should not enter the contest." I'll say it again -- fuck that. There is no big prize for the "winner". These people are not being paid for their work. I appreciate that people work long and hard on these things. I want to encourage them to contribute more. I don't really care about the feelings of the asshole that "works" for ten seconds, typing up a criticism of a submission that someone else spent several hours creating.

I think we should have a rule that forbids negative commentary in voting threads for Stat Spreads, Art, and Sprites. People can criticize all they want in the discussion threads for these things. But when it comes time to vote, I think there should be a rule that prevents "mud-slinging" (as they say in elections).
 
Why not? A "market", so to speak, where products are faulty, will not suceed long. If a market is willing to take the advice of it's consumers, and remove/change, faulty products, the end result will be better. No, I'd be quite adamant about this. I understand that people put time and effort in. I have and will praise as much as I critique, but somethings need that critique, in order to be successful. We can't nanny everyone, DJD, and trying to do so really won't help. When I give criticism, I don't do it to be intentionally nasty - I respect all of the users on these forums. I am not criticising the person, or their ideals. I am merely looking at their work, stating I like/dislike it, and then saying why I like/dislike it. I could understand your reasoning if people just said "I don't like it", and left, but if someone provides reasoning for why they don't like it, so the person can improve their work, what is wrong with that? Bleh. I know I'll be ignored, and whatever, but I still feel that this is an important point.
 
Well, Deucalion2, if you want them to change and fix their submission, how about you do it in the submission thread, and not the voting thread, where the final product of each spread is voted on. If you did not approve of a spread, you should have said so in the submission thread, so there would be time to change, if the submitter thought the change was necessary.
 
There were many entries, you can't really comment on all of them, although I would have liked to. You have no real idea of knowing which ones would go through, either. I actually thought X-Act's wouldn't be picked to go through in the first place, and there was a spread I was going to vote for which didn't make it through. As I didn't know that, how was I supposed to comment?
 
Deucalion2 said:
Why not? A "market", so to speak, where products are faulty, will not suceed long. If a market is willing to take the advice of it's consumers, and remove/change, faulty products, the end result will be better. No, I'd be quite adamant about this. I understand that people put time and effort in. I have and will praise as much as I critique, but somethings need that critique, in order to be successful. We can't nanny everyone, DJD, and trying to do so really won't help. When I give criticism, I don't do it to be intentionally nasty - I respect all of the users on these forums. I am not criticising the person, or their ideals. I am merely looking at their work, stating I like/dislike it, and then saying why I like/dislike it. I could understand your reasoning if people just said "I don't like it", and left, but if someone provides reasoning for why they don't like it, so the person can improve their work, what is wrong with that? Bleh. I know I'll be ignored, and whatever, but I still feel that this is an important point.
Click to expand...
I fully accept criticism. What I don't accept is:

1) "I really wish your stat spread doesn't win."
2) "I voted for so-and-so not because I liked his spread, but because I hated your spread so much that I voted for the other one so that your spread loses."
3) "Your stat spread's stats are too high, so I voted for the other stat spread."

Points 1) and 2) are unacceptable no matter what. You have an opinion, and everyone respects it. What you're trying to do, however, is imposing your opinion on everyone. It's your opinion that Pokemon should be "in flavour". Maybe other people don't want them to be? There's no policy that Pokemon should be "in flavour" (whatever that might mean). I even posted here, in this thread, to see if I'm allowed posting a spread that's higher than 555 BST, and Doug told me to go ahead. Doug is the authority of this project, and I was humble enough to ask him of my spread's validity before committing to a stat spread. You don't get to impose your view and trying to downgrade a stat spread in the process.

Point 3) would have been entirely acceptable, if only it were true. It wasn't true at all. You were posting misinformation about a person's stat spread, and that's not acceptable, since it might mislead people and hence see it as a stat spread not worth voting for. Spreading faulty information about a stat spread is entirely unacceptable, in my opinion.

If my spread lost only because of people's false assumptions about "BST must be 555 or less" and/or "your spread is too good because your BST is more than 555", I'd be extremely gutted.
 
1) I'm not trying to impose my opinion on everyone else, X-Act, and I'm upset you took it that way. I'm saying that I, personally, do not like your set, and will not vote for it.2) What on earth is wrong with number 2? It's an established tactic in almost any poll anywhere. "I don't like Gordon Brown, but I dislike David Cameron more, so I'll vote for Gordon." That sort of ideal is common enough, especially in politics. I find nothing wrong with this one.3) I'm not saying they are too high, so this point doesn't even hold water. I'm saying they are the wrong number. Either 555, or 580, but no half-way houses. And sayin if your set lost because it had a total higher than 555 but less than 580, that is your fault for including something that has not been seen in the Pokemon games to date, and is unlikely to be seen in the future. Plus, this is getting a little personal now, X-Act. You can't just use our specific argument to uphold your statement.
 
What is "wrong" with number 2 is that it should not be posted. Sure, you can vote for anything you want for any reason, but if that is your reasoning then don't post it. It brings nothing constructive to the poll thread. I agree that any negative criticism should be kept in the submission thread. In fact, I'm surprised this isn't a rule already.
 
I don't want to make this about X-Act, per se. He's a grown man and can take care of himself. I also don't have many worries that X-Act is going to get all pouty if his spread loses, and decline to contribute in the future. The same goes for me. Although I posted a long tirade at the end of CAP 2, I will continue to contribute art designs to the CAP project.

But when it comes to submission-oriented polls, they DO get personal. In fact, I WANT submitters to get very personally involved in their creations. That is what makes for great submissions. We should encourage that. If we want to encourage it, then we need to implement procedures that do not "penalize" people that put their heart and soul into their creations. People get penalized, if we allow voters to shit all over their creations in a very public way. They get penalized because they are more invested in their creation than someone who just "whips something up and doesn't really care". If we want submitters to care about their creations, then we need to understand that THEY CARE.

So, in a submission voting thread, any time someone starts a sentence with "Don't take this personally..." -- I can guarantee you that the recipient WILL take it personally on some level. That is an inevitable consequence of investing in the creation process.

It would be different if this was a job for the creators, or if they were being compensated in any way. We could chalk it up to, "Nothing personal, it's just business." But this isn't business. This is a community. A community whose fundamental building blocks are the hard-working project contributors. Many contributions are not exposed to a direct public approval/disapproval process (server mods, document writers, researchers, etc). But the submission polls are a special case. The same thing goes for the TL selection process.

In those special cases, out of respect for the time and effort of the contributors, I think we should not allow negative commentary. We have entire threads where you can post all the criticism you want. But, when the submission polls are up, posts should be statements of what you like, not what you dislike. This is not an issue of fairness. All the polls, with positive and/or negative comments, are fair. It's an issue of courtesy.

I will not impose this rule on the community, if others do not support it. I fully admit that I am VERY biased on this topic, since I actively contribute in the art competitions. I am proposing it here, to see what the rest of you think.
 
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned it earlier, but point 3 on Deucalion2 reasoning is CLEARLY against the forum rules:

  • There is no public Nintendo guide or rulebook that delineates what is acceptable or unacceptable when making a Pokemon. So, don't act like you've read such a manual and memorized it word for word. No matter how experienced you are ingame, battling, or otherwise -- you are no more an "authority" on the rules of Pokemon creation than anyone else. All we have is opinions to present and discuss.
Click to expand...
Also, I agree that the voting threads should be devoid of criticism, specially since it can never be constructive: The options cannot be changed at that point. There are whole threads dedicated to the process of making the spreads/artwork etc. If you can't be bothered to post your criticism there, you don't have the right to attack one or more options in the votes.

Oh, and there are so many uninformed posts around lately it's really painful. BST means absolutely nothing, dammit! If we are going to reason around BSTs, we might as well send Entei to Ubers because it's a legendary. What is this, smogon or gamefaqs? Geez...
 
Honestly, I'll just shut up and let the people vote, but please, if anyone is reading this... please do.

When I submitted a 555+ stat spread, I did it because I couldn't do otherwise. I tried and tried and tried, but all the spreads I liked that had less than 555 BST were deemed 'Quite Good'. I honestly really took a very long time to think of a stat spread, and I simply couldn't stay below 555. This prompted me to ask Doug if I could submit a stat spread having 555+ BST. But really, I tried my utmost to stay below that total, even if it is extremely irrelevant. And it got me arguing to people as to why I had to do it... but people simply don't listen. Oh well... I tried.

I couldn't stay below 555 without making HP greater than 60. Guess what... I didn't want to make the HP greater than 60. I had every right to make my HP less than 60, right? Nobody can stop me from making the HP stat less than 60. So my liking of a low HP has got me all this. Thank you very much people. I still love you.

But please, please, PLEASE... try to understand that BST is irrelevant, and that low HP spreads will end up having a high BST unless they're worse than 'Very Good'. If you hate low HP, then that's a different story... you have every right to. But hating 555+ BST when I couldn't do otherwise... isn't that extremely unfair?
 
I'm posting in support of the no-negativity rule. However, there is a line between CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and DEROGATORY criticism. Constructive criticism is meant to help the submitter, such as "I'm not sure x will work flavor-wise, maybe y will work better. Derogatory criticism, i.e. "I really hate x. It sucks.", should be the one not allowed.
 
Tennis, I agree that constructive criticism is actually a good thing. It should be encouraged in the submission threads. What Doug was saying though, is that criticism in the POLLS should not be allowed. There is no way it can be construcive because it can't be changed at that point (as Time Mage pointed out).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top