Moving Forward (Re: "Putting My Foot Down")

Status
Not open for further replies.

macle

sup geodudes
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
#76
I have no problem with you overthrowing a super majority but you did it in a wrong way. You should have contacted PR Members to help come up with the policy since I think atm it has some holes in it. You can contact me in pm or on irc to see the specifics since I don't want them to be discussed here. Once contacting members of the PR, then you should "suggest" the new policy.

Hip told me to post.
 
#77
Group A

For reference, I voted against adhering to in-game mechanics, and I still stick to this because I feel it creates a better metagame to play in.

As a little aside, although it is annoying that much of the ~30% who voted for adhering to in-game mechanics are individuals who either don't play at all or don't compete in competitive tournaments at this given point, I'm willing to put this aside for simplicity sake. I just wanted to point out that if you look at the list of people who voted with the ~70%, it comes as little surprise that most of the current and relevant tournament / competitive players lay in this category.

Regardless, I put my faith in Phil that he'll do what's best for the community. It's obvious that we're all striving for a playable, and more importantly, a stable metagame as soon as possible, and without someone taking the reigns in PR, this won't happen anytime soon. Bickering back and forth will get us nowhere, which is why I believe Phil should have the ultimate decision in anything related to Pokemon Policy. Good luck Phil, you'll need it.
 
#79
I don't like how the groups are mutually exclusive. I vote group B but allow me to explain. I think this is an extremely difficult job and I have a lot of faith in Phil as a leader. In fact, I don't mind the decision purely in terms of pokemon. I voted 'no' in the original game mechanics poll, I did it just to keep an 'out' for a worse case scenario. I don't actually mind following the mechanics perfectly and after having thought about it, I think I would change my vote given the opportunity.

Where I think Phil really choked up was his right to completely veto a vote. We have polls for a reason. I don't need to remind any of the more experienced posters what the game was like when we only had 1 person making all the decisions (no offense to Cathy). Even if Phil saw that the majority of the 'no' voters voted for reasons like my own, I found it frustrating that he didn't talk to us about this first. I wish there was a thread made with the purpose of starting a conversation about this topic. In any political system, the leader should more or less mirror the wants of the community. No matter how much Phil believed in his cause, if a super-majority has been reached, he really should not outright veto the vote. Once again, it would've been fine if he made a separate thread, asking that we should change our votes to 'yes' for whatever reason, but he didn't and that's what ticks me off.

I still have a lot of faith in Phil as a leader and I don't really think there's anyone more qualified for the job tbh. However, just because I appreciate the man does not mean I appreciate the decision. You slipped up Phil, just learn from it. I will continue to back you as long as you realize this mistake and keep improving as our leader.
 

Mario With Lasers

Self-proclaimed DEAD king
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
#84
Group B

While I do support Philip, I would rather we had a re-vote with a better-worded poll question (as the one suggested by Jackal), so we can finally settle this down.
 

jc104

Humblest person ever
is a Contributor Alumnus
#85
I, as I suspect is probably the case with most people, do not really fall within either of the mentioned categories. Given the advice in the OP I shall put Group B. Ultimately, I trust in Philip as a leader to make the right decision most of the time, and would see him as the best candidate for the position of leader. However, making an autocratic decision such as this that goes against the vote of the community I see as wrong. Had there not been a vote, and had it not been accepted as a decision at least initially, I would have looked upon the decision much more favorably. Even if I feel that the decision was wrong, this would at least merely be a continuation of what was apparently our policy at the end of gen 4.

One of the main advantages of having a leader such as this is that they can rule to an extent through common sense; it is not essential for everything to be laid out perfectly. I would hope that Philip could see which proposed mechanics changes are appropriate and which aren't, rather than having to flatly reject all changes. Even if this may make his job slightly harder, I would hope that as a leader Philip would be committed enough to deal with each case as it comes. Certainly in the case of glitches and sleep clause, precedents have been set in previous generations, both by us in removing them and by gamefreak, as these mechanics have been seen previously in games. This means that these are sensible proposed mechanics changes, rather than things that have not been seen previously, such as the removal of crits.

So in conclusion I would like Phil to continue his leadership, but I feel that the decision in this case was wrong. A few picky users can be easily dealt without without having to compromise the game and go against the will of the community as a whole. The decision shows something of a lack of faith in the community and the common sense of its members.
 

eric the espeon

maybe I just misunderstood
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
#86
Group A

I think we probably could've got around the issues with not perfectly following mechanics with careful wording, and that Obi's logic was flawed (based on an incorrect assumption of why people voted for non strict adherence), but can see why you took the choice you did and am happy to follow it. Am more comfortable with it this way anyway, it just seemed hard to justify logically.
 
#97
Idiots will complain regardless of what you do. It is easier to simply trust one's person judgment rather than putting things up to voting, especially when that person is well informed and has shown to make good decisions in the past. Group A
 
#98
The results are in:

Group A: 66 (70.21%)
Group B
: 28 (29.79%)

Thanks everybody for the well-over-supermajority support. Now that that's settled, here's how we're proceeding:

  1. Smogon's Official Server on Pokemon Online will go public very soon. Smogon's philosophy will be to strictly follow in-game mechanics. However, the server following strict in-game mechanics is contingent on us having the programmers to set it up. So for now, our ladders will support whatever clauses and mechanics available until we can get things fixed. We will post announcements when these things get fixed so nobody is blind-sided.
  2. The Tournament Directors (and it appears the majority of our community) have decided to support previewing teams for official tournaments, so that will therefore be the standard on our 5th gen ladders as well.
  3. My policy team and I are currently ironing out some kinks in the suspect testing process, so just enjoy playing on the ladders until we finalize how to do things. Just keep in mind that ratings are prone to being reset once we set it up.
  4. Here's a list of our initial ladders for the server:

  • VGC 2011
  • VGC 2010
  • VGC 2009
  • ADV Ubers
  • ADV OU
  • 4th Gen Ubers
  • 4th Gen OU
  • 4th Gen UU
  • 4th Gen LC
  • 5th Gen Standard Ubers
    • Released Pokemon and Dream World abilities only
    • Preview Teams
  • 5th Gen Dream World Ubers
    • All Pokemon and Dream World abilities
    • Preview Teams
  • 5th Gen Standard OU
    • Released Pokemon and Dream World abilities only
    • Preview Teams
    • Initial Banlist #2
  • 5th Gen Dream World OU
    • All Pokemon and Dream World abilities
    • Preview Teams
    • Initial Banlist #2
  • 5th Gen Standard LC
    • Released Pokemon and Dream World abilities only
    • Preview Teams
Everybody, please be sure to thank Super for his hard work in getting our server up, and coyotte508 for creating Pokemon Online.

Again, I wanted to thank everybody for their support. I have had time to reflect on these events, and I think it has been a good learning experience for me as a leader. I am confident that things will run smoothly from here on out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top