OPEN DISCUSSION - Gym Concerns and Issues

Texas Cloverleaf

This user has a custom title
is a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
This discussion will be lightly moderated to ensure it is focused.

So recently there's been a lot of discussions about gyms in IRC, and how undefined a lot of facets of the more administrative side of gyms is. Thus, we're coming to the community, to ask what you want to see explained or implemented into the ASB Gym League.

Some of the issues have been raised before, and have indeed occurred before. However, the main questions were:

  • What is the protocol for challenging a leader for their gym position?
  • What should happen to inactive gym leaders?
  • What should happen if a gym leader is disqualified from a match?

Some of these have answers that have been proposed, some do not.

Right now, the gym committee and the council all want a solution that a number of people agree upon. Therefore, we're asking people to raise concerns about the system if not already mentioned, and offer any ideas for how any concern should be handled.


tl;dr

1. Post concerns you have about gym and the gym process and administration.
2. Discuss said issues for relevance and clarity.
3. Propose solutions and look for agreement.
4. ???
5. The gym committee will convene and discuss all issues at hand and come to resolutions on the issues, these resolutions going into effect immediately.


Have at it and stay focussed!

There will be no need for a voting thread for this topic.
 
I am gonna answer each one the best I can.

1. I believe the protocol should be a 6 on 6 and either the gym leader should bring 9 and the challenger should bring 9 or they both bring six. This is because having a advantage is not really showing your skill when you could possibly lose with just 6 mons able to be used and not changing according to the other team. This means they should be on even standings because in a situation as changing as taking over a gym the gym leader having a advantage and winning does not show they deserve the position as a 6 on 6 with both people bringing 6.

2. Inactive gym leaders would have to be forced into a takeover match as soon as they get on. Also if they don't come on in like 4 or 5 months maybe just re-host the preliminaries.

3. That cannot be properly answered without giving certain examples about disqualification.

Also I have my own question how often can a gym leader be challenge for his/her position by the same challenger?
 
Here is my point of view, which may or may not have inherent flaws.
1. I believe the protocol for usurping a gym leader should be more difficult then just defeating him with a team of your own. This promotes counter-teaming just for the purpose of taking a gym without using the skill set nessacary. I believe it should be a best out of 3 in the same format as a standard challenge at the current leaders gym.
You may not challenge this gym leader again for another 6 months

2. Inactive gym leaders should have 1 week to be notified of any challenges or orders that they need to make. Then at 2 weeks a second warning shall be administered. After a month if the gym leader fails to respond to a challenge then new qualifiers shall begin in the same format as the original qualifiers.
3. If a gym leader is DQed by a decent bit of time then he should be forced to give up a badge.
 

LouisCyphre

heralds disaster.
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
First, a response:

1. I believe the protocol should be a 6 on 6 and either the gym leader should bring 9 and the challenger should bring 9 or they both bring six. This is because having a advantage is not really showing your skill when you could possibly lose with just 6 mons able to be used and not changing according to the other team. This means they should be on even standings because in a situation as changing as taking over a gym the gym leader having a advantage and winning does not show they deserve the position as a 6 on 6 with both people bringing 6.
This is terrible logic. The entire point of a gym is to find a master trainer of a particular type and demonstrate the full power of that type. In order to obtain a badge, you have to show that you can bear the full brunt on the type's power, not just know your super-effective type charts. The gym system tests the skill of the challengers, not the Gym Leaders. The GLs show their skill by shoring up the weaknesses of their type, choosing an appropriate format for their team, and dispatching carefully-chosen counter-teams.

***

That said, I want to see certain things in the administration of gyms:

Security. Gyms should not change hands on any frequent basis. It should be difficult to dislodge a Gym Leader from their seat; else, what's the point of the effort? A chance hax should not cause a Leader to be evicted. Furthermore, the Gym Leader should be able to take a hand in their own continued term. Maintaining a certain win/lose ratio, for example, should allow a Gym Leader to stay in their seat by virtue of their ability.

(Some) Authority. A Gym Leader should have say over their own gym. They should be able to (subject to the Gym Commitee's approval) be able to take brief breaks, alter their gym's arena, add appropriately-trained mons to their roster, and so on.

Accountability. Gym Leaders should be expected to battle in a timely fashion and behave a certain way in the context of their gym. Outside of their Gym, they should be as any other player and be subject to the same (rather lax) rules. In a Gym, however, they should be under a stricter eye. If you're a Gym Leader who thinks you'll have trouble posting every 2 days, make your DQ a 4-day one!

I'll surely have more thoughts later.
 

Texas Cloverleaf

This user has a custom title
is a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
(Some) Authority. A Gym Leader should have say over their own gym. They should be able to (subject to the Gym Commitee's approval) be able to take brief breaks, alter their gym's arena, add appropriately-trained mons to their roster, and so on.
This is essentially already the case. Breaks are fine and not usually a concern, gym arena alterations just have to be run by the committee and approved and they are good to go and the roster is entirely at the discretion of the leader! (we'll step in if we see 20 move mons or what have you but I digress)
 
What should happen if a gym leader is disqualified from a match?

This should be a sign of responsibility from the Leaders, as no DQ is unannounced only a complete absence from Smogon and IRC would cause that a Leader wouldn't be available by all the regular mediums and "allow" such a thing, if on the other hand the Leader is being careless, jerkish or just plain irresponsible and forgets/refuses to post actions without any valid reason and on a constant basis then that's likely what he'll keep doing as the challengers keep coming and that person shouldn't be allowed to continue as a leader as these are the people meant to represent the finest of ASB

I would like to ask what happens if the leader is losing then disappears all of the sudden and the match is forced into DQ? Normally the challenger gets only the counters but
not the badge on the other hand the comitee should review gyms that fall under a certain 5 treeshold an deliverate if this person is the right person for said gym while looking at potential candidates to fill it if neccesary

PS: I like the idea that good leaders have some automatic barrier that protects them from being kicked, maybe something like anything over 75-66% of victories means you've been doing a good job and are responsible enough to keep on without much modifications, while under 33%-25% (or some other number Idk) you'll be on trial an potential replacements brought into consideration though only after it becomes obvious you¿re a liability for the league
 
I like Lou's idea of only being able to challenge a gym leader for their gym if they have below a certain win percentage. I'd like to nominate <35% as the percentage that allows a gym leader to be overthrown.

To actually overthrow one, I believe you must battle the gym leader in a format of THEIR choice ad you must use a team of the type in question. The gym leader has a distinct advantage by being able to bring more mons, but the challenger is still able to win. I believe we should test a few different ways to go about this, by having fake "overthrow gym" battles.
 
1. I agree that Gym Leaders should only be challenged when their win percentage is very low (33% is a good benchmark), and even then, the fight should be like a regular Gym match, with the current GL bringing more mons as well as deciding all terms. A situation where somebody challenges dogfish (who currently has an 86% win record), haxes the crap out of him (see: df is df), then becomes Gym Leader should NEVER happen.

Another factor that has not been considered is amount of challenges. Fir example, let's say the Rock Gym opened and the first 3 challengers were Atheno, IAR, and some other user that loses, is it really a show of incompetence if they lose against Gym Leaders of SE types? Absolutely not. I propose that a Gym Leader's position should be secured for the first five matches, and only then should they be able to be ousted.

2. Define inactive. If this inactivity is announced a good amount of time before it happens or only lasts for a few weeks, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to keep their positions. If, however, the absence lasts for months on end with no announced return, they should be replaced, but with a caveat for the substitute GL- if/when the previous GL returns, they are entitled to have a qualifier match with his/her substitute. The winner if that match will be the permanent Gym Leader. During the qualifiers, the substitute will accept all official Gym matches.

3. This one is the kicker, and I don't really have a set in stone opinion on it. On one hand, GLs are obviously required to adhere to the rules as strictly as possible at all times, especially during gym matches. On the other, is it really fair to give out a badge due to a GL forgetting to post, especially if the match is going in favor of the GL. My current theory is that the challenger should not get the badge, but should have the right to skip the queue for his next challenge, whether it be the same Gym or a different one, but I wouldn't be surprised if my opinion will be completely different tomorrow.
 
I can't comment on anything else, but trying to overthrow a leader should involve a best of three, so they won't be haxed out. Also, being a gym leader is a serious responsiblity, so losing through DQ shouldn't give the person a badge ( except under certain circumstances) but the leader should get two losses, so you won't DQ yourself out of spite.
 
Regarding the ability to challenge a gym leader for their position, i dont think having a low W/L ratio is enough.

Yes, if a bad W/L ratio is problematic and must be considered if someone wishes the gym, however, the fights the GL had should be looked and properly analysed.

Gym Leaders are supposed to be strong, yes, but not invencible. They are meant to put up a good fight against any challengers. If a GL has been able to consistently have extremely close battles and always manages to come close to victory, he shouldnt really be removed, even if he loses more often than not.


tl;dr - When someone wants to challenge for the gym, the council should analyse the current Gym Leader's battles and how well he battled to decide if he is worthy the position.
 
Maybe it should be at the Gym Councils discretion as to when a leader is able to be overthrown. The committee themselves can think of the standards at which to asses the gym, possibly including win percentage. By having the council review the gym, this leaves no room for possible low win percentages by hax because the committee can investigate the gym battles and figure out the reason behind the low percentage

Tl;dr. Gym committee should decide when leaders are able to be overthrown
 

Texas Cloverleaf

This user has a custom title
is a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
To note: this is basically what we've done so far; most everything has been at our judgement and discretion and I've occasionally gotten the three of us together on irc to review facets of the gyms. Our most recent discussion was reviewing all of the arenas.
 

Frosty

=_=
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
I am Strongly against defining a Win/Loss ratio and saying that anyone under it can be challenged. Due to one simple reason: it treats the same way things that are vastly different.

The different Gyms Leaders have to use different types with different teams and different pokemon and will attract different kind of players. Many of the reasons one leader wins/loses more than other are beyond the control of the leaders themselves. The circumstances involved in each one of the Gyms are way too different to just put a blant "you may have more than XX% wins to be immune to challenges" rule and be done with it.

Of many factors, I can mention as examples of what I am saying two: The kind of players the leader attracts (read: challenge him/her) and the type-effectivity (s)he has to work with. Let me ilustrate that with real examples, since I like statistics and all.

First Example: the ability of the challenger. For that I will divide challengers in "people that already had a badge when the challenge happened" and "other people". Badges are a good way to determine if the player is good or not, specially if you consider that people that were already badgeholders won 10 (IAR vs Dogfish; Emma vs Dogfish take 2; dogfish vs jas; Atheno vs Jas; IAR vs Engineer; dogfish vs Atheno take 2; Frosty vs Atheno; Leethoof vs Rediamond; Engineer Pikachu vs Zarator; Rediamond vs Kaxtar) and lost 7 (Kaxtar vs Dogfish, Emma vs IAR, Gerard vs Engineer; Texas vs Engineer; Dogfish vs Atheno take 1, IAR vs Zarator; zarator vs Gerard) battles, to a ratio of 59%, against the overall ratio of 27%.

The Water Gym had 7 challenges thus far: Dogfish, C$FP, Yarnus, Dogfish again, Frosty, IAR and SubwayJ. Of those 6 were badgeholders when the battle started, 2 of them won, 1 ended in DQ, 1 lost and 2 are under way (33% victory for the leader). Overall Ratio: 3W, 2L: 60%.

The Electric Gym had 16 challenges thus far: Lord Jesseus, dragonboy52, IAR, Wanderer, Kaxtar, The Royal Guard, Emma take 1 (before flying badge), AOPSUser, Texas, Pwnemon, Imanalt, Emma take 2 (after flying badge), Imanalt take 2, Yarnus, Maxim and Frosty. Of those only 4 challenges were against badgeholders, in 2 of them they won, in 1 the Leader won and one is underway (33% victory for the leader). Overall Ratio: 12W, 2L: 85.71%.

In terms of finished battles (not considering DQ) both Gyms had the same number with the same results. The Water Gym even attracts more Badgeholders (6 to 4) even having much less battles (7 to 16). Yet the Electric Gym has a nice ratio of 85% and Water Gym of 60%, with a higher chance of seeing it lower further, as both the current challengers are badgeholders (statistics say that, not me). The Electric Gym had more "unprepared" challenges than the Water Gym (at least in general). Should we treat them both equally?

Another example, now in regards to Type Effectivity. For that I will take the Flying Gym and the Psychic Gym.

Flying Type has 3 weaknesses: Rock, Ice and Electric. No pokemon takes hits neutral from all of three and two do that for 2 types: Skarmory (ice and rock neutral) and Gliscor (immune to electric and neutral to rock). Skarmory's effectivity in ASB is rather dubious and Gliscor falls to the boltbeam combination. Overall Ratio: 3W, 5L.

Psychic Type has also 3 weaknesses: Bug, Ghost and Dark. Metagross and Bronzong take neutral from all of them and Medicham and Gallade take from 2 of three. All of them are extremely good pokemon (well...maybe not Medicham), being amongst the best of the best. Overall Ratio: 4W, 0L.

Against the Flying Gym, a simple Cyclohm-Krillowatt-Rotom-fourth mon makes the leader (ANY leader) run for his money. But against the Psychic Gym, a Chandelure - Sableye - Colossoil - Tyranitar team will struggle without a very good strategy (again, against ANY leader). Should we treat them both equally and say that both have to get XX% victories?

(I am not saying that DF/Gerard won only because of circumstances other than overall ability. They are both terrific players. I am just saying that circumstances do also play a part in that).

I mean c'mon, that is just silly. A Normal Gym Leader that is challenged by 5 badgeholders out of 6 battles and manages to get victories 66% of the time is a good, perhaps great player. But the same can't be said for an Electric Gym Leader that is challenged by 0 badgeholders out of 6 battles and gets the same 66%.

The same way, if you manage to overcome type disadvantage in 66% of the matches with the Flying Type, you are good. But if you do so only 66% of the time with the Psychic Type, then...not as good.

Other factor also play a part in that too: hax, real life issues, movepool of the mons of the type etc etc etc. Even if both leaders play in the same level, I guarantee that they will have a considerable difference in their win/loss ratios.

My conclusion? There is a reason why the old "if 3 losses in 5 battles THEN may be challenged" rule was axed. Types are different and Gyms are different. So they MUST be treated differently.

My proposal is simple: let the committee decide. Make challenges open but the challenger has to petition the committee for a battle and the committee will analyse if the leader has an overall good performance and if the challenger is worthy of a chance. I mean, we can even have a decent Leader, but if the challenger is the kind that is steamrolling every Gym he faces and has a terrific reputation, will you deny him the chance just because the leader is decent?

just my 2 cents anyway.
 
I fully agree with Frosty on this. Moreover, treating all wins/losses of a gym leader the same way takes away the incentive of fighting hard, even when you lose. This is a big part of the gym challenge: there are times where the GL simply cannot win (or has an extremely small chance of winning through unlikely hax or such), and yet he is expected to give the challenger as much of a hard time as he can to make the badge well earned. Such an effort deserves proper consideration when deciding whether or not a GL is worthy of his position.
 
Mmmm... I may have changed my mind I have to agree that all gyms are very different, an example, Rock Type has almost no way to overcome Pure Fighting Types, Fight is only weak to Psychic and Flying, so that makes mons that are effective against a Conkeldurr / Machamp duo... Aerodactyl (who's best STAB is Fly which can be subbed against or Aeroblast which can be potentially disrupted), Archeops (strong but on the same boat unless he decides to forget it's item slot and use Acrobatics, and then Defeatist), both weak to common coverage moves such as stone edge and the elemental punches or Solrock and Lunetone (Ok mons but their stats are lacking and they don't have anything really remarkable), so your options against both of them are incredibly limited, even more if whatever else they decide to bring turns out to be equally strong (Bronzong can pretty much beat whatever's left of the team for example) and then you have to be prepared for the strong grass and waters that will surely come your way and the chances of remaining unbeaten are very slim.

Also we should remember how the trainers (gym leaders or not but more likely the first) that have the most SE mons are the ones that will likely try it first, diminishing your chances even more, while keeping a consistent lose record should definitely have a bearing in the discussion about a Gym future the overall battle should be the most important thing, if the player shows poor thinking in their actions (failing to sub properly (on a constant basis) and not taking advantage of his own moves when going second) and reduced capacity to overcome the type dissadventages then that person is likely not the best one for any given gym.
 

Frosty

=_=
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Since this is the place to post concerns, I have one (more of a suggestion actually): I believe the Committee should focus on having an entire active roster in a forseeable future. Better: a known future. A soon future.

lemme try to explain why I think this is a problem that must be solved asap.

Here is the current status of the gyms:

Okie
Poison: Engineer is drowning people in stall
Flying: Jas is flying high away
Electric: Puppylover is loving electric puppies. Ironically, no jolteon.
Ground: IAR is playing with hippos
Water: Atheno is killing water goats
Psychic: Gerard is bored without challenges
Ghost: zara is writing harry potter fanfiction

hm...
Grass: Pwnemon is waiting for the ref to finish crushing me
Dragon: Texas was deemed a leader and is finishing up his arena. Isn't open yet
Normal: Maxim won one of the 3 matches and the other 2 are coming to an end soon.

Oh boy
Bug: Rediamond left the gym, but then came again. But not completely. And is somewhat gone again. I am confused.
Rock: Leethoof was deemed a leader here, 9 months ago and has still to open his gym. I am a patient guy, but 9 months?
Fire: Qualifiers will be held someday somehow...
Steel: Qualifiers will be held someday somehow...
Dark: Lou was taken from the position as a leader and qualifiers were said to be held and then he is back and I have seen people say qualifiers will be held and people saying Lou will just be the leader. An answer would be lovely.
Fighting: Qualifiers will be held someday somehow...
Ice: Last qualifiers exploded and the new one is probably waiting for the next glacial age


The first gyms were opened at the begining of 2012 and one year has passed. And yet we are still half-way (7 gyms open and active, 3 gyms will open soon enough and 7 gyms are stuck, somewhat).

But that is not the problem.

The problem is: Gyms started with a batch of 8 (dogfish-electric; iar-ground; jas-flying; atheno-water; c$fp-steel; engineer-poison; kaxtar-fighting; korski-dark), all of them received challenges at the begining. After one year we have 7 gyms receiving challenges (dogfish-electric, iar-ground, jas-flying, atheno-water, engineer-poison, zarator-ghost, gerard-psychic). The number of active gyms lowered in this year. We managed to get 7 new leaders (lou, gerard, leethoof, rediamond, texas, orcinus, zarator), but we lost (at some point, some came back but I don't know at which condition) 6 (lou, orcinus, rediamond, korski, c$fp and kaxtar) and 2 of them still didn't open their gyms (texas and leethoof).

Bottom line: gym leaders are not being appointed and gyms being opened fast enough to make up for the departure of the old ones. That is my biggest concern as far as gyms are involved: that we will never manage to complete the roster.

I believe the committee should focus first and foremost on completing the league before discussing replacement, elite four and what-not. The league is still incomplete and this bugs me, personally, as I don't see it being finished soon at this rate.

This will mean rushing qualifiers to some point. This whole "we will do it as soon as all parties involved are ready" policy is very risky, simply because most players won't ever feel they are truly ready. Also, this allows people to just jump in and start from the scratch training their mons and since you waited for the other candidates, you will have to wait for the new ones too, right?

All this cause delay. And too much delay means that the chances of other gym leader leaving for whatever reason increases and down goes the odds of us getting anywhere near a full roster.

I am probably exagerating, yeah. But I am concerned. And the numbers don't lie...after one year we haven't evolved much...if at all, as far as the number of open gyms is concerned.

My suggestion is simple: schedule a date/week for the next round of qualifiers to be held (or one different date per qualifier depending on how the respective candidates are). A Month, 2 Months, I don't know, but say the day/week it will happen and the format of the battle (like round 2 was held). That alone will motivate the candidates to speed up their training and to think their strategies and which mons they will use. The candidates, AFAIK, have good enough pokemon to hold their own on gyms (maybe, maybe, not as much for fire type, but I am not sure who will actually run for it...), assuming they are competent, of course. That way it will be just a matter IMO, of tweaking stuff up. We can't wait for the optimal setup for everyone, as it might take a while...or forever. IMO, a good setup will do.

Also, the committe should go and decide what happens with the Ice (will a ww x glacier match be held on a specific day soon or will the committee decide to give some more time for other candidates to show up?), Bug (where is rediamond...), Dark (who is the leader? will qualifiers be held?) and Rock (where is leet's arena...) gyms. And stick to that decision.

If worst comes to worst, we can always enable challenges for the gym position to make sure the leader is the best of the type. But getting a new leader is (somewhat) easy. The hard part is getting the first leader and first arena up and running smoothly and fully.


just my 2 cents.
 

LouisCyphre

heralds disaster.
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
At the risk of starting a tangent: I'm ready now. I'd feel fully comfortable opening once Honchkrow, Colossoil, and Cacturne are trained to minimum proficiency.
 
Frosty brings up many good points but we need individual discussions to spawn from it so I pose these questions
#1. Should we have all the gym qualifiers at a set date/time in the future
#2. If so what date?
#3. Should we make all the gym qualifiers uniform format-wise?
 

Texas Cloverleaf

This user has a custom title
is a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
As to number three I decided with MK to make all future qualifiers b5p3 singles as having appeared to be the best choice of format in the past, allowing for other potential options brought before the committee by both/all potential applicants to a spot.
 
I actually was thinking about replying to all this before Frosty came in and blew everyone away with his points and logic. Let me address the previous discussed issue, with Gym leaders and the brought up point of "can I challenge a gym leader for his/her title?/When can I challenge a gym leader for his/her title? How can i challenge gym leader for his/her title?".

I do not at all believe in a "The Gym leader has a W/L/T ratio of 3/10/1, That means he stinks and I can fight him for the title" system. W/L/T in my opinion should only be for Challengers to speculate the toughness of the Gym Leaders (its not a good way to speculate, since all battles are different in some way, but I do like seeing what gym leaders have been very or not very successful in their bouts).

In my mind (and I will be talking with Texas and MK_Ultra in the near future about figuring out how to solve all these concerns), I was envisioning a certain date, probably once or even twice a year, where if there are Trainers with a plausible Gym team, and Gym Leadership interest, they can (on that date) post a challenge to the gym of their choice, in which the Current Leader will accept. Then the battlers will duke it out for the Leadership title. Of course, The Gym Committee would have to examine the Trainer and their team, and would probably have the power to veto the Gym Leadership Challenge. Like I said though, It's just a possible idea, and there might be problems arising with said idea we would have to figure out.
___________________________________________________________

Now, as for Frosty's latest post regarding Qualifiers and getting the Gyms all established, I have sent messages to Texas and MK_Ultra, in which I hope they reply swiftly. We will discuss all that has been pointed out, and hopefully we can come up with a solid plan that will relieve everyone's fears.

Thank you for everyone who has posted so far, bringing up their concerns. With your help we will make the Gym System better!

GlacierEdit: In regards to some of Frosty's Questions and points:
-The Ice Qualifier will begin Once the Ultimate Showdown finishes (that is what Texas told me, and I believe we are sticking to it) Texasedit: correct
-While we did lose gym leaders, we can't really help that part. And, there were no people ready to take up the position at the time (for a few gyms, that is still the case)
 

Birkal

We have the technology.
is a Top Artistis a Top CAP Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
I agree entirely with Frosty's post and would urge the Gym Committee to start setting these dates for qualifiers in stone. I don't think the actual timeframe is particularly important, I simply think that having a time to aim for will get these gym leaders-to-be in gear and focusing on their mission. It should likely be announced in this thread, and it shouldn't be put off. Once we have a full set of gym leaders, then it is much easier to talk about questions like dethroning a gym leader and DQ rules.

I am biased in the timing of this; I intend to make a run for a gym. I'll leave the timing of it all up to the gym leader committee, but I think a 2 - 3 month maximum date for all qualifiers should be set relatively soon. It could be shorter than that (it probably should be shorter than that), but I think letting this issue linger on for any longer than three months is a tad unacceptable and non-desirable.
 
Not really my business posting in this thread but just wondering the following two things:

1) Who has plans on going for a gym that currently doesn't have an [active] leader?

On the spot these types to me are:
- Dark
- Fighting
- Fire
- Ice
- Steel

2) How long do you think it would take you to have a decent team for these types?

Honestly, and again it's really important to note that I'm not in charge / it's not my business, but it'd be nice if people that plan on going for one of those gyms could be ready for their qualifiers by around mid-August. Does that seem unreasonable (non-rhetorical)? End of August? Because I think that if people gear themselves to get ready for those, it'll increase activity in the forums as a whole and produce higher quality gyms. Thoughts?

---------------

EDIT: Additionally: how do you guys feel about the idea of having back-up leaders for when leaders go inactive (this obviously includes the currently filled gyms~)? It streamlines the process of finding a new leader / having new qualifiers etc., at least in my opinion.
 
I've already made arrangements with LupusAter, the other (remaining) Dark-gym cannidate. We are due to start a battle early-to mid August for the Dark gym.

If LouisCyphre manages to return by that time, I believe we would welcome him into a three-way round robin for the gym.
 
I intend to apply for the Steel Gym, and should be ready shortly. My current roster (for the sake of progress) consists of 6 Steel types with 40+ moves, 1 with 38 (who's training will mark my application) and 2 that are training.
 
I am one of the 8 or so ASBers going for Fighting gym. I believe I will have a team ready by the end of August (I already have 4 FE Fighting-types, three of which have 45+ moves, and one evolution pending approval). Even so, if at the end of August, there is someone else who is almost ready, I would be willing to wait for them.
 

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

Top