As a result of the ruckus I caused by warning people about off-topic posts, I've been thinking about what constitutes an off-topic discussion. There's nothing wrong with mentioning ideas that are part of future polls. Heck, it's a requirement in most of the early polls in the project. How else can you support your type choice, without mentioning things that are part of later polls?
"I like Grass/Fire because I like those types."
That's a crappy discussion post. Yawn...
"I like Grass/Fire because I can envision it with Chlorophyll and Subseed support moves. It would look cool if we could make it look like a blazing Sunflower. Heck maybe even make it a Sunflora evo!"
That's a decent discussion post, even though it touches upon topics that will be covered in four different polls later on in the process. That is not an off-topic post.
But, if the next 20 posters spin off on a tangent about the viability of Chlorophyll with Subseed on the same pokemon -- that's off-topic. Since the point of the thread is not to discuss the ability and the movelist. We are supposed to discuss the typing.
This is obviously a gray definition and must be administered with good judgment. I think "off-topic -ness" is determined by two factors -- Momentum and/or Specificity of the posts.
Momentum is determined by the number of posts that are centered on the off-topic concept. That's pretty easy to judge. When a few people start going back and forth on an off-topic concept, it drags the rest of the thread with them. Next thing you know everyone is talking about the off-topic concept, and they may create the perception that the "conclusions" they reach are in some way binding to the project as a whole. The discussion participants themselves may be fully aware that their conclusions are meaningless until the actual poll is conducted. But all of these threads have many more lurkers than posters. All those lurkers may get a very different impression of the meaning of off-topic "decisions". Even more so, if they are new to the project.
Specificity refers to how general the off-topic concept is presented.
For example, if someone mentions Subseed with Sunny Day as an interesting move combo. Those are specific moves, but it's presented in a general context. If someone decides to "support their argument" by posting a complete level-up moveset, with egg moves and TM's -- that's bullshit. No one needs to get that specific to back up their argument.
Another example, if someone mentions that a pokemon should have something like 110 Special Attack and 102 speed to beat all the base 100's. Those are specific numbers, but they are used in general terms. If someone presents a full BST spread with justification as to where the pokemon should fit in the overall BST tiering list -- there's no reason for that in a typing poll.
I don't think there is a way to write rules for determining when a thread has gone off-topic. Nor do I want to stifle people's enthusiasm and discourage lively discussion. The point of the project is to discuss things.
I think we should probably mention somewhere that off-topic information is inevitable in all the CAP discussions. However, if an entire thread veers into specific debate about off-topic concepts -- then the discussion will be moderated. This isn't a CAP project rule, this a rule of every moderated forum in existence. But, for some reason, people were surprised when I moderated the secondary typing poll. I think some people thought, "What's wrong with having a long detailed discussion about BST's in the typing poll?" So maybe we need to make this rule clearer in our process guide. Also, a short summary of the rule should be added to the forum rules. Since the existing rule was written primarily to discourage people from making new pokemon threads.
I know some people disagree with me on this. So I want to throw it out for debate here in a thread dedicated to discussing the CAP process, rather than discussing it in detail in the polling threads -- which, ironically, would be an off-topic discussion in itself. ;-)
