Putting My Foot Down

[Mekkah]

I'm not going to claim I read this whole topic because I didn't but I just want to say I support Chou's posts, in particular

It's easy to cheer and applaud when a leader is decided, but it's absolute bullshit to jeer and oppose when he goes and does EXACTLY what we asked him to!

A single leader isn't always going to do what you like him to!

That said, I don't mind this. I have never been on the extreme side of the game purity debate. Well, maybe I have been, but I dropped it when I realized it was making a mountain out of a mole hill. Phil could have handled this a lot better - I would have preferred to just lock the CH thread (it was such a clear "no"), or re-do the poll. But he knows that so it's not use bickering further about it.

Hypothetical: For instance, what if there was a feature that activated when Doryuuzu switched in while there was sand, and it caused the game to crash?

Yeah, things like this is why I would prefer to have breathing room. But they're not likely to happen and I'm perfectly fine with not having the mole.

I prefer to just play instead of trying to change what I'm given to play with.

 

[Jiggy]

I guess the real issue to address then, is what would happen if there was a really big problem in the programming of one of the games? [...] For instance, what if there was a feature that activated when Doryuuzu switched in while there was sand, and it caused the game to crash?

My answer is inspired by part of this post in the critical hits thread:

If we were to ban critical hits (and it is clear from the poll results and Phil's statement we are not, but this is central to our philosophy) we would no longer be playing Pokemon, because nowhere would we in any official event or tournament have any reasonable expectation that our metagame decision would be catered to. The utter lack of precedent and even the mechanical *impossibility* of implementing our preferences anywhere but a simulator is what makes this suggestion in particular absurd and damaging.

If the bolded idea was followed across the board, I think we'd have an airtight philosophy with no risk of opening floodgates: we can consider a clause or ban if and only if it would be possible to implement it in one of the official games of the generation for which the clause or ban is proposed.

Maybe what we should really have a vote on is whether people agree with that principle. Either way, my answer to your question stems from there: ban Doryuuzu, ban Sand Stream and Sandstorm, or make a clause--pick one of those, but by no means modify the mechanics into something that can be experienced only on a simulator.

That radical bs like removing crits had no chance of being accepted [...] A significant amount of people proved that they would always vote in favor of in-game mechanics by voting Yes to begin with

I voted yes to stick to in-game mechanics, but that doesn't mean I'd always do so. I'd always do so only if the slate is clean. Like we've seen with what Phil has said in here and what obi said in the critical hits thread, my mindset changed pretty quickly after it seemed like the no vote had won and I was trying to adapt to new circumstances and a new surrounding philosophy.

Example: when I first saw that critical hits thread, I thought it was either a joke or some kind of mole thread meant to undermine the "no" result on the in-game mechanics vote by bringing up an example that was both extreme and poorly-chosen (a stronger case that might have rallied more support could have been made for, say, modifying Sand Veil). That's a pretty natural reaction coming from someone who voted for strict adherence.

But the next day, after letting everything sink in, I couldn't think of any way to argue against the "joke" position of the OP while still being consistent with the idea that we reserve the right to change mechanics. (Deck Knight could and did think of a way later on, as seen above, but that's beside my point.) I figured that if we could cross one line of not following in-game mechanics, then there shouldn't be a taboo on crossing a second line. I figured that if the right to change mechanics was reserved for the future, it might as well just be used in the present. I figured that if other people were already shaping the metagame as they saw fit, then maybe I should too. In the end, I didn't vote to get rid of critical hits--but I didn't vote against it either. That's a large difference from what I thought just a day earlier, and it's because I was trying to wrap my mind around the new rules of the new system.


All I'm saying is that it's like this: just because I've already drawn up blueprints for building a one-story house doesn't mean that I'm guaranteed to stick as closely to my layout as possible after I've been told I have to build a three-story house instead. When the situation changes, so can the people affected by it.

 

[Deep Thought]

I could have put my foot down and said "this is how we're doing things", but I think this is something worth letting the community decide. Let's move past this issue and set it in stone so we can get on with shaping the 5th generation!

(from the OP of the "Simulator Mechanics" thread)

In retrospect, the irony of the first sentence is absolutely shocking. I think it's great that we actually have someone who can 'put his foot down' and force things to move forward on Smogon, but please Phil, the one thing I or anyone else can ask from you is consistency. I understand that this was the first big decision we've made concerning site philosophy since you took charge, so it's safe to say that you had absolutely no idea how quickly the proverbial can of worms would be opened up. However, it sets a dangerous precedent for policymaking if you can ask for our opinions, then decide to ignore the majority because of 5-10 vocal posters deciding to blow everything out of proportion. They won't always be the same users, but they will always be there, and they will always want to 'stir the pot.' You need to figure out how to deal with them, or this will happen again and again and again.

As has already been said many times in this thread, almost all of the people who voted 'No' in the poll (myself included) did so with the understanding that we might only ever deviate from cartridge mechanics once or twice in minor ways (to prevent glitches or something), ever. That was what we, a majority of the members of PR decided - NOT that we could simply do whatever we wanted for reasons of 'making the game more competitive,' but that we would ONLY act to change anything for reasons of, essentially, 'making the game more playable.' That is what I would like to change about the OP's stated policy - we need an exception of some kind for the sake of common sense, just to maintain openness and the ability to adapt to unforeseen situations.

But enough of that. The second sentence that I quoted is one that I totally agree with. We're here to play Pokémon (yes, Pokémon, not Smogonmon), so let's play it. If the leader of 5th generation policy wants to set in stone that we will absolutely never ever deviate from cartridge mechanics with no exceptions, my response is: LETS GET IT

 

[RBG]

The problem, I think is that the original question about simulator mechanics was flawed, and was basically voted on as "Do you feel we should use Stadium Sleep Clause while emulating the Cartridge?" I am positive that is the extant most people who voted no were willing to go, and that this whole Critical Hits thread (which apparently was made in good faith) was just a very vocal superminority (since that seems to be the word we are throwing around now a days). The fact remains, is that I feel that whole situation has been handled rather poorly by all sides, and it would be nicer if the people who were posting the Critical Hits thread could have waited until the specifics of the philosophy were being written in the other thread.

 

[eric the espeon]

Ok. I've always been unsure about the best way to go, and did not vote on the previous poll. Simply put, we could probably improve the game from a rulemakers perspective with minor tweaks, simplifying and avoiding strange changes. But there is always the "vocal minority" who want to impose absurd changes, those intended to alter the competitive balance significantly. I believe we could have dealt with this by careful wording of the philosophy (I think my proposed paragraph should have discouraged it really.. but evidently not) and highly doubt something like the crit thread would have come up for a very long time to come, given the reaction to it. However, it is more consistent and.. philosophically pure to follow mechanics perfectly. I dislike the idea of changing them ever, even slightly for a large gain. The main reason I did not vote yes was because of fears that we would make large unnatural changes to the rules, such as introducing new forcible win conditions, in an effort to avoid a complex sleep clause. So long as we have a sleep clause which is consistent with not just being "technically possible to simulate", but also does not alter the fundamental constants of the game (your aim is always to KO all their Pokemon, while following the rules and avoiding losing all your own). I do ask that we put a lot of careful thought into exactly how the Sleep Clause works, I am still very uncomfortable with the one outlined in the OP. These lines in particular:

Is it REALLY that hard for you to not use Magic Coat against a Pokemon who can learn a sleep move after you've already put an opposing Pokemon to sleep? Every one of these arguments are very ridiculous if you ask me, and I doubt most players will see such strategies used successfully in their lifetime.

Are extremely and unnecessarily dismissive, and of more concern to me than the change in policy over adherence to mechanics.

In the end, I still think you're the best guy for the job by some way. Maybe take a little more advise before taking major decisions though, helps avoid the need for going back on yourself.

 

[Ice-eyes]

I have actually changed my mind. I voted No on the original thread on principle; I think changing certain game mechanics slightly in certain circumstances can be beneficial (e.g. simplifying Sleep Clause). However, I didn't fully consider the implications of opening the topic up for debate. We could waste the entire generation arguing about this, so I think Phil's right in putting his foot down and letting us get on with tiering issues so that we can have a balanced game to play.

 

[Articuno64]

Any complaints being made about inconsistency or hypocrisy on Phil's part are completely unnecessary. He is still figuring out how to do this job, and as such, he will be inconsistent. Rather than crying out about how wounded you are, just let Phil know what he could do better next time.

I think the mistake that Phil made was deciding to lead a process which he fundamentally did not agree with. It seems he learned that lesson and is just now going through the pain of getting back on track with his principles, so I'm happy with that.

We don't need perfection, we need guts. Thanks, Phil.

 

[Heysup]

Can we move past the fact that people didn't like how Phil handled this?

This was one of many ways he could have handled it and frankly all of our whiny and loud members who disagree with him would still be, well, whiny and loud regardless of how he handled it.

Ignoring the blatant condescension, I am not only upset with the decision, I am also upset in how the decision was made. He put up a poll because he wanted our opinions on the topic, then after getting a supermajority, he ignored the opinions anyways. There's honestly no point in anything this forum has ever done if we're going to leave everything up to one person.

The one person is to stop us from fucking up. Not doing something like this after that CH thread was even created (if you're looking at the poll results, you are completely missing the point) would have definitely been worse.

Can I just reiterate once again that there were a whopping 7 people that wanted to get rid of crits. 7 people. There are always outliers in a large group who want to do things drastically. Just because there are outliers does not allow for such a drastic response as this. It seems more like an opportune excuse rather than legitimate reasoning if you ask me.

jrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr said a lot of stuff that was unnecessarily extreme that I don't agree with, but quoting this for emphasis, because while not true in every situation, it is certainly true for the majority of the people posting here and on IRC.

And if even 20 or 30 percent of the posters in that thread had voted to remove critical hits I wouldn't have any posts in this thread. 92.71% of the people who responded voted against it. Only seven people thought it was a good idea, which included someone who was pretty obviously making a point in order to get the result in this topic to happen and another who recently made a serious PR post referencing anime battles to try to justify competitive Pokemon policy. It wasn't reasonable posters who were supporting that to begin with and it wasn't even close. A handful of people making a ridiculous topic does not justify a policy change, especially considering that, contrary to what I bolded in the above quote, the system worked perfectly here. Some people had a bad idea. It was shot down by the majority of the people in this forum because it was a bad idea. That's what's supposed to happen.

In case you forgot, we didn't unimplement CHs.

Why should the fact that that thread was created matter at all? If anything, the results of that poll prove that classic sleep clause isn't a slippery slope and that we can safely tweak certain game mechanics to improve competitiveness without going "over the line".

There are many people who voted against strictly following game mechanics who support this decision. We as a community were proven that we cannot handle this responsibility of "not crossing the line", and some of us have realized that after the poll.

And I will reiterate that you're missing the point. People will keep trying and keep taking things too far. Phil would get worse shit for locking threads of that nature all of the time then he would for just making one preventative decision. This is honestly the only way to solve the "loudest for the longest" method of winning an argument. I can't believe it's being utterly ignored (actually, I can) that we, as a community, respond positively to loudness and whining. You know that if a few loud (and somehow, "important") users keep pushing for something they will undoubtedly get it. That is, unless someone in charge does something about it. Phil has done that for us - you should be thanking him instead of bickering at him. Of course, maybe I'm trying to explain this to the wrong people.

I just want to say how disappointed I am that we go through a 3 week long debate, have a vote of all the policy review members, wind up with a decision that a supermajority of the policy makers agree on, and then have it just up and overturned because of a vocal superminority.

Way to waste all of our time and effort. =\

It's ironic that you're the one pointing fingers.

Honestly the issue itself is blown out of proportion.

I completely agree with this post. We can move on, regardless of your position, once we get over it.

 

[Ulevo]

And I will reiterate that you're missing the point. People will keep trying and keep taking things too far. Phil would get worse shit for locking threads of that nature all of the time then he would for just making one preventative decision. This is honestly the only way to solve the "loudest for the longest" method of winning an argument. I can't believe it's being utterly ignored (actually, I can) that we, as a community, respond positively to loudness and whining. You know that if a few loud (and somehow, "important") users keep pushing for something they will undoubtedly get it. That is, unless someone in charge does something about it. Phil has done that for us - you should be thanking him instead of bickering at him. Of course, maybe I'm trying to explain this to the wrong people.

The fact is, no matter how politically correct Policy Review members wish to go about conducting policy, decisions here are largely based on user consensus and arbitrary agreement, not logistical decision making. For many of the decisions we as members have to make, there is no right or wrong answer, there is just what the majority feels is best.

By invoking a policy that is concise and to the point, it doesn't leave room for all this arbitrary discussion that seems to inevitably boil down to personal accusations, insults, and a lot of wasted time.

I voted "yes" on the original poll exclusively because of that fact, not because I felt that appealing to the Wi-Fi community was of utmost importance (we've been ignoring complete simulation for years and have been doing just fine). Ideally I would have voted "no" under the premise that the community could handle the responsibility, but it can't. That is what this entire thread is about. People need to stop pointing fingers at one another and realize this is what is actually of relevant importance.

 

[DougJustDoug]

I logged off around 5pm yesterday, and did not have a chance to come back on until now. So, I'm just now seeing this thread. I have numerous comments and reactions, but I'll only address one of them -- the issue of leadership in Smogon.

It's very hard to be a leader in this community, and this thread is a great example of that. People that post in these threads, particularly the people that post in vehement near-insulting opposition to leadership decisions, need to realize that arguments like this take a toll on the leaders. I'm not saying we need to coddle our leaders and make sure they feel special all the time and never oppose them or voice disagreement. Good leaders are quite used to disagreement, and they can handle arguments and criticism -- but there is a cost. Let me explain what I mean by that.

Everyone that contributes to this community is doing so on a volunteer basis. Smogon is not a corporation that has a "Customer Service" department, where people are paid to hear all the shit and accept feedback and deal with all the criticism and controversy that erupts from what they do. Smogon members contribute because they want to, and usually do so under the assumption that their contribution will be met with acceptance and appreciation.

People don't write a new set or reword an analysis because they think everyone will hate it. When the author puts the finishing touches on it and hits the Post button, they always think people are going to love it. And they are probably crushed at even the merest criticism and proposed changes. Sure we can tell people to thicken their skin, or "learn to accept criticism" -- but people will only go so far with that. If a contributor's contributions are continually met with criticism or outright disdain, they will simply stop contributing. And, if the contribution is truly bad all the time, then it is probably for the best that they stop contributing.

But in some cases, the criticism is localized to a vocal minority, when in fact the majority actually likes the contribution, but sees no reason to comment. People tend to act on their negative reactions more than their positive reactions. Put another way -- most people will bitch about every thing they don't like, but will rarely express thanks or gratitude for things they do like. This creates a very odd dynamic for a community like Smogon, where all contributions are voluntary. We have a system where most expressed feedback is negative. That discourages contributions, and tends to wear down contributors.

The only way to counteract that is to have a specialized community function for positively rewarding contributions. We have that at Smogon in the form of the badging system, and promotion to leadership positions. If you contribute a lot, you get badges and staff privileges. It's not the best form of "compensation", but it's all we have. We combine that with the fact that the work itself is its own reward, to a certain extent. When your analysis appears on site, or your program is used by the community -- presumably that is somewhat satisfying to the contributor that made it happen. So, if you combine satisfaction with badges/leadership, you have a "compensation structure" for encouraging contributors.

But what do we do when the contribution is "leadership"? In particular, what do we do to encourage "senior leadership"?

When you get close to the "top of the food chain" here at Smogon, it's almost impossible to reward further contribution. I can't give Philip another badge or another promotion that gives him much measurable reward over what he already has. He's got damn near every badge in the book, and he's got almost every staff privilege that really matters. So what is his reward for contributing further leadership? Not much. In fact, the paradox of volunteer leadership, is that the higher you get, the more important your decisions become and the bigger the audience for your decisions. And because of what I mentioned earlier about people's tendency to bitch rather than praise -- as you increase leadership, you pretty much just increase the amount of bitching and criticism that you receive. So, at the top of the scale of leadership, you get lots of complaints and problems, and few rewards. Sounds like a great job, right?

This thread has a lot of harsh criticism for Philip, even in the face of him pleading with the community to understand that he is really trying his best to make the contribution we asked from him -- which is leadership. Don't get me wrong, we don't need to cheer Philip for everything he does, even when we disagree with him. And there have been several people that have complimented Philip in this thread, not only for his actual decision, but for the act of giving leadership to the process.

But, for those giving unabashed criticism, I hope you realize that your comments are having an impact, and not necessarily a productive impact. You may think you are posting random-complaint-post-number-238465 and it's not a big deal. But for the leader being criticized, it is yet another demotivating factor that makes the leader less inclined to step up to the plate later and do the job of providing real leadership in the future. I'm not saying Philip is going to quit because he is butthurt over all the criticism in this thread. And even if he did, someone else will probably be willing to pick up the torch and be next in line to take abuse. But, I think people should be more cognizant of the toll these threads take on the leaders of the community.

We are chewing people up, and spitting them out. Some people are saying that leadership decisions are making people leave the community. I actually see it the other way around. The community reaction to real leadership is making leaders leave the community. And what we are left with is a void of leadership, and an excess of whiners, complainers, and people whose main contribution is little more than criticism. For anyone in this thread who thinks criticism is a valuable and necessary part of the creative process, and you have deluded yourself into believing that you are making Smogon better by bitching at leaders all the time -- you aren't. You are just piling more negative reinforcement into a system already biased against leadership; leadership which is essential to actually getting things done.

People need to figure out ways to give feedback that does not make the person in charge want to vacate the position. Yeah, you can tell people to "man up" all you want. But threads like this exact a pound of flesh from people like Philip, and I hate that this is normal operating procedure here at Smogon. Policy Review is supposedly comprised of people that have a higher standard for discourse and discussion. I don't think it is unreasonable at all that I ask posters here to figure out a way to argue a position, while still acknowledging the positive contribution our leaders are trying to make.

 

[Elevator Music]

I agree with Phil's decision and while he could handled it better blah blah blah, I think what he did was the right thing to do.

As far as the points in the OP go, I'm OK with strictly following ingame mechanics for simplicity. This is pretty much what I meant by my post in the vote topic ("I think its just easier to follow game mechanics most of the time."). I don't like having Acid Rain in the game, but compared to opening up the can of worms that not strictly following ingame mechanics obviously will. I'm willing to "concede" Acid Rain so we don't have to deal with this shit.

The only point in the OP I disagree with is Sleep Clause. I like the statement that "If you can't switch and can't switch moves, you can't break Sleep Clause", because that helps to deal with a great portion of cases while avoiding creating new win conditions, but I do think that cases like Assist and Magic Coat need to be fleshed out for completion's sake. The fact that they are shitty strategies is irrelevant.

 

[Hipmonlee]

If you look at the cartridge sleep clause thread, magic coat wasnt actually included. You could MC sleep their whole team if they let you. I dont believe MC is actually included in classic sleep clause either. On NB at least, effect spore and even secret power sleep would completely ignore sleep clause as well.

Assist would cause a loss however. I dont think that is a big deal at all.

But either way, there are ways to get around this without completely changing the mechanics of the game. We could just as easily say that assist doesnt break sleep clause (though I expect that is exploitable enough to be broken).

Have a nice day.

 

[Elevator Music]

I actually only mentioned those two because they were mentioned in the OP. I guess Magic Coat doesn't necessarily need to be included.

I'm not a fan of including extra win conditions though, so I'm not really comfortable with Assist causing a loss... though it's Assist I guess and the person using the strategy should know better, and I really can't think of any other way to get around it.

 

[Colonel M]

(If someone feels this post doesn't belong here, feel free to delete it). I posted it elsewhere as well, but I really feel the need to stress this.

I think before any more criticism falls onto him, let's take a moment and seriously look at it in his shoes, shall we?

Much like any leader, he's made a mistake. Perhaps one that is rather large to some people, perhaps a small one that is being blown out of proportion. He extends an apology toward the user base and makes a decision that he feels is a good one. Jackal summed up a lot of the reason I voted "No" in the first place:

of the ~70% who voted No in the philosophy poll, I am sure 69% of those people, myself included, voted in this way so as to give the community an "out" if something drastic came up, and something was discovered that would break the game (we all know not all research is done, and it never will be). Sleep clause may have been a game breaker for some people, but not for everyone. I voted No because I did not want to have to change Smogon's policy later due to "unforseen circumstances".

I did not think that the poll's main intention derived from (or should have derived from) being able to reserve the right to change or perhaps "adopt" certain things if worse came to worse. By "adopting", I speak in particular about the Classic Sleep Clause, which is implemented from Pokemon Stadium while taking the other mechanics out (such as team reveal, which has been in Pokemon Stadium for how long now and now we're suddenly following it?) This is why I also don't believe in the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" that Kevin Garret or whoever else was throwing around. I beg to differ; it was still changing a game solely by the point that only certain elements were adopted from the other games, so to speak. If our goal was to follow the game strictly, as some people do believe (not technically myself, but there are those that do), then we would either play the game much like Pokemon Battle Revolution and have Platinum move tradebacks while banning Giratina-O, Shaymin-S, and Rotom-A or playing with Platinum / HGSS and implementing Acid Weather and having the WiFi's condition of Sleep Clause (where if you put two Pokemon on the opponent's side to sleep, you lose) or perhaps a revised ruleset from that.

Now, I don't exactly think that Philip's decision was so bad, but as Jackal pointed out; the delivery was rather in poor taste. I think "disappointing" fills the void better than what is happening with j7r's delivery of anger toward him. We should steer him on the right path; not call for a witch hunt. What you are doing at the moment is much what made all the other people want to leave the last time (drama drama drama). Do any of you realize this whatsoever!?! I want to make this clear:

Instead of bashing the poor guy around, why not grow a pair and give him sound advice on how to help him!?! He took on a role that is not easy to fill whatsoever, and while I cannot attest to his position, I can at least attest that leading anything is not a cake walk whatsoever. You have to make tough decisions that, at times, only a minority agree with and the majority could be pissed at you about. Criticism is fine; it can help a person grow to learn from his or her mistakes. Though, if you put so much negativity as some of you are right now, you're only going to chase another great user out of the position; perhaps even from the site in general. That should never be our goal when we disagree with a leader, a decision, what the fuck ever. You talk to them, give your thoughts, and let them decide from there.

Let me use what Doug meant in his quote in the correct sense. Smogon is a machine. We are the gears. Philip, so to speak, is the gear that makes us spin. If we just want to do nothing more but throw a bunch of mud at him to slow him down instead of trying to oil him with opinion and criticism that doesn't come off "harsh", then it's going to slow the entire process down until the gear wants to do nothing. Then the entire machine falls apart.

This is the real tyrant speaking. Good day.

 

[Hipmonlee]

If you do want to discuss cartridge sleep clause in depth, use this thread.

Have a nice day.

 

[Reverb]

Fantastic post, Phil! I would also like to say that when the game mechanics issue is put into perspective, the need to follow game mechanics becomes clear.

I would also like to say that this represents clear efficiency. I am sick of all this arguing. Good job!

 

[The_Chaser]

As far as I can see as long as we don't make a simple "you lose if you cause two of your opponents pokemon fall asleep" sleep clause, you will still be creating a sleep clause which deviates from cartridge play so you might as well use a clause a majority of people agree with.

Also, I am wondering whether any simulator programmers have been consulted on this issue and whether they will program it. It's naive to believe they will blindly follow smogon policy in regard to this manner. This is more relevent to the PO programmers since smogon is moving in their direction at the moment.

Lastly, since it wasn't explicitly stated; does this policy relate to just 5th Gen or all generations?

 

[panamaxis]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't someone like Super have the ability to tamper with Smogon's sever on PO and implement whatever type of sleep clause we desire?

Anywho, even though I myself voted the other way, I really do believe Phi is making this decision for the benefit of the community, I'm sick to death of all the 'slippery slope' BS as well and yeah this is probably going to make policy making a LOT smoother.

Good job Phil.

 

[Firestorm]

As far as I can see as long as we don't make a simple "you lose if you cause two of your opponents pokemon fall asleep" sleep clause, you will still be creating a sleep clause which deviates from cartridge play so you might as well use a clause a majority of people agree with.

This is actually the way we've been implementing Sleep Clause in WiFi on every site I've battled on that uses Smogon's rules. You run if you break sleep clause. "Deviates from Cartridge Play" means "Unable to replicate in-game".

 

[obi]

Setting the record straight

Here is the proper order of events, as I've seen them:

1) LonelyNess made the critical hit poll.

2) I voted yes in that poll very early.

3) People wondered about my vote.

4) There was more discussion in that thread that I felt deserved a response.

5) Phillip locked the thread.

6) I sent a message to Phillip asking if I could re-open the thread and post my explanation and defense, to which he said yes, as long as I thought I had something constructive to add.

7) I explained, without (to my knowledge) a single lie in my post, why I voted the way I did. In other words, the part where I said my vote was genuine is true. I am not trying to "stir the pot" or any other false accusations like that. I am of the firm opinion that we should follow game mechanics first and foremost. However, if we don't, then I feel we should make changes that improve the competitive qualities of the game.

In other words, I did not bypass Phillip, I was not trying to create a slippery slope to support my argument of mechanical correctness. I was just stating my case.

To those who cite the 92% opposition to the critical hits, of course that would be huge opposition. Starting out with a drastic change like that is likely to get little support simply because people aren't used to it. Instead, we'll start out fixing minor things like Brick Break still breaking screens when it hits a Ghost (or else fix Rapid Spin not removing entry hazards and Leech Seed when it does hit a Ghost), or the very obvious glitches with Rage, and how the effect removes stuff like Substitute. Then there's the issue of Encore being the only way for the user to force the opponent to Struggle immediately when they would otherwise have legal moves to select. Or maybe we'd start a little bigger, and simply ban Sand Veil so that Garchomp isn't as strong. We've had that proposed several times in the past, and the reason it was shot down was that we need to remain accurate to the game. Suddenly that 92% opposition becomes quite a bit smaller, perhaps below 50%.

 

[zfs]

7) I explained, without (to my knowledge) a single lie in my post, why I voted the way I did. In other words, the part where I said my vote was genuine is true. I am not trying to "stir the pot" or any other false accusations like that. I am of the firm opinion that we should follow game mechanics first and foremost. However, if we don't, then I feel we should make changes that improve the competitive qualities of the game.

I respect your viewpoint obi, but I think you're in a very small minority that holds that opinion. From viewing all the threads that caused this kerfuffle, and the subsequent voting rationales that have been infinitely rehashed in these topics, it seems like a vast majority voted the way they did in the initial game mechanics poll due solely to sleep clause and to have more leeway in the case of a future glitch like acid rain.

There's always been temptation in the past to "balance the game out," and in a sense we do, if you consider things like evasion clause, ohko clause and tiering/ban listing to be self-imposed/site-imposed restrictions that seek to provide a balanced metagame. However, there's always been a sense that tinkering with certain things was forbidden fruit.

 

[cim]

I don't really see how there's a middle ground on this issue, though. If you are against modifying the game, then you want to stay true to the game, and vice versa. I don't understand how you can be for game modification to improve the game (sleep clause), and then be against game modification to improve the game (critical hits), especially considering how Sleep Clause is so much less beneficial to the game than the removal of Critical Hits.

If you want to stay as Pokemon like as possible with some exceptions, how do you quantify those exceptions; what's worth an exception and what isn't? If you only wish to change that has a certain high degree of improvement to the game, then anyone for Sleep Clause would be for Critical Hits, since the former is barely an "improvement" since it rarely matters and the latter is an "improvement" in nearly every single battle.

So the "line" for game modification isn't degree of improvement, so what could it be? People wanted to aim as close to Pokemon as possible except... what, exactly?

Essentially, I don't see how you can be for modifying the game for the purposes of improvement but against CH removal, unless you believe CHs are beneficial to Pokemon. I do not think many people were arguing that, though. I honestly think everyone will be happier in the long run with a ZT policy; there's less arguing over vague, impossible to define lines. The CH thread was not an outrageous slippery slope; it's the most obvious "improvement" one could make to Pokemon.

---
note: this post puts aside the fact that I feel CHs contribute to Pokemon in a variety of subtle ways, because that's not the majority opinion on the matter and it makes the stance a lot easier to argue !

 

[zfs]

I don't really see how there's a middle ground on this issue, though. If you are against modifying the game, then you want to stay true to the game, and vice versa. I don't understand how you can be for game modification to improve the game (sleep clause), and then be against game modification to improve the game (critical hits), especially considering how Sleep Clause is so much less beneficial to the game than the removal of Critical Hits.

If you want to stay as Pokemon like as possible with some exceptions, how do you quantify those exceptions; what's worth an exception and what isn't? If you only wish to change that has a certain high degree of improvement to the game, then anyone for Sleep Clause would be for Critical Hits, since the former is barely an "improvement" since it rarely matters and the latter is an "improvement" in nearly every single battle.

So the "line" for game modification isn't degree of improvement, so what could it be? People wanted to aim as close to Pokemon as possible except... what, exactly?

Essentially, I don't see how you can be for modifying the game for the purposes of improvement but against CH removal, unless you believe CHs are beneficial to Pokemon. I do not think many people were arguing that, though. I honestly think everyone will be happier in the long run with a ZT policy; there's less arguing over vague, impossible to define lines. The CH thread was not an outrageous slippery slope; it's the most obvious "improvement" one could make to Pokemon.

---
note: this post puts aside the fact that I feel CHs contribute to Pokemon in a variety of subtle ways, because that's not the majority opinion on the matter and it makes the stance a lot easier to argue !

I don't see it as an issue of "improvements," though. Going back to the two main changes that people bring up:

A. "Classic" Sleep Clause - A grandfathered-in gameplay mechanic that we've been using since Pokemon Stadium.

B. Acid Rain - A feature that nearly everyone sees as an unintended developer glitch.

I just don't see how removing CH's or changing move accuracy or having rapid spin remove hazards when used on a ghost is in the same category as those two changes.

 

[cim]

So the rationale we're using for game modification is to make the game to a certain degree more like the game we previously played? To me, whether or not we decide to modify the game like generally comes down to "did people like it better the old way or not" - I mean, no one pushed to modify the game when the physical / special split happened. Basically I think even following that rationale it all comes down to improvement anyway.

 

[Heysup]

The middle ground is quite simply "don't go too far". This of course means that we would remove inconvenient glitches and use a more reasonable Sleep Clause. However, unfortunately, this appears to be too ill-defined for the community and we would constantly be arguing about where the line is.