Policy Review Regarding the TL's -1

[Jordy]

This is an issue I've been thinking about for a while that I think should finally be brought up with CAP 26's process just starting up.

I believe that the fact that the TL only has 1 -1 is an issue. Why? You may ask. I believe it's an issue because it makes slates very easy to "manipulate", because it forces the TL to pick between 2 bad options and leave the other 1. An example of this that other people have brought up would be Deck Knight's Smokomodo spread (this isn't an attack to Deck Knight or his spread), because there was very little support for Deck Knight's spread when compared to the other spreads, other than gibygiby's, which frankly shouldn't have been slated to begin with. This isn't to suggest that jas manipulated the slate to favor Deck Knight, as he may believe that it was a good spread and the right choice. Instead of solely looking at this one example, though, it is an important issue to address looking forward so that this will not happen maliciously.

Now that I've explained the issue, I'd like to propose a change in the system. I think that the best way to adress this issue is by giving the TL the ability to remove additional slated submissions on top of their -1 if deemed necessary. Removing additional options from the slate would require more rigorous justification, possible arguments would be: unsupported in the thread, breaks x y and z, which are on the C&C list etc..

 

[DougJustDoug]

The TL is not supposed to have the power to “fix the slate”. When we moved to a TLT model for CAP, the goal was to distribute amongst multiple leaders (the TLT) the power that used to be centralized in a single leader (the TL). The TL’s -1 is to provide a some continuity through all steps by giving the TL a real stake in every step, and also to serve as a small checks-and-balances for the Section Leaders.

If a Section Leader has chosen a slate that has multiple “bad options” (quoted because that is an entirely subjective call), and we really want a remedy for it, we shouldn’t solve it by leaning more on the TL. I get it that bad slates are sometimes a thing. I don’t know if they are happening frequently enough to warrant a process change to handle them. But if it is a pressing problem, I think we should come up with a more community-oriented way to solve it, if possible.

So I think this PR is not about the TL -1, it’s a PR on “Handling Bad Slates” or something along those lines.

 

[Quanyails]

Just wanna chime in that TLs also have a "veto slate" option, as exercised here. Jordy and I discussed this over Discord.

Discord Log

[7:23 AM] Quanyails: Hey, @ Jordy, the TL can also veto the entire slate.
[7:26 AM] Quanyails: Here's an instance of when that power was used: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threa...bility-discussion.3555401/page-2#post-6524191
Smogon Forums
[8:16 AM] Jordy: @ Quanyails an entire slate shouldnt have to be rejected for 2
[8:21 AM] Quanyails: Why not?
[8:47 AM] Jordy: because
[8:47 AM] Jordy: lets say
[8:47 AM] Jordy: a slate on average has 5-6 slated options
[8:48 AM] Jordy: then theres still 3-4 completely plausible options and i dont see why thatd need a rehaul
[8:50 AM] Quanyails: Those 3 - 4 plausible options can be on the new slate.
[8:52 AM] Jordy: but then the "new" slate will be those 3-4 because i assume the tlt didnt pick others for good reason
[8:52 AM] Jordy: so theres essentially no point
[8:53 AM] Jordy: in doing a new slate
[8:54 AM] Quanyails: There can be options on the new slate the TLT didn't select.
[8:56 AM] Quanyails: BMB would choose slate options out of personal taste over intelligent community discussion.
[8:58 AM] Jordy: fair point

 

[Jordy]

Since my initial post, some things have been cleared up, meaning that the initial point of my post has pretty much been defeated, which isn't a bad thing(obviously).

 

[DougJustDoug]

I wasn't trying to shut down this entire discussion. In fact, it's probably good for us to discuss slating from time to time. If anything, it serves as a reminder to the community that Section Leaders need to strive to represent the "intelligent community consensus" as much as possible when making slates. And, if we are tending to see more and more questionable slates, then we should talk about possible process improvements.

CAP has been around for a very long time, and we sometimes get in process ruts. But we should always be willing to evaluate problems and look for potential solutions. Sometimes just discussing a problem intelligently in PR, even if there is no process solution conclusion, ends up actually solving the problem by exposing it.