Self-KO Clause in tournaments

[cim]

It's uncompetitive because it forces someone to lose when they actually didn't. It's an arbitrary win condition we added when the game we're supposed to be emulating with 100% accuracy recognizes ties.

I feel compelled to bring up that "100% accuracy" with regards to mechanics does not mean "100% accuracy" with regards to rules, which are pretty distinctly different. I mean, Real Sleep Clause is technically a "win condition", even if the cartridge doesn't write "You Win!" on the screen for you.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

We're aren't the only ones that added it, Self-KO clause is in effect at VGC. That being said, those are live tournaments, and I agree we should remove it for anything else like ew said.

Fair enough, although we don't use VGC rules (thank heavens). I'd rather not have to play doubles with only Unova pokemon!

no, it doesn't. they lose because that's what the rules dictate; whether or not they'd lose under a ruleset sans Self-KO clause is a separate story.

It's also not an arbitrary win condition-- it's just a win condition (you made up the "arbitrary" part).

I didn't make anything up. Self-KO clause is an arbitrary rule we kept because our old simulators couldn't account for ties. You're really just nitpicking semantics here and trying to start an argument when our posts actually agree with each other.

"making good moves to force a tie is something that should be rewarded" is wrong too, but also redundant and circular. yes, good moves should be rewarded. forcing a tie is not a good move when the rules don't allow ties, though, and it certainly isn't inherently reward-worthy just because it happens to be one under other potential ruleset configurations--even if those ruleset configurations are "official"

That statement is only redundant because it was rephrasing the OP, but it is hardly circular or incorrect. The ultimate goal of Pokemon is to knock out the opposing 6 mons, so forcing a tie could definitely be considered a worthy competitive move. Not only do you come across as incredibly condescending, you also never addressed my main question- what definition of "competitive" are you using? You just dismissed my entire post without explaining why, which is the exact opposite of what this forum was created for: intelligent discussion.

I feel compelled to bring up that "100% accuracy" with regards to mechanics does not mean "100% accuracy" with regards to rules, which are pretty distinctly different. I mean, Real Sleep Clause is technically a "win condition", even if the cartridge doesn't write "You Win!" on the screen for you.

Win conditions are mechanics. The game literally can't function without them.

 

[lati0s]

Win conditions are mechanics. The game literally can't function without them.

Win conditions are not game mechanics they are part of the ruleset. Game mechanics refers to if it is possible to play the game on an actual cartridge. It is perfectly possible to play a game on a cartridge with the added rule that even if the game says that it is a tie at the end of the match the person that did not break self KO clause will be declared the victor.

 

[lilyhollow]

jrrrrrrr, Your posts actually completely disagree with mine in almost every regard, which isn't that surprising because you're the one who confronted me in the first place.

Anyway, the Self KO Clause isn't arbitrary. Maybe that's "nitpicking," but it is still wrong to say that it is arbitrary and I'm not going to let that slide just because it "isn't that important" or whatever. If you think I'm arguing semantics then it would be most helpful to simply clarify and move on. You sort of did that just now, but you still kept saying "arbitrary" for some reason-- that's weird, and still just as wrong as before, but, in the interest of fairness to your "please disagree only with important things" proposal, I may be willing to pretend that you are in fact completely correct. I hope that this will also satisfy your appeal to "intelligent discussion," which I understand is jeopardized by obstructions such as "discerning right from wrong."

Your "Making good moves to force a tie is something that should be rewarded" statement is circular: you are suggesting that moves that force ties are good, and that they should therefore be rewarded. Maybe you're going to tell me that that was just sloppy wording on your part again, and that's okay, but it doesn't change the fact that your argument boils down to "preventing ties is uncompetitive because ties exist in other rulesets," which does not follow on any level. The circular aspect of the original is actually very trivial by comparison. This applies to the newest version of your argument, too: "The ultimate goal of Pokemon is to knock out the opposing 6 mons, so forcing a tie could definitely be considered a worthy competitive move." This is actually my least favorite of the attempts that you've made. You invent an "ultimate goal" of Pokemon (more vague, emotionally manipulative language) that clearly presumes the conclusion of your argument to be true, when really there are no "ultimate goals," just rules. The win condition of Pokemon is a rule, not some "higher standard of the undeniable spiritual essence of Pokemon" (if you're going to use overblown rhetoric, I say go all out). The Self-KO Clause is also a rule. It is a rule that may be obsolete, and probably serves to do little more than clutter up the ruleset at this point, but it is not inherently uncompetitive to retain it simply because we can conceive of a viable ruleset without it, or because ties are of some philosophical Higher Order, or whatever it is you're trying to convey.


It doesn't matter what my definition of "competitive" is. You are the one making numerous assertions that the Self-KO clause is "uncompetitive." What definition are you basing them off of (it doesn't matter)? You were also the one confident enough in your definition to call mine into question without even knowing what it was (you also didn't ask, but I appreciate the indignation at my lack of an answer to your all-important Main Question).

And obviously Chris and lati0s are correct in that game mechanics and win conditions are very separate from one another, and that Smogon only perfectly emulates the former. Maybe jrrrrrrr would have voted differently if he had known this a month ago.

 

[cim]

Win conditions are mechanics. The game literally can't function without them.

That's not true at all. The game is a platform for computing various mathematical calculations and giving you various choices. The game ends and a winner is declared however we feel like it. Picking a different win condition doesn't modify the game because the game remains completely simulatable on the cartridge. I mean, unless you really, really need the validation of your simulator telling you "you're a winner" instead of a judge...

100% accurate mechanics is talking about mechanics, you know, the things you can't control externally...

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Win conditions are not game mechanics they are part of the ruleset. Game mechanics refers to if it is possible to play the game on an actual cartridge. It is perfectly possible to play a game on a cartridge with the added rule that even if the game says that it is a tie at the end of the match the person that did not break self KO clause will be declared the victor.

That's not true at all. The game is a platform for computing various mathematical calculations and giving you various choices. The game ends and a winner is declared however we feel like it. Picking a different win condition doesn't modify the game because the game remains completely simulatable on the cartridge. I mean, unless you really, really need the validation of your simulator telling you "you're a winner" instead of a judge...

100% accurate mechanics is talking about mechanics, you know, the things you can't control externally...

Win conditions are most certainly game mechanics. Here is an entire list of win condition mechanics. Our rules are defined based on our victory mechanics. Self-KO clause is a rule because of the victory mechanic that forces the match to end when 6 mons are KOd. The game ends when a victory condition is met. If we removed the winning conditions from pokemon, we wouldn't be playing the game anymore since there's no discernible way to tell what happens once 6 mons are fainted.

jrrrrrrr, Your posts actually completely disagree with mine in almost every regard, which isn't that surprising because you're the one who confronted me in the first place.

I didn't confront you. You said you didn't understand something and I tried explaining it to you. Stop playing the blame game, Blame Game.

Anyway, the Self KO Clause isn't arbitrary. Maybe that's "nitpicking," but it is still wrong to say that it is arbitrary and I'm not going to let that slide just because it "isn't that important" or whatever. If you think I'm arguing semantics then it would be most helpful to simply clarify and move on. You sort of did that just now, but you still kept saying "arbitrary" for some reason-- that's weird, and still just as wrong as before, but, in the interest of fairness to your "please disagree only with important things" proposal, I may be willing to pretend that you are in fact completely correct. I hope that this will also satisfy your appeal to "intelligent discussion," which I understand is jeopardized by obstructions such as "discerning right from wrong."

And once again you manage to completely sidestep the question by calling me wrong without explaining why.

Your "Making good moves to force a tie is something that should be rewarded" statement is circular: you are suggesting that moves that force ties are good, and that they should therefore be rewarded.

How is that circular at all? That is a one-way implication. Good moves -> reward. I thought it was pretty clear that a good move was one that prevents you from losing, which is the general idea behind most games.

Maybe you're going to tell me that that was just sloppy wording on your part again, and that's okay, but it doesn't change the fact that your argument boils down to "preventing ties is uncompetitive because ties exist in other rulesets," which does not follow on any level.

No, stop putting words in my mouth and then getting mad because you can't follow your version of my argument.

This applies to the newest version of your argument, too: "The ultimate goal of Pokemon is to knock out the opposing 6 mons, so forcing a tie could definitely be considered a worthy competitive move." This is actually my least favorite of the attempts that you've made. You invent an "ultimate goal" of Pokemon

This entire tirade is rendered moot when you consider the fact that Self-KO clause currently exists. Why would we have thought of using Self-KO clause unless killing 6 pokemon was the victory condition (aka "goal")? We had to make an entire clause just to account for the fact that the goal is technically attainable for both players at the same time.

Maybe jrrrrrrr would have voted differently if he had known this a month ago.

And what were you saying about me being confrontational?

 

[Firestorm]

I agree with Blame Game that the word "uncompetitive" needs to stop being thrown around as it has been in this topic. There's nothing inherently uncompetitive about Self-KO Clause.

That said, it's not a particularly important clause for untimed tournament matches and if the majority of players and tournament directors see no need for it, I can't see any problem with removing it as long as we cover our bases about teams.

Since it seems like the majority agrees on removing it, can we move to possible scenarios that would arise and how to deal with them instead of using buzzwords to support the same thing as everyone else?

 

[capefeather]

I'd like to point out that the so-called "win condition", when viewed as a "mechanic", really consists of making the game output a combination of text messages, music selections and animations. Simulators have never sought to emulate any of these perfectly, and with good reason. There's really no point!

We do follow the implied goal of "knock out the opponent's six Pokémon before he/she does the same to you" to a point, but this is a rather shoddy argument to invoke for anything. It's entirely possible that changing the win condition drastically will lead to a better game. And yet we wouldn't be changing the cartridge at all; we're just ignoring what it makes the screen tell you.

All that said, at the current situation I reiterate the stance that I took the last time I posted here.

 

[lilyhollow]

I didn't confront you. You said you didn't understand something and I tried explaining it to you.

Which was the beginning of the confrontation. There is no "blame" to speak of here; I start confrontations all the time, often just for my own personal gratification. This time, you did, and then you turned around and said that I was disagreeing with you "even though our posts essentially agree." They don't, and you were the first one to point that out. There's nothing to be ashamed of

I explained why you were wrong in calling the rule "arbitrary"--the word flatly doesn't apply. Maybe you should explain why a rule that clearly serves to help tournaments run on time is "arbitrary" before accusing me of sidestepping questions that aren't actually relevant to anything.

"Good moves -> reward" is circular, and the fact that it completely checks out to you as a legitimate basis for an argument means that there's nowhere else for this argument to go.

edit: actually, it's not "circular" in and of itself, it's just that your argument is (as per my previous explanation). oh well

 

[cim]

Look, jrrr, we all know you're just trying to straw man something into a "game mechanic" to make Smogon policy look bad. There is absolutely no reason we have to define the end of the game as the cartridge does.

Say our win condition was "5 KOs" instead of 6. Could this battle be simulated on cartridge play? Yes. When 5 Pokemon are KOed, the person to do it becomes the winner and the battle ends. Was any change to the cartridge required to do this? No. Thus, no game mechanics are being changed.

After all, the cartridge defines a few different ban lists in random places. We don't adhere to those. According to your logic, that's "not accurately simulating game mechanics", when it clearly has nothing to do with it.

This contrasts with "Simulator Sleep Clause", because that requires displaying a message and executing a move in a way that is impossible to simulate in a cartridge battle.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

"Good moves -> reward" is circular, and the fact that it completely checks out to you as a legitimate basis for an argument means that there's nowhere else for this argument to go.

edit: actually, it's not "circular" in and of itself, it's just that your argument is (as per my previous explanation). oh well

You still haven't explained how it is circular. You just keep saying it is.

A good move brings a player closer to winning
Players who make winning moves should be rewarded
A loss for making good moves is not a proper reward

Where does that loop back around on itself?

Look, jrrr, we all know you're just trying to straw man something into a "game mechanic" to make Smogon policy look bad. There is absolutely no reason we have to define the end of the game as the cartridge does.

Look, cim, we all know you're just trying to straw man something into "my argument" to make me look bad. There is absolutely a reason we have to define the end of the game as the cartridge does: because if we don't, then we are inventing a game.

What happens when all of your pokemon are knocked out? The battle ends. What do you propose we do if we didn't simulate that mechanic?

Say our win condition was "5 KOs" instead of 6. Could this battle be simulated on cartridge play? Yes. When 5 Pokemon are KOed, the person to do it becomes the winner and the battle ends. Was any change to the cartridge required to do this? No. Thus, no game mechanics are being changed.

Well unless you bring only 5 pokemon into the match, there is no way to end the battle without turning off the game. If you only bring 5 mons in, then we don't have to change the win mechanics at all to accommodate your suggestion

This contrasts with "Simulator Sleep Clause", because that requires displaying a message and executing a move in a way that is impossible to simulate in a cartridge battle.

You mean just like ending the match at 5 KOs would require displaying a message and executing a move in a way that is impossible to simulate in a cartridge battle?

 

[cim]

There is absolutely a reason we have to define the end of the game as the cartridge does: because if we don't, then we are inventing a game.

I guess, kind of? But "the game" we "invent" is still a game you can play on a Pokemon cartridge, just like OU is even though we "invented" Sleep Clause. It's still Pokemon because we still use Pokemon to play it and people that play with a Pokemon cartridge can play it.

What happens when all of your pokemon are knocked out? The battle ends. What do you propose we do if we didn't simulate that mechanic?

We can't simulate that win condition because the battle cannot continue. Luckily that's not what we're talking about.

Well unless you bring only 5 pokemon into the match, there is no way to end the battle without turning off the game.

The game is turned off or the loser must pick "Run" if that hypothetical win condition is implemented. Simple. Doesn't break any game mechanic at all.

You mean just like ending the match at 5 KOs would require displaying a message and executing a move in a way that is impossible to simulate in a cartridge battle?

The "You Win" message is in no way required to play Pokemon, just like it isn't for Sleep Clause. In that case, losing 5 Pokemon would be an automatic forfeit.

 

[lati0s]

Win conditions are most certainly game mechanics. Here is an entire list of win condition mechanics. Our rules are defined based on our victory mechanics. Self-KO clause is a rule because of the victory mechanic that forces the match to end when 6 mons are KOd. The game ends when a victory condition is met. If we removed the winning conditions from pokemon, we wouldn't be playing the game anymore since there's no discernible way to tell what happens once 6 mons are fainted.

The game mechanic is that you cannot continue playing after one person has had all of their pokemon fainted, it is not that the person who has fainted the opponents pokemon must be declared the victor. The game message "you win" is not necessary for someone to be declared the victor. Our rulesets tend to include the clause that the player who faints the other players 6 pokemon will be the winner but it is still possible to play a pokemon game on a cart without this clause and thus it is part of the game rules and not the game mechanics. The mechanics of pokemon highly favor the rule that the first player to faint the others 6 pokemon is the winner but they do not dictate this.

How is that circular at all? That is a one-way implication. Good moves -> reward. I thought it was pretty clear that a good move was one that prevents you from losing, which is the general idea behind most games.

If a good move is a move that prevents you from losing then using explosion with your last pokemon in an environment with self KO clause is not a good move as it does not prevent you from losing.
Consider a variant of chess where if you capture one of your opponents rooks then you forfeit. Then suppose that you are in a position such that if you do not capture one of your opponents rooks you will be checkmated. You might be tempted to say that the rook capture rule is uncompetitive because it does not reward you for making the good move that would get you out of checkmate. But in this game that move is not a good move as it causes you to lose. You should have been playing the chess match with the thought in mind that a position which will become checkmated if you do not capture a rook is just as bad as checkmate. any move made without considering this is not a good move.
It is similar in a pokemon game which includes self KO clause. The objective is not only to faint all of your opponents pokemon but to do without sacrificing your own last pokemon. Thus a good move is a move that leads you closer to the goal of fainting all of your opponents pokemon without having to sacrifice your own last pokemon and any move that does not further this goal is not a good move in this environment and thus should not be rewarded.
You can say that you would prefer if the win condition was simply to faint you opponents 6 pokemon and that if both players did this simultaneously that it should be a tie but that does not mean that it is inherently uncompetitive to play another way.

 

[lilyhollow]

I actually did explain this, probably more than once, and now lati0s has even explained it too, but I'll do it again anyway. this will be my last explanation, though.

"A good move brings a player closer to winning
Players who make winning moves should be rewarded
A loss for making good moves is not a proper reward"

The second and third statements are both made redundant by the first. You define a "good move" as one that brings a player closer to winning (that's fine). Then you add that players who make winning moves should be rewarded-- but you already dictated that they are inherently rewarded (they are, by definition, moves that bring a player closer to winning, which is a reward). You then suggest that it is wrong to reward good moves with losses-- well, yes, but that is already evident in your initial definition of "good moves" as "moves that bring the player closer to winning."

You're left with "a good move brings a player closer to winning," "players who make winning moves should be rewarded," or "a loss for making good moves is not a proper reward." You can choose whichever one happens to look nicest to you personally, because they're ultimately more or less the exact same statement. None of them have anything to do with the Self-KO Clause, because under the Self-KO Clause, moves that force a "tie" are not good moves, nor do they bring players closer to winning. They are just moves that force a an unrecognized "tie" situation that actually results in a loss. You can see that your statement("s") really don't say much about the Self-KO Clause at all, let alone that it is somehow "uncompetitive."

Now, if you were to replace "winning" with "the ultimate and supreme goal of Pokemon that can never be questioned," your first statement (again, all three statements are identical; I chose the first one because it most easily lends itself to this demonstration) would cease being completely irrelevant and would become circular instead. It would be circular because the "ultimate and supreme goal of Pokemon that can never be questioned" is something that you made up, and have justified only with the assertion that "in Self KO Clause-less rulesets, a player wins when he KOs all enemy Pokemon. This win condition, and none other, is the great and powerful Ultimate Goal of Pokemon," and then you trail off about how win conditions are somehow synonymous with game mechanics and I lose interest. Sans the crazy "win conditions are game mechanics" thing, the argument is circular, though if I do happen to count that as part of your argument, it would indeed stop being circular. Unfortunately, doing so would not be generous of me because it would imply that your entire argument is based on one of the craziest, wrongest things I have ever read on Smogon. So I won't do that, and instead I'll just say that your argument is circular.

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

that's enough ladies

seems pretty clear what the stance on this is so the tds should probably talk amongst themselves.