Policy Review Create-A-Pokemon Policy Review

[DougJustDoug]

To be fair Doug, what we generally have is a committee of about 20 well known, competent, regular contributors and about 300 regular voters. Essentially, every time we vote it isn't really a free-for-all as much as a battle of two or three well thought out, well argued ideas. The only exception, ironically, is art, and even then usually the best or most coherent design wins (unless the most f'ing amazing art wins, like in Pyroak's case >_>). Don't blame me, I voted for Zantimonius >_>.

I'm quite proud of our process, we breed quality control (or at least attempt to) into every phase of the project. I should know, I'm basically our resident killjoy >_>.

I agree that our process is pretty damn good. We relentlessly reevaluate the process and try to improve it. Also, we have imbued the TL with broad powers to guide each project, and keep it from veering off into the weeds. With the recent addition of Concept at the very beginning, I think it has helped tremendously for focusing the creation process.

I am very proud of this project. That's why I have invested a ridiculous amount of time and effort into the forum, server, coding, and art. I really like the community we have built here. I really like the pokemon we have built too. I think they are all very good. But, most importantly, I've learned something new about the game with every project.

Here's a few things that have expanded my knowledge of the game as a result of the latest project (and we're only halfway through!):

- The impact of HP and HP EV's on overall defense
- The underlying factors that contribute to effective use of Encore
- Defensive prowess and offensive limitations of the Poison type
- Visual trends for utility moves like Spikes, Encore, and Gravity

I knew all of the above to a certain extent before this project. But, with this project we have explored that stuff in incredible detail. None of those things are necessarily gamebreaking, but I find it fascinating nonetheless. This project is like a graduate course in the game. We go far beyond the surface crap you can learn in other communities. Our discussions are on a whole different level of detail. That's why I get so frustrated when some noob says "Let's make this Ghost/Dark and give it Wonderguard" or some shit like that.

I think this project is one of the most interesting places in all of Smogon. Nowhere else is there so much diversity in discussion, debate, and contribution. It's like Stark, C&C, and Smeargle's Studio all rolled into one. Unfortunately, we also get our share of Trou. This project is a melting pot of talent and diversity. I think that is the best part of the CAP project. I like the pokemon too, but the community is where the action is.

We all have high-standards here. I think that is a good thing. I never want to say "Fuck it. This will turn out to be crap anyway, so let's just throw something together." No, that would ruin everything. Our community desire for great pokemon is what fuels our creation process. However, the community leaders need to be realistic about how cohesive our pokemon can be. For reasons I stated earlier, we WILL have inconsistencies and mistakes. It's inevitable. When that happens, instead of screaming the the sky is falling -- we need to deal with it in stride.

We've done something very special here on the CAP project. No other fakedex effort has achieved this level of popularity and participation. I also think our fakemon are better than any others that I have seen. But, of course, I'm biased.

 

[tennisace]

I just had a crazy idea. Yesterday, Doug and a bunch of the server regulars were talking about the server to forum ratio, and we were trying to think of ways to get more people to come to the server. I said I would think of something. Well, long story short, I had a small epiphany after going to lunch with my grandfather and his friends from the DOT. I don't know if it was the 2 Dr. Peppers I had or trying to think of something other than the Manny trade, but here's the idea.

What about a CaP Tutoring program? We teach the new metagame to people willing to learn. This could tie into the whole "certification" concept that Doug's brought up a couple of times on the server, but I'm not going to get into that. This would work in the same way the normal tutors do, with people signing up in rounds and the like. Is this a good idea? I talked about it on the server, and I got a good amount of interest. I think that this will help bring a bunch more people to the server who participate in the forums but never go to the server.

 

[DougJustDoug]

I'm thinking of changing how we conduct Policy Review discussions. Instead of having a single Policy Review thread, I think I am going to have separate Policy Review threads for each topic that needs to be discussed.

With separate threads, it would limit the discussion. Clear decisions can be made, adn the thread can be closed when a conclusion is reached. Right now, many open policy issues linger, and no one knows whether anything was decided or not. If a policy thread stays open for a long time without any meaningful discussion, it can be "rejected" due to lack of interest.

In order to prevent a bunch of unnecessary Policy Review threads, all Policy Review threads must be approved by a forum moderator prior to their creation. Any unapproved Policy Review thread will be deleted.

To clearly identify the purpose of Policy Review threads, the thread title should begin with "Policy Review - <insert topic here>". Possibly it should the use form "[Policy Review] <insert topic here>" Brackets are commonly used for RMT's and Warstories, so maybe it could be used here as well. Regardless of the exact format, I think it would be a good idea to clearly identify topics that are approved discussions that pertain to the rules and process of the CAP project and server.

What do you think? If this idea is acceptable, this would be the last policy issue to be discussed in this thread. I've got another policy issue I'd like to discuss, so I'd like to get feedback on this quickly.

 

[Deck Knight]

I'm thinking of changing how we conduct Policy Review discussions. Instead of having a single Policy Review thread, I think I am going to have separate Policy Review threads for each topic that needs to be discussed.

With separate threads, it would limit the discussion. Clear decisions can be made, adn the thread can be closed when a conclusion is reached. Right now, many open policy issues linger, and no one knows whether anything was decided or not. If a policy thread stays open for a long time without any meaningful discussion, it can be "rejected" due to lack of interest.

In order to prevent a bunch of unnecessary Policy Review threads, all Policy Review threads must be approved by a forum moderator prior to their creation. Any unapproved Policy Review thread will be deleted.

To clearly identify the purpose of Policy Review threads, the thread title should begin with "Policy Review - <insert topic here>". Possibly it should the use form "[Policy Review] <insert topic here>" Brackets are commonly used for RMT's and Warstories, so maybe it could be used here as well. Regardless of the exact format, I think it would be a good idea to clearly identify topics that are approved discussions that pertain to the rules and process of the CAP project and server.

What do you think? If this idea is acceptable, this would be the last policy issue to be discussed in this thread. I've got another policy issue I'd like to discuss, so I'd like to get feedback on this quickly.

That sounds like a fine indea to me. Otherwise this thread will turn into the "post a simple grievance, get a generic answer" thread. Policy Review is really too vague not to split up, it would be like having a single playtesting thread for Syclant, Revenankh, and Pyroak combined.

 

[tennisace]

I like that idea. How would it work though, and would it increase the number of noobs posting random problems?

 

[Time Mage]

It's fine.

So, now, the method now to start a policy review thread will be:
1) PM a moderator about your policy review idea for a thread.
2) Get a reply and post the corresponding topic (or not).
3) ???
4) Profit!

Is this right, or there will be another way to contact the moderator(s)?

 

[DougJustDoug]

It's fine.

So, now, the method now to start a policy review thread will be:
1) PM a moderator about your policy review idea for a thread.
2) Get a reply and post the corresponding topic (or not).
3) ???
4) Profit!

Is this right, or there will be another way to contact the moderator(s)?

Yes, that's the process. The same way certain warstories used to require approval in Stark, for example.

 

[tennisace]

Well, do you want to start with your new "big idea" in a new thread, or do you want some more opinions on this?

 

[DougJustDoug]

I am implementing the new procedure for Policy Review. I have added a new post in the Forum Rules sticky that outlines the rules for future Policy Review. Here's a link:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1412586&postcount=2

I will also be opening two new Policy Review threads shortly.