It matters because it was allowed to happen. There was no definitive reason against that threads proposition because nothing in the policy implemented by the poll vote stated otherwise, and it created a controversial mess, even if the poll was completely one sided. I don't feel that it is right for us to invoke a policy that practically promotes that.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Putting My Foot Down
- Thread starter Philip7086
- Start date
- Status
Honestly the issue itself is blown out of proportion.
Game Mechanic Pursists: Do you honestly think that "common sense" cannot be practiced? That there is no means of decision making based on practicality, and that if something isn't clearly defined based strictly on theory that things will swing wildly out of control? Should we ban critical hits? Ridiculousness-- honestly you all need a healthy dose of common sense and actual belief in the players of this game. As many have mentioned, the results of that "critical hit" poll are clear that there is a common understanding and practical sense about how this game should be shaped.
Non-Purists: Do things like Acid Rain or Cartridge Sleep Clause really make that much of a difference? Honestly, who gives a shit? It really means little to nothing in the bigger picture. I just can't believe trivial crap like this is being blown out of proportion.
On one hand, I personally believe that common sense should have more faith in this forum-- it is what ends up coming out on top most of the time anyway. If for instance, there was a glitch where under Rain, if Tyranitar (ie. Politoed switched into TTar) used Pursuit it caused the game to crash/freeze, do you honestly think we would implement that?
On the other hand, I can't believe that the same players who rallied for a "single leader" and backed Doug/Phil so resoundingly in the IS thread, could turn 180 on him just like this!
I do understand that the circumstances are a bit unfair here, but honestly people . . . do we really have to blow this type of thing so out of proportion?
Game Mechanic Pursists: Do you honestly think that "common sense" cannot be practiced? That there is no means of decision making based on practicality, and that if something isn't clearly defined based strictly on theory that things will swing wildly out of control? Should we ban critical hits? Ridiculousness-- honestly you all need a healthy dose of common sense and actual belief in the players of this game. As many have mentioned, the results of that "critical hit" poll are clear that there is a common understanding and practical sense about how this game should be shaped.
Non-Purists: Do things like Acid Rain or Cartridge Sleep Clause really make that much of a difference? Honestly, who gives a shit? It really means little to nothing in the bigger picture. I just can't believe trivial crap like this is being blown out of proportion.
On one hand, I personally believe that common sense should have more faith in this forum-- it is what ends up coming out on top most of the time anyway. If for instance, there was a glitch where under Rain, if Tyranitar (ie. Politoed switched into TTar) used Pursuit it caused the game to crash/freeze, do you honestly think we would implement that?
On the other hand, I can't believe that the same players who rallied for a "single leader" and backed Doug/Phil so resoundingly in the IS thread, could turn 180 on him just like this!
I do understand that the circumstances are a bit unfair here, but honestly people . . . do we really have to blow this type of thing so out of proportion?
Re: "there were only seven Yes votes"
After many posts were dedicated to explaining that "no, of course we would never do something crazy like ban critical hits," a serious thread was made by serious members (locopoke and JabbaTheGriffin, for example), seriously suggesting the possibility of banning critical hits. Not only does this apply to the slippery slope argument that was proposed in the initial mechanics poll thread (especially a year or two down the line), but it tells us that Yes, there are people in this community who are perfectly willing to argue that our philosophy gives us free reign to do these things (<+LonelyNess> I do not regret making that crits thread and I'd have made it again!). Both of these things are bad for the community. Probably worse than a Sleep Clause that will be, I don't know, "kind of weird for some people until a Stadium-esque game implements a Sleep Clause?"
After many posts were dedicated to explaining that "no, of course we would never do something crazy like ban critical hits," a serious thread was made by serious members (locopoke and JabbaTheGriffin, for example), seriously suggesting the possibility of banning critical hits. Not only does this apply to the slippery slope argument that was proposed in the initial mechanics poll thread (especially a year or two down the line), but it tells us that Yes, there are people in this community who are perfectly willing to argue that our philosophy gives us free reign to do these things (<+LonelyNess> I do not regret making that crits thread and I'd have made it again!). Both of these things are bad for the community. Probably worse than a Sleep Clause that will be, I don't know, "kind of weird for some people until a Stadium-esque game implements a Sleep Clause?"
I am surprised that anybody is bothering to emphasize this. I guess I'm to believe that Philip was unaware that the majority he was overruling was comprised of actual members?Synre said:
You wrote words in a thread for a little bit.LonelyNess said:
If you were at all a relevant member of this community you would know that a majority of the actual debate and discussion happens on IRC, on which all goers spend a LOT of time sharing and debating ideas. Don't try and downplay the time put into debating the issue when you don't even have any idea what you're talking about.
I think it is quite clear that if you have to encourage the fellow users of the Policy Review to practice common sense immediately after putting in to question our doubts about its relevancy to the practices in Policy Review, there is a discrepancy on what exactly "common sense" is.
There is no such thing as common sense. Human beings are rarely ever sensible. There is only common consensus, and everyones opinion is varied. That alone should give you an indication as to why a concise and absolute policy is ideal. It removes the need for interpretation amongst members, and leaves no room for disagreements among the consensus.
@ Blame Game: It is interesting to me that you pull out a line LN said in #is, yet in spite of apparently still reading it consider locopoke and Jabba serious members.
And I quoted it because it's funny how a whiny minority has suddenly rushed to their savior's aid, quite intentionally ignoring the political end of things here. I don't really care about the Pokemon side of this - I voted No in case of any potential emergency, but I was fully intending on voting in favor of actual game mechanics or abstaining unless something completely ridiculous were to go wrong in the actual games that was worth our attending to anyway. Having a poll and then ignoring it is about as silly as it gets in my eyes, though. That's why it is irritating enough to me that people are fawning over him because they're happy that they got their own way yet choosing to ignore the big picture.
This isn't the only disagreement Phil will have with the public. Gotta do better than this.
And I quoted it because it's funny how a whiny minority has suddenly rushed to their savior's aid, quite intentionally ignoring the political end of things here. I don't really care about the Pokemon side of this - I voted No in case of any potential emergency, but I was fully intending on voting in favor of actual game mechanics or abstaining unless something completely ridiculous were to go wrong in the actual games that was worth our attending to anyway. Having a poll and then ignoring it is about as silly as it gets in my eyes, though. That's why it is irritating enough to me that people are fawning over him because they're happy that they got their own way yet choosing to ignore the big picture.
This isn't the only disagreement Phil will have with the public. Gotta do better than this.
obi opened it so that he could opine about his philosophical consistency, he is literally the one that started the slippery slope that Philip is so worried about.
I'm pretty sure that ignoring a supermajority says something similar to that...
I fully support Phil and I love how people only really whine about unilateral actions when it happens to be on an issue they disagree on.
I would like to ask any of the pollers who are acting like Phil has a personal vendetta against you to really justify if the eons of debate we are going to have is worth a slight change in Sleep clause mechanics and acid rain, both of which were implemented in PL with zero complaints.
I feel compelled to point out that everyone emphasizing the actual number of "votes ignored" on this issue do need to consider that the recent PR wave basically "stacked the ballot" so you can't honestly say we're ignoring a supermajority of a particular subsection of a site. We're "ignoring a supermajority" of an intentionally selected part of the site with policymakers thats views almost exactly matched their nominators. (I can prove this if you want...)
If you guys are so adamant about going to the ends of the Earth just to ensure we don't play Pokemon... go find some other site.
I would like to ask any of the pollers who are acting like Phil has a personal vendetta against you to really justify if the eons of debate we are going to have is worth a slight change in Sleep clause mechanics and acid rain, both of which were implemented in PL with zero complaints.
I feel compelled to point out that everyone emphasizing the actual number of "votes ignored" on this issue do need to consider that the recent PR wave basically "stacked the ballot" so you can't honestly say we're ignoring a supermajority of a particular subsection of a site. We're "ignoring a supermajority" of an intentionally selected part of the site with policymakers thats views almost exactly matched their nominators. (I can prove this if you want...)
If you guys are so adamant about going to the ends of the Earth just to ensure we don't play Pokemon... go find some other site.
I think it's more than a little ridiculous to be calling for his head here. He's made like one questionable move. Let's back up a bit.
I think it was an incredibly poor political move the way he handled this issue, but that's why I commented on it. I hope I explained why I thought it was a poor move so that he will consider handling things differently in the future. It's not a good idea to keep trying to chase out leadership. At some point it works better to be helpful. Phil's still learning on the job here some but he'll be a good leader this gen. It's a new generation, there'll be growing pains all over.
EDIT: mostly intended for this to be in the staff forum version of this topic but probably good to have this where more people can see it too
I think it was an incredibly poor political move the way he handled this issue, but that's why I commented on it. I hope I explained why I thought it was a poor move so that he will consider handling things differently in the future. It's not a good idea to keep trying to chase out leadership. At some point it works better to be helpful. Phil's still learning on the job here some but he'll be a good leader this gen. It's a new generation, there'll be growing pains all over.
EDIT: mostly intended for this to be in the staff forum version of this topic but probably good to have this where more people can see it too
I am not ignoring the big picture. I don't consider this an issue because I think Philip is smart. He seems to agree with me on a lot of things too, but I wouldn't agree with him if he, for example, forcibly unbanned Evasion (which, as you know, I thought should be unbanned). I wouldn't "stir the pot" about it either (why would I?), but I'm not some mindless drone that arbitrarily sticks up for anyone who happens to be agreeing with me.Synre said:
Pretty good trashtalk, but ultimately you just kind of told me that you "also typed some words on IRC, please don't forget about those." This doesn't really change the fact that your sense of entitlement is comically inflated.LonelyNess said:
I believe that this is the right decision, simply because it strikes right at the heart of what Smogon is. At the heart of the issue, the question of whether we care about Pokemon-as-is-was-given-to-us is a far larger issue than a banlist for any specific metagame, for the simple reason that Smogon has aspired to be the authority on competitive Pokemon. We take for granted our own relevance, because we take the most rational, ordered approach to analyzing and improving the competive Pokemon metagame(s). This presupposes, however, that we are playing the same game as the rest of the competitive Pokemon community. We can write analyses for the Diamond/Pearl/Platinum OU metagame because everyone knows what that is--it is something you can play on a cartridge with a friend, and having a simulator is simply a convenience, albeit a very important convenience. Once we depart from cartridge mechanics as the ideal, we risk alienating our core community--people that are interested in playing a game that already has an accepted definition. Every time Smogon makes a controversial decision (like banning Garchomp or Salamence in DPP) we weather the outcry by pointing out the logic of our process, and so far that has worked because our logic has been sound. How do we really justify jettisoning the principle that above all we are playing Pokemon? "Sorry, we had to in order to have a less awkward Sleep Clause" may work for us in-house, but it is a very weak defense in terms of the competitive community at large.
I actually have a serious issue with how the poll was conducted, in that it was run simultaneously with discussion. What point was there in posting, when the poll was already in the process of being settled? Even if I had posted an absolutely incontrovertible argument, the sheer difficulty of changing votes would have made the effort of crafting such an argument impractical. It would have made far more sense to have had a discussion thread on the issue here in PR, then added a poll for it afterward.
I actually have a serious issue with how the poll was conducted, in that it was run simultaneously with discussion. What point was there in posting, when the poll was already in the process of being settled? Even if I had posted an absolutely incontrovertible argument, the sheer difficulty of changing votes would have made the effort of crafting such an argument impractical. It would have made far more sense to have had a discussion thread on the issue here in PR, then added a poll for it afterward.
(crossposted from the staff forum but i don't care)
I'd like us to also note that what Phil did, he did in absolute good faith, believing that the decision he made was necessary and the right thing to do for Smogon as a whole. I unequivocally back Phil, and respect him even more now that he's shown he's willing to do the unpopular thing in order to stand up for what he believes in.
I'd like us to also note that what Phil did, he did in absolute good faith, believing that the decision he made was necessary and the right thing to do for Smogon as a whole. I unequivocally back Phil, and respect him even more now that he's shown he's willing to do the unpopular thing in order to stand up for what he believes in.
I almost wish I had voted, and voted "no, we shouldn't try to flawlessly follow game guides" just so that by backing Phil now my opinion would have more weight.
I think one of the saddest and most ridiculous things here is that people are only criticizing/backing Phil on this based on whether they agree with this decision or not. The real issue is whether you are actually willing to listen to the leader on these types of decisions or not.
I think one of the saddest and most ridiculous things here is that people are only criticizing/backing Phil on this based on whether they agree with this decision or not. The real issue is whether you are actually willing to listen to the leader on these types of decisions or not.
Regardless of who won or what I voted, I do not think this was the best way to do this. We just had multiple polls, each with its own amount of arguing. So now that they're over, we're just gonna ignore them and move on? If I had voted on the losing side, I still would know that doing this wasn't right, although I probably wouldn't be saying it. If we had just done this from the beginning, okay. But to completely turn our backs to what the polls said? Unbelievable.
Ignoring a supermajority of people who disagree with the absolutist standpoint of "adhering to cartridge mechanics on every point" is a fairly disgusting move. Honestly, if this topic was more important, or I didn't respect Philip7086 a lot for his contributions to the battling community, I would be outraged. As it stands, we have more important stuff to discuss, so it's not a topic of much issue.
But I get the feeling that if we hold to this viewpoint, controversy might flare up again if we find a gamebreaking or game-altering glitch in Gen V.
But I get the feeling that if we hold to this viewpoint, controversy might flare up again if we find a gamebreaking or game-altering glitch in Gen V.
This has been a very interesting read. I will preface this by saying I voted No in the original poll.
I support the idea behind this thread 100%, but I do not support its delivery at all. It had good intentions, but Phil just went about it the wrong way.
The Critical Hit topic was ridiculous. The fact that it was even posted meant something was wrong. It was like taking a massive step back that opened up too many doors to take even more steps back. jrrrrrrrr says it was a test and we "passed", but it is not a test we should have ever had to have taken. It was purely, undoubtedly a waste of time and should not be what this forum is about.
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".
When leading something, it is always best to make everything as simple as possible, as it reduces complications which thus allows a leader to approach and conquer new problems as opposed to resolving complications from old ones. It is for this reason I decided to create policy that no "sim glitch" was banned in tournaments. Making exceptions for things is asking for trouble, especially because people here like to exploit loopholes more than real politicians do. Mutual understanding will never be good enough anymore, and that is what is making it really hard to move forward.
I voted No with a mutual understanding that no, we were not going to remove critical hits, or any similar thing. Phil created that poll, I am sure, assuming some underlying understanding that voting No did not really open up "that can of worms", being analyzing every aspect of the game and deciding whether to remove it.
However, people quickly proved they were going to take advantage of the poll results to create controversy, which is exactly what that CH thread was. It was even stated in the original thread by Phil that voting No did not mean "let's change everything!", but alas it is what smogon does these days.
So Phil decided to cut this problem at the throat before it got out of hand, a decision I completely and utterly stand behind. We could not move forward under the result of the supermajority, because people would always question things, debates would never end, etc etc. Basically exactly what was happening a few weeks back before we chose a leader.
Phil is a smart cat and he knew we couldn't proceed forward. Something had to be done, absolutely.
Now onto where I disagree with him. This was not the right way to do it. Yes he should have "put his foot down", but this is kind of shoving it right down our throats.
What I would have done is made a new thread and just said "look guys, this is what is going to happen if we continue forward under this philosophy. I am proposing we redo the poll, but this time I will make things a little more clear". Something along these lines would still have "outcry" from certain users, but I know for one I would have reconsidered, and I am sure many others are with me. And I think the results would have spoken for themselves.
While I generally despise the viewpoints of many of the "were not even playing pokemon anymore help" users who post here, I think yes is the necessary vote solely to ensure that the things we focus on are actually the things that need to be sorted out, and to make things explicitly clear about what is and is not up for debate.
With all that said, I do not think that this thread will "go over", in that I feel that the community outcry will be large enough to reverse this decision. Phil was in the wrong to straight up overthrow a supermajority, something he definitely can't do. This community is smart enough to know what needs to be done, and that is why most of the right things have been done so far.
So what should we do now? I think we need to put it back in the hands of the community and watch them make the right choice this time, with a much clearer poll question.
Now I am no expert on BW research, but based on what I know the major contraversial aspects of adhering purely to game mechanics at this moment in time are acid weather and sleep clause. While the game would probably be better without these, I am willing to concede that these are things that can be "sacrificed" for the greater good, being having a clear and concise mission statement.
Thus I propose the poll question be "Should Smogon adhere strictly to the in game mechanics as we know them today, with the exception that should something in the future (this gen or later gens) come up such that we feel the game is broken in some aspect, we reserve the right to make an alteration as we see fit".
If this was the poll question, I would vote yes unless someone can point me to something more "contraversial" than the sleep clause argument at this moment. I have always been a supporter of classic sleep clause, and always will be, but it is not so gamebreaking that it should stop this community from proceeding forward.
The results of this poll I am suggesting would be very telling in my opinion, and I would expect it to allow us to move forward in the direction Phil wants to go (unless people really think sleep clause is a huge fucking problem), without alienating us all who voted No in the original poll.
A veterans 2 cents.
I support the idea behind this thread 100%, but I do not support its delivery at all. It had good intentions, but Phil just went about it the wrong way.
The Critical Hit topic was ridiculous. The fact that it was even posted meant something was wrong. It was like taking a massive step back that opened up too many doors to take even more steps back. jrrrrrrrr says it was a test and we "passed", but it is not a test we should have ever had to have taken. It was purely, undoubtedly a waste of time and should not be what this forum is about.
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".
When leading something, it is always best to make everything as simple as possible, as it reduces complications which thus allows a leader to approach and conquer new problems as opposed to resolving complications from old ones. It is for this reason I decided to create policy that no "sim glitch" was banned in tournaments. Making exceptions for things is asking for trouble, especially because people here like to exploit loopholes more than real politicians do. Mutual understanding will never be good enough anymore, and that is what is making it really hard to move forward.
I voted No with a mutual understanding that no, we were not going to remove critical hits, or any similar thing. Phil created that poll, I am sure, assuming some underlying understanding that voting No did not really open up "that can of worms", being analyzing every aspect of the game and deciding whether to remove it.
However, people quickly proved they were going to take advantage of the poll results to create controversy, which is exactly what that CH thread was. It was even stated in the original thread by Phil that voting No did not mean "let's change everything!", but alas it is what smogon does these days.
So Phil decided to cut this problem at the throat before it got out of hand, a decision I completely and utterly stand behind. We could not move forward under the result of the supermajority, because people would always question things, debates would never end, etc etc. Basically exactly what was happening a few weeks back before we chose a leader.
Phil is a smart cat and he knew we couldn't proceed forward. Something had to be done, absolutely.
Now onto where I disagree with him. This was not the right way to do it. Yes he should have "put his foot down", but this is kind of shoving it right down our throats.
What I would have done is made a new thread and just said "look guys, this is what is going to happen if we continue forward under this philosophy. I am proposing we redo the poll, but this time I will make things a little more clear". Something along these lines would still have "outcry" from certain users, but I know for one I would have reconsidered, and I am sure many others are with me. And I think the results would have spoken for themselves.
While I generally despise the viewpoints of many of the "were not even playing pokemon anymore help" users who post here, I think yes is the necessary vote solely to ensure that the things we focus on are actually the things that need to be sorted out, and to make things explicitly clear about what is and is not up for debate.
With all that said, I do not think that this thread will "go over", in that I feel that the community outcry will be large enough to reverse this decision. Phil was in the wrong to straight up overthrow a supermajority, something he definitely can't do. This community is smart enough to know what needs to be done, and that is why most of the right things have been done so far.
So what should we do now? I think we need to put it back in the hands of the community and watch them make the right choice this time, with a much clearer poll question.
Now I am no expert on BW research, but based on what I know the major contraversial aspects of adhering purely to game mechanics at this moment in time are acid weather and sleep clause. While the game would probably be better without these, I am willing to concede that these are things that can be "sacrificed" for the greater good, being having a clear and concise mission statement.
Thus I propose the poll question be "Should Smogon adhere strictly to the in game mechanics as we know them today, with the exception that should something in the future (this gen or later gens) come up such that we feel the game is broken in some aspect, we reserve the right to make an alteration as we see fit".
If this was the poll question, I would vote yes unless someone can point me to something more "contraversial" than the sleep clause argument at this moment. I have always been a supporter of classic sleep clause, and always will be, but it is not so gamebreaking that it should stop this community from proceeding forward.
The results of this poll I am suggesting would be very telling in my opinion, and I would expect it to allow us to move forward in the direction Phil wants to go (unless people really think sleep clause is a huge fucking problem), without alienating us all who voted No in the original poll.
A veterans 2 cents.
First of all, I just wanted to clarify a few things. I am well aware of how poorly I handled this from the start, and I wanted to offer my sincerest apologies to everybody for that. However, how different would things have been if I put my foot down like this from the get-go? If you're telling me you would have accepted it, you'd be lying. Based on debates held on IRC before Doug promoted me to head of Pokemon policy, I had absolutely no choice but to ignore what I felt was right and take things to a poll, or else I would have been lambasted (much like I am being now) by vocal users like Jabba and Synre. Even still, I was completely fine with setting up a poll instead, and was prepared to lead the community through a metagame which I fundamentally did not agree with. I did not anticipate that users, hell, respected members of our community, would take the results of said poll and run wild with it for the sake of "testing the waters". At first, I was angry and felt betrayed by the very users I trusted to mold Smogon's philosophy. Then I started thinking about it more, and realized that you know what? The points made in the critical hit thread actually held water. Obi's post in particular (also, to clarify, Obi asked for my permission before making that post, and I told him that if he thought he had something insightful to add, then to go for it, so please don't call him out for re-opening the topic after I closed it) was fairly convincing to me. This was where I started to think "fuck, despite most people brushing off the slippery slope argument, it really is unavoidable once we open the doors to not needing to strictly follow in-game mechanics". Sure, now a significant majority of users are against removing critical hits, but when faced with sound logic, who knows how many people will change their minds a few years from now?
Anyways, I would like to see less posts about how bad of a political move this was for me, and more posts touching on the points that I made in the OP. Can you really tell me that I'm not making the right decision here? And please, you all know for a fact that what the collective community wants is not and has never been the definitive method of deciding policies on Smogon, so please don't cite that as a reason to not support what I said in the OP here. Me disregarding the philosophy poll only proves that I was a moron who fucked up in how I went about doing things, and I fully acknowledge that; it does not, however, have any negative impact on the validity of the points I brought up. Can we at least agree that for the sake of simplicity, strictly following in-game mechanics makes the most sense? And can we at least agree that the effects of following in-game mechanics on our simulators has been blown completely out of proportion in the past, and that it in fact does not change much at all, yet it makes things much easier from a policy making standpoint? Honestly, has the fact that I completely fucked up how I went about doing this made you all lose sight of the real goal of this thread/forum? Hate me all you want, but at least be productive in the process.
Next, here are a few select comments I wanted to respond to:
@ the second part of that post: Please Teifu, don't be so dramatic. I have stuck by every poll held in PR so far, even the ones I did not make or approve. This is the first time I've disregarded a poll, and I only did it because the negative effects of the poll only became apparent after the fact.
-----
As a final note, I just wanted to reiterate that I am more than willing to step down from this position if that's what the community wants -- I wouldn't blame anybody for wanting that, as I am fully aware of how bad this thread makes me look. But if you think for a second that there's some great benefit or glory in being the head of Pokemon policy, you're incredibly mistaken. I don't get anything out of this (except PM's every hour from a different user wanting to push his or her own agenda, and even more from users who disagree with something I said, and now to top it all off, a topic full of people angry at me). I was simply asked if I would lead Pokemon policy for the 5th generation, and out of a sense of duty or obligation to the Pokemon community, I accepted. If the community feels like I'm not the best fit for the job, then the person who is should do this.
Again (and you'll probably hear it more on IRC or in later posts), I am sincerely sorry for the way I went about arriving at this decision. I will, however, not apologize for doing what I still feel was the right thing to do.
Anyways, I would like to see less posts about how bad of a political move this was for me, and more posts touching on the points that I made in the OP. Can you really tell me that I'm not making the right decision here? And please, you all know for a fact that what the collective community wants is not and has never been the definitive method of deciding policies on Smogon, so please don't cite that as a reason to not support what I said in the OP here. Me disregarding the philosophy poll only proves that I was a moron who fucked up in how I went about doing things, and I fully acknowledge that; it does not, however, have any negative impact on the validity of the points I brought up. Can we at least agree that for the sake of simplicity, strictly following in-game mechanics makes the most sense? And can we at least agree that the effects of following in-game mechanics on our simulators has been blown completely out of proportion in the past, and that it in fact does not change much at all, yet it makes things much easier from a policy making standpoint? Honestly, has the fact that I completely fucked up how I went about doing this made you all lose sight of the real goal of this thread/forum? Hate me all you want, but at least be productive in the process.
Next, here are a few select comments I wanted to respond to:
To be honest, I feel like the big "fuck you" to 70% of Policy Review was the creation of the critical hit topic. The intentions of the philosophy topic were clear, and yet, respected members of our community took that topic as a sign to say "LOL, let's test the waters with this and see just how far we can stretch things!" Seriously, that topic's creation was the proof that we will always have users who will try to push things to the next level, and never be satisfied with just minimally tweaking the game. What I did with the creation of this topic definitely betrayed a lot of people's trust (and again, I emphasize: I'm terribly sorry, but I would have never done this if I didn't feel deep down that it was the right thing to do), but I'd say the critical hit topic betrayed the same people's trust in that they trusted everybody to be responsible and use common sense to gauge the limits of the philosophy they voted on, not abuse the results.
@ the first part of this post: Yeah, I know. You all are acting like I didn't think this topic would throw a shitstorm of unparalleled proportions my way. At the end of the day I had to ask myself: "are you willing to stand up for what you believe in, even if it will probably cost you your position as the head of Pokemon policy?" My answer was yes, and I still stand by my decision. Yes, I fucked up by opening a poll to begin with, but I'm not the type to stubbornly try to justify something I did, despite knowing deep down that it's wrong. I personally think that even if it means going back on something said earlier, if it's for the community's benefit, it should be done. I'm nowhere near perfect, but I think one of my best qualities is my ability to own up to bad decisions I've made and still do what I feel is right, despite any sort of backlash I might face.
@ the second part of that post: Please Teifu, don't be so dramatic. I have stuck by every poll held in PR so far, even the ones I did not make or approve. This is the first time I've disregarded a poll, and I only did it because the negative effects of the poll only became apparent after the fact.
Yes, I did indeed wast a lot of people's time and effort (my own included) in the philosophy thread, and again, I seriously can't stress enough how sorry I am. However, if you consider the time we'll save in the future by strictly following in-game mechanics, I think it's safe to say that I actually saved everybody a shitload of time in the long run.
-----
As a final note, I just wanted to reiterate that I am more than willing to step down from this position if that's what the community wants -- I wouldn't blame anybody for wanting that, as I am fully aware of how bad this thread makes me look. But if you think for a second that there's some great benefit or glory in being the head of Pokemon policy, you're incredibly mistaken. I don't get anything out of this (except PM's every hour from a different user wanting to push his or her own agenda, and even more from users who disagree with something I said, and now to top it all off, a topic full of people angry at me). I was simply asked if I would lead Pokemon policy for the 5th generation, and out of a sense of duty or obligation to the Pokemon community, I accepted. If the community feels like I'm not the best fit for the job, then the person who is should do this.
Again (and you'll probably hear it more on IRC or in later posts), I am sincerely sorry for the way I went about arriving at this decision. I will, however, not apologize for doing what I still feel was the right thing to do.
Oh the irony. Isn't the whole reason this thread was created because of the whining of a small number of users who disagree on this issue?Chris is Me said:
Ok first of all, I'm glad Phil is just taking the reins and telling how things are going to be. We as a community need one person making decisions. It saves so much time and whining if things are not negotiable from the start.
The reason that I, and other PR members afaik, voted "no" was in large part to reserve the right to remedy something small. Acid Weather (I'm not starting a debate here) was just retarded. If pursuit ended the match and froze the game instead of producing all 4 weather types, I'm more than confident that it wouldn't have been implemented. so why implement Acid Weather? It's dumb, it hurts the game, and it is obviously not intended to be there. That's why I voted "no" -- to remedy a small and any future oversights by Game Freak. I don't want CHs removed. I don't want burn and paralysis removed. I feel that a lot of other users agree here.
My problem with the poll was it was basically decided before it was put to vote regardless of what that vote was.
Also, I think Reachzero's post is of high quality.
It's been said before, but I'd like to reiterate.
Most people who voted "no" don't care about banning Critical Hits or status hax or whatever, they were just concerned about "pendantic douchebags" (LonelyNess' words) using the absolutist position in order to stall legislation regarding mechanics such as Acid Rain (such stalling has been done in the past).
Despite this edict, the issue at hand probably isn't over. If we find a glitch that's gamebreaking or game-altering, there will be hell to pay.
Most people who voted "no" don't care about banning Critical Hits or status hax or whatever, they were just concerned about "pendantic douchebags" (LonelyNess' words) using the absolutist position in order to stall legislation regarding mechanics such as Acid Rain (such stalling has been done in the past).
Despite this edict, the issue at hand probably isn't over. If we find a glitch that's gamebreaking or game-altering, there will be hell to pay.
First of all, I want to say to Phil that I back your post 100% and respect you for having the balls to do so. I recognize that this was an incredibly hard decision with huge ramifications. You left yourself up for crucifixion with this post. The ramifications will be felt for some time. Having the guts to go through with it, controversy and all, shows that you are indeed a leader. I'm not saying it was handled perfectly. I agree with others who said we needed far more discussion before opening such an important poll. There were too many things unclear, as the following discussion showed. Now, after the fact, many will be understandably upset. However, I agree something had to be done, and popular or not this was the right decision.
As for everyone else, are we truly surprised? The point of the poll to change mechanics was that we open the door to change mechanics that break the game if we so desired. This was a HUGE decision. And what did people do with it? Try and change integral game mechanics that "reduced the competitive nature of the game". That it didn't pass is trivial. That well respected members of the community (whom I still respect and mean no slight against them) even brought it up justifies the slippery slope argument. What would be next? We took a given inch and made a mile. We need to realize that there are strict lines that need to be drawn. We need to remember that the simulator exists as just that. It SIMULATES a game. Not the Pokemon we WISH we played, but Pokemon. We are not a simulator site. We are a POKEMON site. That we have the simulator should not mean we make it our focus. The rules that we set forth are not just for the simulator. They are for play between players of Pokemon, simulator or no. Most people who play Pokemon do not play the simulator. Are we going to be so hell-bent on creating "the perfect competitive Pokemon game" that we stop playing Pokemon? When we take the ideal of changing mechanics to heart like we did here, we are leaving the biggest part of the Pokemon community behind. How can we be a leader of competitive Pokemon battling with an attitude like that?
Phil made the decision that had to be made before it got out of hand. We were given a chance, and it was blown. When you lend your kid your car, if they bring it back with a huge dent you don't loan it to them again until they have proven they can handle the responsibility. If something comes up in the future that requires us to make a decision, we can deal with it then. We are reasonable human beings, we can be flexible and use our logic and sense to make a decision. That's why we are all here. But until then, we should step back and stop talking about changing mechanics and making changes to the game. We can't be a leader of Pokemon if we are openly willing to not play the game anymore.
As for everyone else, are we truly surprised? The point of the poll to change mechanics was that we open the door to change mechanics that break the game if we so desired. This was a HUGE decision. And what did people do with it? Try and change integral game mechanics that "reduced the competitive nature of the game". That it didn't pass is trivial. That well respected members of the community (whom I still respect and mean no slight against them) even brought it up justifies the slippery slope argument. What would be next? We took a given inch and made a mile. We need to realize that there are strict lines that need to be drawn. We need to remember that the simulator exists as just that. It SIMULATES a game. Not the Pokemon we WISH we played, but Pokemon. We are not a simulator site. We are a POKEMON site. That we have the simulator should not mean we make it our focus. The rules that we set forth are not just for the simulator. They are for play between players of Pokemon, simulator or no. Most people who play Pokemon do not play the simulator. Are we going to be so hell-bent on creating "the perfect competitive Pokemon game" that we stop playing Pokemon? When we take the ideal of changing mechanics to heart like we did here, we are leaving the biggest part of the Pokemon community behind. How can we be a leader of competitive Pokemon battling with an attitude like that?
Phil made the decision that had to be made before it got out of hand. We were given a chance, and it was blown. When you lend your kid your car, if they bring it back with a huge dent you don't loan it to them again until they have proven they can handle the responsibility. If something comes up in the future that requires us to make a decision, we can deal with it then. We are reasonable human beings, we can be flexible and use our logic and sense to make a decision. That's why we are all here. But until then, we should step back and stop talking about changing mechanics and making changes to the game. We can't be a leader of Pokemon if we are openly willing to not play the game anymore.
On the whole slippery slope "what if in two years aliens abduct everyone in PR so they lose all cognitive ability and vote to make CHs turn Pokemon into Luvdisc and remove Freeze and overdone ridiculous scenario here" sort of thin -- here is a secret: if a significant enough amount of people want to make some sort of major change down the line that is in opposition to the policy here, it will happen anyway, regardless of which way this was ruled at the beginning of this generation. For all the talk people make about how hard it is to get stuff done here, it really isn't that difficult to galvanize people enough to make a change when you have a reasonably convincing case, and if that communal change of heart occurs it would be implemented anyway. This isn't going to prevent anything from happening down the road that wouldn't have failed to occur by virtue of being a terrible idea that will never get majority support anyway, and this isn't even useful as precedent because it will always be "the first time Phil overruled the majority PR vote."
I suspect it will further be irrelevant because I doubt outside of Sleep Clause -- which as you're aware from talking to me on IRC I nearly exclusively voted No on what is quickly becoming an infamous poll in order to keep on the table -- there will probably be basically zero situations where this actually changes the policy that we would have implemented, and pretty close to actually zero situations where it actually has an impact in battle(yay acid rain). That radical bs like removing crits had no chance of being accepted now and frankly it never will, which goes a long way towards explaining why the slippery slope argument tends to be something of a fallacy. A significant amount of people proved that they would always vote in favor of in-game mechanics by voting Yes to begin with, and a majority of the people in the other camp who have posted or talked about it on IRC the past few days have mentioned being in a camp similar to where I am, in that they voted no simply to keep options open in case of unforeseen circumstances. We didn't even start sliding down the "slippery slope.". We were still at the top of the slide when you turned it into a swingset.
This is the reason that I have mostly only commented on it from a political perspective. It is an irrelevant aesthetic change from a Pokemon perspective. People aren't just suddenly going to fall down a staircase and vote to start changing the game into competitive Pokemon Snap. All this did was exhibit a lack of faith in the PR posters to avoid what would at best be an occasional trivial poll that got shot down. If you were so betrayed by LN, etc., you should have yanked their PR access, not taken away the right to choose from the rest of the posters here.
Finally, I still find it unbelievable people are using the crit topic to justify the slippery slope horseshit. 92%. I don't think you'd get that many voters to agree on something here if you asked them what color Koffing was. There was never a threat of that actually happening. Get over the fact a topic was made.
I suspect it will further be irrelevant because I doubt outside of Sleep Clause -- which as you're aware from talking to me on IRC I nearly exclusively voted No on what is quickly becoming an infamous poll in order to keep on the table -- there will probably be basically zero situations where this actually changes the policy that we would have implemented, and pretty close to actually zero situations where it actually has an impact in battle(yay acid rain). That radical bs like removing crits had no chance of being accepted now and frankly it never will, which goes a long way towards explaining why the slippery slope argument tends to be something of a fallacy. A significant amount of people proved that they would always vote in favor of in-game mechanics by voting Yes to begin with, and a majority of the people in the other camp who have posted or talked about it on IRC the past few days have mentioned being in a camp similar to where I am, in that they voted no simply to keep options open in case of unforeseen circumstances. We didn't even start sliding down the "slippery slope.". We were still at the top of the slide when you turned it into a swingset.
This is the reason that I have mostly only commented on it from a political perspective. It is an irrelevant aesthetic change from a Pokemon perspective. People aren't just suddenly going to fall down a staircase and vote to start changing the game into competitive Pokemon Snap. All this did was exhibit a lack of faith in the PR posters to avoid what would at best be an occasional trivial poll that got shot down. If you were so betrayed by LN, etc., you should have yanked their PR access, not taken away the right to choose from the rest of the posters here.
Finally, I still find it unbelievable people are using the crit topic to justify the slippery slope horseshit. 92%. I don't think you'd get that many voters to agree on something here if you asked them what color Koffing was. There was never a threat of that actually happening. Get over the fact a topic was made.
This post is going to be unpopular.
The poll should not have happened in the first place.
The evidence against the slippery slope is to say that the slipperiness of this slope doesnt extend as far as critical hits. Why not is not clear. There is no clear boundary at this point where a change to mechanics should occur. There have been things suggested, things like "we allow sleep clause because we expect it will exist in some future pbr-like game" or "things that obviously are glitches should be banned". But none of these are predetermined, they are just being used because they suit peoples desired outcomes. And neither of these are actually being applied consistently. The glitch argument suggests a complete overhaul of rby, and the pbr argument isnt being applied to dream world abilities.
There needs to be a clear boundary. Without a clear boundary, these arguments are going to continue. Because if the boundary isnt clear, how is anyone going to know what arguments are or arent valid.
We could have a second poll on this, or we could have done what ought to have been done in the first place, and just apply the philosophy about where the border should sit. Unfortunately this means contradicting the original poll and saying we dont change ingame mechanics.
A lot of you scoffed at CIM's suggestion we change our sites description, but it is perfectly valid. If you claim to be a site dedicated to pokemon, and a person comes to our site based on that claim, they will expect what we play to follow the rules of pokemon. To not do so is lying. If we use "classic" sleep clause (terrible name, I was around for the classic days, and that wasnt the sleep clause we used back then), then we become a shoddybattle community, or a PO community.
Another thing, is I think the opponents of cart modification feel a great deal more strongly about this than the supporters. I mean, I dont really know this, but if I look at this from the supporters point of view, cart sleep clause isnt actually broken. It makes a marginal difference in certain circumstances that I cant see either being better from a competitive standpoint (IE the viability of sleep spam for a potential wake strategy, either way is fine really), and if you add in a "this move could potentially break sleep clause, are you sure?" check, then there just isnt ever going to be a problem. I cant imagine anyone could see this as as big a deal as I see the philosophical problem.
I mean, when you look at it, you have wifi gap, philosophy and clarity vs a trivial change to the status quo. This really is a no brainer. I genuinely dont understand why people are so opposed to this. The arguments are either flying completely over my head or they are just awful.
And acid rain is not much better. It is an incredibly obscure mechanic that doesnt overtly favour either side. Why do any of you care? I dont get it.
Have a nice day.
The poll should not have happened in the first place.
The evidence against the slippery slope is to say that the slipperiness of this slope doesnt extend as far as critical hits. Why not is not clear. There is no clear boundary at this point where a change to mechanics should occur. There have been things suggested, things like "we allow sleep clause because we expect it will exist in some future pbr-like game" or "things that obviously are glitches should be banned". But none of these are predetermined, they are just being used because they suit peoples desired outcomes. And neither of these are actually being applied consistently. The glitch argument suggests a complete overhaul of rby, and the pbr argument isnt being applied to dream world abilities.
There needs to be a clear boundary. Without a clear boundary, these arguments are going to continue. Because if the boundary isnt clear, how is anyone going to know what arguments are or arent valid.
We could have a second poll on this, or we could have done what ought to have been done in the first place, and just apply the philosophy about where the border should sit. Unfortunately this means contradicting the original poll and saying we dont change ingame mechanics.
A lot of you scoffed at CIM's suggestion we change our sites description, but it is perfectly valid. If you claim to be a site dedicated to pokemon, and a person comes to our site based on that claim, they will expect what we play to follow the rules of pokemon. To not do so is lying. If we use "classic" sleep clause (terrible name, I was around for the classic days, and that wasnt the sleep clause we used back then), then we become a shoddybattle community, or a PO community.
Another thing, is I think the opponents of cart modification feel a great deal more strongly about this than the supporters. I mean, I dont really know this, but if I look at this from the supporters point of view, cart sleep clause isnt actually broken. It makes a marginal difference in certain circumstances that I cant see either being better from a competitive standpoint (IE the viability of sleep spam for a potential wake strategy, either way is fine really), and if you add in a "this move could potentially break sleep clause, are you sure?" check, then there just isnt ever going to be a problem. I cant imagine anyone could see this as as big a deal as I see the philosophical problem.
I mean, when you look at it, you have wifi gap, philosophy and clarity vs a trivial change to the status quo. This really is a no brainer. I genuinely dont understand why people are so opposed to this. The arguments are either flying completely over my head or they are just awful.
And acid rain is not much better. It is an incredibly obscure mechanic that doesnt overtly favour either side. Why do any of you care? I dont get it.
Have a nice day.
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? A number of people have mentioned it, and but no one's addressed 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?
That's something blown out of proportion but I'm purposefully taking it to an extreme. What would we do if our philosophy was set to strictly following cart mechanics?
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?
That's something blown out of proportion but I'm purposefully taking it to an extreme. What would we do if our philosophy was set to strictly following cart mechanics?
This is exactly why most people voted no, so that we can have discussions on these things on a case-by-case basis. That is why this decision is such a big deal in the first place, and why closing the discussion is a ridiculous option to consider in the first place.
Yes, I can. Closing debate on these topics is not appropriate at all, especially considering the vote that you asked us for.
I beg to differ. We actually did this quite a bit in gen 4.
I could ask you the same question. We took a poll of PR members and had it reversed by one person with no advance notice, and you gave us the same reasoning given by the losing side in the poll as the reason why you overruled it, and within 15 minutes of your post there were 5 people who sided with the losing side of the poll exuberantly celebrating and congratulating you on your decision. Have YOU lost all sight of the real goal of this forum?
Really? You think that making a critical hit removal thread in which 8 out of 96 people voted to remove critical hits (most of which were joking or making a political stand) is as big a "fuck you" to PR as single-handedly overturning a supermajority poll? You admitted that you messed up, and that is respectable, but don't say silly things like this.
I thought I heard President Bush said the same thing once. This is not good rhetoric for a leader. I came down on you a bit too harsh, I don't think you should step down. However, I seriously think you could use someone else's help (especially if this is keeping you up at night). Nobody should ever be forced to lose sleep over Pokemon.
Well considering that these topics will come up anyways since everyone loves complaining about pokemon, I really doubt that these topics will stop until the PR forum is eliminated.
Ban Doryuuzu or add "Switching Doryuuzu into a sandstorm" to Self-KO clause.
Also curse out Game Freak's programming staff.
- Status