Do you think you could either be a little bit more specific on this (if possible) or maybe provide an example of just what it is you understand a solid theory to be in an argument? I'm probably not understanding the concept here, but are you basically saying to argue that "if Salamence were made a suspect and eventually left the OU ladder then so and so would happen"?
-
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!
Demystifying Stark Mountain
- Thread starter Tangerine
- Start date
You've already stated that there are a ton of variables and a ton of different possible ruleset/philosophies/whatever on the metagame, and that they all have their validity. My question is, if everyone figures out how to justify their "list of Salamence traits that spin the argument in meaningless endless circles," won't that just transform the threads into "lists of metagame traits that spin the argument in meaningless endless circles"?
Please stop asking policy questions, or questions that can be answered in one sentence. This is not the place to ask about policy, but more about the abstract things that people talk about when it comes to Pokemon
The reason why the question is so important is that by being able to answer that question completely means you have some idea of how you think the metagame should look like. It is clear to me that many players don't actually "know" exactly what they want the metagame to look like, but only "feel", as seen by their incomplete arguments, whether it be just telling us what Salamence does in the metagame.
The trivial example is this - let's say a murder occurs. Why is this bad? The answer isn't "It's against the law", but there are justifications why murder is a bad thing. What I am looking for is the justification, not "this is broken because it does this to the metagame", but why such the action is harmful to the metagame and players? Obviously you need a "stance" to say this, and that stance is a "theory" of how you approach the game.
That is not what I have said or implied in any of my posts. I mean literally what I have said - you need to answer the question "what aspect of the game of Pokemon is this hurting competitively". Note that this does not mean "how will the metagame improve without this Pokemon", that is an irrelevant question to this situation.
The reason why the question is so important is that by being able to answer that question completely means you have some idea of how you think the metagame should look like. It is clear to me that many players don't actually "know" exactly what they want the metagame to look like, but only "feel", as seen by their incomplete arguments, whether it be just telling us what Salamence does in the metagame.
The trivial example is this - let's say a murder occurs. Why is this bad? The answer isn't "It's against the law", but there are justifications why murder is a bad thing. What I am looking for is the justification, not "this is broken because it does this to the metagame", but why such the action is harmful to the metagame and players? Obviously you need a "stance" to say this, and that stance is a "theory" of how you approach the game.
Because in general there are only two big camps in terms of how the metagame should be managed. There is nothing to argue after people are able to put it into clear words what they feel are the significant traits that should be highlighted in competitive Pokemon (obviously this doesn't mean "style of play" or "I don't want to deal with this threat" or "I wanna keep winning), the only thing after that is just "agreeing to disagree" since there isn't much you can actually argue at that point.
What ARE these two big camps? Aggo versus stall? Allowing Pokemon versus restricting pokemon? Fun versus competitive? There are many ways of dividing it up, and I see no reason why any single method of dividing should suddenly be the defining factor in how people view Pokemon. Could you explain why this method of dividing is the most important, basic way to divide metagame opinion?
Oh, right.
There is nothing to say "why this is the method", it's something that I have picked up from reading people's posts and talking to a lot of people. Particularly, this thread.
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1233776&postcount=28 is a good summary of how the camps are (although "camp colin" is a sort of misleading)
The big reason I refuse to give examples is because I rather not have my arguments used in this Salamence fiasco. I hope you understand.
The ones who prefer variety and the ones who prefer a stable, centralized game make up the two big camps. Remember, this is for metagame management, and we automatically assume competitive.
There is nothing to say "why this is the method", it's something that I have picked up from reading people's posts and talking to a lot of people. Particularly, this thread.
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1233776&postcount=28 is a good summary of how the camps are (although "camp colin" is a sort of misleading)
I'd like to thank you for your response, even though you "disapprove of my understanding of things". (IRC thing you said) Anyways, I apologize if I am asking unnecessary questions here, but your responses are helping me learn about Smogon policy and how to build appropriate arguments in that regard, so once again, thanks.
What would be the best way to get involved with on-site projects, and what previous experience with battling/Smogon would help?
There are a lot of projects that are going on in the site. The best way to get involved with the on-site projects is to simply, get involved (and actually do it, rather than say "I will/can do it" - results are what will matter in the end)
I would say the what kind of experience would help the most is your ability to write. Smogon hosts a tremendous amount of articles and they're all mostly text. If you can write, and write in a manner such that it reflects your thinking, then it's quite easy to pick up on how to write regarding competitive battles or about smogon as a whole.
So my advice is to "just do it", try it, and give it a shot.
Hi Tangerine.
So in a lot of arguments I see people comparing why Pokemon should be banned and why they shouldn't be banned based on reasons they're making up for why Uber Pokemon were banned. I was wondering if you knew why every Uber Pokemon was banned? I can't seem to find enough about them in the forums, and I'd personally like to know why a lot of Uber Pokemon were banned. (Latios and Rayquaza especially).
edit: this is kind of for things like debates. So that things like "Why don't we unban Rayquaza if Salamence and it are both KOd by Bullet Punch" can't really be said because i'm sure there is another reason why Rayquaza was banned and Salamence wasn't. Or why Latios is and Gengar/Latias aren't.
So in a lot of arguments I see people comparing why Pokemon should be banned and why they shouldn't be banned based on reasons they're making up for why Uber Pokemon were banned. I was wondering if you knew why every Uber Pokemon was banned? I can't seem to find enough about them in the forums, and I'd personally like to know why a lot of Uber Pokemon were banned. (Latios and Rayquaza especially).
edit: this is kind of for things like debates. So that things like "Why don't we unban Rayquaza if Salamence and it are both KOd by Bullet Punch" can't really be said because i'm sure there is another reason why Rayquaza was banned and Salamence wasn't. Or why Latios is and Gengar/Latias aren't.
Also about Stark Mountain being overwhelming: I find Stark Mountain to be very, very casual in regards to standards of debating compared to some other communities, which is why I find it enjoyable to read.
Anyways, I've noticed that in order to deem a pokemon broken, you have to go through a voting procedure where the majority vote determines the outcome. I can understand why this is an appealing idea, since it is a nice solution to debate and controversy by giving some sort of quantitative measure (in this case, whether the "OU" or "Uber" column is greater). However, it seems like an inelegant solution to the problem, since it doesn't give us any insight into the nature of the problem. It would be like the global mathematics community coming together and saying, "Okay, let's have a vote on whether P = NP. Majority rules." Sure, if a large majority says that P isn't equal to NP, there's a large probability that they are correct, but what kind of insight does that give us into the problem? Likewise, even if it is likely that some pokemon is broken, what kind of insight does it give the competitive Pokemon community?
The fact that we are using voting as a method for determining whether a pokemon is broken probably tells us that there's confusion over what specific details make a pokemon broken, and voting makes it easier to side step those questions. No aspect of the pokemon metagame is subjective. If we can discover more specific attributes that broken pokemon have such that voting can be eliminated, then we should be devoting full time and energy to find such attributes.
So the question is, why is suspect voting a better and more stable method for determining whether a pokemon is broken or not?
Anyways, I've noticed that in order to deem a pokemon broken, you have to go through a voting procedure where the majority vote determines the outcome. I can understand why this is an appealing idea, since it is a nice solution to debate and controversy by giving some sort of quantitative measure (in this case, whether the "OU" or "Uber" column is greater). However, it seems like an inelegant solution to the problem, since it doesn't give us any insight into the nature of the problem. It would be like the global mathematics community coming together and saying, "Okay, let's have a vote on whether P = NP. Majority rules." Sure, if a large majority says that P isn't equal to NP, there's a large probability that they are correct, but what kind of insight does that give us into the problem? Likewise, even if it is likely that some pokemon is broken, what kind of insight does it give the competitive Pokemon community?
The fact that we are using voting as a method for determining whether a pokemon is broken probably tells us that there's confusion over what specific details make a pokemon broken, and voting makes it easier to side step those questions. No aspect of the pokemon metagame is subjective. If we can discover more specific attributes that broken pokemon have such that voting can be eliminated, then we should be devoting full time and energy to find such attributes.
So the question is, why is suspect voting a better and more stable method for determining whether a pokemon is broken or not?
Rayquaza was "banned" through theory, and there hasn't been any compelling reason why we should ever test Rayquaza, despite what certain users may claim.
Latios was actually tested after Latias, and people found it overwhelming enough to ban it. I recommend you look at the previous np: threads to see what people thought of it when people were using it.
In general, comparing Pokemon is a bad thing to do. When you compare it, you're comparing one aspect of Pokemon to another aspect, and you shouldn't assume that it carries over that easliy since there's always more factors. It's difficult to be convincing when you are comparing unless you do it very, very, well and you know what you're doing (I would say that nearly every Stark poster does not know what they're doing when it comes to this)
It doesn't give any insight into the problem, other than "people think this is too much"
I have mentioned before that Smogon does not subscribe to a specific theory of how to manage a metagame. We recognize that people have different reasons they want a Pokemon banned and the Suspect Test is a way around having a solid theory. We assume that every player knows what they want, and that they will vote based on their preferences, and that what is Uber is largely based on preference. The Suspect Test started because of Garchomp - there were months and months of repeating incomplete arguments to the point where we just decided to resolve it by introducing the Suspect test and introducing Garchomp. The idea was to be simply based on "Which metagame do you prefer, one with Garchomp or one without". So yes, it doesnt give you any specific insights.
What "balances" this is deciding what is a suspect and what is not, and the characteristics of Uber. A lot of theory or good convincing (see: Eon Tournament) goes into what we can make suspect and not a suspect. The characteristics of uber is a way to "focus" the user's argument (ie, we don't care if it's overcentralizing, show me how this overcentralizing applies to one of the three characteristics - that's the POINT of it). The point is that any thing you will care about will be caught through one of the characteristics unless you are very uncreative.
I do agree that this isn't the best solution (I have always been a proponent of holding formal debates to decide bannings), but to an essence, it's a solution where users can't really complain about, since after all, by saying other wise you are literally claiming "I matter more than all of the other players in the game" which would be a silly claim to make.
What do you think about semi-stall? Not about the play style or its success in the current metagame, but about the term. Aren't they just simple balanced teams adapted to the current metagame? Why people keep calling them this way like if it was something new?
Also, in your opinion, what is the reason behind stark mountain being so bad lately? I always lurked these sub-forums, but lately almost every debate thread is pointless and some of them (the salamence thread for example) just keeps looping around unfounded arguments.
Also, in your opinion, what is the reason behind stark mountain being so bad lately? I always lurked these sub-forums, but lately almost every debate thread is pointless and some of them (the salamence thread for example) just keeps looping around unfounded arguments.
Definitions are something that are created everyday because people want an easier way to refer to things. Now, if it's well defined, that is fine, but in reality most of the definitions we use aren't well defined. In essence, people will throw in a lot of vague concepts into a definition so they have a "solid" way of referring to it, even if the definitions that make it up are messy.
Another factor is that when you define a new word, it feels "novel", which is why people talk about it like it was something new. So in reality it can just be "something else" wrapped in a new word, but it can "feel" new.
Any definition can be reduced to saying "isn't it just this word + this word?", so there's really no point of debating that or even discussing that.
Lack of reading comprehension, perhaps
( not sure if this should be here but...)
i was reading the topic about the new UU pokemon ( their not new but whatever) and i read that some users were using the " what if..." to make it seem like their arguements were correct and the others were wrong. i've got one question, should you post like that or not?
i was reading the topic about the new UU pokemon ( their not new but whatever) and i read that some users were using the " what if..." to make it seem like their arguements were correct and the others were wrong. i've got one question, should you post like that or not?
Purushu asked a slightly different question. What is the reason behind the apparent increase in poor posts and threads recently? This is something I have noticed also. Is it HGSS creating a general increase in interest in Pokemon? Is it the time of year? Is it that poor threads 'set a bad example' and lead to more poor threads? Is it that the mods are getting caught napping? What's the reason for the change?
What advice would you give a player looking to get back into the current metagame (specifically OU)? I've been away from battling for a couple of months and I'm having some trouble adjusting. Is there anything you would suggest going over (RMTs, warstories, etc...) that may help me get, at the least, a hint as to what I should expect from the current metagame?
What kind of discussions are worth participating in on stark? I realize this would mostly be up to my own discretion, but what type of discussion has actually gone somewhere and allowed growth of the community and development outside of PR and your private forums?
Hey.
I'm new to the community, and not really sure where to start, competitive-wise. I've been hanging around the Ruins of Alph and participating in spontaneous discussions not relating to battling, but feel I'm not really contributing anything of importance.
I have a basic handling of competitive battling, but I'm not highly confident in my skills yet and would like to know the best way to develop a more profound understanding of competitive battling. I attempted to find a thread in Stark Mountain that I could post anything in, but thought I would probably just be interrupting a well-formed discussion with unintentionally noob-ish comments or by being Captain Obvious. But I digress.
My point is: how do you reccomend I - or anyone else in the same vein - hone my skills so I can slowly integrate into Smogon? (eg. reading every thread and article in existence, going on Shoddy more, signing up for Battling 101, participating in a certain community...)
Thank you.
I'm new to the community, and not really sure where to start, competitive-wise. I've been hanging around the Ruins of Alph and participating in spontaneous discussions not relating to battling, but feel I'm not really contributing anything of importance.
I have a basic handling of competitive battling, but I'm not highly confident in my skills yet and would like to know the best way to develop a more profound understanding of competitive battling. I attempted to find a thread in Stark Mountain that I could post anything in, but thought I would probably just be interrupting a well-formed discussion with unintentionally noob-ish comments or by being Captain Obvious. But I digress.
My point is: how do you reccomend I - or anyone else in the same vein - hone my skills so I can slowly integrate into Smogon? (eg. reading every thread and article in existence, going on Shoddy more, signing up for Battling 101, participating in a certain community...)
Thank you.