Group A
-
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!
Official Moving Forward (Re: "Putting My Foot Down")
- Thread starter Philip7086
- Start date
- Status
Group B
I support you, but I would like a re-vote.
I am willing to sacrifice Classic Sleep Clause for everything except Magic Coat and especially Magic Mirror. These are both used commonly competitively, and a new Sleep Clause unfairly works against them. Hell, I can lose just from using Splash/Tackle/etc with Magic Mirror Espeon after 3 turns (opponent uses sleep move, then swaps out, then uses sleep move again). Magic Coat is similar in the sense that it relies on the opponent intending to use a sleep move.
Also, I think this thread/poll was a good way to get people's opinions :)
I support you, but I would like a re-vote.
I am willing to sacrifice Classic Sleep Clause for everything except Magic Coat and especially Magic Mirror. These are both used commonly competitively, and a new Sleep Clause unfairly works against them. Hell, I can lose just from using Splash/Tackle/etc with Magic Mirror Espeon after 3 turns (opponent uses sleep move, then swaps out, then uses sleep move again). Magic Coat is similar in the sense that it relies on the opponent intending to use a sleep move.
Also, I think this thread/poll was a good way to get people's opinions :)
Group A
Beyond the fact that I voted against imposing any "artificial" changes, I believe that Phil made a decision that he sufficiently argued was necessary for avoiding unnecessary preference-based debates in the future. Looking at the PR thread list right now, there's just the critical hit discussion, which seems to demonstrate that the PR community can be fairly consistent in terms of what to do with the existing mechanics. However, I find at least one common conception within PR rather disturbing, and I feel that a lot of people here have a lot of growing up to do in terms of deciding what's best for the game that we're given, rather than trying to make the game something that it no longer is. Acid Rain may no longer be relevant, but what if, in some future time, a potentially game-changing bug is discovered? The voting majority may not even give the bug a chance, just because it allegedly wasn't intended. We really need to rethink what we would do if Pokémon changed drastically due to some anomaly, like Puzzle Fighter.
Beyond the fact that I voted against imposing any "artificial" changes, I believe that Phil made a decision that he sufficiently argued was necessary for avoiding unnecessary preference-based debates in the future. Looking at the PR thread list right now, there's just the critical hit discussion, which seems to demonstrate that the PR community can be fairly consistent in terms of what to do with the existing mechanics. However, I find at least one common conception within PR rather disturbing, and I feel that a lot of people here have a lot of growing up to do in terms of deciding what's best for the game that we're given, rather than trying to make the game something that it no longer is. Acid Rain may no longer be relevant, but what if, in some future time, a potentially game-changing bug is discovered? The voting majority may not even give the bug a chance, just because it allegedly wasn't intended. We really need to rethink what we would do if Pokémon changed drastically due to some anomaly, like Puzzle Fighter.
group B
Group A
Group A
Group A
Group A
I was one of the supermajority who voted 'No' in the controversial game mechanics poll. I voted the way I did mainly because I wanted the ability to have an 'out' in case we discovered something game-breaking down the line, which is very possible since B/W research is still very much in its nascent stages. From what I've seen posted so far I think that this is the case for a lot of other voters as well.
If we were to have a re-vote, the question would obviously have to be rephrased to better reflect people's true views, and perhaps to avoid future controversies such as the removal of critical hits. It's almost certain that there will be debate on the wording of the question, which will eventually turn into another debate about sacrificing aspects of catridge mechanics for the sake of competitiveness. I honestly think that nothing will advance as a result of the re-vote, if anything we'll just end up running in circles.
Philip's policy in the 'Putting my foot down' thread is a policy based on simplicity and common sense, which is definitely the right direction for Policy Review. But in making his decision, he appears to have ignored the wishes of the supermajority, which is what some people disagree with.
I believe that Philip's recent decisions have demonstrated good leadership qualities, even if there were, as others have said, better ways of going about it. I feel safe that common sense will prevail with Philip at the helm, so even if we were to strictly adhere to catridge mechanics, any future problems that may pop up will be adequately covered, which is why I voted 'No' in the first place, if this is indeed the case, then a re-vote is unnecessary, and perhaps even counterproductive.
The creation of this subforum and thread shows that Philip respects the opinions of us Policy Review members, he did not mean offense when he made the 'Putting my foot down' thread, he did it for long-term benefits to Smogon. Philip is most certainly not the tyrant some have made him out to be, I trust him to do the best for this community, and I trust his judgment.
Simplicity and common sense is the way to go, and the way to get us out of this current quagmire, that is why my vote is for Group A.
I was one of the supermajority who voted 'No' in the controversial game mechanics poll. I voted the way I did mainly because I wanted the ability to have an 'out' in case we discovered something game-breaking down the line, which is very possible since B/W research is still very much in its nascent stages. From what I've seen posted so far I think that this is the case for a lot of other voters as well.
If we were to have a re-vote, the question would obviously have to be rephrased to better reflect people's true views, and perhaps to avoid future controversies such as the removal of critical hits. It's almost certain that there will be debate on the wording of the question, which will eventually turn into another debate about sacrificing aspects of catridge mechanics for the sake of competitiveness. I honestly think that nothing will advance as a result of the re-vote, if anything we'll just end up running in circles.
Philip's policy in the 'Putting my foot down' thread is a policy based on simplicity and common sense, which is definitely the right direction for Policy Review. But in making his decision, he appears to have ignored the wishes of the supermajority, which is what some people disagree with.
I believe that Philip's recent decisions have demonstrated good leadership qualities, even if there were, as others have said, better ways of going about it. I feel safe that common sense will prevail with Philip at the helm, so even if we were to strictly adhere to catridge mechanics, any future problems that may pop up will be adequately covered, which is why I voted 'No' in the first place, if this is indeed the case, then a re-vote is unnecessary, and perhaps even counterproductive.
The creation of this subforum and thread shows that Philip respects the opinions of us Policy Review members, he did not mean offense when he made the 'Putting my foot down' thread, he did it for long-term benefits to Smogon. Philip is most certainly not the tyrant some have made him out to be, I trust him to do the best for this community, and I trust his judgment.
Simplicity and common sense is the way to go, and the way to get us out of this current quagmire, that is why my vote is for Group A.
Group B
I think what Phil is doing is right, in that some sort of leader should be able to make the decisions and overrule the decisions made by PR, but I think in that circumstance where it was pretty much 2:1 was the wrong thing to do.
However, I fully support Phil as leader..
I think what Phil is doing is right, in that some sort of leader should be able to make the decisions and overrule the decisions made by PR, but I think in that circumstance where it was pretty much 2:1 was the wrong thing to do.
However, I fully support Phil as leader..
group a
philip bribed me
philip bribed me
Ice-eyes
Simper Fi
Group A
I think the loss of Classic Sleep Clause is a small price to pay for avoiding the other implications of that thread - having to debate stuff like banning critical hits etc. for the rest of the generation when there are much more pressing matters to attend to. Ideally, we would be able to deviate slightly from in-game mechanics but it isn't a precedent worth setting and I think Phil has done the right thing here. He's doing the job he's here to do - what was the point of getting an executive leader who could get things done if they weren't going to use their powers occasionally in justified circumstances?
I think the loss of Classic Sleep Clause is a small price to pay for avoiding the other implications of that thread - having to debate stuff like banning critical hits etc. for the rest of the generation when there are much more pressing matters to attend to. Ideally, we would be able to deviate slightly from in-game mechanics but it isn't a precedent worth setting and I think Phil has done the right thing here. He's doing the job he's here to do - what was the point of getting an executive leader who could get things done if they weren't going to use their powers occasionally in justified circumstances?
- Status