irc log 2014/02/18

19:15 <paintseagull> jas, I feel like you don't consider the possibility that we might do a poor job of selecting our checks and counters in the early stages
19:15 <Pwnemon> see: cap6
19:16 <DetroitLolcat> ^
19:16 Mos_Quitoxe has left IRC (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
19:17 <DetroitLolcat> I think a Counters Discussion, or possibly a Threats Re-Assessment, often will do much more good than harm.
19:18 imanalt has left IRC (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
19:18 <Deck_Knight> We did a fine job selecting counters. We did a poor job in making submissions adhere to them.
19:18 <Deck_Knight> Volt Absorb being possibly the most egregious example.
19:19 <Deck_Knight> Stats I can see arguing for making a counter more or less viable. VA basically just said "lol Elec weak/counters wut?"
19:19 <paintseagull> people wanted Volt Absorb because they thought the counters were poorly chosen or not important
19:20 <DetroitLolcat> The Threats Discussion itself was pretty poor, though. It ended up with an unfeasible threats list that had to be amended soon after.
19:21 <DetroitLolcat> Even when the final threats list was chosen, and it was a very good conclusion, most people ended up ignoring it through their submissions. The reason that step went poorly was in part because of a bad discussion, and in part because of bad submissions IMO.
19:21 <paintseagull> the point is, I can't understand why we wouldn't want a second Counters discussion as mandatory when such ambiguities and problems are so easy to fall into
19:22 <DetroitLolcat> I agree there. The potential drawback of wasting a day or two is nothing compared to the benefit of fixing errors in the threat list.
19:23 <DetroitLolcat> And if people are just going to say "I didn't get what I wanted in the Threats Discussion so I'm going to re-argue it here", isn't that what the TL/mods are for?
19:23 <paintseagull> and why is "Do our checks/counters still make sense?" a question that the TL gets to answer by theirself, when nothing else is?
19:24 <Deck_Knight> What step is actually left after we *fix* the errors? Just Movepool?
19:24 <DetroitLolcat> We could back it up before Secondary Ability if it's that important.
19:25 <Deck_Knight> IMO, I don't think anything would generally come out of a revisitation except "Make CAPX Strongther!"
19:27 Kavatika has joined (Mibbit@sailing.the.great.sea)
19:27 <Deck_Knight> What tends to happen is we set a limit, and then submissions bend against the limit without appearing to  break it. Cumulatively though, it gets broken without someone capable of shutting it down. And the only one who can feasibly do that is the TL.
19:31 <DetroitLolcat> Then, going forward, should we expect the TL to rein in the "Make CAPX Strongther for no reason!" crowd and identify limit-breaking?
19:33 elevator_music has joined (come@me.bro)
19:33 BarackObama has changed mode: +o elevator_music
19:33 Coronisleeping is now known as Coronis
19:33 <paintseagull> the way the onsite process guide frames it, we do "Threats" first then "Counters" later. Which is basically the method Korski was suggesting.
19:34 <paintseagull> where Threats is vague and Counters is specific
19:34 <paintseagull> I just do not understand why on earth anyone ever said Counters discussion should be optional
19:35 <paintseagull> It's a holdover from Strong TL maybe? It doesn't make sense in our more community minded system.
19:35 <DetroitLolcat> I agree fully with that.
19:44 cyzir_visheen has left IRC (Client exited)
19:46 <DetroitLolcat> Also, it's hard to speak positively or negatively about the Counters Discussion when we haven't had one since Necturna.
19:46 <Pwnemon> llol
19:47 <DetroitLolcat> At least half of the CAPs since would have gone much, much better if there was a Counters Discussion.
19:47 <paintseagull> thank you for researching that DLC
19:47 <paintseagull> pls post in the thread :)
19:47 <DetroitLolcat> I'm working on a post right now.
19:47 <paintseagull> awesome
19:47 <paintseagull> i've been thread hogging the whole dang PRC forum so....
19:48 <Pwnemon> yeah
19:48 <Pwnemon> i bitched out someone
19:48 <Pwnemon> for not holding a counters discussion
19:48 <Pwnemon> i think it was bmb
19:48 <paintseagull> nobody wants to choose to make the CAP take longer
19:48 <paintseagull> that's why it should be mandatory
19:48 <DetroitLolcat> I would have posted sooner but school has been kicking my ass recently. :/
19:48 rediamond has joined (~rediamond@synIRC-2C6E0130.hsd1.in.comcast.net)
19:49 <paintseagull> if we have nothing to say we can wrap it up in 24h
19:49 <DetroitLolcat> I think the "CAP takes too long" problem is being really overblown.
19:50 <DetroitLolcat> Cawmodore was an extreme case because of the generational shift. The time factor hasn't been a pressing issue (or even an issue afaik) until after CAP 6.
19:56 cyzir_visheen has joined (~VCR@3EC0ACB7.8B7B7226.215F8AF9.IP)
19:58 darkie has joined (~darkie@these.floatzels.are.making.me.thirsty)
19:58 BarackObama has changed mode: +o darkie
20:03 <jas61292> <paintseagull> jas, I feel like you don't consider the possibility that we might do a poor job of selecting our checks and counters in the early stages
20:03 rediamond has left IRC (Quit: rediamond)
20:03 <jas61292> This is certainly possible, but much more often, problems come up because we ignore what we select, not because what we select was not a good choice
20:03 rediamond has joined (~rediamond@synIRC-2C6E0130.hsd1.in.comcast.net)
20:04 <jas61292> Yeah, we should reanalyze if we ignored what we selected and are looking like we have no counters. But the bigger problem is why that is happening at all
20:04 <jas61292> Counters should be chosen off of the concept. If we are not following them, that is a problem
20:05 <DetroitLolcat> Does Cawmodore outspeed ScarfZone?
20:05 <jas61292> Yes
20:09 <jas61292> Frankly, the failure in CAP6 related to Volt Absorb was not the selection, so much as the fact that it was allowed to come to that stage at all. We decided on counters, but the leadership team didn't try and keep discussion focused on these counters, and the moderation team didn't get rid of posts that were clearly not about things that should be being discussed.
20:11 Menace13 has left IRC (Quit: Menace13)
20:12 <DetroitLolcat> I don't think it's fair to write off us doing a poor job of selecting checks and counters in the early stages when it's arguably happened in two of the past three CAPs.
20:12 <DetroitLolcat> Although it was fixed very well during Cawmodore.
20:12 <jas61292> Also, for what its worth, to give a little history, the counters stage used to be directly before movepool. It was decided that this was not a good place for it, and we implemented the threats discussion earlier. After actually doing a project with this double set up, we realized how redundant and not useful it was and unanamously voted to make the second part optional; only to be invoked if the TL or mods think the project has gone awry
20:13 <Pwnemon> i recall this
20:13 <DetroitLolcat> Between which CAPs did these changes take place?
20:13 <Pwnemon> 3 and 4
20:13 <Pwnemon> or 2 and 3
20:13 <jas61292> 1 and 2 for getting the double setup, 3 and 4 for making it optional
20:13 <DetroitLolcat> Okay, thanks.
20:13 <jas61292> err
20:13 <jas61292> 2 and 3
20:13 <jas61292> for optional
20:14 <DetroitLolcat> I think the fact that two of our past three projects have had significant problems stemming from the Checks and Counters steps merits a review of that decision.
20:15 <jas61292> Basically, I think it is incredibly silly to make that stage manditory, when, after actually doing a project with that set up, we voted to get rid of it. And in a unanamous vote, no less
20:15 <Pwnemon> i maintain that
20:15 <Pwnemon> it would have been a pretty bad pokemon
20:15 <Pwnemon> without two competitive abilities
20:16 <jas61292> I don't necessarily disagree. Its the process I have a problem with, not the Pokemon.
20:16 <DetroitLolcat> ^
20:17 <DetroitLolcat> It might have been better with only one competitive Ability, it might have been worse. I don't think that's the issue at hand.
20:18 rediamond has left IRC (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
20:18 <jas61292> In the long run, really, the Pokemon itself is meaningless. Its what we learn from the process that counts. And if we are spending the entire project debating what we should and shoudn't beat, over and over in each stage, then we are not debating things relevant to the concept itself. As I said in my last post in the thread, CAP processes, post threats discussion, should be about the discussing "how" and not "what," and with Cawmodore, we spent way too much on the l
20:18 <jas61292> atter.
20:19 <DetroitLolcat> But weren't the "how" and the "what" pretty indistinguishable with Cawmodore?
20:19 Pwnemon has left IRC (Client exited)
20:20 Pwnemon has joined (~pwnemon@synIRC-D3798390.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net)
20:20 rediamond has joined (~rediamond@synIRC-22C31E52.mycingular.net)
20:20 Kavatika has left IRC (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
20:21 <Pwnemon> sorry
20:21 <Pwnemon> idk what happen
20:22 <DetroitLolcat> You didn't miss any lines of chat.
20:22 <Pwnemon> k
20:22 <jas61292> Not exactly. We spent a ton of time on whether to beat XYZ or not XYZ or just X or whatever, and not really a ton on making sure that we actually do that which we decide on sucessfully. I think Drain Punch is the bigger one to look at here, rather than Volt Absorb. We spent so much time discussing whether it was good to beat the things that Drain Punch helped beat or not, and not really enough on deciding if Drain Punch is the best way of accomplishing this goal. In
20:22 <jas61292> the end I think that lead to the things we want to stop us (by which I mean Skarm) not really stoping us as well as they should.
20:23 <capefeather> <Pwnemon> idk what happen
20:23 <capefeather> somebody set up us the bomb
20:23 <Pwnemon> lol
20:23 <Pwnemon> jas you know what the problem with that is right
20:24 <Pwnemon> the problem is nobody addresses the fucking questions the op lays out
20:24 <Pwnemon> so where you could spend two days figuring out your goals for the step and the other three how to accomplish them
20:24 <Pwnemon> we instead spend five days figuring out how to accomplish goals that we dont know because NOBODY ANSWERED MY DAMN QUESTIONS
20:24 <Pwnemon> ofc youve had the same frustration i have
20:24 <jas61292> And as I said, I think that is an issue with CAP leadership. Both topic leadership (TL+TLT) and project leadership (mods).
20:25 <jas61292> Especially the latter
20:25 <jas61292> I think we did a fairly poor moderator job last project
20:25 <DetroitLolcat> I'd honestly say the issue lies with both pretty evenly.
20:25 <DetroitLolcat> I don't think I took our counters discussion seriously enough during Stats.
20:26 <jas61292> I don't want to make any excuses, but for the majority of the project, it did seem like the majority of the moderating was being done by myself, psg, korski and Birkal, and for 3 out of the 4 of us, it was our first project as a mod. I know I personally would like to be a lot tougher on off topic posts going forward.
20:26 <paintseagull> ah damnit i picked a bad time to go afk, one second i gotta catch up
20:26 <DetroitLolcat> And we gradually ignored more and more of our threatlist, especially during Stats and Movepool.
20:27 <Pwnemon> jas you know why that is right
20:27 <DetroitLolcat> Movepool, especially IMO.
20:27 <Pwnemon> you dont lose your cap mods until you step down
20:28 <DetroitLolcat> I mean jas, psg, korski, and birkal probably do 80% of the moderating in CAP anyway, don't they?
20:28 <jas61292> Not necessarily. You'd also lose them if you go crazy. Or disappear.
20:28 <jas61292> And yeah dlc
20:28 <jas61292> well, recently
20:28 <jas61292> not all the time
20:29 <Pwnemon> does anyon ehave the
20:29 <DetroitLolcat> I mean stepping down, going crazy, or disappearing are the only ways to lose mods anyway, aren't they?
20:29 <Pwnemon> defense ev optimizer applet
20:29 <jas61292> pretty much
20:29 <capefeather> idk, CAP mods don't seem to go crazy until *after* they step down
20:29 <jas61292> lol
20:30 <paintseagull> I shouldn't be doing any competitive moderating
20:31 <paintseagull> when I feel like I have to it makes me freak out a little bit
20:31 <Deck_Knight> Solution: Permanent CAP Mods for everyone
20:31 jasbot3 is now known as jasbot
20:32 <paintseagull> anyway, I don't disagree with you jas, I just was wondering if having more formal structure might help that moderation/leadership job a bit for when we have inevitable human failures
20:33 <paintseagull> "And if we are spending the entire project debating what we should and shoudn't beat, over and over in each stage, then we are not debating things relevant to the concept itself. " this was a good point
20:33 rediamond has left IRC (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
20:33 <Pwnemon> i mean the way i see it is
20:33 <Pwnemon> when doug said "our goal should be to make the best bd pokemon possible"
20:34 <paintseagull> but after reading your history lesson I'm a bit less convinced that we should have a second concept discussion, however, we should consider that those decision were made under the old leadership structure
20:34 <Pwnemon> also if anyhting the thread taught us that the stupid people will always favor more power
20:34 <Pwnemon> i mean i really thought nca would get like a 90% majority in vote 2
20:34 <Pwnemon> based on the thread posts
20:35 <Deck_Knight> I don't know what people realistically expect mods to do, incidentally. Every time someone says "the mods should do something" and then every time during an actual project... no mod wants to do anything but the letter of the process, i.e. taking out thread-hoggers/flamers/spammers.
20:36 <paintseagull> well, the only other thing i'd add to that is taking out people who don't answer the damn question the OP says people have to answer
20:36 <paintseagull> that's pretty well enough
20:37 <paintseagull> as I see it
20:37 <Deck_Knight> I don't think that's a bad thing. Are we supposed to jealously safeguard the concept and kick things like VA out of the thread? Because that's pretty... undemocratic.
20:37 <Pwnemon> no youre supposed to delete the people who
20:37 <Pwnemon> when i say "before naming specific abilities, let's discuss whether we should affect our counters with ability 2"
20:37 <Pwnemon> come in and plug quick feet
20:37 <Pwnemon> who was that
20:37 <jas61292> Well, the biggest thing for me, last project, that I wish I would have done is get rid of posts specifically about beating things that we have specifically designated as things to counter us.
20:38 <jas61292> Like, its one thing to have the TL go, "OK, lets talk about counters again." Its another to go "I don't like the decision, so I'm going to ignore it."
20:39 <Pwnemon> wow
20:39 <Pwnemon> i feel like bmb
20:39 <Pwnemon> ive taken 95%+ of the shit for my decisions
20:39 <jas61292> We don't let people submit movepools with more VGMs than allowed. We don't lets people submit stats that don't fit the stat limits. So we shouldn't allow posts and suggestions that self admittedly don't follow the counters that have been decided on.
20:39 <Pwnemon> six months after making them
20:40 <Pwnemon> no wonder he left for ten months lel
20:40 <DetroitLolcat> I think we should be expecting the mods to infract general rule-breaking, but the elected leadership to discourage non-germane discussion.
20:40 <DetroitLolcat> 20:39	jas61292	We don't let people submit movepools with more VGMs than allowed. We don't lets people submit stats that don't fit the stat limits. So we shouldn't allow posts and suggestions that self admittedly don't follow the counters that have been decided on.
20:40 <DetroitLolcat> this this this this this
20:41 <DetroitLolcat> I literally want to delete the post I'm making right now and replace it with this.
20:41 <capefeather> lol
20:41 <Deck_Knight> The problem being that the discussion is checks and counters IIRC, and someone could easily argue "X is still a check with Y"
20:41 <paintseagull> haha
20:41 <paintseagull> it's a good point
20:41 <jas61292> Its one thing to subtly hint at something, but we had decided on XYZ as counters and people were straight up posting "lets give it W to beat X"
20:41 Yilx has joined (Mibbit@synIRC-1523B029.gumi.sg)
20:42 <paintseagull> yeah for real. they all had reasons though, like, OH we need it or we will SUCK and people were taking that seriously
20:42 <paintseagull> that's why we weren't deleting it
20:42 <paintseagull> I dunno. It seems so easy in retrospect but at the time I remember feeling frustrated but unsure
20:42 <DetroitLolcat> I think if the moderators were to police that, it would make sense to error on the side of caution and trust the rest to the TLT/TL.
20:43 <paintseagull> we need the people to feel like they don't want to break our counters list
20:44 cyzir_visheen has left IRC (Client exited)
20:44 <paintseagull> if it's a community project then it's a community project, I don't want to feel like I'm fighting 60% of the community
20:45 <paintseagull> but for some reason people seem to not take it seriously, i'm not sure why
20:46 <jas61292> I agree DLC. Blatant posts need to go, but the TL(T) should definitely be trying to encourage discussion away from this.
20:46 <paintseagull> the TL(T) should probably be able to ask for posts to be deleted
20:46 <DetroitLolcat> ^
20:48 <jas61292> Not a bad idea
20:48 <paintseagull> they can do so in the private message thread that I suggested in the TLT review thread :p
20:48 <paintseagull> oh god i went to go back through my inbox to see if we had such a thread last time or to what extent we had private communication
20:48 <paintseagull> and found the StrawberryLover69 convos
20:48 <paintseagull> GAH
20:49 <jas61292> Oh god.... those.....
20:49 <DetroitLolcat> I would also say that TL(T) asking posts to be deleted should be a last resort. A "break glass in case of people not listening" option.
20:49 <paintseagull> i had blocked that from my mind completely
20:50 <paintseagull> I guess DLC, but people often don't listen, so..
20:50 <paintseagull> the glass may be often broken
20:50 <jas61292> My hope would be that more use of this early on in a project would hopefully make it less necessary later on
20:50 <DetroitLolcat> I don't disagree.
20:56 ginganinja has left IRC (Quit: If we burn you burn with us)
20:56 ginganinja has joined (~ginganinj@Solace.please.stooooop)
20:56 BarackObama has changed mode: +v ginganinja
20:59 <paintseagull> ya, there was no big thread or anything last time, a few individual ones
21:01 <paintseagull> i think we'd benefit from an open place for communication from the start.
21:01 <paintseagull> should mostly be for TLT but with mods included in case they need to respond to something
21:03 cyzir_visheen has joined (~VCR@3EC0ACB7.8B7B7226.215F8AF9.IP)
21:06 imanalt has joined (Mibbit@is.a.ralts)
21:08 ginganinja has left IRC (Quit: If we burn you burn with us)
21:10 ChanStat has joined (ChanStat@hub.bot.chanstat.net)
21:13 <capefeather> sup chanstat
21:17 <DetroitLolcat> One other thing: When we choose bad stats, a bad movepool, a bad typing, or bad abilities, we don't have a failsafe or a way to change that. Should we treat Checks and Counters differently?
21:19 BBritain has joined (~chatzilla@422371AA.3040CEBF.E35B2D33.IP)
21:21 <paintseagull> that's a good point
21:26 Theorymon has joined (STmon@Scounting.Squarks.Son.Sirc.Sand.SSmogon)
21:26 BarackObama has changed mode: +v Theorymon
21:28 <jas61292> Well, in my opinion, if we are sticking to counters, there is no such thing as a bad choice. And if we are not, then we are getting off track, and that is the very reason that the second Counters discussion should be used.
21:29 <DetroitLolcat> I don't agree with "there is no such thing as a bad choice". When capefeather posted the first version of the Cawmodore threat list, there were some clearly bad choices that were fixed with the second version.
21:33 ginganinja has joined (~ginganinj@Solace.please.stooooop)
21:33 BarackObama has changed mode: +v ginganinja
21:39 <nyttyn> oh god why do you guys alrways have these disucssions
21:39 <nyttyn> JUST before I get bac
21:39 <Pwnemon> lol
21:39 <Pwnemon> ikr
21:40 <nyttyn> to be honest
21:40 <nyttyn> if we try to stick with the threats list as it currently stands
21:41 <nyttyn> I think we, instead of deleting posts, need to have public and repeated PSAs as need be that the threats list is to be taken seriously.
21:41 <nyttyn> because right now it just feels like a lot of users (and I even myself fell guilty of it a few times) simply only acknowledge the threats list when it is convenient to do so.
21:42 <paintseagull> "the threats list = the concept in a practical sense" ?
21:42 <jas61292> That's how I view it
21:43 <jas61292> Concepts are abstract. Check/Counters list is the non-abstract version of the concept we choose to persue
21:44 <paintseagull> add it to the OP and call it a day
21:44 <paintseagull> speaking of the OP my OP repository is languishing u_u
21:44 <paintseagull> if anyone wants to help me with it i wouldn't mind :)
21:44 <nyttyn> I still think that we should, to this end, try to focus the checks/counters list, at least at first, more towards TYPES of mons, then narrow it down to specific mons
21:45 <nyttyn> just putting that out there.
21:47 Birkal has joined (Mibbit@synIRC-610BC979.nat.luther.edu)
21:47 <DetroitLolcat> That's not a bad idea.