Substitution Rule Grey Area Context

[04:23] waterwarrior (~cgiirc@synIRC-5083A7CC.dyn.optonline.net) joined #capasb.
[04:24] <waterwarrior> kind of a stupid question, but is "If X A2 or A3 AND the previous sub did not activate A1, change that action to Y" a legal sub?
...
[04:28] <waterwarrior> no not really
[04:29] <waterwarrior> but if someone can answer my question thatd be cool :3
[04:29] <&@IAR> illegal
[04:29] <&@IAR> subs exist in a vacuum, they cannot reference one another
[04:30] <%Phwnemon> legal
[04:30] <waterwarrior> awww shit
[04:30] <%Phwnemon> since "and the previous sub did not activate" is simply a stand-in for the activation clause of the previous sub
[04:30] <%Phwnemon> for example, if sub1 was "if the sky is blue"
[04:30] <&@IAR> what an exploitable sub
[04:30] <%Phwnemon> and sub2 was "if the sun is shining and sub1 activated a1"
[04:31] <&@IAR> "Look at that, the sky is not blue"
[04:31] <%Phwnemon> then sub2 = "if the sun is shining and the sky was blue a1"
[04:31] <&@IAR> "I will take a photo & post it to prove it"
[04:31] <waterwarrior> i know IAR, but in context, its a lot less so
[04:32] <%Engineer> iar what are you saying ?_?
[04:32] <%Phwnemon> iar can you stop being a dong for twenty seconds
[04:32] <%Phwnemon> if sub1 was "if iar is being a toolbag" then you'd have a wasted sub
[04:32] <waterwarrior> http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/hanging-out-in-hoenn-zhengtann-vs-waterwarrior.3492949/
[04:33] <waterwarrior> if Protect, push back so i can use knock off
[04:33] <&@IAR> that is like saying
[04:33] <%Phwnemon> that sub is good
[04:34] <&@IAR> if move a2/a3 and not move a1
[04:34] <%Phwnemon> which is leg
[04:34] <waterwarrior> which is completely legal, isn't it?
[04:34] <%Phwnemon> legal* even
[04:34] <&@IAR> I thought we outlawed and not move ?_?
[04:35] <waterwarrior> god i hope we didn't
[04:35] <waterwarrior> because i like that clause
[04:35] <&@IAR> yeah we did I am afraid
[04:35] <%Phwnemon> we did not
[04:35] <&@IAR> "NOT cannot be used before an attack clause. Additionally, the player ordering second may not use any attack clauses."
[04:36] <%Phwnemon> unless you're using it to narrow a sub class
[04:36] <%Phwnemon> wait what
[04:36] <waterwarrior> were is this?
[04:36] <waterwarrior> *where
[04:36] <&@IAR> the rulebook
[04:36] <&@IAR> lol
[04:36] <%Phwnemon> this is why i did not want to adopt engi's rules with no discussion
[04:36] Action: waterwarrior goes there
[04:36] <%Phwnemon> these are changing ASAP
[04:36] Action: IAR slaps Engineer around a bit with a large trout
[04:36] <%Phwnemon> who itc actually read those lets be honest
[04:37] <&@IAR> I knew this was a bad idea -.-'
[04:37] <%Engineer> hm?
[04:37] <%Engineer> yeah
[04:37] <%Engineer> because "not move" could be linked to atheno levels
[04:37] <waterwarrior> aww son of a bitch
[04:37] <%Engineer> to give you several ors
[04:37] <%Phwnemon> false
[04:37] <%Phwnemon> if your subs only have l
[04:38] <%Engineer> is that L or 1 or i
[04:38] <%Phwnemon> one possible outcome that is not "not activation"
[04:38] <waterwarrior> but wait a minute
[04:38] <waterwarrior> since sub 1 is for a specific move
[04:38] <%Phwnemon> and they do not narrow down a sub class
[04:38] <waterwarrior> doesn't it count as an attack clause?
[04:38] <%Phwnemon> they should be legal
[04:38] <waterwarrior> which you can totally say "not x" to?
...
[04:39] <%Engineer> it doesn't matter whether it's narrowing a sub class
[04:39] <waterwarrior> or i could just say no protect a1 and the problem is solved
[04:39] <%Engineer> im not sure how you can say it's impossible to string not moves to create several ors in one sub
[04:39] <%Phwnemon> oh no it's totally possible engi but
[04:40] Birkal (Mibbit@synIRC-BF8FDD0E.luther.edu) joined #capasb.
[04:40] <%Phwnemon> all you're doing is narrowing the cirumstances in which the one outcome occurs
[04:40] <waterwarrior> wait a minute
[04:40] <waterwarrior> If X happens and X did not happen on the previous action, do Y
[04:40] <%Engineer> so you're saying
[04:40] <waterwarrior> that's a legal sub
[04:40] <%Engineer> as long as a clause narrows circumstances in which the sub activates it should be legal?
[04:40] <waterwarrior> so my sub is legal, is it not?
[04:40] <%Phwnemon> if your subs are binary, and do not excise moves out of a sub class, it should be legal
[04:41] <%Phwnemon> yes, engi
[04:41] <%Phwnemon> yeah ww thats been a legal sub forever
[04:41] <%Engineer> so by that logic
[04:41] <%Phwnemon> see: (do once), "successful p/e"
[04:41] <%Engineer> you would support or clauses not counting towards the sub count
[04:41] <&@IAR> If protect, then y, but not consecutively
[04:42] <%Phwnemon> what do you mean by that
[04:42] <%Phwnemon> i said "narrow," not "widen"
[04:42] <%Engineer> but we just established that ors are logically equivalent to stringing nots
[04:43] <waterwarrior> well i just edited it so that it says Protect, not P/E move
[04:43] <%Phwnemon> wait
[04:43] <waterwarrior> SO YAY FOR GETTING OUT OF LOGISTICAL CLUSTERFUCKS!
[04:43] <%Phwnemon> can you give an example
[04:43] <%Engineer> it's widening from the perspective of an "if move1" sub
[04:43] <waterwarrior> im'ma leave now
[04:43] <&@IAR> how is protect a1 or a2
[04:43] <%Phwnemon> shush ww
[04:43] <%Engineer> but narrowing from a "if not move1 and not move2 and ... and not move43" perspective
[04:43] waterwarrior (~cgiirc@synIRC-5083A7CC.dyn.optonline.net) left irc: Quit: CGI:IRC
[04:43] <%Phwnemon> youre not outta the woods yet
[04:44] <%Phwnemon> :|
[04:44] <%Engineer> that's why i don't like that definition
[04:44] <%Phwnemon> oh
[04:44] <%Phwnemon> at least one clause has to not include a "not"
[04:44] <%Phwnemon> the base clause can't say not
[04:44] <%Phwnemon> but the others can
[04:45] <%Engineer> that would be an improvement
[04:45] <%Engineer> hm
[04:45] <%Engineer> that still has room for abuse though
[04:46] <%Phwnemon> can you give an example?
[04:46] <%Engineer> if you've encored mon x into something in doubles
[04:46] <%Engineer> then you can say if mon x uses move1 and <notstring>
[04:47] <%Engineer> oh by the way what's our policy on doubles+ for "if x is used"
[04:47] <%Phwnemon> hm...
[04:47] <%Phwnemon> what do you mean by that engi?
[04:47] <&@IAR> if anyone uses x
[04:47] <%Engineer> like
[04:47] <%Engineer> is
[04:47] <&@IAR> it triggers?
[04:48] <%Engineer> "anyone using move1" considered
[04:48] <%Engineer> a logical operator or a class that can interact with other sub classes
[04:48] <%Phwnemon> legal?
[04:48] <%Phwnemon> afaik yes
[04:48] <%Phwnemon> i dont see why not
[04:48] <%Engineer> that wasn't a yes/no question
[04:49] <%Phwnemon> well i didnt understand your one
[04:49] <%Phwnemon> so i made my own v__v
[04:49] <&@IAR> it was worded like a yes/no question
[04:49] <%Phwnemon> also yeah it could be misinterpreted as one
[04:49] <%Phwnemon> by any compiler
[04:50] <%Phwnemon> bad azn cant program
[04:50] <%Engineer> let's do it testing style
[04:50] <%Engineer> choose the best answer
[04:50] <%Phwnemon> c
[04:50] <%Engineer> the phrase "anyone using move1" is considered
[04:50] <%Engineer> a) a logical operator
[04:51] <%Engineer> b) a class that can interact with other sub classes
[04:51] <%Engineer> c) you suck there's no third answer
[04:51] <%Phwnemon> i dont understand the question still
[04:51] <%Phwnemon> thats why i picked c
[04:52] <&@IAR> define logical operator #naive
[04:52] <%Phwnemon> you always pick c when guessin
[04:52] <%Phwnemon> define "class that can interact with other sub classes" while were ar it
[04:52] <%Phwnemon> that aint common lingo
[04:52] <metalsonic> birkal!
[04:52] <%Engineer> logical operator as in
[04:53] Complications (~complicat@synIRC-77DBA5A9.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net) joined #capasb.
[04:53] <%Engineer> an addend to a clause e.g. "on a1" or "nonconsecutively"
[04:53] <%Engineer> "class that can interact with other sub classes" is exactly what it sounds like
[04:54] <%Phwnemon> so are we specifically talking "by anyone" here or "move1 by anyone"
[04:54] <%Engineer> "anyone using move1" is a "sub class" in that you can't narrow it down (ideally) yet it still interacts with sub classes eg "anyone using p/e"
[04:54] <%Engineer> either
[04:55] <%Phwnemon> so no "anyone using move1 but not partner"
[04:55] <&@IAR> as far as I am concerned, "If anyone uses (protective/evasive)" means if anyone uses it in a given action, it is triggered
[04:55] <%Engineer> im not sure how you're concerned with regards to that
[04:55] <&@IAR> but
[04:55] <%Phwnemon> it's both as far as i know
[04:55] <&@IAR> [15:53:24] Engineer an addend to a clause e.g. "on a1" or "nonconsecutively"
[04:55] <&@IAR> is kinda a grey area
[04:56] <%Engineer> oh poop i have to piano class
[04:56] <metalsonic> wow
[04:56] <%Phwnemon> it can interact with other sub classes or serve as an addendum
[04:56] <metalsonic> this is worse than computing class
[04:56] <%Phwnemon> for exame
[04:56] <%Engineer> i'll be back in around 80 minutes hopefully
[04:56] <metalsonic> if u are good at computingu are good @ subs
[04:56] <%Phwnemon> "if anyone uses move1 and p/e is used by poke1 that action"
[04:56] <&@IAR> computing undergrad here -.-'
[04:56] <%Phwnemon> lol metalsonic dont worry
[04:56] starwarsfan (~starwarsf@synIRC-E864319A.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) left irc: Client exited
[04:56] <%Phwnemon> subs are never actually this hard
[04:56] <metalsonic> these are all
[04:56] <metalsonic> boolean operators
[04:56] <metalsonic> the ture false thingy
[04:57] <metalsonic> meaning that if you move 2nd
[04:57] <&@IAR> when we voted for sub rules
[04:57] <metalsonic> you can exploit the poor subs
[04:57] <%Phwnemon> we are trying to hash out sub rules so necessarily were looking at fringe cases
[04:57] <Birkal> hi
[04:57] <@elevator_music> yep!
[04:57] <&@IAR> did you guys not vote to
[04:57] <Birkal> I can go order now
[04:57] <%Phwnemon> yeah, bad subs get ripped wide open
[04:57] <%Phwnemon> dont make em lel
[04:57] <&@IAR> open discussion again immediately
[04:57] <metalsonic> ya
[04:57] <metalsonic> so moving 2nd is better
[04:57] <metalsonic> but moving 1st
[04:57] <metalsonic> can pin your opponent
[04:57] <metalsonic> with good subs
[04:57] <%Phwnemon> uh think we did iar...
[04:57] <metalsonic> you cannot evade
[04:57] <metalsonic> the pain
[04:58] <%Phwnemon> precisely
[04:58] <metalsonic> question
[04:58] <metalsonic> is this sub legal
[04:58] <%Phwnemon> singles is all about controllin when you move first and when second
[04:58] <&@IAR> then why is the discussion not reopened ?_?
[04:58] <%Phwnemon> nobody opened it amidst gen vi
[04:58] <%Phwnemon> and im on a phone rn
[04:59] <metalsonic> if opponent uses a move that will reduce, nullify move X or uses counter, use Y
[04:59] <&@IAR> I will if no one else wants to, I am staff after all
[04:59] <%Phwnemon> illegal metalsonic
[04:59] <%Phwnemon> iar: please
[04:59] <%Phwnemon> do
[05:00] Geodude|phone (~cgiirc@synIRC-E2267E66.ph.ph.cox.net) joined #capasb.
[05:00] <@elevator_music> so go post now
[05:00] Geodude|phone (~cgiirc@synIRC-E2267E66.ph.ph.cox.net) left irc: Quit: Geodude|phone
[05:01] Geodude|phone (~cgiirc@synIRC-E2267E66.ph.ph.cox.net) joined #capasb.
[05:01] <Geodude|phone> !recap
[05:01] starwarsfan (~starwarsf@synIRC-E864319A.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #capasb.
[05:02] <Geodude|phone> Gentlemen.
[05:02] <&@IAR> reopened
[05:02] starwarsfan (~starwarsf@synIRC-E864319A.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) left irc: Quit: starwarsfan
[05:02] <&@IAR> go bonkers pwne
[05:02] <%Phwnemon> k