y u do dis

<00:38:08> "Senile": So, this is the part where we sit down, have a nice cup of coffee, and talk about the fact that you locked my thread for absolutely no reason, and that's a problem.
<00:39:08> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Well let's start with the fact that while you state you don't care about the events of yesterdaym had those events not occurred, your thread would not have existed. Therefore, because the discussion is closed in regards to those events, your thread is closed.
<00:39:58> "Senile": That is absolute horse hockey. The thread would have existed eventually whether or not the events happened, I just kept procrastinating/forgetting, because I'm lazy.
<00:40:09> "Senile": Either way, the thread isn't about reversing any decision
<00:40:34> "Senile": If you think I give a rat's ass about the fact Lion couldn't cheese his way through a finals, you just lost your cart of cabbages
<00:40:43> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": The rules you are referring to are discussed with staff internally. There are reasons why we don't ask for community input on these matters, as is noted by the number of responses in your thread.
<00:41:03> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Lots of, "This rule is broken" and not a lot of, how the rule is broken and what can be done to fix it.
<00:41:29> "Senile": I did explain how the rule is broken and how it can be fixed. The responses not including that means that the thread should be moderated.
<00:42:00> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": The better course of action is to let the staff discuss the rules internally and come up with a solution
<00:42:27> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": There is no need for community input on these matters.
<00:42:28> "Senile": Which means the thread should be locked?
<00:42:38> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Yes, because the discussion is no longer needed.
<00:42:39> "Senile": And this wasn't the reason giving for the lock anyway
<00:43:54> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Because the existence of the thread relates to the events of yesterday, and even if you say you don't care about them, it's awful convenient that it happens to come to existence after that. So obviously those events spurred it into existence.
<00:44:36> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Furthermore, as far as I can tell, there haven't been on the fly rule changes in a large majority of cases. Rather what you see as changes are expansions and clarifications of existing rules.
<00:47:51> "Senile": Xela, the thread isn't even entirely about that one rule. Time Clause is also a pretty big point of contention, considering how obviously broken it is right now. Either way, what in the world does it have to do with anything? Why are threads being locked based on an inferred association? "The thread was made after x, so it was about that, so we're locking it." "no it wasn't" "well it happened around then so it is, go fuck yourself"; That's nonsensical. Regarding "on the fly rule changes", those aren't what I'm concerned about. Giving hosts as much power to make decisions as they have now is what I have a problem with, and the fact is, there needs to be more standardized, universal rules to follow, and less power given to hosts. If you're seriously going to try and tell me why I made my thread, and state that this reason you magically know is sufficient to
<00:48:03> "Senile": lock it with minimal actual reasoning given, you're off your gourd m8
<00:48:07> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": And we are discussing time clause
<00:48:53> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": As well as other rules we see as broken
<00:49:51> "Senile": See, you say "we", but I hardly see what this has to do with the thread being locked. Ultimately, I have not seen an actual, legitimate reason given as to why the thread is locked, other than "the community shouldn't be able to discuss these things because they don't know what they're talking about", which is just wat.
<00:50:02> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Furthermore, stripping power from the host of event effectively means that you've rendered them useless. The host is in charge of ensuring everyone follows the rules of the event, so if they have no leeway to make their judgement calls then they are nothing more than figure heads.
<00:50:21> "Senile": I mean, yeah, they kind of should be a bit useless.
<00:50:26> "Senile": The rules should do the work for them.
<00:50:31> "Senile": They should just be observers and enforcers.
<00:50:32> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": No they shouldn't.
<00:50:49> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": No, because 9/10 times the host creates the concept of the event
<00:51:13> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": What you are saying is that the creator of the event shouldn't be in charge of interpreting their rules and clarifying them for everyone
<00:51:17> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Which is ludacris
<00:52:00> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Furthermore you brought up comparisons to Magic The Gathering which is interesting you bring that up because the rules for that game are set forth by Wizards of the Coast
<00:52:18> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Which is a separate governing body outside of the judges charged with enforcing those rules.
<00:52:48> "Senile": A majority of the time, gimmicks don't require any special rules, other than something obvious like "this pokemon isn't allowed, you're DQ'd", so there aren't much need for the creator to "Interpret their rules"; They're usually pretty clear.
<00:53:21> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": And if they're not? You're proposing that the host not be allowed to clarify and even expand existing rules to close up loopholes
<00:53:54> "Senile": I don't think I've seen any that have actually stepped that far. Even the catchMMO thing just required showing your team before the battle.
<00:54:24> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Look at The Fight Before Christmas thread where I clarified the Present Clause
<00:54:24> "Senile": Even so, what does it matter? Give those events slight leeway, saying that some events need more control doesn't mean that other events can't have a better system in place.
<00:55:25> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": And we can find a better system, and if we want input from the community we will ask for it.
<00:55:45> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": In this case, we are not asking for input from the community
<00:57:11> "Senile": So, the community is not allowed to give input unless asked? I'm not saying that the posts in my thread were "good" in any capacity, but that's why moderation exists. Ultimately, you're preventing the possibility of any good input occurring simply because you don't feel the community is competent enough to have opinions. That's insane, and this is coming from the guy who makes at least one "tier god" joke every day.
<00:58:08> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": The input wasn't even needed
<00:58:25> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": The discussion was already kicked off internally based on community backlash
<00:58:35> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": No thread was needed to be made
<01:00:34> "Senile": You can't say the input wasn't needed, that's ultimately subjective. A thread is needed, as a place where people can actually discuss. Just saying "internal discussion" isn't good enough. And, again, this has nothing to do with the thread. The thread is for people to discuss the current way tournament rules are handled, what's problematic, and what can be improved upon. Why is this not okay? Hell, why can't the staff participate themselves?
<01:01:01> "Senile": No, it's not a matter of "It's being handled internally", it's a matter of "It's a fucking thread concerning tournaments in comp alley, give me a reason it breaks the rules in a way that warrants locking"
<01:01:05> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Let me ask you this question. Have staff ever asked for community input when determining how rules should be enforced?
<01:01:15> "Senile": Yeah, it's called the tier council.
<01:01:19> "Senile": m8
<01:01:22> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": No, that's separate
<01:01:32> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Tier Council balances competitive play
<01:01:38> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": It does not create rules for tournaments
<01:02:01> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Have we ever asked for community input for global rules outside of off topic?
<01:02:10> "Senile": I mean, it DOES create rules for tournaments, just a different type of rule.
<01:02:12> "Senile": Anyway
<01:02:21> "Senile": Not really, but that's neither here nor there
<01:02:37> "Senile": Again, what harm is it to have a thread for it anyway?
<01:02:42> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Outside of off topic when it was undergoing changes, we have not.
<01:03:11> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": However, even then that wasn't so much of rule creation, but more of what the community would like to see in off topic.
<01:03:16> "Senile": Let me put it to you like this; The worst outcome for a thread discussing rules is shit posts and whining that will happen anyway, the best outcome is there might be some decent discussion which will help you guys reach a decision.
<01:03:32> "Senile": Whether it's "asked for" is neither here nor there.
<01:03:37> "Senile": And ultimately, you're dancing around my questions
<01:03:39> "Senile": question*
<01:03:40> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": You mean a decision that takes us 5 minutes to reach without community input?
<01:04:06> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": When the global rule policies changed recently, was the community asked for input?
<01:04:25> "Senile": If a problem that, as far as I can tell, the community has had with tournaments for ages now takes 5 minutes to reach, then the problem isn't being addressed very well.
<01:04:38> "Senile": Why was the thread locked. What rule does it break.
<01:04:40> "Senile": Why should it be locked.
<01:04:50> "Senile": I am not asking you about the history of rule changes, or the history of discussions.
<01:04:59> "Senile": What warranted the thread being locked and continuing to be locked.
<01:05:45> "Senile": Also, if you can provide me with a good reason, I request it be editted into the post where you lock the thread, as the given reason there is irrelevant and nonsensical.
<01:05:53> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Because the discussion revolved around 1 single rule
<01:05:55> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Only one
<01:05:59> "Senile": That is
<01:06:00> "Senile": Completely
<01:06:02> "Senile": And utterly
<01:06:03> "Senile": Untrue
<01:06:04> "Senile": m8
<01:06:08> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": You never even named one other rule that was broken
<01:06:12> "Senile": >time clause
<01:06:22> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Which we were already working on m8
<01:06:25> "Senile": What in the world does the amount of rules have to do with it anyway?
<01:06:50> "Senile": That's not a reason, that's just a sentence
<01:06:57> "Senile": "Why was it locked?" "You only named one rule"
<01:07:06> "Senile": You are again not answering my question.
<01:07:31> "Senile": So, again, you A: Didn't give a reason and B: The "reason" you gave was incorrect anyway, as I did not only list one rule.
<01:07:34> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": It was locked because there is absolutely no reason for the community to discuss internal staff matters, which official tournament rules are internal staff matters.
<01:07:55> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Yes, we do take feedback from the feedback thread and incorporate it as best we can if possible.
<01:08:16> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": However, the global rules that are enforced across all events are not a subject for community debate
<01:08:38> "Senile": So, it is not allowed for the community to discuss "internal staff matters"? If so, what is a list of matters we cannot discuss? Where can I find this list? When was this made? Why are these discussions not allowed?
<01:08:44> "Senile": Also, could you please edit that into your post?
<01:11:02> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Edit what into my post?
<01:11:14> "Senile": The actual reason for locking the thread.
<01:11:28> "Senile": I'd assume that wouldn't be a problem, as it is apparently a rule, which the community should know about.
<01:12:46> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": I can do that.
<01:13:40> "Senile": Which brings me back to my earlier point of "since when is this a thing"? Last I checked, this wasn't disallowed whatsoever, what is the basis for disallowing discussing these things? Do you have a source?
<01:13:53> "Senile": A list of things we can't discuss would pretty swell too.
<01:14:04> "Senile": would be*
<01:14:49> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Internal staff matters have never been allowed to be a subject for community debate.
<01:15:01> "Senile": Then why isn't that a rule?
<01:15:40> "Senile": And what are these matters? Because that's an insanely catch all term.
<01:15:46> "Senile": When I hear that, I think of things like rankings of staff
<01:15:57> "Senile": I don't think things like "tournament rules"
<01:16:09> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Tournament rules is a vague term
<01:16:30> "Senile": It's only vague because of the distinction made between tiering and the "other" rules
<01:18:15> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": If the topic relates to how staff moderate/enforce rules, it's not a subject for external discussion.
<01:19:14> "Senile": Consistency is king. The tiering method I have adopted for PokeMMO was done so with the goal of making things clear and simple. Tiering in PokeMMO is relatively simple, as I try to cut down on complicated bans and whatnot. The strange rules in tournaments undermines this works, and complicates things. Hell, I'm sure you've seen how every time staff make an unpopular decision all of the non-English speakers get confused to hell, because even the English speaking community members are thrown for a loop. The way things are being handled now are a problem, and have just as much to do with the community as they do for the staff, just like tiering.
<01:19:27> "Senile": (praise smogon)
<01:19:56> "Senile": (thinknice/amanu/robofiends sacrifice goats to me)
<01:20:05> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Give me an instance of a rule being enforced inconsistently
<01:20:54> "Senile": Notice how I didn't use that word
<01:20:57> "Senile": "Inconsistently"
<01:21:03> "Senile": That was deliberate.
<01:21:29> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": No, you said consistency, which implied inconsistency somewhere. Now I'm asking for instances
<01:21:32> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Do you have any?
<01:22:25> "Senile": Inconsistency in terms of the way the rules allow for different outcomes in different situations, yes. If you mean "inconsistency" as in the rules not always being followed, none in particular
<01:22:46> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": I mean the latter
<01:22:55> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Which is also why the thread was shutdown
<01:22:58> "Senile": Which is to say, the "inconsistency" that comes with a rule like the 10 minute rule (but also sometimes more minutes), but not that the extra time given is breaking the rule itself
<01:23:14> "Senile": I'm not gonna lie to you, I always forget the difference between latter/former
<01:23:23> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": latter = last
<01:23:27> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": former = first
<01:23:34> "Senile": Gonna forget that, but got it
<01:23:52> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Now, with regards to rules allowing for different outcomes.
<01:23:58> "Senile": With that being said, that's not what the thread is about.
<01:24:06> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": There are such rules in professional sports
<01:24:23> "Senile": There are. This is not a professional sport with professional judges/refs.
<01:25:09> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": No it's not, but you can't say it's a bad thing that rules allow for different outcomes in different situations. However, that is also subjective on a case by case basis.
<01:26:03> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": With that being said, what exactly is the thread about?
<01:26:23> "Senile": I mean, if the thread was read, it's pretty self explanatory.
<01:26:28> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Because the tl;dr you posted gave the implications that we aren't moderating consistently
<01:26:56> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Which is something we discuss internally and not with the community
<01:28:49> "Senile": The thread states that the rules should be changed and rules should be added so that the hosts and refs have as little decision making to do as possible, and instead there is a set out, written frame of rules that is publically accessible and followed to the later, with as little vagueness left within the rules as possible. This means that the staff have less room to make decisions and can instead defer to the written out rules, making it so that tournaments are significantly more consistent, with less subjective deviation, as well as putting everyone in a level playing field in the sense that the know, for a fact, 100% what the rules are, and there is no concern whatsoever for any extensions or anything. They know what the rules are, and they know they will be punished for breaking them. Period.
<01:29:26> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": You realize that is 100% impossible to accomplish
<01:29:43> "Senile": It's surprising how close you can get.
<01:29:47> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": I will refer you to Magic the Gathering since that was something you had brought up.
<01:30:09> "Senile": inb4 judgments on precedent for card text
<01:30:15> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": If you look at their Gatherer database you can easily find thousands of cards with rulings on them that were made by judges
<01:30:21> "Senile": Called it
<01:30:30> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Which they had to make based on the lettering of the rules provided
<01:31:08> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Additionally, it is up to the judges when they are called in to resolve a dispute to interpret exactly how the stack is setup and which abilities/spells trigger and at what time
<01:31:26> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": There are a whole plethora of judgements that wizards judges have to make
<01:31:30> "Senile": This isn't a card game though. All in battle issues are automatically handled, so this is a terrible comparison.
<01:31:39> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": You brought it up.
<01:31:56> "Senile": Eh, but not in this specific context.
<01:31:58> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": You said you want to leave as little decision making in the hands of the refs as possible.
<01:32:13> "Senile": I used them as an example of professional refs
<01:32:18> "Senile": Which can be trusted to make such decisions
<01:32:20> "Senile": Which we do not have
<01:32:38> "Senile": Unless I've recently lost my diddly darn mind, that was the context
<01:32:51> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": the problem is that if a game that has much larger tournaments than Pokemon with a much larger playerbase and tournaments that hold much more value than Pokemon can't accomplish that. What makes you think we can?
<01:33:16> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Also, a large majority of judges for MTG are volunteers
<01:33:32> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": They are not professionals, they attend training and certify, but that does not make them professional judges
<01:33:48> "Senile": Larger means more complex, if anything, it should be easier for us to accomplish. Judges for MTG are volunteers, but unless I'm mistaken, they also need to pass some pretty difficult training.
<01:33:49> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": You find professional MTG judges at Grand Prix events and other large scale MTG events
<01:34:18> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": More training also does not equate to being considered professional
<01:34:27> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Experts yes, but hardly professionals
<01:35:01> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": So let's scale it back on MTG judges to ones more on par with staff here
<01:35:11> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Which would be judges you find at local FNM events
<01:35:15> "Senile": Yes, you'd expect professional judges to be at the larger events. Likewise, official events here should high standards of quality in terms of refs and hosts. If that's unfeasible, which I believe it is, it's better to have as tight rules as possible.
<01:36:01> "Senile": And, again, is this really that complicated? There really aren't THAT many situations where hosts should have to make decisions if the rules are changed.
<01:36:34> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": No there aren't, and there aren't many, if any, situations where the host has had to change rules on the fly
<01:37:07> "Senile": We're not talking about changing rules, we're talking about variation within the rules themselves
<01:37:15> "Senile": Whereas the rules can be amended to be 100% consistent
<01:37:40> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Ok, so outside of the events of last night. Name an instance of variation in the rules?
<01:37:55> "Senile": Well, we're talking about having the rules changed, but not the rules being changed on the fly. I worded that one poorly, but you know.
<01:38:03> "Senile": Anyway
<01:39:02> "Senile": I mean, I could list those times time clause wasn't 100% followed in the days before they amended the rule to allow for some slight overtime, but Time Clause is a broken, dumb clause to begin with, so maybe that's not fair
<01:39:32> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": You could list that, but the problem is that time clause was fixed, so that is a moot point
<01:39:33> "Senile": Other than that, I have shit memory and remember people being angry a lot more than what they were angry about, so I don't remember to be entirely honest.
<01:39:55> "Senile": Well, it was "Fixed", but it's still a terrible clause for a handful of reasons
<01:40:00> "Senile": Not really relevant though
<01:40:40> "Senile": (really, "fixing" it adds the variation which I find negative to begin with anyway, so saying it was fixed is a bad argument; Again though, it's a bad clause for much bigger reasons)
<01:40:57> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": How is time clause bad?
<01:41:08> "Senile": You can allah akbar up on someone
<01:41:31> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Which we have already spotted and will discussing
<01:42:04> "Senile": Again though, not really relevant
<01:42:48> "Senile": Also, you haven't properly changed the locking post yet.
<01:43:04> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": Are you camping the thread waiting for it?
<01:43:31> "Senile": No, I was just thinking about what in the world we were discussing because it feels like we went way off topic, remembered I asked you to change it, and just checked
<01:43:36> "Senile": Not that it matters if I'm camping it anyway
<01:46:53> "Senile": That's a pretty poopy edit. I was looking for something more like this quote: <01:07:34> "[XelaKebert] XelaKebert": It was locked because there is absolutely no reason for the community to discuss internal staff matters, which official tournament rules are internal staff matters.
<01:46:58> "Senile": Seems much more informative
<01:47:43> "Senile": (also, the original not-reason-reason is still there)