Its a nicknamed event @Jay

It would 100% need proof from any reg, this is weird for me actually.
the chances a random user got matching info to an event specifically hunting for it 1/4billion
without RNG.

WyrxToday at 5:18 AM
or I guess not, weird.

I guess because its easier to RNG back then?
AnubisToday at 5:21 AM
This is a gen 5 event though.
Gen 5 events don't need TID/SID proof, only gen 6-7.
We've never required it for old gen nicknamed mons.
WyrxToday at 5:22 AM
Its still odd for me since the odds are astronomically more difficult for a random user to have a bunch of nicknamed gen 5 events without RNG
AnubisToday at 5:23 AM
Then you might as well start requiring TID/SID proof for and flawless gen 3-4 spreads too.
WyrxToday at 5:23 AM
gen 4 can be nicknamed with just TID
1/65536
I'd argue thats fine.
AnubisToday at 5:23 AM
You aren't going to get a level 1 31/31/31/0/31/31 jolly shiny Giratina in gen 4 without RNG.
I'm not talking nicknames.
I'm talking all the mons that needed TID/SID RNG for a perfect method 1 spread, for example.
We've always drawn the line at gen6-7 actually being inhuman because of the method.
If you're suddenly going to bring it up now, cancel the GA and take this to policy.
It has been a year.
But you're going to have to require a ton of extra proof and remove a ton of mons this way.
If this were a 12 letter name, I would argue you need gen 6-7 proof for the name, but it's not.
This named event has not needed proof since any of us has been staff.
So yes I'm fucking pissed that you want to overturn policy that's been there for over a year on the day of the GA.
WyrxToday at 5:29 AM
I didn't think it was overturning policy, I never even noticed. I'm simply confused as to why this policy is in place for RNG difficulty when every other RNG policy has always been a factor of odds.
I'll drop it for now.
AnubisToday at 5:30 AM
Because it's extremely doable for anyone who can RNG the event in the first place.
It's like requiring proof you RNGed your TID/SID in every gen 3-4 game to prove you're not Zapdos44.
WyrxToday at 5:31 AM
But your example for a perfect method 1 spread for a 31/31/31/0/31/31 giratina has 8 SIDs for every TID. Compared to hitting 1 specific TID and 1 specific SID. Its not a fair comparison
AnubisToday at 5:31 AM
I remember when we lowered the bar, a 3 IV shiny in gen 3 was still super impossible odds but that was left there because nobody is going to hack one and we can't have impossible standards for mons nobody wants.
But they don't all exist in gen 4
You have to prove you hit the exact one!
You have to prove you hit the exact one!
WyrxToday at 5:33 AM
No because others dont exist as well, the pool is significantly smaller right?
AnubisToday at 5:33 AM
So half of astronomical is acceptable now?
I mean, you might as well take all your mons off the market because you can't prove you botted and RNGed any of those perfect TIDs that made the mew shiny.
You can't seriously expect that someone got TID 00150 with a matching SID for that perfect flawless shiny mew without some RNG or bot work.
1/8 of astronomical is still huge.
WyrxToday at 5:43 AM
Funny enough all of my mews from emerald with botted TIDs all have proof.
Its like, I recognize how insanely stupid it is as well and added it because I know a reg was going to complain how impossible it is to TID RNG in emerald.
AnubisToday at 5:44 AM
Nobody argues that.
But you seem to think that's an exception and gen 5 TID/SID needs proof.
If you want it, then you should extend proof to multiple low gen mons too.
WyrxToday at 5:45 AM
I simply care for nicknaming events which without RNG is one of the hardest feats possible in gen5+, at least every pokemon can be nicknamed in gen 4 now with solely a matching TID.
I always thought this was the case and kept nickname proof, this is why I thought it was odd it was gen6/7
AnubisToday at 5:46 AM
It's not really hard at all though if you're able to emulator RNG in the first place.
WyrxToday at 5:46 AM
This conversation is going nowhere, I'm done. Dropping it.
AnubisToday at 5:47 AM
The idea is if they've shown you how they can hit an initial seed in emulator, it's trivial to do it for a TID/SID.
Gen 6-7 was impossible because you could SR for weeks and still need to wait months.
And Citra still isn't as widespread.
The same concept is what excused gen3-4.
WyrxToday at 6:25 AM
Just thought I'd add some extra clarification here for your math. Every TID would work but only 8/65536 SIDs would make it possible to be shiny. This is still only a 1/8000 example.

Again, not a fair representation of the argument
You overblow these things and make it impossible to reason, its not fair on my side. I'm taking a break for today until the GA timeslot.
AnubisToday at 6:33 AM
Cancel the GA then.
Because we don't have proof and you want to change it.
I don't see an option if you're demanding to see proof on this.
Your example is shit too because then you're saying the proof is needed if you target specific TIDs.
So any TID in gen3-4 that looks special would need proof too.
You can't discredit that a 22222 TID matching a perfect flawless shiny in gen4 is only a 1 in 8k roll.
Matching TID only is 1 in 60k which is still several orders higher than most of the shiny encounters out there.
This isn't based solely on chance but on desirability and ease of doing the RNG.
A 2/5/10/4/5/3 has the same chance as a 6 iV in the wild in gen 7 but even if someone targets that spread, we aren't asking proof.
That's was also what made us draw the line at 3 IV instead of 2 for gen3 shiny.
As if you can even find a 3 IV shiny method 1 in gen 3.
I just find this to be complete bullshit that it was up for 10 days and on the day of, we're demanding proof for something that hasn't needed it for a year.
"You overblow these things"
Fuck off
MehlordToday at 6:53 AM
While I do think the timing of this argument could have been better I think we both need to chill and maybe hold it off till later, getting heated like this isnt helping anything now
Throwing insults isnt helping a thing either
For now let's just focus on the GA and maybe settle this at a later time
AnubisToday at 7:09 AM
I mean, this is worse than what Eyo did in tours.
Is like bringing up a critical issue on the day of the monthly that would require you to cancel the monthly.
By inventing a rule that hasn't been here for previous tours.
If we actually want this, start making a list of TIDs you feel are valuable enough to demand proof.
MehlordToday at 7:12 AM
I agree the timing was off
I just think both sides need to chill a bit
Airs getting rather hostile
We are all buds here
bumbadadabumToday at 7:13 AM
whatever the rule should be
the thing is this is the rule NOW
the timing is way off and we can all agree on that, so can we discuss this when it wouldn't require cancelling an event?
and in a policy channel
MehlordToday at 7:14 AM
I 100% agree
It is a valid argument to have
Just not now
bumbadadabumToday at 7:19 AM
comparing someone to eyo is a pretty rude insult :angry:
but on the other side wyrx maybe you should have put it better in your first post
because it looked like a callout
MehlordToday at 7:19 AM
Indeed, as I've said, we are all friends here, getting pissed off and throwing insults at eachother is helping nothing
WyrxToday at 7:20 AM
I simply was wrong about the RNG proof requirements and thought it was weird
None of this was a call to action
I'm not trying to change everything
AnubisToday at 7:20 AM
I went out to do errands and got pinged for proof we don't want and then arguments as to why we should have it.
bumbadadabumToday at 7:20 AM
also you said "dropping it" like 3 times
WyrxToday at 7:21 AM
I just was addressing my thoughts on event proof, I wanted to drop it. I saw where it was going on a slippery slope
I dont want to require nickname proof for everything
Or tid proof for everything,  wasnt my intent
AnubisToday at 7:22 AM
So I gave you the scenario that if we are consistent, it will suck ass.
bumbadadabumToday at 7:22 AM
hey can we shittalk other staffchats and not each other
MehlordToday at 7:22 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AnubisToday at 7:23 AM
I'm not shit talking you now.
bumbadadabumToday at 7:23 AM
idk i just wanted to derail the convo because it should just be dropped
AnubisToday at 7:23 AM
I'm saying the idea will be a lot of work to implement and not that desirable.
bumbadadabumToday at 7:23 AM
nothing to gain but gray hairs at this point even reflecting
AnubisToday at 7:23 AM
And it will be more inconvenience than blocking hackers.