Advertisement
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up,
it unlocks many cool features!
- [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
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement