bugmaniacbob
Was fun while it lasted
Firstly: THIS THREAD IS NOT DEADI don't mean to necromance any threads (should this currently inactive thread even be interpreted as dead), but I have a few questions that could affect critical segments of a competitive CAP.
- In the artwork submission stage of the CAPs, what freedoms do artists have in submitting their work? If the typing and abilities are the same between the two teams, can they submit the same artwork to both teams, and if so, could both team's CAP look the same if they vote that it's the best looking art flavorwise? If not, what dictates who gets the winning artist's design and who has to go with the runner-up?
- To what extent can the two projects differ? In the example of CAP3's "Extreme Makeover: Typing Edition", would one team be allowed make an offensively orientated CAP while the other makes a good defensive one, or must concepts stay within a certain boundary to make an easier comparison between the two final products?
- What fate is given to the non-victorious team's CAP? Would it stay within the CAP metagame on Showdown regardless of its success, or is it only kept record of but no longer associated as CAP5, rather from then point on only as an "XCAP1"?
Secondly: All of those points have at some point or in some form or another been addressed, but I'll go over them quickly:
1. No, clearly you couldn't submit the same artwork to both Projects, if only for sake of convenience - allowing it creates far more problems than it solves (if any), as you pointed out. It's highly unlikely that both teams would choose the same typing or abilities anyway - largely because people have a tendency to want to differentiate early on from what I've seen before.
2. They can differ however greatly or however little they do. That sentence made no grammatical sense, but... there aren't going to be any strictures on how different the projects can be. It makes no sense to regulate that sort of thing - it should be down to the individual Topic Leaders / Team Members.
3. Yes, the losing team would still have its Pokemon archived on-site and would still be usable on Showdown, ideally. We haven't formally voted on this yet but it's hard to see any opposition to the idea.
Not really feasible and requires way too much work for moderators. Plus, we don't want to require team participation - I wouldn't say that defeats the whole point, but it comes pretty close.srk1214 said:As I'm not familiar with smogon's forums' coding, I can't assure this is feasible, but I have an idea. Simply require team participation. Users will only have posting capabilities in the a/b thread if they sign up for a/b. no switching will be possible. In order to enable users to still join mid project, a sign ups thread will be used before and during the project. A certain group, cap mods? Prc members?, can then give the team membership and posting privileges. There is no better motivation to do something than to have no alternative. Just my authoritarian side coming out...
-------
Anyway, new ideas for commenting on:
- My original idea expressed in the motion below for the sign-up thread was pretty vague, as it gave no indication of when such a thread might close. However, seeing how the current PRC thread works, I think that may be a far better model to follow, in that it is open for the entirety of the Project and that people may sign up whenever they feel like it. Thoughts?
- I think it may be best to have no concrete reward for team participation, besides the honour and having your name on-site. I think it is right that all members of the team should be fully recognised somewhere, if not on the CAP's main page then maybe in an accompanying Smog article. But having extra posting privileges or whatever it might be is probably not constructive. Thoughts?
- I think that we should keep to the standard Topic Leader format for at least the first iteration of this, so that we are not implementing too many new, daft systems at once. The obvious question that arises from this is do we want TLs to be selected before or after the initial round of sign-ups? If before, we run the risk of people joining up with the person they like more and there being a skew in team numbers, but then, if afterwards it likely comes to the same thing, and is harder to organise. Although, I would still not be opposed to the Team being run by Leadership Committee or similar, if you want to argue for that.
We can discuss judging, and similar, once the above are ironed out.