Forum Rules said:If you are not an experienced member of the CAP community, it is strongly recommended that you do not post in this thread.
This thread is intended to contain intelligent discussion and commentary by experienced members of the CAP project regarding CAP policy, process, and rules. As such, the content of this thread will be moderated more strictly than other threads on the forum. The posting rules for Policy Review threads are contained here: http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1412586&postcount=2
I think CAP4 was the smoothest of all the CAP projects so far. Obviously, our fourth project built upon the lessons learned in the previous three. I also think it helped greatly to have a clearly documented process guide for the TL to follow and for the rest of the community to see. But the process was not perfect, and could use a few tweaks to improve CAP5 and beyond.
I felt there were two areas that could use some improvement and I have listed the proposed changes below:
Bias Polling Changes
CAP4 was the first project to use X-Act's stat rating formula for measuring the effectiveness of base stats. I think it was far superior to the previous use of BST. But, the polling in that phase of the project dragged a bit. The general community was not actively engaged in most of the early polls (just look at the vote and post totals), and the project lost momentum as a result. The project picked up steam when the actual stat spread poll came around. So, I'd like to minimize the boring early polls and more quickly proceed to voting on actual stat spreads.
Also, the nature of the early bias polls seemed to excessively narrow the field of "legal" stat spreads. I felt like all the stat spreads were confined into such narrow ratings limits, that many of that stat spreads looked the same. I think we should widen the ranges a bit, and allow the stat spread creators more flexibility to come up with unique and interesting spreads.
With this in mind I propose we hold only TWO polls to set the bias limits for ODB and PSB, prior to the actual stat spread polls. The two polls would be click polls and would contains four options in each poll:
Offensive/Defensive Balance
Offensive: 20 to 40+
Mixed, possibly Offensive: 0 to 20
Mixed, possibly Defensive: -20 to 0
Defensive: -40 to -20
Physical/Special Balance
Physical: 20 to 40+
Mixed, possibly Physical: 0 to 20
Mixed, possibly Special: -20 to 0
Special: -40 to -20
If you want to see the current polling process, look in the Process Guide. It involves more polls and results in narrower limits for ODB and PSB. The polling process I propose will be shorter, and will give stat spread creators some more leeway to be creative.
Movepool Discussion Changes
CAP4 was also the first project that separated the movepool voting into two parts - Attacking Moves and Non-Attacking moves. It think the separation went a long way to helping control the movepool discussion, which has been a total mess in the past. But, the movepool discussion was still fairly messy. I think we need to take further steps to make the discussions worthwhile.
The two biggest problems with the movepool discussions were:
Too many posts containing long lists of moves and TMs.
These posts are well-intentioned, but they really spam the discussion. Few people care to read a list of every move that someone thinks is POSSIBLE for the pokemon to get. And most of the lists contained very little content worthy of discussion. These posts HAVE to be eliminated.
Too much discussion about "flavor" of moves.
The movepool process was separated into three phases -- two competitive discussions, and then the poll after movepool submitters have added in flavor moves. For some reason, the competitive movepool discussions were hijacked by the flavor-junkies and we never really got them back on track.
These posts are well-intentioned, but they really spam the discussion. Few people care to read a list of every move that someone thinks is POSSIBLE for the pokemon to get. And most of the lists contained very little content worthy of discussion. These posts HAVE to be eliminated.
Too much discussion about "flavor" of moves.
The movepool process was separated into three phases -- two competitive discussions, and then the poll after movepool submitters have added in flavor moves. For some reason, the competitive movepool discussions were hijacked by the flavor-junkies and we never really got them back on track.
Currently, the Process Guide has the following language regarding the Attacking Movepool Discussion (there is similar language for the Non-Attacking moves):
I think we should change the language and tighten the enforcement of the last two sentences. The TL needs to post a list of moves in the OP and EVERY POST should refer to proposed additions or removals to the list. Possibly, we should limit the number of moves that a person can advocate for addition or removal. I really think we should limit people's natural tendency to spam long lists of moves into the discussion thread. It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion involving so many lists. I think there should be one list -- the list in the OP. The OP list will change as the discussion progresses. Discussion participants should check it often.Process Guide said:The TL should post an initial competitive Attacking movepool in the OP of a discussion thread. This initial movepool should only contain damage-dealing moves that are considered "competitive". No "flavor" moves should be included. Moves that do not deal significant damage should not be included (see Non-Attacking moves below). As a general rule, any competitive move that can be prevented by Taunt, should not be included in this discussion. It is up to the TL's discretion as to which moves should be discussed in this thread, and which moves should be deferred until the Non-Attacking Moves Discussion. The community should post regarding necessary additions and removals to the list proposed in the OP. No full learnset posts are allowed in this discussion, and should be strictly prohibited.
I also think we should add some language discouraging purely "flavor" arguments. Inevitably, there will be lots of posts like, "I just don't see this pokemon using <move name here>." Those posts are annoying, but not particularly problematic. The problem is when the discussion veers deeply into the realm of pure flavor -- like the Tailwind discussions in CAP4. Flavor concerns can and will affect people's votes. That's fine. But the topic usually cannot be argued intelligently in the discussion threads. It always comes down to a matter of subjective preference. I think the discussion threads should focus on the competitive use of moves -- which can and should be debated and analyzed in great detail.