Policy Review Topic Leader Powers

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
During CAP 5, I believe that the new structure of the Topic Leader + Topic Leadership Team worked very well. However, there were a few instances where issues that we had not addressed prior to CAP 5 came up, most notable of these being the fact that we had no actual rules on what powers the TL had when it came to non-slating stages like Stat Limits. This was already talked about a bit over in the CAP 5 PRC Reflection thread, so rather than restate everything, I'll try and quote the important bits:
...one thing I have definitely been wanting to address is the powers of the Topic Leader in non-slating stages. During CAP5, we had no rules whatsoever as to what the TL was or was not allowed to do. While, thanks to the great group of people that made up the TLT, this never translated into a real problem, I definitely got the feeling that if we weren't always on the same page, this could cause severe complications, especially within the project leadership. So, as such, I would like to see if we can formalize what exact powers the TL should have during these steps.

For reference, the steps to which I am referring are Stat Limits, Movepool Discussions (as far as allowed moves), and Movepool Limits. Now, while we never really formalized anything, I do remember having a discussion with DougJustDoug, Korski, and a few others early on in the CAP process about Movepool Discussions:

[02/15/13 | 15:19] [02/15/13 | 15:19] <DougJustDoug> Well, all CAPs get Quiver Dance. It's in the rules somewhere.
[02/15/13 | 15:20] <jas61292> No. Never again. Not on my watch.
[02/15/13 | 15:23] <DougJustDoug> jas has a "-1" TL usage earmarked for QD!
[02/15/13 | 15:24] <jas61292> Well, actually, how will that work with movepools? What ability does the TL actually have to influence allowed and disallowed moves?
[02/15/13 | 15:24] <jas61292> I know we have the +1/-1 for slates, but allowed moves is not a slate
[02/15/13 | 15:25] <PureQuestion> You can ban specific moves, can't you?
[02/15/13 | 15:25] <DougJustDoug> I don't know. But surely the TL needs to be able to do the equivalent of "+1/-1" for those steps.
[02/15/13 | 15:25] <DougJustDoug> It only makes sense.
[02/15/13 | 15:25] <DougJustDoug> Just not sure what the mechanics should be.
[02/15/13 | 15:26] <jas61292> I agree. Its the extent that I am not really sure of. We don't want the TL to just have unlimited +1/-1 power, but you need more that a single move to have any actual effect.
[02/15/13 | 15:27] <DougJustDoug> I agree Jas. we should probably start talking about now, well in advance of the step.
[02/15/13 | 15:27] <DougJustDoug> Who is the Movepool leader?
[02/15/13 | 15:27] <Korski> cape
[02/15/13 | 15:27] <jas61292> ^^
[02/15/13 | 15:30] <DougJustDoug> I'm thinking the +1/-1 could apply to a "category" of moves, with the stipulation that the category can't be too broad (and the mods could be the arbiters of what is considered "too broad" or not.
[02/15/13 | 15:31] <jas61292> That might work. Like that could apply to a certain type of coverage move, or a certain group of boosters or something.
[02/15/13 | 15:32] <DougJustDoug> So "all physical moves" is obviously too broad. But "offensive Fighting moves" wouldn't be to broad, ofr example. "Reliable recovery moves" is another example of reasonable category.
[02/15/13 | 15:32] <Korski> actually you know what
[02/15/13 | 15:33] <Korski> ASB has a pretty decent list of move categories
[02/15/13 | 15:33] <jas61292> Yeah, that seems reasonable. It could get a bit tricky in non damaging stuff where a lot of moves seem to stand on their own.
[02/15/13 | 15:33] <jas61292> But I'm not sure if there is a more reasonable way to do it
[02/15/13 | 15:34] <Korski> the ASB attack substitution groupings might work for this
[02/15/13 | 15:35] <jas61292> lol, maybe
[02/15/13 | 15:35] <Korski> "paralysis-inducing moves"
[02/15/13 | 15:35] <Korski> "damaging ground-type moves"
[02/15/13 | 15:35] <Korski> "sleep-inducing moves"
[02/15/13 | 15:35] <Korski> stuff like that
[02/15/13 | 15:35] <jas61292> The tricky stuff is with things like Taunt or Encore which are not really similar enough to other things to fit in a group
[02/15/13 | 15:36] <Dracoyoshi8> Move Selection Disruption
[02/15/13 | 15:36] <reachzero> yeah
[02/15/13 | 15:36] <Dracoyoshi8> includes taunt, encore, disable, heal block
[02/15/13 | 15:36] <reachzero> Taunt/Encore/Torment
[02/15/13 | 15:36] <Dracoyoshi8> etc
[02/15/13 | 15:36] <Dracoyoshi8> imprison
[02/15/13 | 15:36] <Korski> eh
[02/15/13 | 15:37] <Korski> those are all pretty different moves
[02/15/13 | 15:37] <Dracoyoshi8> but the same concept
[02/15/13 | 15:37] <Dracoyoshi8> limit what attacks your opponent can use
[02/15/13 | 15:37] <Korski> i could see a scenario where the TL would have to outlaw taunt on his own but not torment
[02/15/13 | 15:38] <Dracoyoshi8> that is also true
[02/15/13 | 15:38] <Korski> *his/her own
[02/15/13 | 15:38] <DougJustDoug> yeah, I'd think if you said "No Taunt/Encore/similar" then that would be fine. We know that is a general category. And if someone asks "what about Torment?" or whatever, then the TL can give their interpretation. If the section leader contests it, go to the mods for a ruling.
[02/15/13 | 15:38] <jas61292> Well, I was less talking about that specific group of things, and more the general case of individual moves that are unique enough to merite individual attention, but as such, constitute such a small portion of the movepool that a decision on the individual move may be inconsequential if that is the only thing allowed.


While I think we might want to codify this a bit more, I definitely believe this could be a good basis for a system that would allow the TL some control over what moves are allowed without allowing the power to stretch any farther than in any of the actual slating stages.
We definitely should establish clearer standards for how the Topic Leader can exercise +1/-1 power in each competitive step. The general concept is sound, but almost every competitive step has special circumstances that makes it unclear how to effectively implement +1/-1 within the spirit of the policy. I think we should make a separate PR thread and hammer this out. In the PR OP, just list every competitive step, and propose how +1/-1 will work for that step. Then we can discuss the merits of each and refine a specific set of guidelines.
For this thread, I would like to do exactly what Doug said above. Here is a list of all the competitive steps and the powers that the TL currently posses at those steps:
  • Concept Submissions - Slating
  • Concept Assessment - Deciding Consensus
  • Typing Discussion - +1/-1/Veto
  • Threats Discussion - Deciding Consensus
  • Primary Ability Discussion - +1/-1/Veto
  • Stat Limits Discussion - ???
  • Stat Spread Submissions - +1/-1/Veto
  • Secondary Ability Discussion - +1/-1/Veto
  • Counters Discussion - Deciding Consensus
  • Attacking Moves Discussion - ???
  • Non-Attacking Moves Discussion - ???
  • Movepool Limits Discussion - ???
  • Movepool Submissions - +1/-1/Veto
The goal here should be to try and fill in those places that are currently marked with ???. I know multiple people expressed approval for some of the ideas posted in the log in the quote above, but what we want to do is nail down all the specifics so that going forward we won't come to a situation where the Topic Leader doesn't know what is within his power to do.

Some of the ideas that have been suggested for these stages are, for the Movepool Discussions, allowing or disallowing a group of similar moves or allowing or disallowing a certain number of individual moves, for Stat Limits, adding or subtracting up to a certain amount from one (or more) or the stat limits, and for Movepool limits, increasing or decreasing the limit by up to a certain amount. Each of these ideas has some merit, but, of course, none have been fleshed out enough to be implemented. What we want to do is discuss these, and decide what is the best way to give the TL the power that they need at each stage to make sure things run smoothly.

As a final note before we start discussing this, while I fully expect that most discussion should be on those 4 steps marked with the question marks, if you think that one of the other stages needs to be urgently addressed, then feel free to do so. Making sure we have all the abilities of the TL set is important, so don't hesitate to mention something if you think there is a problem elsewhere.
 

Nyktos

Custom Loser Title
The proposed "move categories" solution sounds about right for AM / NAM discussion. I think that leaving it up to discretion is probably fine; if nothing else, splitting all the VGMs into specific categories is probably outside the scope of this thread even if that's the approach that people might prefer.

For stat limits my thought was that the TL could arbitrarily change one category. That feels like the rough equivalent of +1/-1 to me. A veto option could be added as well.

For movepool limits, maybe +5/-5 to VGM limit? Since the TL position is supposed to be the arbiter of the concept specifically, I don't know if changing the total move count is really in the scope of their duty (since that's basically flavour).
 

Qwilphish

when everything you touch turns to gold
For the AM/NAM Discussions, the proposed categories could work, but there would still need to be details that need to be ironed out. For example, what if the TL thinks that one move out of a category should be taken off but the others stay on (An example of this would be the Paralysis move debate last CaP). But otherwise the ability for the TL to either take one category off or put it is good. I don't know whether or not veto'ing would work in this situation.

Nyktos' proposal seems good to me for the Stat Limits.

Movepool limits could work with a 5 VGM shift on either side of the spectrum. However, this number could be further debated and either increase or decrease. Veto'ing for Movepool limits seems weird and I don't really have an opinion on the matter atm.
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Ok, since there has not been so much activity here, let me try to get things started with a more concrete version of the broad proposals from the above.

(Non-) Attacking Moves Discussion

The Topic Leader should be given the power to change the Movepool Leader's decision of allowing, disallowing or putting to a vote one move or group of similar moves. This size of a group does not have any set limits, but it should not be too broad. For example, in the Attacking Moves Discussion, if the Topic Leader felt that it were in the best interest of keeping the project in line with the concept, he could decide to disallow Physical Fire Coverage moves. He could not however disallow all special coverage over 60 base power, as that is too broad of a group.

There will not be any specific rules as to what makes up any given group of moves. Instead, the decision on whether or not any given group is too broad will be up to the discretion of the two leaders and the CAP moderators. This is especially important for the Non-Attacking moves discussion where move can often be grouped as similar even though they do not always share certain objective traits.


Movepool Limits Discussion

The Topic Leader should be given the power to adjust the Movepool Leader's Very Good Moves limit up or down by up to, but no more than five moves. The TL will not however have any power to effect the total moves limit of the movepool as this is a non-competitive value.


---


I'm going to hold off on a proposal for the Stats Limits for now as I'm not really sure myself what I'd want to see there, and so I'd like to see a bit more discussion on it. As for the two proposals above, other than, obviously, comments on if you think they are good ideas or not, I'd like to hear what people think as far as to whether for the move discussions the TL should wait until the end of the thread to post a decision. On the one hand, a decision on what the TL would want to do might change as the thread goes on and more moves are sorted into categories, but on the other hand, if the Move Leader allows Fire Moves, for example, how the discussion goes could be very different if the TL immediately changed that decision, rather than waiting until the end. To me it seems like a situation where there is never going to be an ideal solution, but I'm just not sure whether waiting until the end or making a decision sooner so people can change arguments on remaining moves is the better way to do things.
 
No problem with those two proposals.

Unless the group of moves is causing people to not discuss the other moves/set of moves, the TL should wait until the end. If it is, then the TL should say something during the discussion so people can focus on other moves. Generally, waiting until the end will be better because the Move Leader might decide on their own that x should or should not be allowed or the arguments in the topic could cause the TL to realize that their views on x were wrong or that y is a bigger problem.

For stat limits, there are a few things we could do. Allow the TL to remove lower limits, set a lower limit, veto one stat bias or the BSR, change a limit or veto the entire thing. Don't really know what I would want, would need to know some likely problems.
 

DetroitLolcat

Maize and Blue Badge Set 2014-2017
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
The TL has been given veto power on the "Big 4" slating decisions, so it's pretty obvious that the veto power is an important component of the TL+TLT model of leadership. When the current (incomplete) TL+TLT model was put into effect, the veto power was the one power that gave the TL overarching control of the process while still placing the bulk of the power in the TLT. I see no reason why that should change and I support giving the TL full veto power over every competitive step in the process. Although that does give the TL a considerable degree of power in decision making, it should not be of concern because even if the TL vetoes a slate, the TL cannot just create a new slate out of thin air. The moderators handle a vetoed slate and create their own new slate. Although I cannot be certain about this, I assume the moderators will look at both the TLT member's vetoed slate and the TL's reasoning for vetoing the slate. Slate-packing, Topic Leader personal bias, and other potential concerns about Topic Leaders claiming too much power are unfounded under the TL+TLT system of leadership.

Now, that does not mean I believe the TL should have the ability to adjust individual stat limits as he pleases, nor do I believe the TL should be given unlimited or even large power over adjusting individual stat limits. Remember, although vetoed slates are subject to moderator oversight, edited slates are not. If a TL wishes to use the +1/-1 rather than veto a slate, then the TL may do so without oversight. The +1/-1/veto system has worked so far, and it makes sense to be consistent with our methods when determining how much power the TL should have in adjusting the TLT's chosen values.

Attacking and Non-Attacking Moves Discussion

The Topic Leader should be allowed to change one or more moves or groups of moves. However, I would like to go a step further and also suggest that the Topic Leader should be able to include/exclude parts of a group of moves in addition to entire move or group of moves. To clarify the previous sentence, here is an example. Suppose the Topic Leader does not wish to include all Water-type Special Coverage moves, but does want to include Scald. If the TLT member chose to allow all Water-type Special Coverage moves, the Topic Leader should be able to "-1" Surf and Hydro Pump without having to disallow Scald. Another example is if the Topic Leader wished to allow Flamethrower and Fire Blast but not Overheat or Lava Plume, yet the TLT member disallowed all Special Fire-type Coverage moves. The Topic Leader should be able to "+1" Flamethrower and Fire Blast without having to choose between the two or have to include all Special Fire-type Coverage moves. So long as the moves in question all fall into one "group" of moves, the TL should be able to line-item veto/line-item include certain moves.

Now, we need to further discuss exactly what a "group" of moves is. For example, is "Priority moves" too overarching? In my opinion, the TL should have to specify Physical/Special and either typing or Base Power or both. For example, "Special moves with 120 BP" would be a legal decision, "Physical Electric moves" would be a legal decision, "Physical Dark-type moves with 80 BP" would be a legal decision, but "Dark-type moves with 80 BP" would not be a legal decision. When it comes to priority moves, we should remember that all priority moves are Physical (with the exception of Vacuum Wave), so the TL should have to specify either typing or Base Power when "+1" or "-1"-ing certain moves.

The system in the paragraph above is mostly an addendum to the system jas61292 and Nyktos proposed with one extra point on priority moves. It is still in the "idea phase" and obviously we need to do something about Non-Attacking moves, but the paragraph above is just an...extension of what has already been discussed.

Stat Limits Discussion

In the current (incomplete) model of TL+TLT, the TL has had the power to edit or veto every one of the TLT member's decisions. I believe this should continue and the TL should be given minor editing powers over each of the individual stat limits and BSR as determined by the Stats Leader. Now, when I say minor editing, I mean very minor editing. If I could throw around some numbers, I would suggest that a TL could adjust each individual Stat Limit/BSR by up to 10 ut the sum total of the absolute values of the TL's adjustments may not exceed 20?

This lets the TL correct what he sees as one or two "egregious errors", but he cannot go full dictatorial and chop up the TLT's decision. I believe the TL should be able to slightly edit each stat limit but should have a limit on how much they can edit in total. A maximum of 20 "edit points" are allotted to the TL, who can use up to 10 on a single stat. This system is similar to how EVs are determined in a Pokemon game. A Pokemon has 510 EVs total, but can only spend 255 in a single stat. With this system, a TL would have 20 total "Edits", and only 10 can be used in a single Stat Limit. For example, a TL could raise the Physical Sweepiness by 10 points and lower the Base Stat Rating by 10 points, but could not edit anything else. Likewise, the TL could raise each limit by 4 if he or she pleases. This forces the TL to either respect the TLT's judgement on certain stats while taking other limits over or to make minor changes to all of the TLT member's limits.

Movepool Limits Discussion


The average number of Total Moves allowed on a 5th-Gen CAP (Not including Tomohawk), who is 67.5. The average number of Very Good Moves allowed on a CAP between Necturna and Malaconda is 35.75, rounded to the nearest whole number.


Between Necturna and Malaconda, the average number of submissions slated in a "Big 5" discussion (Movepool Submissions, Primary Ability, Secondary Ability if applicable, Typing, and Stat Spread Submissions) slated by the TL or the TLT member (in Malaconda's case, that means before jas61292 exercised his power) is 5.21. The +1/-1/veto system was implemented for the TL to edit slates with an average of 5.21 items. On average, based on empirical data from the previous four CAPs, the TLT member will set the Very Good Move limit at about 35.75. I could go into standard deviations and such, but that seems highly unnecessary. Now, think of the Movepool Limits as a slate with an average of 35.75 items, as the Very Good Move limit is the maximum number of moves the TLT member anticipates will be necessary for a good movepool submission. It's not a perfect comparison, but it's a good place to start and the comparison does have some validity. If the +1/-1/veto system was fit around slates with an average size of 5.21, then the system for Movepool Submissions should be fit around slates with a size of 35.75. 35.75/5.21=6.86, so I would recommend that the TL should be allowed to add or subtract seven (or six if you believe 7 is too high) Very Good moves from the Movepool Limits.
 

paintseagull

pink wingull
is a Top Artistis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
+1/-1 Move Group for AM/NAM seems reasonable. I suppose we don't have to formally define those groups right now since we all have a pretty good idea, but working on defining them as we go would be helpful. Better to work from a formalized set, even if we have trouble drawing lines around groups of non-attacking moves, since the groups can simply be slightly changed as per TL discretion. (i.e. +1 Special Fire Coverage except Flamethrower)

I think DLC has a good start with the numbers he's suggesting for the other steps (though I was dissappointed to not see the standard deviations :( ). I don't know the numbers well so I can't critique them.
 

Nyktos

Custom Loser Title
I'm fine with the rest, but I have to say I don't like DLC's proposal for stat limits at all. He talks about correcting one or two egregious errors, but is ±10 really enough to correct an egregious error? I would argue no. ±10 is basically a minor tweak. Adding or removing an entry, especially in a stage like typing or abilities, is a far more substantial change to the slate than ±10 to one or two stats is to the stat limits. To me, using a +1/-1 in a slating stage is basically equivalent to saying, "I disagree with the section leader's judgment about one aspect of the discussion". For instance, the section leader thinks that Honey Gather is a reasonable ability that was well-supported, while the TL thinks that the arguments in favour of it were weak and didn't really make sense.

The equivalent to that in the stat limits stage, I think, is to say that one of the section leader's proposed limits is wrong, and change it to something better. I would hope that the TL exercises sane judgment and doesn't change a stat limit from 450 to 100, but ultimately if a difference of more than 10 is necessary to adequately correct the error, that should be allowed. In return for allowing an arbitrary change, only one stat can be modified. Again, this parallels slating stages: if the TL feels that both Honey Gather and Illuminate are bad ideas that would break the CAP, they need to veto the whole slate. The TL gets to "correct" the section leader in only one place, because ultimately the section leader is the one who's supposed to be running the show at that stage, and allowing a whole bunch of major changes makes them somewhat powerless. But I think one major change, should it be necessary, is fine.
 

DHR-107

Robot from the Future
is a Member of Senior Staffis a Community Contributoris a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Pokemon Researcheris a Smogon Media Contributor
Orange Islands
The problem with that Nyktos is that what if two leaders make big mistakes... I know this shouldn't ever be the case as they should ideally be in constant communication to keep everyone on the same page, but if it happens at that point the TL's hands are tied and they can no longer do anything about a horrible slate or a personal bias. We would still end up with a frankenmon which is sort of what we are trying to avoid.

I agree with DLC's first point that in the case that if an entire slate is vetoed then the mods step in to see which side has better arguments etc for that reasoning. Obviously, any mod who is part of the leadership team at that time could not be privy to those discussions (at the end of the day DK/Paint/Jas/Cape/Korski/Birkal/DJD will have enough know how to handle this). Mods should have the power to over-ride at any point if they deem it necessary.

6 Moves seems like a good place to modify the list up or down, and I love the idea of the move groups having individual voting powers/veto ability. If Banning singular moves is a plus for the project then it needs to be said. Stats I think is a little different overall, but I doubt the stat limits will ever be so off the mark they need a drastic change.
 

Nyktos

Custom Loser Title
The problem with that Nyktos is that what if two leaders make big mistakes... I know this shouldn't ever be the case as they should ideally be in constant communication to keep everyone on the same page, but if it happens at that point the TL's hands are tied and they can no longer do anything about a horrible slate or a personal bias. We would still end up with a frankenmon which is sort of what we are trying to avoid.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this but my post was only talking about stat limits.
 

nyttyn

From Now On, We'll...
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
I am deleting my old post so I can post again and cause the "new post" icon to show up. We should implement detroitlolcat's policy immediately, seeing as how we are pressed for time and need to get to a consensus. Since there has been only one objection, we should go ahead and just implement it now, seeing as how there have been no significant objections, and come back and revisit it once CAP6 is over and we have the time to discuss it again.

Edit: Doubly so since it took a week for the first proposal to happen (after a whole two posts), then over two weeks for the second, which took another week to get a whole two posts about it. Short posts at that.

Seriously this is going absolutely nowhere really fast. I understand people have work and life but it is almost the close of the weekend, the time when most people are free, and still nothing got done, and people in high school have no excuse because it is summer for them no matter where they attend school. If this (nor the other PRC thread) didn't even progress at all during the weekend, I don't see it going anywhere fast which is extremely unacceptable given the deadline we have.


historical quote said:
Speaking as a dedicated movepool submitter - six moves is excessive. Three would be a far better number, four would be a bit much, and five would be pushing it. Six moves is an entire moveset and a half for a pokemon. That's far from a minor tweak - six moves would enable a pokemon to take up another set, two more sets, hell even three more sets depending on the moves. Really big difference. And seven is right out imo - seven entire additional moves can completely change how a pokemon plays.
 

DetroitLolcat

Maize and Blue Badge Set 2014-2017
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
Looking back, Nyktos has a point on the numbers I proposed for Stat Limits discussion. 10/25 were more placeholder numbers for the sake of my previous post than strict limit I'm proposing. I did finish writing that post at roughly 3:30 AM that night so I was more concerned with throwing the idea of EV-style "Edit Points" out there than actually assigning numbers to the idea.

Stat Limits, in their current form, are separated into groups such as "Amazing", "Fantastic", "Above Average", all based on groups of 25. The +1/-1 system could use those groupings as a base, i.e., the TL could shift a stat limit by 25 at maximum. To keep in line with the "edit points" idea that I posted earlier (as it seems to have been received well), a maximum of 25-30 or so may make more sense. This vests the majority of the power with the TLT member while allowing the TL to choose between correcting one “egregious error” (what the +1/-1 system was intended to do) or making minor tweaks.

Although the Stat Limits portion of this Policy Review has not picked up much traction, I assume most of us fall into two camps: one that believes the TL should only be able to edit one submission with little to no limits and one that believes the TL should be able to edit every submission but with significant limitations. Personally, I believe in the latter because I see each individual stat limit as a separate decision by the TLT member rather than a part of one large decision by the TLT member. For those reasons, I believe the TL should have the ability to tweak each stat if necessary but should not be able to dominate the process.

My ideas already give the TL considerable power in that they extend the veto power to all steps in the competitive process. To make up for that, I believe a hard limit of 25 “edits” is the best way to move forward with Stat Limits, at least Physical Sweepiness, Physical Tankiness, Special Sweepiness, and Special Tankiness. Remember, under my proposals, the TL would still have the ability to veto the TLT member's limits in which case the moderators would create the slate. The "25 edits" are what I believe the TL should be able to do without moderator oversight; it is the translation of the +1/-1/veto system to Stat Limits.

However, I would like to separate BSR from the other four when dealing with Stat Limits. If a TL changes the PS, PT, SS, or ST of a Pokemon, then the BSR limit should change with it. For example, if the TLT raises the Special Sweepiness limit by 20 and a stat spread submitter wishes to raise his Special Tankiness by the same amount, the stat spread submitter may have to lower his other stats to fit within the BSR limit if his original BSR was close to the limit. Likewise, if a TL lowers the acceptable Special Tankiness limit by 20 points, the submitter may have to raise his other stats to fall within the BSR limit if his original BSR was near the lower limit. For that reason, I suggest that if the TL changes a stat limit other than BSR then the maximum/minimum allowed BSR changes automatically to accommodate the TL's changes. On the other hand, if the TL raises or lowers the BSR limit, the individual limits should not be adjusted automatically.

To summarize my ideas:

-Topic Leaders should be able to edit the TLT member's Stat Limits by 25 points to be spread out amongst the five Stat Limits.

-If a TL raises/lowers an individual stat limit, then the BSR limit should raise/lower to accommodate that change (i.e, without counting against the 25 “edits”)


-The converse of that should not occur; if the TL raises/lowers the BSR the individual limits should not automatically be adjusted.
 
I agree with Nyktos about stat limits. +/- 10 is really a minor change, there might be times when 10 either way is significant(most likely with BSR or a low limit), but most changes should be made because there isn't enough of a range between the lower and upper limits to allow for any real difference in submissions or because a stat limit is significantly off from what the TL thinks it should be. Changing multiple stats by tiny amounts would be rather useless and would just make the TL look bad.
A good number would probably be something like 25 points in one stat. That would be an entire category change for the limits or half of one for the BSR, so it would be significant without allowing the TL to make a drastic change.

DLC's new proposal for stat limits is mostly fine by me. Only thing I would like changed is to require the TL to change a limit by at least 5 points if they think it needs to be adjusted to prevent completely pointless changes.

For VGM limits, the TL should only have a veto power. A change of 5 is very significant and the Movepool leader shouldn't be taking us more than 5 either way from what the guidelines say.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Hey, I've been really swamped with work these past 2 weeks maybe and the transition to xenoforo totally threw me for a loop. But hey, I'm back lol. I'm pretty on board with the proposals here.

I think limiting to 25 max points in any direction total from stat limits is good. I also think mandating at least 5 points in a change for any particular stat limit is useful, not that I think anyone would really boost a limit 2 points just to make a certain aesthetically pleasing spread that they like viable. BSR limits are what they are. I agree it is best to leave those alone and only to slightly inflate/deflate the BSR limit to accommodate the direction of the PT/ST/PS/SS shifting.

Movepool-wise I think the current consensus is certainly a great place to start.

Basically, I'm happy to go with what we've got and reevaluate after CAP6 while everyone freaks out over Kalos and Fairy types. The goal of this Policy Review in my mind is to test a few things out. Wrinkle out a bug or two, if you will. See what works and what doesn't (or just still needs more work) and then implement these changes going forward into Gen VI CAP projects. I'd like to try to wrap up this Policy Review sooner rather than later so that this is a possibility. If we wait too long, CAP 6 will be quite rushed or lost in the wash of the release. Without much objection visible, could someone make a formal voting proposal?
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Well, I think its time we start trying to wrap this up. I'm going to use this post to write up some final proposals based on the discussion we have had, after which people will have some time to comment on any problems they have, and if everything seems mostly fine, we can be finished.

So lets start off with the easy one:

Moves Discussion

It seemed to me that the original proposal for this one was pretty much unanimously accepted. There were a couple comments on changes to be made, specifically on what constitutes a group that the TL can deal with, but I think for the most part it will be easier to see how things work once around without the groups having overly rigid rules so we can see whether or not something more is needed. While I can see where DetroitLolcat was coming from, for example, I think that rules like requiring physical/special can have problems as they look at a general case (Physical Attacker vs Special Attacker, where coverage on the off stat is not as valuable) and can have problems in many other situations (ie Mixed Attacker, where coverage on either side of a given type can be equally valuable). What I'd like to see, at least for a first time test would be to have the TL have more flexibility, and then get the opinions of the TL and Movepool Leader to see if they think more rigidity is needed. With that said, I do think that moves are diverse enough that sometimes things that by one definition seem to fit together may still be different in a way that the TL would want one but not another, so I, like other people who have referred to it, do like what DetroitLolcat's idea to allow TL's to allow/disallow part of a group, and not necessarily the whole group, though again, I think simply having loose rules here will include that.

Basically, I think that what I first posted here about this discussion includes is the simplest solution here. If people really want we could drag this discussion out longer to define move groups more thoroughly, but I don't think that is necessary this time around. So, let me just restate that proposal down here so that we can get it all in this post:

The Topic Leader should be given the power to change the Movepool Leader's decision of allowing, disallowing or putting to a vote one move or group of similar moves. This size of a group does not have any set limits, but it should not be too broad. There will not be any specific rules as to what makes up any given group of moves; instead, the decision on whether or not any given group is too broad will be up to the discretion of the two leaders and the CAP moderators.


Movepool Limits Discussion:

This one is probably the most difficult, but I believe DetroitLolcat's proposal got the most support. There was definitely a few people who thought it was too much, but again, I think it is probably best to give the TL more wiggle room and than see afterward if we need to be more restrictive. Now, because of the responses, I do think going with 6 rather than 7 would probably be a good idea, but otherwise, the reasoning was very sound and the responses were generally positive. Other than the number of moves, there is really not much to this one, so, formally stated:

The Topic Leader should be given the power to adjust the Movepool Leader's Very Good Moves limit up or down by up to, but no more than six moves. The TL will not however have any power to affect the total moves limit of the movepool as this is a non-competitive value.


Stats Limits Discussion:

Finally, the Stats Limits received a lot of talk, and in the end I believe that general consensus was that DLC's proposal of 25 points worth of change (with a 5 point min per stat) made the most sense. With that said, however, the idea of auto-adjusting BSR really wouldn't work out. We don't have any formula or anything to convert one adjustment (especially one across various stats) to a BSR adjustment. Yet, we can't simply have BSR not be able to be affected. So, talking briefly with some other PRC members, I would like to propose that we give a separate pool of 25 points specifically for adjusting BSR. Obviously there is not a 1 to 1 conversion between BSR points and the other stat limits, but when you think about the fact that the TL may be looking to adjust BSR because of other changes OR simply because that is what he thinks needs adjusting to begin with, giving an amount that can accommodate both at once reasonably well seems ideal. So:

The Topic Leader should be given the power to adjust the limits set by the Stats Leader. Adjustments up or down of at least 5 points may be made to the Sweepieness and Tankiness limits, so long as the total number of points changed between the 4 limits does not exceed 25. Additionally, the limit for the Base Stat Rating may be adjusted up or down by no more than 25 points.

----

What I'd like from here is for people to comment on these three proposals if they have any major problems. I'd like to get this done quickly, so if nothing comes up in the next 24 hours, then I will close this up. If you do have an issue though, please bring it forward now so we can get this wrapped up and the next project started.
 

Nyktos

Custom Loser Title
I still feel like 25 is way too little for stat limits, but eh, I'm not going to fight too hard. I assume jas has a better idea of how much power a TL "needs" than I do, and I'd just be repeating what I already said. If nobody's convinced, fine.

The rest I'm happy with.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
jas, just as a correction, The TL will not however have any power to affect the total moves limit of the movepool as this is a non-competitive value.

But yes, I am on board with these proposals.
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I don't know what you are talking about srk....

Anyways, that's all here. Just to get it all together once more:

The Topic Leader should be given the power to change the Movepool Leader's decision of allowing, disallowing or putting to a vote one move or group of similar moves. This size of a group does not have any set limits, but it should not be too broad. There will not be any specific rules as to what makes up any given group of moves; instead, the decision on whether or not any given group is too broad will be up to the discretion of the two leaders and the CAP moderators.

The Topic Leader should be given the power to adjust the Movepool Leader's Very Good Moves limit up or down by up to, but no more than six moves. The TL will not however have any power to affect the total moves limit of the movepool as this is a non-competitive value.

The Topic Leader should be given the power to adjust the limits set by the Stats Leader. Adjustments up or down of at least 5 points may be made to the Sweepieness and Tankiness limits, so long as the total number of points changed between the 4 limits does not exceed 25. Additionally, the limit for the Base Stat Rating may be adjusted up or down by no more than 25 points.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top