D4 Repertoire
goin' fast
Excal said:I'm of the viewpoint that we should keep as many core mechanics intact as possible unless they are severe handicaps on competitive play.
D4 Repertoire said:This implies that banning sleep is preferable to modding it. Lack of sleep does not handicap competitive play.
My point was not denying that your post clearly supports sleep clause. I was pointing out that the "viewpoint" you gave to justify your position actually justifies removing sleep clause: I was saying that "keep core mechanics intact" = no mods.Excal said:How could that be the case if my entire post is about keeping the status quo (modding it)? Lack of sleep can handicap competitive play depending on the tier.
As for the point about handicapping competitive play, you have not attempted to justify this claim at all in either post. The lack of mechanics cannot really handicap competitive play, only the presence of uncompetitive mechanics can. That is, regardless of how useful sleep is in a given meta, removing it doesn't make the meta uncompetitive or "handicapped," it's just different. And at the point where your definition of "handicapped" tries to include lacking the presence of something, it long ceases to be close to sufficient reason to mod the game.
There are a lot of arguments related to these statements*, but all of these arguments are assuming that we operate under your personal viewpoint rather than the tiering policy framework, so it's not particularly worth going over all the arguments stemming from this. I just wanted to point out the immediate contradiction.
Whether modified sleep or no sleep is more true to "core mechanics"
Whether sleep ban, mod sleep, no sleep restriction, etc "handicap" competitive play
What reason--if any--is sufficient to mod the game under this framework
The distinction between banning sleep inducing moves and removing the status condition sleep entirely (rest exists)
Whether sleep ban, mod sleep, no sleep restriction, etc "handicap" competitive play
What reason--if any--is sufficient to mod the game under this framework
The distinction between banning sleep inducing moves and removing the status condition sleep entirely (rest exists)
Excal said:If anything, getting rid of the clause (assuming sleep is banned as a result) feels even less like you're playing on cartridge
D4 Repertoire said:This is a poor way of framing things considering under this standard the noticeable lack of Kyogre, double team, and sheer cold are problematic. The concern is and should be whether the simulator's mechanics match that of cartridge, not of the fact that tiering things to be competitive makes things feels different than when they aren't tiered to be competitive.
This is a completely different argument (and given that it's just another way of saying "status quo good," it has already been throughly addressed in my post that you refuse to read).Excal said:Sleep has been a part of competitive pkmn since the very beginning. This is a bad faith nitpick and misses the point of what I was saying.
The point of what you were originally saying was how simulator feels compared to cartridge, not how simulator feels to old simulator. There's nothing "bad faith" nor nit-picky about my previous explanation of why your original argument is not and should not be considered justification for how the simulator runs. I lay out examples of your proposed consideration (to maximize feeling like playing on cartridge) currently being ignored that people generally agree with (because this is a clear and concise way of showing why the argument fails) and then give the underlying argument afterward anyway.
We care about the tiering policy framework, not your opinion of the "feel" of the game; and even if we did, "one of the fundamental statuses" is not more impactful to the feel of the game than "one of the fundamental stat stage changes (evasion)", an entire category of moves (OHKO), or one of the Pokemon on the cover of the cartridge games.
Excal said:Everyone knows about sleep clause
D4 Repertoire said:You clearly haven't worked your way through low ladder in a while.
This is a much more accurate and fair statement than your original. Now that your argument is more than a 5 word false statement, I will point out that, as I discussed in my first post, the issue with sleep clause and the playerbase is not that it cannot be understood but that it is a mod, and the fact that it is a mod is what is objectionable both from a tiering policy perspective and from the perspective of a newcomer.Excal said:The learning curve is clearly not very steep. I was an 11-year-old playing wifi battles on cartridge and I immediately understood sleep clause.
Excal said:no one complains about its in-game implications
D4 Repertoire said:Hello? This thread (like its many predecessors) is literally just that.
This too is a much fairer statement than your original. (I'll just assume this is true without polling data as the anti sleep clause case does not require this to be false)Excal said:I exaggerated, but other than the minority that want sleep as a mechanic banned, the majority of tournament players seem to be fine with sleep clause as is.
The short version of why to still get rid of sleep clause mod despite it not currently bothering most tournament players is all of the active reasons to change sleep clause that I laid out in my previous post (reasons #1 and #5). The problems that it creates are still problems regardless of if they mindfully bother the majority of the general tournament playerbase. Also, I point out in my first post that sampling sleep clause opinion/impact on the population most accustomed to it is biased (someone is way less likely to become a tournament participant in tiers with sleep clause if they dislike sleep clause) and ignores many of the problems with sleep clause (reasons #1 and #5).
Finally, in general, the popular opinion should be able to justify their opinion with valid arguments in debate/discussion beyond just citing the popularity of the opinion.
Excal said:and debating about sleep policy has never gone anywhere productive in the last 10+ years.
D4 Repertoire said:At every opportunity the posts in this thread continually clarify that this discussion is for gen 8 OU (or maybe 9 instead of 8) and then would be the default for future gens. No one is advocating that each gen cannot deal with sleep individually.
And if you actually read the posts in the thread, you would find that the discourse is generally progressing and becoming more focused over time, not getting further derailed (for example we have moved past discussing the viability of sleep under sleep clause in lower tiers and are on the edge of moving past discussion of different formulations of sleep clause).
The statement that previous discussions have not resulted in sleep clause changing is true.Excal said:My point this responded to is correct. It's hard to parse this incomprehensible response devoid of any relevant information.
I was responding to the argument that this fact supposedly justifies not discussing it again.
I seems highly unlikely to me that you genuinely cannot understand what I said and very likely that you are just saying this to dodge responding to the arguments themselves because you cannot rebut them.
However, on the small chance that you are being honest, I will ignore the (in my opinion inaccurate) characterization of my previous response and attempt to just explain myself better. To reword the three arguments,
1.) You saying to not discuss this attempts to prevent the discussion from being productive. If every time this is discussed, someone comes along with a similar post, then it makes sense why it would have repeatedly not been productive.
2.) If the same proposal to change something keeps coming up regardless of how many times it is rejected, there's probably some problem that needs to be fixed.
3.) As long as there is a well-defined problem (inconsistency with cartridge mechanics), discussion of how to fix the problem should be allowed regardless of whether previous discussions succeeded in fixing the problem. New discussions may bring new arguments or ideas that succeed where previous ones could not.
I can somewhat understand not finding 1.) or 2.) super "relevant" (though I would disagree), but 3.) is directly arguing why your point does not follow from your stated fact. Hence, your point that this responded to is not correct.
From my perspective, this is the first discussion of sleep clause that I have participated in (2020 join date); and I laid out a thorough case in favor of removing sleep clause in my first post in the thread. Nobody has responded to this post or its arguments in opposition (outside of the "change the implementation of sleep clause" arguments, which are not up for debate at this time), so I (I think understandably) believe that my post needs to be addressed for the policy to be justifiably decided to not change. I understand that, from the perspective of users who have seen previous iterations of this debate, going through the same discussion again can be tiresome and undesirable. However, those users can either a) not participate in the discussion or b) be helpful in making the discussion as productive and on-track as possible by using their previous experience. It is not helpful to dismiss the discussion as incapable of being productive. For example, if someone previously made the same arguments as I, and someone else refuted those arguments in a previous discussion; then directing me (and others viewing my post) to those posts or giving the arguments yourself would be helpful rather than refusing to read my post in the first place.
As far as I can tell, previous opposition to change stands on the same unsound ground as the "keep status quo" points that I have thoroughly addressed. If previous users with my same position failed to argue the position as well as I have, that should not be cause to just ignore my points.
Excal said:I think this thread is way too flashy for the intention to be purely competitively-minded. I generally dislike threads with such an unnecessarily massive scope to the point where it becomes a derailed mess. I find them significantly less productive and encouraging of unqualified people to spout nonsense that no one wants to read. As a disclaimer I haven't read almost all the posts itt, so I'm not calling out anyone in particular. But I think we should leave it up to each gen to deal with sleep individually as opposed to neutral administration making a thread about sleep clause in all gens.
D4 Repertoire said:At every opportunity the posts in this thread continually clarify that this discussion is for gen 8 OU (or maybe 9 instead of 8) and then would be the default for future gens. No one is advocating that each gen cannot deal with sleep individually.
And if you actually read the posts in the thread, you would find that the discourse is generally progressing and becoming more focused over time, not getting further derailed (for example we have moved past discussing the viability of sleep under sleep clause in lower tiers and are on the edge of moving past discussion of different formulations of sleep clause).
First, the OP from the outset was not making the argument you're rebutting.Excal said:The OUTL essentially said to screw off (in a nice way), so the cg part is not relevant. I was responding to the OP which swept all gens in one.
From the OP's first post:
The OP's clarification in their second post:Lily said:Before anyone asks, no this shouldn't automatically apply to every tier across every gen.
Second, even if the first post in the thread originally included old gens, ignoring the fact that the thread since agreed against this and pointlessly rearguing this point on the basis of the thread being "too flashy" (lol) is the only thing leading the thread to a "derailed mess" or "nonsense that no one wants to read."Lily said:this wouldn't apply to your gen unless you want it to, it's not a direct response to something randomly being broken now, it's a proposal to change an antiquated part of tiering for this gen & further gens to follow so that we can have a ruleset that makes more sense than the current one. it shouldn't shake up past gens unless their tiering councils agree with it.
Third, the part of the OUTL post justifying not banning it as a luck element is not relevant; and fourth,
outlines the exact argument that my first post thoroughly addresses (and that no one opposed has responded to).Finchinator said:From there, there was brief discussion of the procedural side of things and how shifting the restriction of the clause to a ban outright would perhaps line-up more with a cleaner future ruleset, but ultimately this differences was regarded as negligible given the long history of sleep clause as a seemingly successful rule and not enough to change the status quo either.
He also states that the council can change their decision given direction from "above":
and continually restates "status quo" as the justification for the policy while admitting that the OU council does not have sole jurisdiction on this issue.Finchinator said:We are also absolutely not the sole deciders of sleep. I made it a point to go out of my way in my post to state a tier leader vote or whatever administration decides is fine by us.
Finchinator said:However, we also dug deeper and discussed why we felt it was not necessary to change the status quo for our metagame, which involves sleep clause restricted sleep.
Finchinator said:If you sense a trend in my phrasing, it is intended -- we are the SS OU council and our scope is limited to the SS OU metagame. You are asking us to discern the pros and cons of a clause that has been around much longer than any of us have played which we have grown accustom to.
Finchinator said:Finally, I do not subscribe to your belief that sleep clause fundamentally contradicts tiering policy given their longstanding coexistence. At a point, you have to accept it's place and we largely have. This goes hand-and-hand with my point before about the OU council and other current generation tiering figures largely being ok with the cause because of it carving out its own place in our tiering history.
So even if the OU Council will not hear rebuttals to its unsound justification for its decision, the arguments made in this thread thereafter are meant to be heard by the tiering administrator and others with proper jurisdiction anyway.Finchinator said:And if you feel the issue is this fundamental that it boils down to contradicting the tiering guidelines, then the person in charge of that is the tiering administrator. Tiering councils, such as the OU council, are meant to enforce those guidelines in order to maximize competitiveness, but seeing as we have had this clause in place for longer than any of us have been around, it is pretty clear to see why we have embraced it, which again boils back to the string of posts I alluded to on the first page, and why I am confused as to why your dissatisfaction is geared specifically towards the OU council when we stated we were fine deferring to higher-ups given the procedural nature of the issue rather than the metagame specific nature of it.
Also, claiming that this would start gen 9 rather than gen 8 because the OU council already decided doesn't respond to any of the actual arguments in the first place. Saying "cg part is not relevant" when none of the arguments I'm making are specific to gen 8 and apply equally to gen 9 is pointless.
Excal said:we're at a point with all the modifications our simulation gives us where small exception cases like sleep clause (which are mentioned in tiering policy) shouldn't be inherently bad. Let's not fix what isn't broken.
D4 Repertoire said:See my previous post. There is a well-defined problem with a clear solution.
If you refuse to follow the rule for posting in these threads of reading the previous discussion (as to not derail argumentation into unnecessary circles of restating previous points), then do not post in this thread.Excal said:I think your response to my post was quite bad, so I won't be doing that.
Stating that there isn't a problem on the grounds that you refuse to read what the problem is actively hurts the discussion.
Be better.
But to spoon-feed you the general idea, saying "let's not fix what isn't broken" is not a valid argument when I outline 5 reasons that it is "broken" (under #5) in my first post and also detail why "but it's the status quo" is not a defense (under #2 and #3) in that same post.