Let's catalogue the ways in which PS does not replicate cart mechanics

[Inspirited]

Stat overflow isn't properly implemented either (possibly because it can cause divide by zero nonsense). I am unsure of how we would fix this through tiering because of the bit scaling that happens when handling large stat numbers. Maybe someone who knows more about how the game scales it could chime in so we could ban specific base Special numbers assuming it is just a few. This is probably patched for good reason but it is a difference to be catalogued.

crystal_'s explanation video:

 

[asdasd123]

In regards to desyncs, maybe they could be simulated and matches be automatically ended with a draw if that happens?

With Dig and Fly we dont really need a patch. You just add a clause that says that while invulnerable you are only allowed to select Dig or Fly. We just have never bothered because the moves arent good enough in OU.

I don't think that's a good enough reason to ban them. What about people who play UU? Is there any way to suggest they implement this clause so we can use those moves?

 

[Sevi 7]

I don't think that's a good enough reason to ban them. What about people who play UU? Is there any way to suggest they implement this clause so we can use those moves?

I can't think of anything in the lower tiers that would want fly except like Pidgeot which is in 6U/ZU and is a completely dead tier. Maybe dig has something I'm not considering.
If we do want to implement it though, then we will have to make it so you can't click the move while paralyzed or make it so that if the glitch does happen, then you have to keep using the move until you unglitch. This might have a little interesting use in UU, where toxic is used a bit more. But I can't see it actually being used on anything. Not even Articuno who arguably gets the most out of this clause.

 

[asdasd123]

I can't think of anything in the lower tiers that would want fly except like Pidgeot which is in 6U/ZU and is a completely dead tier. Maybe dig has something I'm not considering.
If we do want to implement it though, then we will have to make it so you can't click the move while paralyzed or make it so that if the glitch does happen, then you have to keep using the move until you unglitch. This might have a little interesting use in UU, where toxic is used a bit more. But I can't see it actually being used on anything. Not even Articuno who arguably gets the most out of this clause.

Raichu can learn fly so it isn't completely walled by Exeggutor. Aerodactyl could make good use of it (it does more damage than double edge and is it's best move against Exeggutor).

Dig is the only ground move learnt by Golduck, Ninetales, Raticate and Arcanine. I think that could be significant.

 

[DDX2]

Regarding Fly or Dig. First recall why it is banned. If a paralyzed Pokemon becomes fully paralyzed during the turn they are in flight/underground, they are invincible until they use dig/fly. Needless to say, it's broken if left unchecked. Can't force the Articuno out. Can't force the Alakazam out (imagine how fun that is). Not only can you not force them out but you cannot even attack them unless you're running Bide or Swift which hit regardless.

Now there are 3 ways around it.

1. To 'fix' it. But as argued. If we agree to fix those two moves so they work properly, then we have to fix every move and that point it is an arguably a mod and definitely not in the spirit of the game which is, treating Showdown as if we're really playing on our Gameboy or Nintendo 64. Now, a realistic approach for anyone who doesn't want to play a format that has unusable attacks due to glitches/bugs, would be to play Pokemon Stadium 1 (JPN) or Pokemon Stadium 2 (Stadium 1 for us International standard players) since every attack works as intended there. Of course then you have to get used to the fact that sleep uses less turns, different CH values, you can see your opponents team and more a few more changes.

Being used to Cartridge isn't an excuse to ignore Stadium and is therefore a reasonable option. After all, we take Amnesia/Surf from their events and agree to Pokemon Yellow tradebacks, so why not go The Full Monty.

2. Keep the moves legal, but force the player who is now in that predicament to use the move in order to end the bug on penalty of DQ. This of course causes the problem that now the opponent will know your next move which is an unfair advantage since you didn't choose to be paralyzed and have the glitch. Now nearly all Pokemon that learn Fly/Dig and cannot learn Drill Peck/Earthquake are already not viable anyway, so who cares. But I feel if you're not going to treat as if every attack and tier should matter, then you may as well just play any other generation or N64 once again.. Which is why I'm against this path/logic.

3. The current method chosen by Smogon and other pokemon communities that use Cartridge as their default. Accepting its bugged and that there's nothing that can be done about it. Just as we ban Psywave for its game-breaking abilities even if never used on literally any tier, do we also ban Dig/Fly. This prevents someone from glitching on purpose, or someone not on purpose, but forced to use the move to avoid being read which is also unfair. Also as stated. If you want a properly working Dig/Fly, then Pokemon Stadium is your dude.


As a final add-on, I'd like to note that any Pokemon that can learn Dig and Fly and not Drill Peck or Earthquake and also need those two aforementioned moves in their moveset will be a bit dodgy anyway. Look at Articuno and Moltres. If they learned Drill Peck like Zapdos, they would also be in OU easily since both can deal huge elemental powers and have very good attack.

While Fly would benefit Articuno, it does just fine in 2U/UU and it wouldn't go up a tier even if it knew Fly for the sole reason that Fly can be read and thus prepared against for. Same thing for Dig on Arcanine on 4U. It will help improve for certain matchups, but it won't cause them to be sudden masters of their domains.

 

[asdasd123]

2. Keep the moves legal, but force the player who is now in that predicament to use the move in order to end the bug on penalty of DQ. This of course causes the problem that now the opponent will know your next move which is an unfair advantage since you didn't choose to be paralyzed and have the glitch.

But that's what happens with wrap, you switch out and know your opponent will use wrap again. It's not an "unfair advantage" because you choose to take that risk when you use dig/fly/wrap in the first place.

Now nearly all Pokemon that learn Fly/Dig and cannot learn Drill Peck/Earthquake are already not viable anyway, so who cares.

You're missing the point. No one wants to use water gun or string shot, but they're still usable in showdown. You can't justify banning a move because most people don't want to use it.

I think dig/fly could be interesting - for example you could predict an explosion and use dig to avoid it without having to sacrifice a pokemon. Ultimately we won't know how dig/fly will affect how people play unless we let people use those moves.

 

[Sevi 7]

Raichu can learn fly so it isn't completely walled by Exeggutor. Aerodactyl could make good use of it (it does more damage than double edge and is it's best move against Exeggutor).

Dig is the only ground move learnt by Golduck, Ninetales, Raticate and Arcanine. I think that could be significant.

I don't want to get too off topic here, but Raichu 4HKOs Egg whether its using Toss or Fly, and Toss has a lot more appeal. Raichu also doesn't want to use fly at all in UU.
I'll give you that Aero might use it in 3U to have a better shot at Venusaur. But I never actually used Aero in 3U, so I have absolutely not idea, Aero is unviable with or without fly in UU and I guess maybe you can run Fly on the Fire Blast set, but Aero isn't notable either way and I don't see Aero doing anyting with an All-out-attack set in OU.
There's no way Golduck would want to use dig. It's already got 4MSS and is an Amnesia sweeper. If you want a mixed Amnesia sweeper, go with Poliwrath who gets Earthquake and is 3 Base Attack stronger.
Ninetales might actually be the only thing on your list that might use Dig. Toxic, Fire Spin, Fire Blast and Confuse Ray is the go to set for 5U, but dig might have some appeal to hit Magmar/Ninetales, Electrode or Gastly, as well as add another turn of burn/poison.
Raticate doesn't want Dig for anything in UU, except for the random electric. But Dig is terrible for Raticate if they have any of their flying-types left and Blizzard would be better for Egg in OU.
Arcanine, I guess Dig can work for Arcanine in 4U for the Nidos, but that's the tier I've played the least and I have no authority to talk about it.

As for implementing the clause itself, I'm not against going with the if you para you need to use dig again route. I think stall might have some more meaning in lower tiers or even for PP stalling in OU. Of course one could also in theory just stay invulnerable forever, since I believe the PP is not counted until damage is done and you could get a para every other turn. So, I I can also understand if that's too cheesy and luck reliant to be considered competitive and should be given the same treatment as Swaggar.

 

[Hematite]

No one wants to use water gun or string shot, but they're still usable in showdown. You can't justify banning a move because most people don't want to use it.

I mean, I think you're looking at the situation from the wrong angle here. Dig and Fly are banned because they have the potential to be broken, overpowered and uncompetitive. The idea that no one wants to use them anyway is just a convenient bonus - it had no bearing on whether or not the moves were banned.
But speaking of String Shot...

In regards to desyncs, maybe they could be simulated and matches be automatically ended with a draw if that happens?

... did you know String Shot was banned from VGC18 because, under the right circumstances, it caused the game to crash and forced a draw? Nobody was using it anyway, sure - but that's exactly the point. String Shot's primary use was to abuse a glitch and force a draw in what was otherwise a losing battle, which in turn forced a replay (in a tournament setting) or simply took away the winner's due credit for winning (in a ladder setting).

Consider how unfair it would be for a losing player to be able to decide without their opponent's consent that they would rather draw and try again than lose. This is extremely uncompetitive, and it is absolutely justified to ban a move that allows someone to create that kind of situation.
Please consider what you're proposing in the context of a competitive and fair format and understand why it wouldn't work - not just "because it's a glitch" or "because no one cares about the moves" but because it has devastating consequences on the integrity of the format. I understand that you're attached to the idea of being able to use the glitched moves (and I'm not involved in this format myself, but if the consensus is that the need-to-use-Dig clause is a suitable solution, that may well be a fine option), but there's a reason they're banned as they are now, and it's not just because no one cares. If they remain unusable and you still want to use them, you should consider playing Custom Game or just playing on cartridge with a player who doesn't mind - but the fact that they're banned is as legitimate and justified as any other ban in any tier's rules, so hopefully understanding why that is will make it easier to accept.

 

[asdasd123]

Dig and Fly are banned because they have the potential to be broken, overpowered and uncompetitive.

Kinda like wrap, or ice beam's 10% freeze, which aren't banned? You can't cherry pick the things you like.

Consider how unfair it would be for a losing player to be able to decide without their opponent's consent that they would rather draw and try again than lose. This is extremely uncompetitive, and it is absolutely justified to ban a move that allows someone to create that kind of situation.

Why is it unfair? Something is only "unfair" if it doesn't apply to both players. It would add another dimension to the game, the ability to save yourself from losing - and your opponent would have to factor that into their game plan. Is it "fair" that I could freeze your chansey with one ice beam after you've hit me with six? Is it "fair" that I might get a full para at a critical point in the game? Perhaps RBY isn't the most "fair" of the pokemon games, and the emphasis shouldn't be on trying to make it perfectly balanced.

because it has devastating consequences on the integrity of the format.

If we allow dig/fly the meta will adapt. It'll be no different from other broken mechanics like wrap, 10% freeze rate, 1/256 miss rate, softboiled/recover failing, critical hits, full paralysis, the ability for slash to not crit...if you don't like those things don't play gen 1.

 

[DDX2]

But that's what happens with wrap, you switch out and know your opponent will use wrap again. It's not an "unfair advantage" because you choose to take that risk when you use dig/fly/wrap in the first place.

You're missing the point. No one wants to use water gun or string shot, but they're still usable in showdown. You can't justify banning a move because most people don't want to use it.

I think dig/fly could be interesting - for example you could predict an explosion and use dig to avoid it without having to sacrifice a pokemon. Ultimately we won't know how dig/fly will affect how people play unless we let people use those moves.

I am not missing the point. I'm afraid you are in this case.

There is a difference between moves it is purposely coded and the result your opponent knows your next action such as Sky Attack, Razor Wind and unbroken Dig, vs Broken Dig or Fly.
If I choose to use to Sky Attack or Razor Wind it's with the knowledge I have to wait a turn before results and I purposely let me opponent have that turn. If I HAVE to use dig because of the glitch, then it creates an unfair disadvantage to me.

I don't justify not using dig/fly because they're unusable, the opposite, Articuno or Arcanine would benefit from it. I justify banning it because when playing cartidge standard, it can break the game and create an unfair advantage for one of the players if left unbanned, or if forced to use it which goes against its natural coding.

I should *not* have to use dig/fly again just because the game glitched in order to progress. Especially because theoretically this glitch can occur dozens of times in one match. I should have to wait a turn when using Sky Attack.

That said, if you want to use Dig/Fly without the paralyzed-invulnerable glitch. Just play Stadium. The attacks work perfectly fine there along with Focus Energy, Psywave, Mirror Move, Counter, and others.

Yes, remember that Counter and Mirror Move likely need to be banned. To not even speak about the freeze/thaw desync and what to do there.

 

[DDX2]

You know what, after thinking about it some more, I'm sold. I kept saying why not, but after going over my previous arguments, I feel like you may be right and that it's very easy to enforce.

We already have a sleep clause where we enforce further sleep-inducing moves to not be used else be DQ'd and for natural mechanics we have attacks like Sky Attack, Petal Dance, or even Rage which creates their own predictability clauses.

Plus the clause is easy like you said. Invulnerable Dig/Fly can be treated like accuracy/mechanic.
If paralyzed while in flight/underground then I muse either use the Dig/Fly again or switch out. If I'm unable to choose Dig/Fly because I ran out of PP or cannot switch out because it is the last pokemon on my team, then the pokemon is treated as if it fainted and I lose the battle.

 

[asdasd123]

I am not missing the point.

Trust me, you are.

If I HAVE to use dig because of the glitch, then it creates an unfair disadvantage to me.

You used dig knowing the risk of paralysis and that it would make your next move predictable. How is that unfair? That's like saying it's unfair that Explosion has a 1/256 miss rate. Or that it's unfair that if you use wrap I can switch.

I should *not* have to use dig/fly again just because the game glitched in order to progress. Especially because theoretically this glitch can occur dozens of times in one match.

Theoretically you can freeze multiple pokemon in one match, but that won't happen because of the freeze clause. Are you opposed to applying limitations to specific moves generally, or just moves you don't like?

I don't want to derail this thread - but I think it would be worth having a discussion about unbanning dig/fly somewhere more appropriate.

 

[DDX2]

Trust me, you are.



You used dig knowing the risk of paralysis and that it would make your next move predictable. How is that unfair? That's like saying it's unfair that Explosion has a 1/256 miss rate. Or that it's unfair that if you use wrap I can switch.



Theoretically you can freeze multiple pokemon in one match, but that won't happen because of the freeze clause. Are you opposed to applying limitations to specific moves generally, or just moves you don't like?

I don't want to derail this thread - but I think it would be worth having a discussion about unbanning dig/fly somewhere more appropriate.

Hey, read my above post after where I rescinded. I'm still going over the ban and not ban argument, but I think the unbanning may be fine. I'll likely message the council later to discuss.

 

[Ortheore]

Kinda like wrap, or ice beam's 10% freeze, which aren't banned? You can't cherry pick the things you like.

Neither of those things are broken???

That said, I agree that we can't cherry pick things, which is why we need to bite the bullet on things people care about as well- scrap freeze clause, make sleep clause cart-accurate, etc.

Although I adamantly disagree with mods which I think someone mentioned offhandedly, a rule saying that you need to switch out after FP Dig/Fly is actually something I'd be open to. I don't like it as much as simply banning the moves, but we'd need a similar rule to deal with thaw desyncs, so I think it's reasonable to maintain it as an option. One thing that's an issue with both a potential thaw rule and this DigFly rule is what occurs in scenarios where a switch isn't possible due to last mon scenarios.

The question of fairness I think is a legitimate one though- I think there's a very clear distinction to be made between losing/gaining an advantage because of player-imposed rules vs in-game mechanics, at least in terms of how we perceive them. Whether this perception is meaningful is another matter entirely

 

[DDX2]

Neither of those things are broken???

That said, I agree that we can't cherry pick things, which is why we need to bite the bullet on things people care about as well- scrap freeze clause, make sleep clause cart-accurate, etc.

Although I adamantly disagree with mods which I think someone mentioned offhandedly, a rule saying that you need to switch out after FP Dig/Fly is actually something I'd be open to. I don't like it as much as simply banning the moves, but we'd need a similar rule to deal with thaw desyncs, so I think it's reasonable to maintain it as an option. One thing that's an issue with both a potential thaw rule and this DigFly rule is what occurs in scenarios where a switch isn't possible due to last mon scenarios.

The question of fairness I think is a legitimate one though- I think there's a very clear distinction to be made between losing/gaining an advantage because of player-imposed rules vs in-game mechanics, at least in terms of how we perceive them. Whether this perception is meaningful is another matter entirely

His Freeze argument boils down to the secondary status argument. I know each time I use Ice Beam, I have a 10% chance of freezing the target. I know each time I use Wrap, the move will continue for X amount of turns and if the opponent swtiches out, that it will use the attack on the switched out pokemon. On the same vein, each time I use Dig when Paralyzed, I have a 25% chance of creating a status where I have to use the move again or switch out.

That said, I do like the argument and think we should argue that every move that can glitch/desync in some way on cartridge should be legal, but if it causes a problem that cannot be fixed, you have to deal with the fact that your battle is forfeit and you lost.

Sleep/Freeze Clause is a different debate since it's already cart-accurate, it's just a matter of should we make the standard that if you use a sleep-move successfully, whether or not it is legal to use it on every pokemon, or DQ them for using it voluntarily again.

 

[Ortheore]

His Freeze argument boils down to the secondary status argument. I know each time I use Ice Beam, I have a 10% chance of freezing the target. I know each time I use Wrap, the move will continue for X amount of turns and if the opponent swtiches out, that it will use the attack on the switched out pokemon. On the same vein, each time I use Dig when Paralyzed, I have a 25% chance of creating a status where I have to use the move again or switch out.

That said, I do like the argument and think we should argue that every move that can glitch/desync in some way on cartridge should be legal, but if it causes a problem that cannot be fixed, you have to deal with the fact that your battle is forfeit and you lost.

Sleep/Freeze Clause is a different debate since it's already cart-accurate, it's just a matter of should we make the standard that if you use a sleep-move successfully, whether or not it is legal to use it on every pokemon, or DQ them for using it voluntarily again.

I think that having win/loss/draw conditions other than KOing all of the opponents pokemon is something we should really steer away from. That's an awful path to go down, where people look to cheese random mechanics rather than actually playing the game and beating their opponent. I think that wherever it's reasonable we should ban elements (e.g. Psywave, Mirror Move), then if that's unreasonable, make restrictions on play (e.g. can't thaw opposing pokemon). Between those two measures, we should NEVER have to resort to adding alternate win conditions

Also sleep/freeze clause as they're currently implemented are definitely not cart accurate??? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying

 

[Beelzemon 2003]

@Ortheore, Sevi 7, DDX2, asdasd123

Guys, I'm a bit disappointed, why do you think that I invented the Semi-invincibility clause one year ago? To allow Dig and Fly to be allowed without fearing them to break a game. Here you can read how it works:

https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/semi-invincibility-clause.3650376/

Regarding Dig and Fly, some pokémon really benefit from those moves due to different reasons like a bad movepool, a lack of other good STAB moves, type coverage, etc. Articuno wants Fly over Double Edge because it causes 5 more points of damage and has no recoil, it is only used against the Water/Ice mons, but can allow it to dodge Explosions. Pokémon like Ninetales also like hitting Golem, Rhydon or any other Rock type mon with Dig, the move is also useful against Poison types and opposing Fire types.

By the way Fly Pikachu, Fly Raichu and Dragon Rage Magikarp are illegal in true Gen 1 matches. Yes, I know that you can use them in Pokémon Showdown, but back in the late 90s those pokémon were given away only in Japanese events and since Japanese games are incompatible with international versions of Pokémon, the moves should be banned (I still don't know why they're allowed in Showdown, maybe the programmers were die hard fans of those three pokémon).

To finish, I'll say that I've played many matches where Dig and Fly have been allowed and the moves are fine as long as you implement the semi-invincibility clause.

 

[asdasd123]

asdasd123 said:
Kinda like wrap, or ice beam's 10% freeze, which aren't banned? You can't cherry pick the things you like.

Neither of those things are broken???

Wrap doesn't work the way it should on a cartridge - the only way to replicate this on PS! would be to automatically use wrap again if the player selects attack (as opposed to clicking attack to check that the other moves are greyed out and that they can switch safely).

I think that having win/loss/draw conditions other than KOing all of the opponents pokemon is something we should really steer away from...we should NEVER have to resort to adding alternate win conditions

Sports like boxing and MMA allow fighters to draw or win on points, why does there always need to be a definitive winner/loser in pokemon? Players get haxxed a lot in Gen 1, to the extent that losing a game isn't always your fault. You can make all the right plays and lose. If drawing was more frequent it might have a positive affect on people's attitude towards the game i.e. they'll be more respectful to there opponent.

Guys, I'm a bit disappointed, why do you think that I invented the Semi-invincibility clause one year ago?

What was the outcome of your clause? Is there a reason we still can't use dig/fly in OU?

 

[DDX2]

I think that having win/loss/draw conditions other than KOing all of the opponents pokemon is something we should really steer away from. That's an awful path to go down, where people look to cheese random mechanics rather than actually playing the game and beating their opponent. I think that wherever it's reasonable we should ban elements (e.g. Psywave, Mirror Move), then if that's unreasonable, make restrictions on play (e.g. can't thaw opposing pokemon). Between those two measures, we should NEVER have to resort to adding alternate win conditions

Also sleep/freeze clause as they're currently implemented are definitely not cart accurate??? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying

Right...neither are implemented. Apologies, I'm not sure why I thought they were.

@Ortheore, Sevi 7, DDX2, asdasd123

Guys, I'm a bit disappointed, why do you think that I invented the Semi-invincibility clause one year ago? To allow Dig and Fly to be allowed without fearing them to break a game. Here you can read how it works:

https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/semi-invincibility-clause.3650376/

Regarding Dig and Fly, some pokémon really benefit from those moves due to different reasons like a bad movepool, a lack of other good STAB moves, type coverage, etc. Articuno wants Fly over Double Edge because it causes 5 more points of damage and has no recoil, it is only used against the Water/Ice mons, but can allow it to dodge Explosions. Pokémon like Ninetales also like hitting Golem, Rhydon or any other Rock type mon with Dig, the move is also useful against Poison types and opposing Fire types.

By the way Fly Pikachu, Fly Raichu and Dragon Rage Magikarp are illegal in true Gen 1 matches. Yes, I know that you can use them in Pokémon Showdown, but back in the late 90s those pokémon were given away only in Japanese events and since Japanese games are incompatible with international versions of Pokémon, the moves should be banned (I still don't know why they're allowed in Showdown, maybe the programmers were die hard fans of those three pokémon).

To finish, I'll say that I've played many matches where Dig and Fly have been allowed and the moves are fine as long as you implement the semi-invincibility clause.

I mean, I never really lurked on Smogon until several months ago, but I shouldn't be surprised that someone already made a clause for this scenario as soon as it was known.

Regarding Fly Pikachu, that's only if we argue that International Gen 1 is the standard and not say Japanese Gen 1 which I've always felt has a bit more merit. But I also believe that anything after Red/Green ver 1.0. Blue, Yellow, Stadium, and special event pokemon/attacks such as Fly Pikachu count as tradebacks in the same tenacity as Gen 2 tradebacks and should also be banned.

 

[Beelzemon 2003]

What was the outcome of your clause? Is there a reason we still can't use dig/fly in OU?

The clause has yet to be implemented for no justified reason, sadly that is something common here in Showdown, changes are hard to implement unless they impact negatively on a move or pokémon that everyone loves. I have another example, one year ago I gave the programmers a list of pokémon that were unfairly banned in Gen 1, like level 20 Dragonair or level 20 Tentacruel, the programmers have yet to read my petition or they simply didn't care :/

 

[Ortheore]

Wrap doesn't work the way it should on a cartridge - the only way to replicate this on PS! would be to automatically use wrap again if the player selects attack (as opposed to clicking attack to check that the other moves are greyed out and that they can switch safely).

Sports like boxing and MMA allow fighters to draw or win on points, why does there always need to be a definitive winner/loser in pokemon? Players get haxxed a lot in Gen 1, to the extent that losing a game isn't always your fault. You can make all the right plays and lose. If drawing was more frequent it might have a positive affect on people's attitude towards the game i.e. they'll be more respectful to there opponent.

I mean Wrap ought to be modified to actually be cart-accurate, and I recall hearing that there's being work done on it, but I suspect it might not be as straightforward as it seems

Because winning via those means is crap game design and cancer to a competitive game- the reason it exists in fighting sports is because they have to compromise to be reasonably possible irl, and furthermore, how else would they win, aside from KOing their opponent (not good lol) or some sort of submission hold or w/e they're called (I don't think these exist in boxing though???)? The fact that it's used doesn't mean it's a good idea, especially when we can do sooooo much better than that when we're not bound by irl constraints. The comparison with hax is also not really relevant- yeah, shit happens, but hax isn't in the player's control, and there's nothing hax-based in the game that causes you to insta-lose. Implementing these kind of end conditions is deliberately adding win conditions that are entirely unrelated to actual skill that the player can then try to abuse. In that scenario, they're practically playing a different game, and competition becomes meaningless. Furthermore, these win conditions can be achieved in a fashion that is largely independent of actual game advantage. I could be down 1-6 and trigger this win condition- in that case, I haven't outplayed my opponent, I've abused a loophole, ignoring my massive disadvantage to steal the game

Regarding draws, we shouldn't be implementing desync draws for the same reasons we shouldn't be implementing the aforementioned win conditions, as they introduce means of determining a result independent of actual game state. An additional reason we should avoid draws as much as possible is that they really fuck with tournaments and are not always fair. In a standard elim tournament, the response to a draw would be to replay. If different teams are used, that places extra demands on players, as they need an additional tournament-viable team waiting in reserve, which can potentially be unreasonable. If they're replayed with the same teams, then players that lean on hidden information are disadvantaged- gimmick movesets stand out here, but there are other examples such as RBY Zapdos- if I know you've got a Zapdos, I'll be a LOT more wary about blowing up my Golem, which puts the Zap player at a disadvantage

 

[12-XVI]

There is a difference between moves it is purposely coded and the result your opponent knows your next action such as Sky Attack, Razor Wind and unbroken Dig, vs Broken Dig or Fly.
If I choose to use to Sky Attack or Razor Wind it's with the knowledge I have to wait a turn before results and I purposely let me opponent have that turn. If I HAVE to use dig because of the glitch, then it creates an unfair disadvantage to me.

Wrong. If you use Dig while you are (or could get) paralysed then you know that there is a probability that you'll be fully paralysed and will have to do Dig again afterward and you purposely decided to take that risk. No unfair disadvantage there. Unless you mean the hax, but then you'll have to explain why that does not apply to freezes, CH, miss, Para, sleep, etc. RBY is full of hax.

 

[Beelzemon 2003]

@12-XVI I agree with your comments, Dig and Fly are anything but broken unless you get stuck in the air/ground. By the way, I invite you to read my Semi-Invincibility Clause, which prevents players from abusing being stuck in the air/ground:

https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/semi-invincibility-clause.3650376/

 

[DDX2]

Wrong. If you use Dig while you are (or could get) paralysed then you know that there is a probability that you'll be fully paralysed and will have to do Dig again afterward and you purposely decided to take that risk. No unfair disadvantage there. Unless you mean the hax, but then you'll have to explain why that does not apply to freezes, CH, miss, Para, sleep, etc. RBY is full of hax.

1. It is not wrong. it is another way of viewing the situation. Should an attack that causes a glitch at all be used even if it has a workaround.
2. After thinking it over and reading Beezlemons posts I retracted and said I'm in favour of the workaround and others as well. That was literally my next post after. Please do not choose one post to pick from when replying.

 

[12-XVI]

I think that Dig and Fly should just be made as they are on cartridge. I doubt that abusing being stuck in invulnerability would become a common strategy considering that there is some opportunity cost to pay for it during team building and it's a risky and unreliable strategy. And if it does turn out to be a significant factor in the metagame then it can be played around by being more careful with spreading paralysis or using Thunder and EQ.

I'm against banning and introducing clauses based on speculation. I think that banning and clausing should be used to solve issues after they have proven to be problematic and not to prevent issues that are merely speculated to become problematic.

1. It is not wrong. it is another way of viewing the situation.

The only way of viewing the situation where you think that the risk of that clause could not be known in advance is by denying objective reality.

Should an attack that causes a glitch at all be used even if it has a workaround.

If there is no other grounds for banning it, then yes. Otherwise almost every move would have to be banned because of the 1/256 chance to miss.