Policy Review Policy Review - Bisecting the Process

[darkie]

If you are not an experienced member of the CAP community, it is strongly recommended that you do not post in this thread.

This thread is intended to contain intelligent discussion and commentary by experienced members of the CAP project regarding CAP policy, process, and rules. As such, the content of this thread will be moderated more strictly than other threads on the forum. The posting rules for Policy Review threads are contained here.

CAP 6 was the fastest CAP project to date, from start to finish. Its speed necessitated me to rearrange various parts of the process as needed. Therefore, I am proposing a split in the process, to better reflect how the process goes, so that portions of the project that CAN move on, DO move on. In a way, this process gives the TL a little more leeway, in terms of judging when to move on with certain parts. The split I am proposing is rather simple - the process would split after the type polls into two sections: flavor and competitive.

Here is what the process would look like.

• 
  [*]Concept Submissions
  Topic Leader Nominations
  Policy Committee Nominations
  
  
  [*]Part 1 (Concept Poll)
  Topic Leader Selection
  
  <-- This is where the 'Concept Assessment' stage would go -->
  
  
  [*]Part 2 (Main Type Poll)
  
  
  [*]Part 3 (Secondary Type Poll)

(note that this opening part is the same - save the added step)

This is where the process would split:

Competitive:

• 
  [*]Part 4 (Style Bias Poll)
  Stat Spread Submission
  Part 5a (Ability Discussion)
  
  
  [*]Part 6 (Build Bias Poll)
  
  
  [*]Part 7 (Stat Rating Poll)
  Part 5b (Ability Poll)
  
  
  [*]Part 8 (Stat Spread Poll)
  
  
  [*]Part 11 (Counters Discussion)
  
  
  [*]Part 12a (Attacking Moves Discussion)
  Sprite Submissions
  
  
  [*]Part 12b (Attacking Moves Poll)
  Part 13a (Non-Attacking Moves Discussion)
  
  
  [*]Part 13b (Non-Attacking Moves Poll)
  
  
  [*]Part 14a (Complete Movepool Discussion)
  
  
  [*]Part 14b (Complete Movepool Poll)

Flavor:

• 
  [*]Art Submissions
  
  
  [*]Part 9 (Art Poll)
  
  
  [*]Part 10a (Name Discussion)
  Sprite Submissions
  
  
  [*]Part 10b (Name Poll)
  Part 15 (Sprite Poll)

Note that this implies Part 4 (Style Bias Poll), Stat Spread Submission, Part 5a (Ability Discussion), and Art Submissions starting at the same time. From here, the process would conclude as it always has:

• 
  [*]Misc (Pre-Evos, Height, Weight, etc.)
  Server Implementation
  
  
  [*]Playtesting
  Analysis

Splitting up the process like this will allow for more leeway and will result in new Pokémon to be produced more efficiently. The two branches would run simultaneously.

1/3

 

[Coronis]

I think that this is a very good idea, I think everyone has liked the faster pace of CAP 6.

I think it might be better to have the ATL do the flavour part. This means that the Topic Leader has less work andthe Assistant Topic Leader can get to do something.

 

[cyberzero]

The ATL doing the flavor is definitely not a bad idea, I like it. I definitely support this, mainly because of all the limitations that the current process brought.

There were many examples where people would say "I would vote for you, but it doesn't look bulky enough", or "How can that have that much attack?", etc. Another controversy came with Wyverii's battlestork and her intention for it to have Drill Peck as a flavor move, but only in the interest of the metagame.

I think that this is definitely the most sensible way to go, but another way that can allow for the process to be lengthened and avoid this problem is to switch the orders. Although it isn't as effective as darkie's method, you can also have the flavor aspects go first and base the stats and moves on the art.

 

[darkie]

As a note, if you're unsure on the effectiveness of my 'new' ideas, keep in mind that these were the de facto plans I used during CAP 6, which has been the fastest and most efficient CAP to date. These PR threads are simply to make what I found successful permanent.

 

[tennisace]

As much as I like the idea of the ATL doing the flavor, I'd have to disagree on the grounds that we elected the TL to do a job, which is make all the threads in a timely fashion. The ATL is meant to be there as a backup in case the TL goes awol or can't start a thread, not start threads as part of the process. If a TL can't control 2 threads at once (and really, its more like start the threads rather than control), then they shouldn't be the TL.

Needless to say, I support the proposition of splitting the process (as I've said before).

 

[Plus]

I agree in the sense that CaPs will be produced more efficiently. This idea allows for art to not get in the way of things such as movepool and such, as they usually hindered us competitively due to "flavor" reasons. I like this idea a lot, as it allows for the competitive aspect of CaP to influence the flavor parts of CaP, and not the other way around.

As for the ATL's duties, I think that the TL and ATL should collaborate to form topics and polls rather than have the ATL do all the work. The TL WAS selected to do the job, but I support having an ATL take more initiative in the project. However, the TL is most likely more responsible than the ATL although both should be quite trustworthy in the first place. As a result, I am supporting both the ATL and TL to work together on the flavor poll to back each other up, thus preventing slowing down the project in times when the TL or ATL is not around. Two heads are definitely better than one.

But yeah, the main points in this PR thread are things I support. This will definitely improve CaP.

 

[Time Mage]

Considering this CAP project was clearly the most organized, I fully support the split between competitive and flavor. Specially since artists and spriters need much more time than the usual poll does, and running the flavor threads in parallel with the copetitive ones will give them the time they need without compromising the project pace.

Also, I agree with tennis: the ATL should be there only as a backup: the TL should be able to handle 2-3 threads at the same time.

 

[Yllnath]

I know that I'm new to both Smogon and this CAP forum, but I do have something to contribute, I believe. I also followed the CAP6 creation closely and hoping to participate with CAP7.

There were many examples where people would say "I would vote for you, but it doesn't look bulky enough", or "How can that have that much attack?", etc. Another controversy came with Wyverii's battlestork and her intention for it to have Drill Peck as a flavor move, but only in the interest of the metagame.

I think that this is definitely the most sensible way to go, but another way that can allow for the process to be lengthened and avoid this problem is to switch the orders. Although it isn't as effective as darkie's method, you can also have the flavor aspects go first and base the stats and moves on the art.

I agree in the sense that CaPs will be produced more efficiently. This idea allows for art to not get in the way of things such as movepool and such, as they usually hindered us competitively due to "flavor" reasons. I like this idea a lot, as it allows for the competitive aspect of CaP to influence the flavor parts of CaP, and not the other way around.

I quoted both these parts from their respective posts. Cyberzero saying on the one part about flavor having some influence and (if I read it correctly) how he says it should be that way. A bit later, we have Plus saying how flavor/art should not get in the way of movepool and such and not hinder us competitively.

Also, in the CAP 6 movepool discussion, various comments were made about "If artwork X is chosen, then move Y would be a great addition". Often, those comments were followed by other users how artwork should never influence movepools and such.

It seems that there are already different views on this and by splitting the process to run both the artwork (flavor) process and the competitive process at the same time, it will only make this harder.


Now, we get to see glimpses of artwork at the same time we discuss abilities and stats and vice versa. This will likely lead to even more discussion about "If artwork X is chosen, then ...".

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but I do think a solid decision should be made over what takes precedence. It's either competitive over flavor or vice versa.
Going back to Wyverií's battlestorck for CAP6, I myself would also have included Drill Peck or another flying move if it were chosen, even if it would hinder competitive play. This is solely for the fact that this is how it is in the game as well. Blaziken for one is in the same position and probably many other pokemon have moves only based on their looks.

Now, I'm not really firm on this view though and understand that CAP's are made for competitive play above all and should be treated as such, but in my opinion, that would be limiting the artists to what to make since it should somehow show in the art what competitive elements are added. Giving it a 200 def stat for one should definitely be visible in the artwork.
When the competitive process is more important than flavor, I think all flavor based process should be moved all the way to the end. I would also urge for a new step in the process to be made: Flavor concept, which should be placed right after the movepool poll. Here, everyone can discuss what at least should be shown in the artwork to correspond the most with the chosen movepool and stats. Taking Wyverii's storck as an example again, if we would have done CAP6 like this and we would've decided on the current movepool AND Drill Peck (for competitive reason because the move just HAD to be added for coverage), this thread would say it should somehow also look like being a flying type or at least have a beak. Thus designers go to work and Wyverii would've made the storck as her assignment.
This way, artists will always know what to look for in their designs to closely match the stats and all (or most) designs would all have a good shot at bringing home the price because all they all work with the competitive part of CAP. That, and it would not look broken, because if Wyverii's bird were chosen but no flying move was added for competitive reasons, that would seriously look broken and unfinished to me.

Summing up, I'm fine with going in the proposed order of the process if flavor DOES have some influence on the competitive part, because if you draw and choose a bird (even if the typing is rock/ground, although drawing a bird would be silly then) as the artwork and not include a flying move, that just looks broken.

Pros of chosing this option. Total freedom for the artists to make whatever they want. This can lead to the best designs and even give the competitive creators some things to think about they might not have if they didn't see the artwork (Wyverii's storck suddenly allowing flying moves on a pokemon typing which doesn't necessarily should include flying moves, water/fighting). So free art can actually create options, even for the competitive part.
Cons of chosing this option. If we actually choose an artwork which just screams for certain moves/stats, I think this should be resembled in the competitive part of the process too, which might not broaden but also limit this part of the process. Which is most likely not preferred and thus that artwork will either have no chance of being chosen (unfair to the creator, because he never knew his artwork would fail because his artwork was hindering the competitive process, which probably just barely even started at the time he started drawing his artwork) or the artwork is chosen but ignored for the competitive part of the process and will lead to problems of not mixing properly.

Option 2 would be to move artwork all the way to the end.

Pros of this option. Competitive creators will have all the freedom they want to make the pokemon they want (on paper). They can even make moves that might not necessarily work with the chosen typing and let it be compensated by stating it in the newly created part of the process, "Flavor Concept" that the artwork should somehow be able to show that this CAP can also use move X.
For creators, even if artistic freedom is somehow limited, they will always know that their artwork will resemble the competitive side of the pokemon and thus have a more fair chance of being chosen and not fail due to not mixing well with the proposed movepool, etc.
Cons of this option. They are fairly simple, artistic freedom is fairly limited and a lot of the same kind of artworks are made with not too large differences. (of course, artists can still be very surprising in creating stuff within limited boundaries which you may not even have dreamed off, they are creative for a reason) For competitive creators, thinking outside the box will now be their task. Wyverii's storck gave a good hint of using Drill Peck. If they would not have seen the storck at all, Drill Peck will probably not even have been mentioned. (Forgive me if I focus too much on Wyverii, other designs had similar stuff too, like the green guy with the wooden paddle just screaming for Wood Hammer as a move.) Flavor based moves like this can really add some fun to the mix and add options which may not have been thought of if the artwork comes last.

tl;dr. Bla bla huge text. What is more important for CAPs, the competitive aspect or the artwork and which should takes precedence over the other when it comes to abilities, stats and most importantly, movepool.

 

[NikLink]

As an inexperienced user who has been strongly reccomended not to post in this thread, I believe this this is actually a pretty good idea. From what I have seen and compared to other old CAPs (while trekking through the locked, rusty first threads), they are much faster than around a year ago, and this process could significantly speed up the output without messing up the procedure. I believe it should be done.

Of course, if this doesn't get done it still would be pretty much the same. And also the above poster (kudos to you), has made a certain point, flavor IS very important to the metagame. For those who don't entirely understand, without flavor adding to the metagame Beautiflys could be carrying Blizzard.

Ot will be a little more complicated but I would support this move.

 

[cyberzero]

tl;dr. Bla bla huge text. What is more important for CAPs, the competitive aspect or the artwork and which should takes precedence over the other when it comes to abilities, stats and most importantly, movepool.

You have some VERY good points, and you're right when it comes down to this. So far, it seems that we all like the idea for splitting it up, but which comes first is obviously very important. I recommend to those who aren't willing to read the text wall to actually spend time reading it and reaching a conclusion, and posting what other pros & cons there are to each side.

Personally, I think that the competitive side is also very important, but just that it's a Pokemon, I think that flavor is also taken into account when people are judging us as to how serious we are. Something like Unaware sounded great theoretically on CAP6, both competitively and fitting the Decentralizer concept, but flavorwise it wasn't very appealing.

Since at the moment, competitive goals are above flavor in all respects, should we refine what should be influenced by the other? Should we have a discussion regarding whether or not flavor or art should influence the competitive aspects or vice versa?

I think that if we have a short "Revision" discussion after the ability, typing, movepool and stats but before the art begins as to whether or not it satisfies the chosen concept and maybe after the art, whether the final product makes sense flavorwise in terms of movepool nitpicks, etc.

 

[eric the espeon]

I am all for running competitive and flavour alongside each other, however Yllnath does raise a good point about how the art will interact with competitive interests.

I personally think that the, often relatively small, impact of art on movepool and the major difference as to the cohesion of the Pokemon as a whole means that it would probably be best to have Art chosen before Ability/Movepool. If people want a specific move or ability very strongly but it does not fit it is simple enough to make a clone with a better name, or give it an alternate move or ability that does roughly the same job.

 

[tennisace]

What is more important for CAPs, the competitive aspect or the artwork and which should takes precedence over the other when it comes to abilities, stats and most importantly, movepool.

Welcome to the Create-A-Pokemon Project! This is a project dedicated to exploring and understanding the competitive Pokemon metagame by designing, creating, and playtesting new Pokemon concepts.

The CAP project is first and foremost a competitive project, always has and always will be. We don't need a flavor movepool, art, or sprites to play Pokemon. We don't even really need a name. What is needed is the competitive movepool, stats, ability, and typing. Flavor should always come second.

EDIT:

I personally think that the, often relatively small, impact of art on movepool and the major difference as to the cohesion of the Pokemon as a whole means that it would probably be best to have Art chosen before Ability/Movepool. If people want a specific move or ability very strongly but it does not fit it is simple enough to make a clone with a better name, or give it an alternate move or ability that does roughly the same job.

What? That would encourage flavor voting big time. Art should be as close to the end as possible. I don't agree with the "slipping it in" because usually people have good reasons for not including moves or abilities, and bypassing that is counterproductive to our aims.

 

[eric the espeon]

Flavour voting being voting for a specific bit of art so the Pokemon can gat a specific move? Like voting for Wyv's stork for Drill Peck?
Well I don't see much wrong with that TBH. If people want that art then whatever the reason (includeing competitive ones) it should be chosen.

And by slipping it in I mean if flavor would block a move, not if there is competitive reasoning against it.

 

[Lawman]

Splitting the Competitive and Flavor is yet another thing I mentioned back in the pre-CAP6 PR threads (I think I mentioned flavor coming directly after competitive but it is the same thing essentially).

I am adamant that Competitive aspects should come first. This project is meant for competitive like Tennis quoted from the mission statement. If Flavor interferes in anyway with competitive it should be pushed aside until it cannot.

Yllnath you seem like a pretty smart user and I am impressed by your arguements for being so new to smogon. Come to the CAP server youll fit right in :D

 

[tennisace]

@eric: Flavor arguments blocking moves are complete bunk, as are flavor arguments supporting moves. If it works competitively and helps achieve the concept without breaking the Pokemon, it should be on the movepool regardless of flavor, no exceptions.

 

[eric the espeon]

If something is important for competitive interests, even slightly so it should and will override any flavor. However it is possible in virtually all cases to have the competitive thing you are aiming for with flavour cohesion, especially if you take into account the fact that we can make clones of moves or ability's with ease.

 

[tennisace]

That would be done after, at the very end in the misc. stage then. Really, it doesn't matter one bit and just serves to waste time (mostly the TL's and Dougs), but if the majority want it AFTER, I'm fine with it. It's when people said "Unaware doesn't fit I'll only vote for it if it changes first" that I get miffed.

 

[cyberzero]

Agreeing with Lawman, you will definitely fit in and seem like a very intelligent poster.

I think that if we have a short "Revision" discussion after the ability, typing, movepool and stats but before the art begins as to whether or not it satisfies the chosen concept and maybe after the art, whether the final product makes sense flavorwise in terms of movepool nitpicks, etc.

The perfect example: Wyverii wanted to have her battlestork as her design ONLY out of competitive desire. Flying moves would be viable on it through flavor, but Drill Peck was banned from the movepools. This led to a lot of voters who would have normally voted for it to vote for something else.

If the revision thread is administered, and the Battlestork won the art poll, for example, at the end we can DISCUSS as a community whether or not there should be any changes to the competitive aspects to FIT the art, but nothing drastic. Maybe adding Drill Peck or Brave Bird to the movepool, minor tweaking of stats and the like.

Another thing that caught my eye was the suggestion for a name change to Unaware. Of course, this was deleted due to the lack of relevance to the thread and the competitiveness of the project, but I liked the idea of renaming Unaware to Fair Fight or something. If we had this revision thread, we could incorporate such changes.

I also mentioned another possible revision thread before the art threads begin, because it should be made clear that our goal was met. This could be to check if the Pokemon satisfactorily meets the concept standards, maybe rechecking to see if the Base Stats are unreasonable, etc. Of course, this hasn't been a problem yet, but just in case.

Just my two cents on how to have the competitive aspects mean more than the flavor without completely overdoing it. =)

 

[darkie]

Name changes like that (Unaware, Paleo Wave) are done in Misc since they really don't matter.

 

[billymills]

I do not see a problem with this at all. Flavor issues should not be the main aims of the CAP project, and we should be able to move on without them. The other recent PRs, counters and concept review, will insure that the movepool and stat polls are competitively based. Since there will be sound reasoning for or against certain moves/stats. This would also let the project move faster, all the better.

 

[Yllnath]

After reading up, I agree with Tennisace about how the competitive aspect should come first seeing as Shoddy is made to be competitive foremost and then also agree with him on flavor being done at the end of the process.

That being said, I disagree with some of the comments made in the thread about it somewhat mixing and "a little bit of this and a little bit of that". That will just lead to problems. I mostly fully disagree with Billy (sorry man), about how this is no problem at all but still have the competitive aspect rule over the flavor aspect. I'm not sure if you ever created any kind of "artwork" like this, but having to redo everything because of changes to the concept really sucks. Let me illustrate what I mean.

Stage 1 - 3: We discuss the concept and pick the types. Now it depends on how generalized the concept assessment will or how specific. Let's make take a possible CAP 7:
Little description: Fairly bulky, can take a few hits without much trouble. Should also be able to do decent damage.
So now before stage 4 - 8 have not even started yet, so no stats, abilities, whatever have been decided yet, artists could already start drawing.
Now, define fairly bulky for example.. Is this the Suicune kind of bulky? Or Vaporeon bulky? Hell, even Shuckle could be described bulky. But we could also have a Steelix or Bastiodon kind of bulky. So I start drawing my Vaporeon kind of bulky pokemon when all of the sudden, two weeks later we decide that the Def stat of CAP 7 is 200. Uh-huh, there goes my tiny and thin Vaporeon like drawing that really doesn't represent 200 Def.
Same goes for a concept about a frail and fast sweeper. Pikachu is one. Even Ninjask could be called one. We also have Azelf and as a contrast, we have infernape. There are many ways to go with a not very detailed concept and if the stats and movepool discussion (which actually might happen later than the first art concepts) then change away from the concept, it might undo any work that has been previously done by the artists.
I can tell you, that sucks. I've done banners and signature pictures before for anime forums and also did contests to get your banner on top of the page. They make a post about what the banner should include, you start working on it and some time later, the rules are changed. "Sorry, but all banners should also include ...". Yeah, I'll save you the tirade I had when 8 hours of work was wasted, but that's exactly what could happen.
So either artists are going to wait anyway because they have no idea how the concept is going to develop itself competitively, or they will go with a concept that is plain and as easy to adjust as possible, so if something gets changed, they can quickly adapt too. To me, that is even worse than putting the entire process at the end, at least then artists know what to make.

Now this is only assuming a fairly generalized concept assesment. And because that topic is being discussed at this moment, it's to early to say what will come out of it.
But either there need to be quite a few specifics in the concept assesment so artists know they can fairly safely work from that, without fearing too much change will come later on. Or the flavor process should start at least after the movepool is decided on so all the important details are filled.

I'm fine with both options, but it's pretty dependant on the concept assesment stage on how detailed it will become.

 

[DougJustDoug]

I'm a little shocked that this thread has turned into yet another argument about the struggle to figure out a perfect solution to the "When to do art?" question. I'm not surprised at all that this question was primarily raised by Yllnath, a user that admitted in his first post that he is new to Smogon and CAP. I am stunned that a new user would choose to make their "debut" right in the middle of a PR thread, despite some very clear warnings to stay away. And while I agree that his posts are intelligent, and I hope he continues to participate elsewhere in the project -- he obviously has no idea that we have discussed this very issue AD NAUSEUM in the past. I'm also a little surprised that several other Policy Committee members -- pretty much the ONLY people that should be posting in these threads anyway -- are diving right into this discussion with a newcomer who thinks this is something new. When, in fact, it is one of the oldest, stalest, most tiresome arguments in the entire CAP project.

There is no perfect solution to the "When to do art?" problem.

It has always been a problem, it always will be a problem. If you want to know my reasons for saying it is "unsolvable" -- then go back through one of the million other discussions we have had on this topic and read my posts there. My posts are long enough as it is, I don't need to repeat my lengthy reasoning here.

This thread is meant to discuss a bifurcated process. The OP proposal is only barely related to the "When to do art?" philisophical question -- otherwise, I would probably delete most of the posts in this thread, and I would infract the new members that stupidly decided to jump into a PR discussion.

If a Policy Committee member REALLY wants to open up yet another discussion on the topic of "When to do art?" -- then it needs to be a separate PR discussion. However, there better be a damn good proposal behind it, that introduces something heretofore never considered. Good luck coming up with that, considering that we have discussed this subject so many times, in so many ways -- I seriously doubt you can come up with something new. But, I can't rule it out to a certainty. I'll be on the server and IRC later, if anyone wants to discuss new PR proposals related to "When to do art?"

For the remainder of this thread, let's get back to the direct subject of the OP -- a bifurcated CAP process. It's a pretty simple proposal: If you liked the way CAP6 was handled, then you agree with the OP. If you didn't like CAP6, then you are against the OP. If you are somewhere in the middle, then feel free to explain. But please keep the "Flavor vs. Competitive" philosophical stuff to a minimum. Yes, the OP is proposing that we split the process into two sections -- Flavor and Competitive. But, the proposal is not a question to wrangle with angst over how flavor aspects and competitive aspects interact with each other to produce a "good pokemon". It's a proposal over organization and efficiency for the TL, and how we manage a project timeline.

Nowhere in the OP is Darkie wrestling with philosophical questions. He is a TL who was tasked with executing a certain defined process. As a manager of that process, he discovered a way to execute it more efficiently. As such, he is proposing that we make his on-the-fly changes part of the process itself. It's that simple.

As it relates to the process, this is a question of "How?", not "Why?" If you really feel like you MUST bring up the Flavor vs Competitive thing, then at least acknowledge that you are rehashing an argument that has taken place a bazillion times in the past, and present your case in that light.


(No tl;dr summary for anyone. If you don't want to read tl;dr -- then get the hell out of Process Review...)

 

[Plus]

It's definitely true that the flavor v. competitive fight has taken place countless times on the forums and on the server. Each fight has always ended with competitive being more important than flavor, which it most definitely is. It's best to get a definitive answer to this to prevent any more discussion on "When to do art", which is what darkie, the OP, plans to resolve. There was the odd Fly on Syclant when it was first implemented, or the seemingly out of place Tailwind on Fidgit. Although these flavor issues aren't really that big of a deal in my view, it's best to prevent these things from happening. A minor flaw as such, in my opinion, can be fixed through the bisecting of the CaP process. I'd also like to note that it is possible to rename moves of CaPs to fit the flavor better if it is really that much of a nuisance. What matters most, however, is how the CaPs work competitively.

 

[Icy Vegeta]

In my opinion, the only way to stop discussion on it is to actually have a community decision by vote on the issue of the placement of the Art Submission stage. Doug, I do agree that this comes up every time a PR Process but for good reason. We haven't even solved the problem yet! We need to make a definitive spot where Art will land, so we can end discussion.

On the whole process, I believe splitting it will definately follow our aims more closely from an objective standpoint. Smogon and CAP both focus on maximizing the COMPETITIVE aspect of Pokemon.

 

[Yllnath]

I'm sorry if I'm really out of place here but I feel I need to respond to this.

I'm a little shocked that this thread has turned into yet another argument about the struggle to figure out a perfect solution to the "When to do art?" question. I'm not surprised at all that this question was primarily raised by Yllnath, a user that admitted in his first post that he is new to Smogon and CAP. I am stunned that a new user would choose to make their "debut" right in the middle of a PR thread, despite some very clear warnings to stay away. And while I agree that his posts are intelligent, and I hope he continues to participate elsewhere in the project -- he obviously has no idea that we have discussed this very issue AD NAUSEUM in the past. I'm also a little surprised that several other Policy Committee members -- pretty much the ONLY people that should be posting in these threads anyway -- are diving right into this discussion with a newcomer who thinks this is something new. When, in fact, it is one of the oldest, stalest, most tiresome arguments in the entire CAP project.

There is no perfect solution to the "When to do art?" problem.

It has always been a problem, it always will be a problem. If you want to know my reasons for saying it is "unsolvable" -- then go back through one of the million other discussions we have had on this topic and read my posts there. My posts are long enough as it is, I don't need to repeat my lengthy reasoning here.

I like to start by saying that I never ever get involved in something before I learn about it. I can honestly say that I've done a crapload of backreading before I considered making my first post.
I disagree with you saying how you aren't surprised this was first brought up by me. It wasn't. If you look at my post, you see me starting with quoting two posts of other members who posted in this thread before with contradicting statements. This was one of the reasons to start my post. Another reason were the numerous posts made in the CAP 6 movepool and art thread about "If art X then ...", all not made by me.

I know the issue was raised here, but either the rules have not been properly updated or not everyone reads old policy review threads (I'm probably a rare breed).
Tennisace's quote of the rules also leave a lot of space open for discussion:

Welcome to the Create-A-Pokemon Project! This is a project dedicated to exploring and understanding the competitive Pokemon metagame by designing, creating, and playtesting new Pokemon concepts.

These rules do not necessarily tell me that flavor based options have no place in the process.
If you want to get rid of this once and for all, I recommend adding the following:

• When posting in threads such as the stats process, movepool process, etc., all arguements for a proposed move or stat should be based on competitive reasoning and how it would performed in the current metagame. This SHOULD NOT be based on flavor based reasoning because it just happened to fit in with a design or not. Any makers of comments that are based on flavor will receive a quote of this forum rule.

Or something like that.

If a Policy Committee member REALLY wants to open up yet another discussion on the topic of "When to do art?" -- then it needs to be a separate PR discussion. However, there better be a damn good proposal behind it, that introduces something heretofore never considered. Good luck coming up with that, considering that we have discussed this subject so many times, in so many ways -- I seriously doubt you can come up with something new. But, I can't rule it out to a certainty. I'll be on the server and IRC later, if anyone wants to discuss new PR proposals related to "When to do art?"

I do not fully understand this part. So far I know, this discussion IS about "When to do art?", right? I only raised a point about how art should influence competitive design.

For the remainder of this thread, let's get back to the direct subject of the OP -- a bifurcated CAP process. It's a pretty simple proposal: If you liked the way CAP6 was handled, then you agree with the OP. If you didn't like CAP6, then you are against the OP. If you are somewhere in the middle, then feel free to explain. But please keep the "Flavor vs. Competitive" philosophical stuff to a minimum. Yes, the OP is proposing that we split the process into two sections -- Flavor and Competitive. But, the proposal is not a question to wrangle with angst over how flavor aspects and competitive aspects interact with each other to produce a "good pokemon". It's a proposal over organization and efficiency for the TL, and how we manage a project timeline.

I did raise points for this in both my posts and disagree about running them alongside each other at the same time. With only limited amount of information available to artists and the fact they can start even before abilities, stats and movepool is decided on, this could likely lead to designs being automatically made obsolete because a stat or ability or move that has been thought of at a later date in the process suddenly works against the design.
So either the concept assesment, where not only I, but also tennisace have asked how detailed we are going to describe the CAP, has to be detailed enough for artists to make good designs without fearing that large changes are made to the competitive aspect, rendering their design useless. Or artwork should be place after movepool anyway, so the designs will always be properly based on the competitive aspect.

Unless I am the only that has problems with a design and movepool or statpool not mixing. If no one cares about that, then go ahead and run them at the same time.

As it relates to the process, this is a question of "How?", not "Why?" If you really feel like you MUST bring up the Flavor vs Competitive thing, then at least acknowledge that you are rehashing an argument that has taken place a bazillion times in the past, and present your case in that light.

I shall not bring it up again, but I don't think I was the one who brought it up in the first place and I doubt we've seen the end of it.

If I'm out of line with this reply, feel free to delete this post.