Policy Review Policy Review - Name Poll Changes

Status
Not open for further replies.

tennisace

not quite too old for this, apparently
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Top Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
<@Bass> I approve

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.
As everyone could see, the Name Poll is pretty much the hardest poll to conduct. Everyone is spewing out names with little to no thought, but that isn't the main problem. The main problems as of now are: the length the thread is open, the amount of names everyone can submit, and bumping of names.

After a few days (a week tops), all the good names have been submitted. People then start trying to outdo them, and try way too hard. They start digging into obscure references, and things like Latin/Greek roots start popping up. I say the thread should be open for 5 days TOPS before the first poll. This gives everyone a chance to submit their choice (because most of the good names come up on the server weeks beforehand), and keeps the flow of the process moving. If not, the thread becomes bogged down with contrived, lengthy, and unwieldy names and it becomes a pain to sort through (trust me, its worse than you think).

Next, two names is too many. It should be like the art poll in which you can only submit one final name. The reasoning behind it is that a. I have never seen someone come up with two names and b. only one name can win. It clogs up the thread otherwise, and this would reduce the clutter. It would also really force people to think, because a lot of people throw a name out there and reserve their second name for later as of now.

Last, the bumping of names has to go. It's the same way with art: if someone comments your work, it's fine, but don't go trolling for comments. This prevents bad names from being brought up over and over again. This counts for "stealth bumps", like sticking it in white text while commenting on another name.

Overall, I think this will make it move much smoother (trust me it needs it).

tl;dr for lazy people: Length= 5 days, one name/person, no bumping your name.
 
Sounds good Tennis, you have my support. Having others bump and support your name is infinitely better than showing it off. If you have to show it off, its not good.
 

eric the espeon

maybe I just misunderstood
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
One final name yes, but you should be able to suggest several and gauge reactions to them. Also I would cut it down to 3ish days.
 

tennisace

not quite too old for this, apparently
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Top Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
One final name yes, but you should be able to suggest several and gauge reactions to them. Also I would cut it down to 3ish days.
That defeats the purpose of thinking of your name carefully and reducing the ridiculous clutter really. Also, 3 days is really too short.
 

eric the espeon

maybe I just misunderstood
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
Well if you can only suggest one name.. then some good ones may be missed.
I know several of the people who came up with winning names posted several in one go and the public only liked one, if its limited maybe they would have chosen a different one.

And 3 days may seem kinda short but really, how long does it take to think of a name? But I suppose it depends on how long the flavour side takes compared to the competitive side, if there is time why not.
 

Magmortified

<b>CAP 8 Playtesting Expert</b>
is a CAP Contributor Alumnus
I'm all for it. Too many names cluttering up. The recent name submission thread was a huge mess of bad names in most cases.

EDIT: Wait wait. Didn't read a few of the above posts. Whoops. :/
 

Plus

中国风暴 trademark
is a Top Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis an Artist Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Sounds like a good idea. Name polls do look like shitstorms, especially when you have bumps flying around everywhere advertising names that usually nobody is interested in.

EDIT: billy and tennis have pointed out that crappy foreign names will lose anyways, so ignore the previous version of this post.
 
I don't think banning foreign roots is a good decision, Plus. If the foreign names suck, people won't vote for them. It's as simple as that. Foreign sounding names have won in the past: Arghonaut, Revenankh.
 
I guess I'm fine with this for the most part.

I mean, if you have to decide between more than one name, you could just ask around on the server and stuff. If people like more than one, pick the one that gets the most support and have someone else submit a name. ._.
 
Fully support this issue. I read few the last name poll, and after the first 50-70 posts, it went downhill, fast. There should be no bumping of names, including I like this and this. It is a flavor topic, there can not really be a great reason fora name. You have your reasons, we might agree, we certainly don't need to hear them. You can have reasons against a name, but again, we do not want you relentlessly bashing a name. There is no need for that.

If you wish to describe the reasoning for the name, do so in the first post. Tennis is right, the top names are already given weeks before the poll opens, 5 days will be plenty.
 
I don't think a ban on foreign roots/obscure references is really necessary. I mean, in the most recent CaP, would Calamari or Cephalopod be too obscure of things to reference? "Argonaut" is a Greek mythology reference, but is it too obscure? In general, it seems like the ones that are too obscure aren't picked because they usually don't sound good.

That being said, I think a good guideline for making a name is that if you need to consult an outside source like Wikipedia to come up with your name, the reference might be a bit obscure.
 
Tennisace also made a post about this in the CaP 6 Name Submission thread, but only few had heard his request. Your opinion on the matter should be allowed, and your reasoning behind it but just retyping the name in bold because you like it isn't doing any good. Bold should not be used unless it is a final submission. This is makes it easier for the TL to identify submissions as well, and reduces clutter and eye sores. 1 submission is enough, but most of the discuss can take place on the server or IRC if need be. Random names should not be suggested. You should do some research, and gather up information and decide on a name, not just post something that comes to your head right away. Five days is a good enough, that is enough time to get in submissions accounting for different time zones, school and/or work. Bumping of the name should be disallowed if you were the creator of said name.
 
That being said, I think a good guideline for making a name is that if you need to consult an outside source like Wikipedia to come up with your name, the reference might be a bit obscure.
But how obscure is too obscured for a name? You probably have to use some kind of outside source(s) in order to come up with a half-decent name. They're has to be some definiting line that separte the "it's obscured but now so much to confused people" and "Holy shit, is that even a real word".

Seriously how comes we can accept complex names like Gardevoir, Giratina, Palkia, and a few others but can't use that same level of complexity for a CAP pokemon?
 
That being said, I think a good guideline for making a name is that if you need to consult an outside source like Wikipedia to come up with your name, the reference might be a bit obscure.
I'm pretty much agreeing with Gothic Togekiss. Yeah, there is of course such a thing as digging too deep in order to find a name, but since the name is just pure flavor anyway, that really shouldn't matter too much. As long as the submitter can explain how the name is fitting for the Pokemon, and the name sounds appealing to the ears, it should be fine, for the most part. Less obscure references do generally gain more support, but that shouldn't stop people from submitting names derived from obscure ideas or words if they want to.
 

tennisace

not quite too old for this, apparently
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Top Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Thanks for telling us that Deck but what does it have to do with my proposal?

Anyway, I still don't like the idea of throwing ideas out to get feedback and then have a final one. Names really can't be edited like art can, not much can change besides spelling. It would require more thought and therefore a better product will result with my way.
 
Agreeing that some more obscure roots of names can turn out decent, revenankh is a perfect example. Banning names comprised of foreign roots isn't going to stop a significant amount of clutter, I think most people that post names know the unlikelihood of theirs getting chosen but make an entry for the hell of it and see how others like it. I can only remember one name with somewhat of an actual description (probably because he knew it was good) and that was Stratagem, though correct me if I'm wrong.
But yea one name submission is plenty, if someone thinks they came up with a good name and already submitted one they can ask someone else to submit it, and of course name bumping should be monitered.
Anyway, I still don't like the idea of throwing ideas out to get feedback and then have a final one.
This can be done with a friend or on the CAP server ;)
 
I propose people should be required to post a short explanation of their name, and how they came up with it / why it's a appropriate. Just like I'm sure Gamefreak doesn't just go, "uhhh... uhh... <name>!" They think it out to be clever, but not sound too deliberate. ex: Infernape (inferno ape) it's appropriate and doesn't sound too stupid.

I'm just thinking that people going "Squid! uhh... Capt' Squid!" etc. should be taken into account if they can't explain why it's a good name and would work with the design, etc.

So if some one were to go like so...

I propose the name Charizard (being not origional, and using something we all know). I think this name can work for a couple of reasons. Looking back at the previous evolution chain, we see he evolves from a kind of dinosaur/lizard type monster, hence the "izard" at the end, for (l)izard. Then, char insinuates the firetype, while making the name seem not too thought out. So, Charizard. I also feel this is a powerful sounding name, which goes right along with it's design.
Maybe not this long winded, but it'd be nice to require something that could help cut down on clutter.
 

beej

everybody walk the dinosaur
is a CAP Contributor Alumnus
In my opinion, ragging on a name for sounding complicated is just like ragging on art for "looking like a Digimon". It's an opinion, and as much as I personally might like a name more than another one because one looks more well thought-out, there's nothing really wrong with having an opinion to the contrary.

I'm against limiting the content of name submissions in any way. I think that tennis' proposal is fine and will help to clean up the clutter significantly.
 
I like to see Pink's post added to what tennisace said and I think that would work fine. If they can come up with a description of the name that is actually easy to understand and fun and catching, I don't think that more than 1 name is needed to be added. 5 days is fine, but you could make it 7 for the sheer reason that a weekend will always fall in a 7 day timeframe, so if people are busy with school or work in the middle of the week, they could still viably leave a name in the weekend. If that's not an issue, I would even go as far as 3 or 4. How much time would one need to think of a name, really?
 
There should be no bumping of names, including I like this and this. It is a flavor topic, there can not really be a great reason fora name. You have your reasons, we might agree, we certainly don't need to hear them. You can have reasons against a name, but again, we do not want you relentlessly bashing a name. There is no need for that.
I don't see how the TL can gauge what names are popular and should make it to the poll if people cannot post their support for names. Obviously the creator of said name should not be allowed to do it but posting your support for someone else's name is the only way for the TL to whittle down 40 or so submissions into a poll.

pink's idea is useful - some people do it already but really everyone should. It doesn't have to be as long winded as the Charizard example since that includes unsubstatiated opinion (So, Charizard. I also feel this is a powerful sounding name, which goes right along with it's design) but at least detailing the root of the name or the different parts in a portmanteau should be compulsory.
 

tennisace

not quite too old for this, apparently
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Top Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
A discription of the name should be required, but not as long winded. Something like: Argonaut = Argh! (Stereotypical Pirate exclamation) + Argonaut (Mythical Greek sailors who sailed with Jason on the Argo) would suffice.
 
I agree Tennis. I was just saying for an example that someone could do such a thing. I think more description can only add, but a description should be required so people aren't merely dribbling names out as it catches their fancy.
 

DougJustDoug

Knows the great enthusiasms
is a Site Content Manageris a Top Artistis a Programmeris a Forum Moderatoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Moderator
Conclusion:

The Process Guide will be updated to add two new rules to the Name Submission thread:

1) A limit of one name submission per person
2) A "No Bumping and/or Begging" rule will be enforced

Time limits for threads are at the discretion of the TL, and there are already recommendations for thread duration in the CAP Process Guide. The name submission thread does not need special duration rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top