Co-written by Fuzznip and eric the espeon. Approved by DougJustDoug and tennisace.
A recent Revenankh analysis was posted by a user who talked to me about updating it a couple of weeks ago. All was going well; the skeleton sets were posted and suggestions were coming in. However, another user claimed to have taken the analysis a few hours before, not knowing about Revenankh being reserved by anyone, and posted the entire analysis into the same Revenankh thread, stating that it was his analysis. This misunderstanding caused a ridiculous fight between two respected CAP members in the #cap channel, which should've never happened, and wasted a great amount of time and effort.
Clearly, we don't want this to happen again in the future, so Doug asked eric and I to come up with a proposal to improve the organization of CAP analysis writing, and here is what we propose:
A new thread along the lines of "CAP Analysis Index and Reservations" will be posted and linked to from the EnCAPlopedia. In that thread, all of the CAP Pokemon will be listed and ones that are in need of updates, letting the users know what needs an update and what doesn't (if someone feels an analysis needs an update, they would be free to suggest it). Should a user spot something he wants to update or add, such as a new set or a complete analysis update, he will contact the head of CAP analyses (I don't mind being held responsible) stating that he would like to do so and so and why. If he is approved, his name will go under whatever he is writing so other users know what is currently being updated. When a new Pokemon is made or there are significant metagame changes, the head will speak to all interested writers before assigning them to analyses.
The reason why the C&C system of analysis claims (big index, people post if they want to do an analysis, first to claim gets it unless something unusual happens) is not optimal for CAP because we have far fewer analyses to write, and there are only a small number of writers, many of whom have an attachment to particular analyses. This means that it is both more practical and more useful to know everyone's position (what they are most interested in working on) before people start work, rather than going by first to start gets it.
We also came up with a way these updates will be posted: Quality Control style. The Quality Control forum in C&C is where skeleton sets are posted and backed up with some points about the set before the writer begins to add in the set's comments. The CAP analyses will follow the rule of posting skeleton sets before the writing begins, along with a few points about what changes are being made if it's an analysis update or general points about a set that needs to be added. We think that using this style will be an effective way at discussing the changes/additions and will quicken the pace of the analysis' approval. Once discussion has died down, the head will approve the writer's analysis and the writer will begin with adding the comments.
We believe that this proposal will be an effective solution to the problem; however, if you have a suggestion to make it better or another idea altogether, please post so it can be discussed. I want to come to a solid conclusion that everyone is happy with at the end of this thread.
The current process of reserving CAP analyses is chaotic and inefficient. When the time comes to update previous CAP analyses due to metagame shifts (which are far more common in CAP than OU because we keep adding new CAP Pokemon), the analyses are done on a first come, first serve basis with little to no planning. This also holds true when we need to write up an analysis for the newly added CAP Pokemon, as no one is technically in charge of the analysis so it doesn't get done until someone takes the plunge, and if several people want to write it up, there is no system in place for deciding who runs it. These problems with our process of reserving and updating CAP analyses are affecting the members within the community, which I will provide an example of below.
A recent Revenankh analysis was posted by a user who talked to me about updating it a couple of weeks ago. All was going well; the skeleton sets were posted and suggestions were coming in. However, another user claimed to have taken the analysis a few hours before, not knowing about Revenankh being reserved by anyone, and posted the entire analysis into the same Revenankh thread, stating that it was his analysis. This misunderstanding caused a ridiculous fight between two respected CAP members in the #cap channel, which should've never happened, and wasted a great amount of time and effort.
Clearly, we don't want this to happen again in the future, so Doug asked eric and I to come up with a proposal to improve the organization of CAP analysis writing, and here is what we propose:
A new thread along the lines of "CAP Analysis Index and Reservations" will be posted and linked to from the EnCAPlopedia. In that thread, all of the CAP Pokemon will be listed and ones that are in need of updates, letting the users know what needs an update and what doesn't (if someone feels an analysis needs an update, they would be free to suggest it). Should a user spot something he wants to update or add, such as a new set or a complete analysis update, he will contact the head of CAP analyses (I don't mind being held responsible) stating that he would like to do so and so and why. If he is approved, his name will go under whatever he is writing so other users know what is currently being updated. When a new Pokemon is made or there are significant metagame changes, the head will speak to all interested writers before assigning them to analyses.
The reason why the C&C system of analysis claims (big index, people post if they want to do an analysis, first to claim gets it unless something unusual happens) is not optimal for CAP because we have far fewer analyses to write, and there are only a small number of writers, many of whom have an attachment to particular analyses. This means that it is both more practical and more useful to know everyone's position (what they are most interested in working on) before people start work, rather than going by first to start gets it.
We also came up with a way these updates will be posted: Quality Control style. The Quality Control forum in C&C is where skeleton sets are posted and backed up with some points about the set before the writer begins to add in the set's comments. The CAP analyses will follow the rule of posting skeleton sets before the writing begins, along with a few points about what changes are being made if it's an analysis update or general points about a set that needs to be added. We think that using this style will be an effective way at discussing the changes/additions and will quicken the pace of the analysis' approval. Once discussion has died down, the head will approve the writer's analysis and the writer will begin with adding the comments.
We believe that this proposal will be an effective solution to the problem; however, if you have a suggestion to make it better or another idea altogether, please post so it can be discussed. I want to come to a solid conclusion that everyone is happy with at the end of this thread.
