Policy Review Policy Review - Poll Slates

[DougJustDoug]

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.

I've talked about this a lot on IRC, but I've been procrastinating on making a PR thread about it. It's a long and complicated issue, and the possible solutions are not clear-cut. But I think it is important to the CAP project, so here goes...


When I organized the CAP forum and project rules, I looked at the good and bad examples set by Cooper (the CAP project founder) and Hyra (the CAP 2 TL), and tried to base the rules on a few fundamental principles that seemed crucial to future project success. I'd like to focus this PR thread on one of those fundamental principles:

The community will democratically vote on all aspects of new pokemon creations. However, the process will ensure that there are no bad options available to be chosen.

I realize that is somewhat vague and subjective, but the Topic Leader is intentionally granted very wide powers to set polling options and interpret voting results. These powers are not granted to make the Topic Leader feel good, or to allow the Topic Leader to overturn polls results on a whim. The powers are granted to protect the project from making broken, stupid, or unimplementable decisions.

It is the TL's job to make sure that in every poll, there are no "bad" options. That doesn't mean that all the options are perfect, or wonderful -- but none of them should be "bad". I use quotes on the word "bad" -- because I realize that it is impossible to objectively define a "bad" option.

Popularity does not equal quality. In fact, sometimes in large completely democratic processes -- a severe lack of quality can actually cause an INCREASE in popularity. It's the counter-culture syndrome that kicks in.

"Haha, that option sucks so bad -- I think I'll vote for it just to be funny or different!"

If you don't think this happens, then don't bother posting in this thread, because you have your head in the sand.

Can a horrible option actually WIN a CAP poll? Probably not. But that's not the problem. The problem is during the earliest polls, when trying to determine a slate of options. In situations where the possibilities are limited, it's not a big deal. But, in situations where there are a huge number of possibilities (like Concept, Art, Stat Spread, Moves, etc) -- the horrible options can actually bubble up and make the slate more easily than other "legitimate" options. In many of these situations where there aren't clear "top" options, the inclusion of a couple of bullshit options in the first click poll -- it can dramatically affect the final results. In those situations, it's entirely possible that a "good" option that has a real chance to win, could be forced out by one or more bullshit counter-culture options that cannot win. Even worse, in this day and age of rigged polls and voting scandals -- we could find that someone successfully engineers a poll such that an intentionally crappy option ACTUALLY WINS.

You may be thinking,

"Hey Doug, CAP is a democratic project. We have to go with what the community wants."

No. You are wrong.

The community does choose everything. That's true. But, as I mentioned above, the process needs to make sure that the community only has legitimate, high-quality options to choose from. If we do that, then we really should not care what the community chooses. Yes, everyone has preferences, but knowledgeable objective leaders on the project should not fear any option being chosen. If all options are "good" -- then we simply administer the polls and let the community decide by popular vote.

You may be thinking,

"What's the harm in all this? So what if there are some bad options in a poll?"

It makes the community look bad. Particularly when counter-culture votes push some piece of crap options above high-quality options. It advertises that the CAP process can be manipulated, and it discourages people from working hard to make the best pokemon possible. I don't really care if we make a bad pokemon, per se. But if the creation process is not interesting and engaging for intelligent, hard-working project contributors -- then I have a BIG problem with that. The CAP project should not be a place for people to toss in half-assed contributions for lolz. This is not a place where we celebrate and promote contributions from noobs or idiots, by putting them front-and-center on a CAP poll. That mentality may go over big in Firebot or Trou du Cul -- not the CAP project.

If you look at early CAP projects and read the process guide carefully, you'll notice that we never used to let broad community vote determine ANY slate for CAP polls. The general pattern of the rules is this:

1) A discussion thread allows an open cattle-call for ideas and possible options to be presented and discussed

2) During the discussion, the Topic Leader gets an idea of who are the most intelligent and active participants, and which ideas are most popular amongst the non-idiots in the community.

3) If the aspect of the pokemon requires a submission (stat spread, movepool, etc) -- then the TL rewards a few of the best discussion participants, and asks them to make a submission.

4) If the aspect simply requires 10 options to be pulled into a slate, the Topic Leader uses feedback in the discussion thread to determine which of the high-quality options are most popular amongst knowledgeable, literate, and interested members of the community. The TL picks the top 10 options, and then serves it up to the community to decide the final winner.​

For some reason, the last several Topic Leaders have abdicated responsibility for composing high-quality slates of options. Instead of following the general steps above, the Topic Leaders simply open a big bold voting thread, with every possible option or submission in play. They let the community's bold votes determine the top 10. In my opinion, this is a problem. These bold voting threads allow all sorts of dumb shit to get attention. It also causes a degradation in the quality of the discussion threads. It does not encourage intelligent, reasoned discussion, in an effort to "impress" the Topic Leader. Instead, it encourages baseless propaganda and bandwagoning. The discussion thread turns into an "advertising campaign".

This trend also removes the need for an intelligent, mature, reasonable Topic Leader on a CAP project. The Topic Leader on a CAP project used to be a true LEADER on the project. Now they are an administrative assistant or secretary for the project. The community values a TL who can reliably count votes, more than a TL that has a sound understanding of CAP principles and metagame knowledge. Topic Leaders do not feel any responsibility to act as a safeguard and protect the community from stupid popularity stunts, and bandwagons for broken or horrible options.

In the first few CAP projects, the early TL's made some famously controversial decisions. In CAP 1, Cooper strongly steered several decisions about Syclant's typing, ability, and moves. At the time, I disagreed with some of his decisions and I applauded others. But, he was the TL and it was his show. In CAP 3, Gothic Togekiss and I removed the front-running ability (remember auto-weather Greenhouse?), because a bandwagon was developing for something that many intelligent members of the community suspected would be completely broken. After a formal weather test later, it turned out to be the right move. But, it was not a unanimously popular decision at the time.

Because the Topic Leader is supposed to exert quite a bit of control over a pokemon, the onus is upon the community to select good Topic Leaders. Currently, I don't think the community or the Topic Leader really feel like the TL has much of an impact on a creation. I think people feel the TL is simply "along for the ride".

"If the community chooses a shitty option, it's not the TL's fault."

I do not prescribe to that school of thought. I think the TL needs to step up and take responsibility for THEIR pokemon, and make sure that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the community to make a horrible decision. They don't do this by overriding polls, or disallowing votes. They do it by setting slates of good options. If the community thinks a TL presents crappy slates, then voice your opinions beforehand in discussion threads, and convince others to join in. You need to sway the TL first, and then when the poll opens, advertise to the casual passerby voter. That was the intended process.


OK, that ends my rant about strong Topic Leaders. I don't really know how to enforce or encourage this. Maybe the process guide needs different wording? Maybe we need to outlaw certain bold polls and force the TL to choose a slate? I'm not really sure how we can make the Topic Leaders grow some balls and take control of CAP slates. Feel free to post suggestions here.


I'll also mention a completely different approach to solving the problem of slate determination -- caucuses.

A caucus is used in the American political system (and many other countries too) for determining slates of candidates for political office. Yes, technically anyone can run for political office. But, that does not mean that the general public chooses amongst every Tom, Dick, and Harry that wants to throw their hat in the ring. Every major office would have hundreds, if not thousands of candidates, and a general election would be impossible to administer. Therefore, small groups or "caucuses" are appointed to select the candidates. They don't determine the winner, but they DO determine which candidates are presented to the general public in the general election. Presumably, the members of the caucus are knowledgeable, active members of the political system -- and they know what they are doing. In reality in America, the caucus system can be corrupt as hell and do some stupid stuff, but that's not the point. The idea of a caucus is for a small group of knowledgeable people to not decide a poll, but to present a viable slate to the public.

Maybe the CAP project should NOT rely on a single superman Topic Leader to be the wise sage that makes good slates for all CAP polls? Maybe we should figure out a way to make small caucuses that determine slates? If we make caucuses, I would not suggest we have a single caucus for all polls. I think the caucuses should consist of people that are proven to be knowledgeable in the area of the poll for which they are choosing a slate.

For example, we could appoint a few different caucuses -- a Concept Caucus, Stat Spread Caucus, Art Caucus, etc. Each caucus could be restricted to only contain people that have placed in the top 3 of a past CAP project in the area for which they are serving on the caucus. For example, the Stat Spread Caucus would consist of people that have placed in the top 3 of the Stat Spread competition of a past CAP project. With 8 CAP projects under our belt, I think we have plenty of top finishers to populate each caucus. If someone is capable of making the top 3, we can presume that they know something about what it takes to do well in a CAP competition in their given area of expertise.

I can see all sorts of problems trying to organize and administer caucuses. I won't list it all out here. This OP is long enough as it is. I just wanted to throw the idea out there as an alternative solution for making good CAP slates. We don't necessarily need to pin it all on the TL.

I want to hear other opinions on the subject. And I want to shed some light on a growing problem over the past few CAP projects. In CAP 8, it came to a head. I feel that SEVERAL polls had options presented that were completely inappropriate. Some were flavor polls, and some were competitive polls. I don't think any final community decisions were inappropriate. But, I think many of the polls were "bad press" for the CAP project. It made the CAP project look stupid, inexperienced, and uncontrolled. And it needs to stop.

 

[Stellar]

I'm against the idea of "caucuses". Although it seems like a respectable idea to foster "good" slates, I see the complexity of such a process as a major turn-off. You also get the issue of competing interests within the CAP caucus and so forth (and let's be honest here, there WILL be someone within the caucus who tries to bend the results to their will no matter how carefully we elect the caucus).

I really think that we should simply, once again, stress the power of the TL in making decisions and at least attempt to elect someone who understands the implications of their post and how exactly they should use their power. The "pure democracy" attitude that has been developing lately has annoyed me quite a bit and obviously has led to some less than stellar (heh) choices over the past few CAP rounds.

In short, I think we should try to avoid doing anything complicated and stick to enforcing the basic principles that were invested in the TL since the initiation of the program.

 

[billymills]

From what I see, I think this is generally centered around flavor polls. "bad" movepools don't win. They never come even close. Stats are decided the same way. The winners (usually the same 4-5 people) always have moderately modest spreads/pools, and usually 4-5 paragraphs backing them up. Jokes are never allowed through, and we already have plenty of regulations on them based upon PSB, ODB, BSR, attack move poll, support move poll, and 4 discussion threads each. Jokes have no chance here.

As for typing, there is no "bad" typing, it all comes down to flavor. You can't really submit any choices for typing, discussion is centered around trying to convince other sides that your typing is the best. Which seems to be what you are attempting to achieve in all polls.

As for flavor, there are a lot of "bad" options. Naming poll specifically. While obviously names like "thunderdick" won't ever be allowed, I do not think TL should have a complete veto for naming. When going through a naming poll some people find some names completely terrible, while others fine them completely palatable. As long as a name does not contain any bad words, and it is not submitted as a joke, it should have the chance of being on the poll, regardless of the TL's opinion of it. All that needs to happen is for a TL to remove one name with a lot of support for a lot of people to get pissed off. If a name has large support within the community (like top 3-5), AND it is backed up with reasonable reasoning (i.e.: It does not appear to be a complete joke submission), it should be in the poll. If a name was 8-10th in support, the TL could omit it for something he/she prefers better.

As for art, leave it as is. We've yet to have a joke submission go very far at all (I don't think one has made it past the second poll). Art always looks great and brings huge crowds to CAP. It doesn't need a fix.

2) During the discussion, the Topic Leader gets an idea of who are the most intelligent and active participants, and which ideas are most popular amongst the non-idiots in the community.

3) If the aspect of the pokemon requires a submission (stat spread, movepool, etc) -- then the TL rewards a few of the best discussion participants, and asks them to make a submission.

We already have the same people winning every single one of those threads. Only difference that would make is make it more difficult for new people to make submissions. As it is now, if you make a good movepool and back it up, you have a good shot at getting somewhere.

Concept threads... you're probably right on this one. TL should probably choose the best 10 as you've layed out there.

 

[Ezekiel]

I agree with Stellar as far as caucuses go, though I think that something more than just "stressing" the significance, power, and purpose of TLs is in order.

The caucus idea is good, but such a system would be extremely difficult to implement. Firstly, it means that for each new phase of CAP development, we'd have to elect a new body of people to "watchdog" the choices. There would have to be discussion, nomination, and voting, accompanied by all the drama that comes with them. In short, a caucus system would increase the work and time required by one and a half or even double what it currently is, and it would risk making much more drama than the system as it exists now.

This doesn't mean we should let things continue as they have. I have a great deal of respect for a number of the veterans I've seen; most if not all of the repeat contributors are experienced people with a sincere desire to create a good product. However, there have been a few...oddities...which would be easily corrected by the TL stepping in and simply saying, "No." I'm specifically referring to the fact that "Spiffy" somehow managed to make it to the semifinal name poll. Spiffy.

From the tone of the post that Tennisace gave the final submission in, I can only assume it was intended as a light-hearted joke; unfortunately, it fell victim to the "counter-culture effect" that Doug cited in his post. Who's to say that something more serious, e.g. non-flavor, can't follow suit later on? CAP9 could, for example, get a truly useless ability or pair of abilities (not a like CAP8) just because people thought it was funny/cool/hip/different to vote for them, or because they thought no one else would vote for it. (Groupthink for the lose.)

More or less, I'm advocating that there be a policy post, rule update, or some other official statement (probably from the Policy Committee) that explicitly states the purpose and responsibilities of a TL in such a situation. For example, if someone presented Truant as a final submission for an Ability poll, it's fairly likely that it shouldn't be taken seriously as an option...but people might vote for it because "it would be funny," or any number of other reasons wholly unrelated to the purpose of CAP. The TL would thus remove it from the list of options. Perhaps including a justification for said removal would also be a good idea, something to the tune of, "The following options were removed due to being contradictory to the purpose of the project."

Of course, if there were an actual, serious reason for including Truant, one that fit with the paradigm for the associated CAP-mon and wasn't just posted "for the lulz", then there would be no reason for the TL to remove it. Judgments of this type are exactly why TLs exist, or so I gathered. Again, I think this whole thing should simply be clarified and codified so that no one can claim they were unfairly sidelined, and so that frivolous or actively destructive submissions are filtered appropriately.

 

[Stellar]

I'm going to agree to the need to write some sort of "TL Guide". Something explaining what is acceptable and not acceptable to do would probably be of great value to future TLs. It needs to be clear that the TL should be able to manipulate the polls to some degree in order to guarantee a "good" final outcome.

Although Ezekiel's post, from what I understood, is once again (like in my post) stressing the need for a TL who is willing to "go against the grain" and make the right decisions. I talked with billymills and we both agreed that, although it is hard to discern which submissions are jokes (as is the case with Spiffy which was defended vehemently as a legitimate submission), it is important that the TL actually exercises their own discretion with what is classified as a "joke" submission, thus not allowing it to the next poll.

 

[Coronis]

I am really not too sure about this, especially the 'caucus' part, CAP is supposed to be democratic and we already have the PRC, which alone decides the TL.

I think that you have very valid points, but I believe that recently our TL's have been doing a fairly good job. I think that possibly the TL could narrow down the choices, for the Concept, Movepool and stat spread polls. It is annoying when some very bad options make it through, that should have never been considered.

Apart from those, I really see no other problem with any of the other polls, as billy said, crappy submissions never make it anywhere in the art polls.

On the subject of caucuses, your suggestion about only having people who come in the top 3 is not such a good idea. I mean, just from memory the same people are winning and coming top 3 or so. If we do have caucuses, I think they should include people who have shown themselves to be knowledgable, and make intelligent regarding the particular part of the process, not necessarily having been in the top3 or so.

 

[zarator]

First of all, I find the caucuses a bad idea. Above all for the concept polls. It has already happened in the past, but especially in some of the latest CAPs, that a concept won simply because it served well to people who did not get their concept voted enough. I will word this better. Some concepts which won in the past - like EM's Neglected Ability, or latino's Break the Mold - gained a lot of popularity simply because they allowed some expert and knowledgeable members of the community to literally "hijack" the project to make it look like what their refused concept was.

Just to better prove my point, I will examine Cyclohm. The concept it was based around was, as I already said, Elevator Music's "Neglected Ability". Did it achieve the concept's goal? Probably yes. It has one of the better typing combos we could give to a Shield Dust users and enough physical bulk to make good use of Static. But, if we look at some of the other CAP8 Concept Poll top contenders, things look even more interesting.

Case 1. Zarator's "Kingdra in the Snow". Yes, my concept. Does Cyclohm fulfill my concept? Yes, to a certain degree. An improved BoltBeam (thanks to STAB Thunderbolt and Weather Ball), good sturdiness, nice sweeping potential and, above all, the ability to check some of the prominent threats to Hail teams (especially Zapdos) make Cyclohm a good addition to a Hail team. While its sweeping potential is certainly not heavily boosted by Hail, it still stands as a pretty vicious sweeper when wintry fun starts.

Case 2. Deck Knight's "Para-Busing Tank". Does Cyclohm fulfill this concept? Hell yes, if you ask me. Thunderwave/Stun Spore, Static, good overall sturdiness, a recovery move... If its user wants to, Cyclohm can and will paralyze everything in sight, while tanking by virtue of its stats and Slack Off.

Case 3. Magmortified/Plus "Pivot Point". Does Cyclohm fulfill this concept, too? The answer it's not clear, but some things must be noticed. Cyclohm fits very well in offensive teams, and unlike things like Zapdos it has the sturdiness and the resistances to let your team effectively play around him switching before and after him. Maybe it is not the best we could think of, but it is nonetheless a quite good Pivot Point IMO.

Does this mean that Magmortified, Plus, Deck Knight and me purposedly manipulated and cunningly drived discussions and polls in order to let our defeated concepts win? Obviously no. Does this mean that our choices were trying to make CAP8 look like what we wanted it to be and we tried to convince other people with whatever argument we can in order to have our choices voted? Probably yes. But could we have done this if the concept was less vague? No.

Now you will ask me: well, Zarator, this is good and all, but... where do you want to get? Ok, you deserve to know now^^ What I mean is: people like Mag, Plus, DK, me and a few others would be allowed into this concus by virtue of our past results. But, if we already managed to sway poll to our purposes more or less willingly, what could we do with the power that the concus would give us? I do not want to accuse any of the mentioned people of being fraudolent or hypocrite by any means (lol, I mentioned even myself, so you should see I do not want to shit over anyone in particular), but it would be really hard to resist to the temptation to use such power this way. Especially since, by principle, we will think our idea is the best for the metagame, so we would benefit the metagame this way. But, is this really true? No, if you ask me. I do not thin such a system would be healthy to the metagame and the entire CAP process.

The best thing I can think about to limit problems (which actually affect only concept, ability, movepool and name polls for reason already mentioned in the past) is to put more strict guidelines to better select options. For example, we could shape a rule to address the excessive vagueness of some concepts, or we could have the TL weed out too hilarious names (Ok, this may be subjective, but the name pool is not the most important step anyway). We already did this in the past for the abilities, stating that the TL has the power to deem an ability broken - like Levitate for Kitsunoh - or to not consider an ability which would be hard/impossible to program. And we are getting better and better with the movepool rules, too. I think this is the right way we should pursue.

 

[Magmortified]

I also oppose the caucus idea. It's not only going to be problematic, it's continuing to shift responsibility from the TL. Which is exactly the problem, right? :S

Personally, I think a lot of the problem is how we present TLdom to the TLs. While I was a TL, I think one of my bigger problems early on was trying to avoid stepping on peoples' toes when I was choosing what made it into the poll. Essentially, I was trying to avoid controversy. Because if somebody makes a big stink about something sketchy, I'm not sure if I should've turned them down or not, and, hypothetically, it'd make me look like I'm a bad TL. I can only speculate as to the thought process behind why the other TL's chose their options, but I'll speculate that maybe the early controversy fear more or less happened for them as well. I'm actually a little interested in seeing how a previous TL would handle a project now that they've gotten past the stage of early fears, but that's beside the point.

Essentially: We need to emphasize how we want TLs to behave. I'm not saying that maybe putting a certain cap on the number of options available in what are traditionally "everything goes" polls, like the concept poll, which has been needing to cut down for a long time. But we need to make it absolutely clear what the ideal TL looks like. As far as I could see, the current picture of a TL has no particular shape. It's mostly what a person chooses to do with it. Sure there are some examples of good TLs like darkie, but I'm not sure that what he did well was ever really summed up for future TLs to take note of. So most TLs aren't taking so much note of what should be done, and so we all individually end up making similar mistakes.

For this reason, I would support the idea of a TL guide, so as to help future TLs understand what they should do. Less of what they shouldn't do. It's a lot on confidence and being unafraid, as well, I think. It doesn't help at all if each and every TL falls into the same pit trap of being afraid of controversy (especially since it tends to be put right in front of the concept poll, which is a really bad place to be indecisive as a TL). It helps if somebody looks back after climbing out and puts a sign in front so everybody else doesn't have to climb out as well.

 

[DougJustDoug]

For the record, although I mentioned caucuses in the OP -- I don't think they are the right solution for this problem. As I said briefly in the OP, I see tons of problems trying to implement caucuses in the CAP project. I can't see any practical way to make caucuses work. I presented the idea just to spur people to consider other ways to solve the problem of managing slates on the CAP project. But, I really think the problem needs to be solved with stronger Topic Leader influence during slate creation. I devoted the majority of that long OP to discuss the TL's role in the process -- and I did that because I think the TL is the best way to solve this. But, if someone else can think of a way to make caucuses, or some other solution work -- I'm interested to hear it.

A few people have mentioned that only Concept, Name and Art are really at risk here. I disagree with that. In my opinion, the worst set of polls in the CAP process are Moves and Movepool. In the first few CAP projects, movepool was the place where Topic Leader traditionally stepped up to the plate and exerted the MOST influence on the project. In fact, the process guide is written under the assumption that the TL will be the most active participant in those threads. It really HAS to be that way. When discussing moves, there are SO many possibilities; someone has to corral all the stupidity, flavor fanboys, and uneducated suggestions. Over the past several CAP projects, this has not happened. The TL's have allowed move discussions to be a complete free-for-all. The presumption is that movepool creators will sort through all the crap, and make a few decent movepools -- and in turn, the community will probably not choose any of the shitty ones. That's a total copout in my opinion. The TL needs to step up their game in movepool threads, more than any other part of the process IMO.

Don't get me wrong -- in CAP 1, Cooper was active in the movepool threads and made several ham-fisted decisions in that area. And just take a glance at Syclant's original movepool to see what that got us. It was arguably the worst movepool in CAP history. So, a strong TL does not ensure a decent movepool. But, our movepool slates have been TERRIBLE over the past few CAPs. And I think several recent WINNING movepools suck pretty badly.

Knowledgeable newcomers to the CAP project regularly look at CAP movepools and say "WTF?!?" I think CAP regulars have become desensitized to the problem of shitty movepools. All CAP movepools suck, so why oppose it? Good movepool submitters have to contend with stupid fanboy movepools -- so they regularly compromise their movepools to appeal to the crowd. That should not happen as much as it does. Yes, there will always be a certain amount of pandering to the masses. But, right now the pandering is RAMPANT because there are so many options in the first "cut down" poll. Movepools can be bandwagoned in or out over incredibly slight or fickle move differences. So, movepool creators tend to include everything, so as to broaden their voting base the most. This is total bullshit in my opinion. The movepool submitters first concern should be to impress a knowledgeable TL with a well-crafted movepool. If some creator throws the kitchen sink into a movepool, the Topic Leader should dismiss it offhand, and not allow it to be presented to the community in the first slate. A strong TL would go a long way towards curbing the ridiculous movepool bloat that plagues almost every CAP project.

Also, I think community voting for the slate for stat spreads is largely to blame for the bland lack of stat spreads that vary from the middle-of-the-road. Yes, or bias and BSR constraints dictate certain parameters, and the community usually chooses Mixed + Balanced, or very close to that. But, even with those constraints, interesting and creative stat spreads can be made. Unfortunately, a creative spread has virtually no chance in a current CAP project -- because middle-of-the-road will inevitably garner more public votes. Once again, like movepool -- if the Topic Leader took a stronger role in choosing spread submitters -- we might be able to change this trend. I don't think it's accidental that our quirkiest stat spread came from CAP1, before middle-of-the-road became the bog standard on CAP.

So, if anyone thinks I'm making this PR because of problems in Name and Art threads -- you are wrong. I'm concerned about almost ALL the CAP polls -- competitive polls in particular. And I'm not pointing to "joke submissions" as the biggest problem. I'm actually more concerned with BAD submissions from stupid members, or watered-down submissions that have been politically engineered to appeal to the largest noob voting base. I think submitters should be wary of engineering their submissions for mass-appeal. Because, if a submission gets watered-down too much -- then the submitter should fear that the submission will not pass the first hurdle to being chosen -- impressing the Topic Leader with its creativity, forethought, and quality.

One last point, I would like to reiterate from the OP -- I am not terribly upset with the options that WIN in CAP projects. I agree that it is quite unlikely that a shitty submission or option will win a CAP poll. But, I don't think a shitty submission should get ANY publicity in a CAP project, top 10 poll or otherwise. At best, a crappy idea or submission should be posted in the open cattle-call, perhaps get a comment or two from the community -- and then it should die on the vine. If these options even make it onto a bold voting list -- it does a disservice to the entire project, whether it makes the top 10 slate or not.

 

[zarator]

I think the problem DJD addressed is even larger. Lately, the middle-of-the-road has affected so much the polls - I'd say, all polls, at least the competitive ones - that is getting ridiculous IMO.

I for one have been bashed in the past because my CAP8 concept was too "narrow". And the same has happened with other concepts, other stat spreads and so on. The voting poll has grown to a point where CAP Project seem less and less a research project - because it was, and still should be - and is becoming something akin to a perpetual political campaign. Sure, whenever there is a poll a bit of "popularity factor" is inevitable, but we arrived to the point people sway away from even proposing concepts (yes I'm concerned a lot about concepts - but I'll touch the rest later in the post) that would benefit the metagame if they think it would not be... popular.

I ask you: do you really think any serious researchment project would be influenced by popularity? I may be close-minded, you may accuse me of "old-thinking" or whatever, but I always believed into that "University" thing of Smogon. And I always liked to consider CAP Project as a sort of "University research", somehow similarly to the ones true universities undertake. I know this is a kind of utopic spirit, but it is a model we should try to emulate as much as we can. At least, more than some shitty "Election Day" process.

On to the movepool, I think I may have already addressed this point in the CAP8 movepool discussion, but I will repeat here. Lately there have been a sort of "Christmas Tree Approach" when it comes to movepools. What I mean is: people mindlessly throw in a bunch of proposals that, yes, would empower the CAP competitively-speaking, but that the CAP do not need in order to fulfill its concept. It was Syclant's problem, for example. I was the one who revised it and shaped its actual movepool, so I had the chance to look the older one through, and I should say it was full of useless and extraneous material. Why should a "pure glass cannon" like Syclant need Spikes or Dual Screen? It seemed like we thought of a lot of interesting options and then we gave them all to the CAP regardless of whether or not it needed them or not. If you look through even some of the most recent movepools, you'll see the same thing. A lot of CAPs have a gigantic movepool that yes, they use almost entirely, but that could be narrowed without making the CAP underpowered.

I'm not saying CAPs are broken. Rather, they have been given a lot of useful moves that were completely unneccessary. Just if the point was unclear, I'll make some examples. Look at some of the top OU pokes, and try to imagine them how they would be if they had been CAP creations. Maybe someone could disagree with me, but I suspect that - just for the sake of an example - Swampert could have Recover if we had created him. Scizor could have Crunch. Zapdos could have Weather Ball. Have you got my point? Most CAPs have movepools that are far over the board. Yes, not broken (much like I think Swampert would be not broken with Recover - at least, not if Argho isn't) but still excessive.

You may think I'm accusing the movepool creators but I'm not. Their hand was pretty much forced. In other words, if they wanted to be voted, they had to go overboard. And this problem affects also concepts. Vagueness may hinder the competitive value of a concept, but it's a must if you want to get votes. I do not know if you agree with me, but I think this is unacceptable. CAP has not born as a democracy. Yes, it is a democratic process, but not a democracy. It is a research process. We do not undertake the process mainly to enjoy it as a community, but to achieve knowledgeable results on the metagame and its potential. If I should choose between sacrifice (not totally, just partially) the scientific component or the democratic component, I'd go all day with the latter. That's how I see it, and you are free to disagree with me, but CAP did not born in the first place as a way to attract new users who scream "it's cool" at every sort of garbage. It may be a nice side effect, but it's not the main goal, and it can't overshadow it.

So, what I propose, again, is to work on the process itself. On one side, we should educate TL to influence more directly the process if needed like DJD said. On the other hand, we should make the concept and movepool rules even strictier, and forbid too vague concepts. Maybe it's just me, but I would not have left concepts like "Break the Mold" and "Neglected Ability" go into the poll in the first place. And no, it's not because I lost to EM, before you even think of it. I for one would have preferred Mag or DK concept rather than EM one. At least there would not have been a constant streak of "hijacks" all over the first steps.

EDIT: sorry EM if I abused a little of your concept for examples^^ I didn't mean to offend you anyhow. Hope you guessed it :-)

 

[Elevator Music]

Since zarator seems to be having a good time walking up and down on my concept, I'm just going to chime in and agree with him. Yeah, I purposely made my concept pretty shitty (but I've been over that a billion times and it belongs in another topic anyways).

The way CaP is set up at the moment is pretty damn vulnerable to "hijacking". I can make a specifically vague concept and bend it slowly to my will piece by piece until I get the pokemon I had in mind. Granted, I'm not going to get _everything_ I want, but with a vague concept it's easy to push your ideas if they are well presented.

I do agree that some parts of the process really need a boost. Specifically concept, movepool, and parts of flavor like name and artwork. Seriously, could we make the movepool of CaP's any bigger?

I'm not too certain on the idea of caucuses, but I really think that movepool could use some help (a caucus would be an ok idea there) as well as most flavor polls, though I don't think we should use a caucus for flavor polls. I think that should be where the TL comes in and tells people to fuck off.

Having a caucus on concepts would be great though (mainly because at this point the TL isnt really in control yet). It'd make it much harder for shitty submissions like my own to get in, because going with an intentionally vague concept doesn't help out the project at all, but since most people have their own ideas for CAP# they will vote for the concept as long as it has a chance of being similar to what they want (most people don't care about the project being good, only about getting what they want from it). But this is also basically what zarator said.

Normally I wouldn't even have a problem with vague concepts since we have people like DK who are extremely good at getting what they want out of CaP (and he knows what he's doing and I trust him), but I don't want some random doing it that I don't trust... and CaP seems to garner people like that.

I don't have any other solutions to this problem (I just wanted to make a post real fast to say I'm interested), but I will post back later maybe. My only advice would be to pick a TL who isn't afraid to get a little blood on his hands. Too bad we don't really have any of those people!

 

[Deck Knight]

zarator basically has me pegged.

When I first started CAP8, I already had a pre-formed idea in my mind of what I wanted, and I decided to try my best and vigorously participate in this CAP until things went my way. In the middle I built a sort of coalition with tennisace around stats, and ended up with a product much faster than my original idea, which stemmed from para-busing tank.

The Ability poll is the most blatant example of this, wherein I waged a massive campaign for Static in each secondary ability poll. It barely placed after the bold poll and slowly overtook the other options. I seriously doubt that would have happened if I were not deliberately trying to sell the idea, and building my posts in such a way as to not exclude or demean options I thought would lose head to head. NSA would have been infinitely tougher to beat than Trace in my mind, so I never disparaged Trace.

In short I pulled out all the stops on this CAP based on what I believed would win the popular vote, and when it wouldn't win by nature I campaigned aggressively for it.

I'm being open with it here because I think it is important. I respect cyberzero and he is a good friend of mine on the server, but I will be clear in my statement that I tried to run roughshod over every single competitive part of this CAP from start to finish. Because our concept lacked a definite structure and direction I took my opening to see just how far I could push the envelope. Even I'm surprised that my submissions in both stats and movepool won. So basically if the CAP "failed" I was going to be kicking myself for overlooking something (not named Blissey given the constraints, of course).

As far as the caucus idea, I don't approve. It further decentralizes from the TL without adding anything new. The likely caucus members already come up with some of the best material in CAP. We already kind of have a built in "experienced member caucus" on all aspects, we just don't have it formalized. Generally if a fair portion of the serious contributors don't object to something it will make it through.

So we need a stronger TL, not a brand new committee that already exists in function but not in title. #CAP is basically a sounding board for anyone who wants a solid opinion or two on submissions. Besides, I've scored high in almost every competitive poll at some point. I could literally be on every single caucus. Except Concept, because I tend to propose concrete ideas and concrete ideas have a bad history of losing Concept Poll 1 hard.

In my view the TL should be a kind of benevolent dictator. He or she is supposed to be the "stupid Nazi" and make any particularly ridiculous proposal or suggestion DOA (dead on arrival.) They should be impartial only to the extent they do not judge the proposing user, but they should be extremely partial when it comes to concepts, suggestions, etc. Quite frankly I'm glad Quite Good wasn't selected because I realized my stat spread for it simply couldn't do what I wanted it to. It would have looked good on paper but been pretty horrible in playtesting.

 

[billymills]

A few people have mentioned that only Concept, Name and Art are really at risk here. I disagree with that. In my opinion, the worst set of polls in the CAP process are Moves and Movepool. In the first few CAP projects, movepool was the place where Topic Leader traditionally stepped up to the plate and exerted the MOST influence on the project. In fact, the process guide is written under the assumption that the TL will be the most active participant in those threads. It really HAS to be that way. When discussing moves, there are SO many possibilities; someone has to corral all the stupidity, flavor fanboys, and uneducated suggestions. Over the past several CAP projects, this has not happened. The TL's have allowed move discussions to be a complete free-for-all. The presumption is that movepool creators will sort through all the crap, and make a few decent movepools -- and in turn, the community will probably not choose any of the shitty ones. That's a total copout in my opinion. The TL needs to step up their game in movepool threads, more than any other part of the process IMO.

I disagree here. Movepool is usually well done, they do the best with what they are given. In otherwords, they include everything because the movepool with the most moves always wins. If you don't include everything, no one will vote for you. Move Polls are definitely terrible however.

Don't get me wrong -- in CAP 1, Cooper was active in the movepool threads and made several ham-fisted decisions in that area. And just take a glance at Syclant's original movepool to see what that got us. It was arguably the worst movepool in CAP history. So, a strong TL does not ensure a decent movepool. But, our movepool slates have been TERRIBLE over the past few CAPs. And I think several recent WINNING movepools suck pretty badly.

I agree recent movepools have been less than stellar (Overheat on CAP8?). However, I don't see any way this is going to change much. Most movepools will include the most possible, as those usually win. The only thing the TL can do is completely remove the options when entirely (which I can presume you are saying we should do). All that will happen next is we move on to all the next best moves. Basically, if the TL has a choice in deciding allowed moves, it makes him decide the whole movepool. (Moves that matter, superfluous moves will always be superfluous.)

Good movepool submitters have to contend with stupid fanboy movepools -- so they regularly compromise their movepools to appeal to the crowd. That should not happen as much as it does. Yes, there will always be a certain amount of pandering to the masses. But, right now the pandering is RAMPANT because there are so many options in the first "cut down" poll. Movepools can be bandwagoned in or out over incredibly slight or fickle move differences. So, movepool creators tend to include everything, so as to broaden their voting base the most. This is total bullshit in my opinion. The movepool submitters first concern should be to impress a knowledgeable TL with a well-crafted movepool. If some creator throws the kitchen sink into a movepool, the Topic Leader should dismiss it offhand, and not allow it to be presented to the community in the first slate. A strong TL would go a long way towards curbing the ridiculous movepool bloat that plagues almost every CAP project.

The movepool with the most options will win. Most of the time, if a move is present it will gain some votes, no matter if all the others have completely logical, proven reasons NOT to include it. I'm interested in what you believe a good movepool is though. If the TL alone decides what that limit is, then he will be selecting the entire movepool. Maybe we could use caucuses for the initial cut-down polls...

Also, I think community voting for the slate for stat spreads is largely to blame for the bland lack of stat spreads that vary from the middle-of-the-road ... Unfortunately, a creative spread has virtually no chance in a current CAP project -- because middle-of-the-road will inevitably garner more public votes. Once again, like movepool -- if the Topic Leader took a stronger role in choosing spread submitters -- we might be able to change this trend.

If this means removing doubled spreads, (within 10-15 points per stat) then this sounds like a good idea. If it means allowing only certain people to make submissions, then it will not work. The best submissions should be taken, regardless of who submitted them.

One last point, I would like to reiterate from the OP -- I am not terribly upset with the options that WIN in CAP projects. I agree that it is quite unlikely that a shitty submission or option will win a CAP poll. But, I don't think a shitty submission should get ANY publicity in a CAP project, top 10 poll or otherwise. At best, a crappy idea or submission should be posted in the open cattle-call, perhaps get a comment or two from the community -- and then it should die on the vine. If these options even make it onto a bold voting list -- it does a disservice to the entire project, whether it makes the top 10 slate or not.

Only thing I can think of to say to this is to cut out the obviously bad ones immediately, and possibly make the top 10 the top 8 or even lower.

 

[zarator]

Deck Knight is one of our best contributors, period.

I'm not joking. Without any more power than pretty much anyone else, he has been able to literally lead CAP8. Perfect submissions and good rethoric combined has allowed him to obtain the favor of the majority of the community. And if you think I blame him for that, you are completely wrong. I applaud him, for that. He did what a TL should do without even the powers to do it - giving a solid direction to a clueless project. We all should thank him above all if CAP8 is turned out to be something solid. At least, this is my opinion. I do not want to underestimate the contribute of other peoples (TL and ATL included). Simply, I feel that DK's one was the most decisive.

The reason why I pointed him and a few others when I talked about caucuses is because, however, while it is good that one or a few people give a direction to the CAP from the begininning and attract the vote of the masses, It would not benefit the community if that or those people were always the same people. Which is probably what would happen with caucuses. What would we need is a TL which has the strenght and the braver to do an even controversial poll slate, weeding out options which are too vague (like latino's old Break the Mold) or are not really metagame-beneficial but just "cool" (like the "Parasite" concept which always sneaked through every concept poll in CAP history despite its crappiness). Yes, there could be some complaints. But when you lead something, you can't expect to have an unanimous consensus. Not at least if you actually want to lead and not just administrate. The same applies to other areas. If the TL thinks Brave Bird on Kitsunoh is useless (not because of flavor, ofc - simply because Kit would not need a strong Flying move) or Shock Proof (if you remember what it was) on Arghonaut is too much, the TL could and should remove it from the poll, from the start. This is what a TL should do IMO, but probably I'm just echoing what Doug has said.

(I just hope my post didn't sound like a subtle "DK for CAP9 TL"^^ Oh man, if you think about it however, go for it)

P.S.: Wow, 1st post I don't name Elevator Music.

 

[Intentionally Wrong]

Pardon me for the recommendation I'm about to make; I'm aware you discourage amateur contributions in this sort of discussion. Interestingly, that's actually what I'm here to talk about.

Doug argues in his first post that CAP isn't actually a democratic process. And he's right--if the TL gets to say what winds up on the ballot, then the relative "democracy" of your procedure is certainly questionable. Personally, I don't think it's undemocratic enough.

The thing about this sort of massively multiplayer creative exercise is that everyone has their own expectations about the CAP. Everyone wants "ownership", so even if they're not interested in a particular concept, they'll support any proposal that has room within it for the concept that they're interested in. The current voting process ensures that every aspect of the CAP is as broad and centralized as possible.

This procedure will infallibly produce a pokemon that is strong, adaptable, satisfying for a large cross-section of players, and ever-so-slightly bland.

Your CAPs are shackled to the political process, particularly with regards to stats and move pools. As billymills himself put it, "If you don't include everything, no one will vote for you. Move Polls are definitely terrible however."

I do not agree with the idea that stronger, better informed TLs are enough to solve this problem, because it is inherent in the voting structure. Even Doug pointed out that your final results are adequate; you've just got an inadequate system for "getting there". Getting the TLs to weed the most flippant and generic contributions out in the first round might seem to help, but there's a lot of room for error there, and that won't stop the potential for counter-culture voting and a trend toward the open-ended.

My suggestion is kind of radical, and goes against one of the fundamental ideas of CAP: stop being a democracy, and become a republic. Instead of having a general vote open to anybody who happens to register at Smogon, voting could be restricted to a jury. Anyone* can submit ideas and proposals like usual, and certainly must argue in their favor, but the actual voting only takes place among the jurors. At the end of the CAP, you can then hold a public election for the next CAP's jury.

This would additionally solve the problem of ballot-stuffing that's happened in a couple of these. Juror status would be something for people to work toward and would encourage community building, and the fact that proposals aren't trying to satisfy the entire potential voting population means the tendency for middle-of-the-road proposals to succeed should hopefully be diminished.

* Except for that CAP's jurors, perhaps, to prevent conflicts of interest.

 

[zarator]

Pardon me for the recommendation I'm about to make; I'm aware you discourage amateur contributions in this sort of discussion. Interestingly, that's actually what I'm here to talk about.

Doug argues in his first post that CAP isn't actually a democratic process. And he's right--if the TL gets to say what winds up on the ballot, then the relative "democracy" of your procedure is certainly questionable. Personally, I don't think it's undemocratic enough.

The thing about this sort of massively multiplayer creative exercise is that everyone has their own expectations about the CAP. Everyone wants "ownership", so even if they're not interested in a particular concept, they'll support any proposal that has room within it for the concept that they're interested in. The current voting process ensures that every aspect of the CAP is as broad and centralized as possible.

This procedure will infallibly produce a pokemon that is strong, adaptable, satisfying for a large cross-section of players, and ever-so-slightly bland.

Your CAPs are shackled to the political process, particularly with regards to stats and move pools. As billymills himself put it, "If you don't include everything, no one will vote for you. Move Polls are definitely terrible however."

I do not agree with the idea that stronger, better informed TLs are enough to solve this problem, because it is inherent in the voting structure. Even Doug pointed out that your final results are adequate; you've just got an inadequate system for "getting there". Getting the TLs to weed the most flippant and generic contributions out in the first round might seem to help, but there's a lot of room for error there, and that won't stop the potential for counter-culture voting and a trend toward the open-ended.

My suggestion is kind of radical, and goes against one of the fundamental ideas of CAP: stop being a democracy, and become a republic. Instead of having a general vote open to anybody who happens to register at Smogon, voting could be restricted to a jury. Anyone* can submit ideas and proposals like usual, and certainly must argue in their favor, but the actual voting only takes place among the jurors. At the end of the CAP, you can then hold a public election for the next CAP's jury.

This would additionally solve the problem of ballot-stuffing that's happened in a couple of these. Juror status would be something for people to work toward and would encourage community building, and the fact that proposals aren't trying to satisfy the entire potential voting population means the tendency for middle-of-the-road proposals to succeed should hopefully be diminished.

* Except for that CAP's jurors, perhaps, to prevent conflicts of interest.

Unfortunately, the drawback of such a proposal would be massive. Do you already see in actual republics that people stop getting interested into politics when they are asked to express their will only once in a while, and when they feel their vote is of little importance. You could argue this is not CAP case, but it would actually is. When you have to decide the jury, we all know what would come out of it. It would be CAP Committee #2 or even a more elitarist cut of it. No, even if the metagame could benefit since our creations would be somehow more solid, the loss in interest is too much of a consequence to be simply dismissed.

 

[Intentionally Wrong]

Zarator, you touch on an important issue.

For all of CAP's lofty goals, it cannot succeed if the community withers. A careful balance must be struck: the CAP process needs to be accessible to outsiders, but not so much so that the project's goals are compromised.

From what Doug's said of the voting slates in CAP 8, yes, the project's goals are being compromised. If people want their proposals to get popular support, they have to game the system in one way or another: move pools and stats particularly suffer as a result. (It's no surprise there's not been much complaint about typing so far in here: it's one of the few aspects of a CAP that is necessarily narrow and unambiguous.)

If these problems are worth fixing, then whatever solution you pursue is going to limit the CAP's accessibility in one way or another. This isn't necessarily a bad thing: while you want the community to thrive, you specifically want to attract excellent players and creators. Upholding your core ideals--even at the expense of being accused of elitism, perhaps--is one way of doing that.

You guys really want to foster expertise in your contributors. You value experience: it says as much at the top of every policy review thread. The community at large clearly agrees, considering how much support Deck Knight's proposals received. Would that community really rebel so much if you actually put your money where your mouth is, and required experience of the people deciding what proposals wind up on the final version of your pokemon? It shouldn't be hard to write limits into the juror selection rules to encourage healthy rotation: require each jury be made up of members who were not on the previous jury, reserve one or more slots for members who've never been on a jury, etc.

There is potential for backlash within the community. This will be true of any change you make to the system, including bolstering the influence of TLs. Heck, that's got more potential for harm than a jury does: the TL is only one person, and they can make mistakes like anybody else. Asking him to contsruct better voting slates might seem reasonable and fair, but it amounts to having him specifically exclude bad and joke submissions. This is extremely subjective, and people are going to complain that their submission has been excluded unfairly. (With a jury, by contrast, every submission can be included on the voting slate, since a small group of experienced CAPpers can be counted on to disregard the jokes and to put the success of the CAP first. Everyone can submit and be considered, but only the best submissions will win. It's not about excluding the worst, it's about selecting the best.)

I do apologize over overstepping my bounds on this issue, but after the way the last few policy review threads went, I didn't want to see you guys throw up your hands once the discussion dies and conclude that, despite the presence of an obvious problem, you can't really change anything. You must not be afraid to make changes for the good of the project: if you make a mistake, it is better to learn from that mistake than to yield to the inertia of the status quo. I'm fond of the idea of a jury because it is a concrete change with obvious effects. (As opposed to bolstering TLs, which is an easy goal to have but kind of ambiguous to implement.) Whatever you do, though, please, do something. CAP is too important to let fall apart.

 

[DougJustDoug]

I do apologize over overstepping my bounds on this issue, but after the way the last few policy review threads went, I didn't want to see you guys throw up your hands once the discussion dies and conclude that, despite the presence of an obvious problem, you can't really change anything. You must not be afraid to make changes for the good of the project: if you make a mistake, it is better to learn from that mistake than to yield to the inertia of the status quo. I'm fond of the idea of a jury because it is a concrete change with obvious effects. (As opposed to bolstering TLs, which is an easy goal to have but kind of ambiguous to implement.) Whatever you do, though, please, do something. CAP is too important to let fall apart.

I agree that we need to do something different here. I mentioned on the server last night, that the competitive elements of CAP are getting bland and quality participation is waning. The artistic elements of the project are going strong. I'm not talking about vote totals, I'm referring to quality contributions by active participants. In the art threads, we attract more high-quality submissions with every CAP. But, in the competitive threads it seems that quality is waning. We have some project diehards that step up and contribute good submissions, analysis and discussion -- but we don't seem to be getting many new high-quality contributors in those competitive threads. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way it looks to me.

I think the reason for this lack of energy is because of all the submissions are so broad and middle-of-the-road. Controversy breeds debate, and debate breeds energy in a discussion forum. If nothing is controversial, then we don't have much to discuss around here. When everything is watered down, people may still vote in a poll -- but they won't engage in detailed analysis and debate. We need to figure out a way to inject some more energy and purpose into the competitive side of CAP.

I think a stronger, more directed Topic Leader could help in that regard. But, I don't know what concrete steps we can make to encourage that. I was really hoping this PR thread would spur some ideas from the policy committee. But, as yet, I don't think we have anything actionable on the table from this thread.

 

[zarator]

I thought a little about this issue, and I came up with a proposal. Before I go with the proposal itself, I want to clarigy some assumptions I'm gonna make, so that it will be easier to everyone to understand and discuss it. Firstly, I'll assume that there is a great difference between the experienced members of the CAP community and the newcomers, and that the opinion of the formers is much more important than the opinion of the latters. Secondary, I'll assume (mostly for the sake of simplicity than anything else) that the "experienced members of the CAP community", may correspond more or less to the CAP committee, or at least to a part of it. Now that I have put out these assumptions, I'll go with my proposal:

Have the vote of the CAP Committee members weight more than the one of the casual voters. This will not apply to flavor polls like art and name, though.

2:1, 3:1... the weight difference is really up in the air, and better left to the opinion of the community. But I think that it would help to grant that the counter-culture effect and general stupidity is counterbalanced (no pun intended) by the major weight of the "backbone of CAP".

It may not be truly democratic, but still a good compromise, since it would anyway still leave everyone with at least some kind of influence on the process. Ok, maybe less influence than the elder members, ok, but is this really wrong? And anyway it would make much less of a negative impact than other proposals, since the casual voter could not even realize some votes have more weight than his.

 

[tennisace]

I agree completely that we need a revamp of how we make poll slates. I agree that the TL should have "more" power to weed out bad submissions. The reason I put more in quotations is because the TL already does have the power. In earlier CAPs, TLs frequently used the power to weed out bad submissions. In CAP 4, people were chosen to submit final spreads. In CAP 5, I chose the 10 spreads out of a large pool. In CAP 6, everyone's final spread got in to the first poll. I don't know why it changed, but it needs to change back.

As for what Doug said, I don't believe there are concrete steps that can be taken to spark energy in the project. I'm still a firm believer that art detracts from the competitive aspect, but eliminating it is completely out of the question, and moving it back in the project could encourage people running through CAPs to get to the "fun" part.

We need a strong leader, but a strong leader does nothing without a strong process behind him. The issue at hand is Poll Slates. That's easily remedied by going back to what we used to do. However it's evident that this thread has shifted from that since we've reached the general consensus that we need a stricter TL.

The main problem at hand is the fact that someone can manipulate a CAP to their will. While it may be said that Deck Knight had the best submissions in the past CAP, I'd have to disagree somewhat. Deck may have won a bunch of polls, but the reason he did was, again like Doug said, lack of competition, and consequently, lack of debate. What I'm proposing is a mandatory pause when there are only two options left, and a debate. This would only last a day, but it would insert that "spark" of interest that CAP desperatly needs. However, since everyone is concerned with a fast CAP turnaround (which is ridiculous but outside the scope of this post), it would only be on important parts of CAP. These parts would be: Concept, Typing (Primary/Secondary), Stat Spread, Ability, and Final Movepool. I think this is what we need: a time to pause and reflect on our concept before we go rushing headlong into the next step. This will almost assuredly improve the overall quality of CAPs in general.

 

[Stellar]

I think we first need to completely break down what exactly is wrong with our current TL situation.

Topic Leader

A Topic Leader is the head of an individual pokemon creation project. It is one of the most respected leadership positions on the CAP project. Powers and responsibilities include:

• Create and moderate all threads that pertain to the construction process -- this includes polling, discussion, and submission threads
• Ensure the construction process adheres to project standards and guidelines
• Maintain project pace and momentum
• Lead discussions
• Determine voting style for polls
• Record and interpret the results of all polls
• Determine the necessity and format for secondary or spillover polls
• Determine the slate of submissions for certain polls
• Encourage participation

A new Topic Leader is chosen for each new pokemon creation project. All Topic Leader candidates self-nominate in a nomination thread created at the start of a pokemon creation project. Nominees should make their "pitch" in a self-nomination post. Individual community members can express support for a given candidate by posting in the nomination thread. Posts disparaging candidates are discouraged.

Once selected, the Topic Leader must pick an Assistant Topic Leader, whose job is to serve as a backup to the TL in cases when the TL cannot fulfill the responsibilities of the job. The ATL may also lend assistance to the TL when it comes to tallying votes and other tasks that require a lot of work.

Create and moderate all threads that pertain to the construction process -- this includes polling, discussion, and submission threads.
There is no problem with the TL's role in creation of threads. All recent TLs, with the exception of cyberzero during his 'injured phase' have done their duty. However, moderation is one aspect which needs to be worked on. The TLs lately seem to just create the threads and then let them drift on their own course without actively moderating discussion or contributing.

Ensure the construction process adheres to project standards and guidelines
Although this might not seem like a problem, the 'project standards' are actually what this argument is about. As Doug just stated, we need controversy to stimulate an interesting and hopefully successful CAP that lives up to our expectations and doesn't wind up as 'middle of the road'. TLs should not try to brew trouble just for trouble's sake, but should try to keep the project interesting by using their power to steer the project in a new direction. TLs need to be willing to take risks. This is the main point we are all trying to make essentially. Keeping up with process rules is of course, not an issue.

Maintain project pace and momentum
Completion time seems to be a main focus with TLs. This shouldn't necessarily be the case and the process shouldn't be rushed. It should still be completed in a reasonable amount of time, but that shouldn't cut into discussion and debate. I would like to stress to future TLs that there is no need to rush. Momentum is another thing that has been brought up. The TL NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS to participate in discussion and debate. The TL NEEDS to foster debate by bringing new options onto the table. The TLs job is not just to oversee the process but to actively mold the process.

Lead discussions
Obvious problem. TLs in recent CAPs have contributed little to the actual discussion process.

Determine voting style for polls
Not particularly important or a problem.

Record and interpret the results of all polls

Another problem that has arisen. TLs we can ALL see the results of the poll. You don't have to stick to what your eyes are telling you. If you believe a certain option should be included or that one option that has suffered the 'counter culture' effect has made it into the poll, you should by all means feel free to shape the next poll. Yes, it might be controversial, but at least it will spark discussion.

Determine the necessity and format for secondary or spillover polls
Not a problem.

Determine the slate of submissions for certain polls
I discussed this two points up. I can't really explain this further so I'll just quote Doug's point to reiterate its truth.

I realize that is somewhat vague and subjective, but the Topic Leader is intentionally granted very wide powers to set polling options and interpret voting results. These powers are not granted to make the Topic Leader feel good, or to allow the Topic Leader to overturn polls results on a whim. The powers are granted to protect the project from making broken, stupid, or unimplementable decisions.

It is the TL's job to make sure that in every poll, there are no "bad" options. That doesn't mean that all the options are perfect, or wonderful -- but none of them should be "bad". I use quotes on the word "bad" -- because I realize that it is impossible to objectively define a "bad" option.

Popularity does not equal quality. In fact, sometimes in large completely democratic processes -- a severe lack of quality can actually cause an INCREASE in popularity. It's the counter-culture syndrome that kicks in.

Encourage participation
This is another big issue with the current process that I've already discussed. If there is not enough discussion on certain options, don't just move on. Do something like this. If you notice that some policy committee members aren't participating as much in this CAP, try to convince them to participate. Any and all knowledgeable CAP contributors should be involved in the project.

Whenever we get around to selecting a new TL, we NEED to make sure that the person selected understands their responsibilities and has all the qualities needed to ensure that discussion, debate, and a little controversy will happen during the process.

As long as all the options are adequately discussed and the TL exercises his or her ability to manipulate polls to prevent any 'counter culture' options, the public will choose the best option. It's just that these qualities of the process have not been stressed enough in recent times. I'm convinced that we don't need to do something drastic like double or triple the value of committee members votes. I'll agree with tennisace's idea for more discussion after the final two choices have been chosen. That's the kind of thing that I'm trying to stress. DISCUSSION. All options should be adequately explored. Long story short, we just need an educated voting population and a means of ensuring that that population is indeed educated (a TL willing to spark and participate in discussion).

 

[ferron]

tennis, would waiting till the final 2 be good enough? i mean, by that time the band-wagoning is quite heavy, and people may not be as easily swayed.

i have to agree with something that stellar brought up, if we encourage participation from those that know the project and the metagame, won't we receive a wider variety of submissions (both good and bad)

 

[tennisace]

tennis, would waiting till the final 2 be good enough? i mean, by that time the band-wagoning is quite heavy, and people may not be as easily swayed.

Do you really want to stop it after every poll? I think that the pre-poll discussion and this second discussion is good enough. People will grow tired of rehashing the same points.

 

[ferron]

doing it after every poll would be nothing less than a waste of time. what i would prefer is that TLs stop worrying about getting the CaP done quickly, and worry more about encouraging the discussion, and taking all the time necessary to make the CaP good.

 

[Deck Knight]

I don't really see the benefits of debating the final two options of a poll. By then most of the arguments have been hashed out and it its usually just a sort of "may the best man win" kind of topic.

In its current format "best" seems to be synonymous with "most popular." The problem as I see it is no one is willing to cut out superfluous crap. Instead the TL relies on the voting public to weed it out, leading to the bloated movepools that most CAPs possess. This appears to be because most TLs and the public support a "do no harm" approach and they view curtailing superfluous options as a form of harm. Thus why there is a massive debate on Stealth Rock every CAP because not being able to have another random SR user is deemed as a harm to the product.

There is no process that can make up for bad leadership.

I think a C+P of Stellar's post in the TL nomination topic would make the responsibilities more clear, though. Right now nominating yourself is more of a personal selling paragraph than a job application.