Policy Review Policy Review - Topic Leadership

[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.

This PR thread is not for the faint of heart. It is fairly long and involved. If you are put off by the wall of text before you, give up now. Head over to the Revenankh playtesting thread, and read what's going on there. Or better yet, log onto the CAP server and get your ass kicked by our favorite Bulk-Upping Fighting Ghost. But, don't skim this PR and presume to post an opinion here. Save your time and my time. I won't feel bad if you ignore me. I know this is a lot -- even by my long-winded standards. If you are in it for the long haul -- then read on...


We Have A Problem

The current CAP process isn't working very well, and I have been struggling to figure out a way to fix it -- but I want to try. The proposal I will outline here does not change much about the current process, but will hopefully set us on a course with a significantly different mindset, and possibly remedy some of the problems that currently plague the CAP project.

Somewhere along the way, we stopped producing interesting competitive pokemon. I'm not saying that CAP pokemon are worthless competitively. I'm saying they have become boring and generic. We aren't learning much about the metagame by making them or using them. The CAP process is in a rut of producing a stream of relatively plain balanced pokemon. Yes, some are a little faster than others. Some are a little more bulky or offensive. But, CAP pokemon are becoming middle-of-the-road carbon copies of each other. The last two CAPs, in particular, have highlighted the problem IMO. We aren't really learning anything about the metagame with our recent CAPs. We are making a bunch of balanced OU pokemon, whose most distinctive features are their typing and sprites. That's not good.

I have not kicked off CAP 9 yet, because I don't want to go through another CAP without making some attempt to improve our project. Keep in mind -- the entire CAP project has certain inherent limitations that cannot be reasonably overcome. With a democratic process, we cannot avoid a certain amount of "populist averaging" towards the middle. We can't eliminate that without completely dismantling the basic foundations of the project -- which isn't going to happen. Not on my watch, at least. But, I think we can shift the project in a way that is more conducive to producing interesting pokemon, with the hope that it will improve the project overall.

Without reprinting the CAP Mission Statement -- here are a few of the fundamental tenets of the CAP project:

• Our goal is to learn about the current competitive metagame
• We make new pokemon
• We build them step-by-step with a "waterfall process" (as opposed to an "iterative process")
• Each pokemon creation is led by a Topic Leader
• We use democratic voting
• We allow everyone to participate
• We try to keep it fun and interesting

Those things are not going to change, and I don't want them to change -- I want to change the mindset of the CAP project. To effect a group change, we have to start at the top. For a CAP project -- that means the Topic Leader. We need to change the way TL's lead CAP projects. We've always just let each Topic Leader kinda "do their own thing" on CAP projects, and hope it works out for the best. Unfortunately, certain traditions and practices have become ingrained in our process, and now we have cultivated a Topic Leader mentality that encourages them to simply organize threads and allow the general public to determine EVERYTHING. That has to change.


A New Style Of Leadership

The general public should determine every specific aspect of a CAP pokemon, but have little to do with determining the shape and direction of a CAP pokemon.

To use an analogy for the CAP project -- think of a CAP pokemon like a movie. We are making movies. I am the Producer of the movie, and Smogon is the studio. We provide the basic resources necessary to get the movies made, and set the basic guidelines for the movie-making process. However, the real mover and shaker in each individual movie is the Director. I would like us to start thinking of the CAP Topic Leader like the Director of a movie.

Quite literally, the Director runs the show. They control everything. However, they don't actually MAKE any part of the movie. They don't write the script (Writers do that), the don't make the sets or costumes (Set and Costume Designers), they don't frame the shots (Cinematographers), and they don't even appear in the film!(Actors and Stuntmen) Based on that, one might assume that the Director has almost no impact on the final film that is produced. Nothing could be further from the truth, because the Director has a greater impact on the final movie than any other person. A good Director can make a good movie with a bad script. They can make a terrible movie with great actors. They can make a great movie with no budget. In essence, even though the Director doesn't actually make any part of the movie, they are almost single-handedly responsible for the success or failure of the combined result.

How is that possible? It's simple -- everything goes through the Director. They set the direction for the script, they tell the designers what they envision for sets and costumes, they tell the cinematographers what mood and effect they want from each camera shot, and they tell the actors what feelings they want them to portray. It is then up to the individual participants to give the director what he wants. And it's up to the director to keep giving direction, until he gets what he wants. But, at no point in the process does the director actually do someone else's job. No matter how much the Director hates a costume, he will not pick up a needle and thread and start making a costume. Even the most frustrated director cannot jump in front of the camera and perform a role for an actor. Ultimately, the director must get other people to make every single part of the movie. They can only direct the people that are making it. But, with the right direction, a good director can make almost any movie with almost any combination of qualified participants.

That's what we need to do on the CAP project. We need to let Directors make movies. I want each Topic Leader to act like a movie director. I don't want TL's to LITERALLY behave like a movie director, because in reality, movie directors are incredibly specific with their directions. In CAP, the directions must be more general, to allow project participants leeway to contribute creatively. But, the entire community needs to make contributions to CAP with the understanding that the Topic Leader is the first filter for all ideas and submissions. All submissions should be geared to meet the Topic Leader's approval -- otherwise the TL will not present the submission in the slate of polling options for the general public. By actively controlling the slate of polling options, the TL will exercise enormous control over the final product. However, every actual decision made by the community will be made by a democratic public vote.


How To Make It Work

To be fair to all submitters, they need to know what the Topic Leader is thinking, in order to know if their submissions stand a chance of meeting the Topic Leader's approval. Also, by making their intentions known, the Topic Leader can be lobbied and persuaded with different ideas -- even ones that are not favored by the TL initially. Good Topic Leaders will be active participants in all discussions, letting everyone know which ideas sound good and bad, with reasoning for each. In this way, as the project progresses, everyone will hopefully "get on the same page" -- because "the page" will literally be the plan in the Topic Leader's head.

A detailed plan should not be formulated early on in the CAP project by the Topic Leader. In the early steps of a CAP (Concept, Typing, etc), the Topic Leader should start with a general idea of what could work or not work. The TL should actively let everyone know what they are thinking. The Topic Leader should openly acknowledge ideas that they think are compelling, and should discourage ideas that they think are unworkable. If an idea or polling option is not acceptable to the TL -- then it should NOT be included in the first poll, regardless of popularity within the community. The TL should only present options to the community for which they can personally vouch support. For this reason, Topic Leaders need to be broad-minded and creative, with the ability to incorporate multiple participant's contributions, and yet still create a focused end product. In this way, the TL needs to be like a good director who is able to work with a variety of actors' personalities -- they allow the actors creative freedom and artistic license, but are able to adapt and edit the movie along the way to produce a cohesive storyline and compelling film.

As the CAP progresses, the Topic Leader's vision of the pokemon should become more and more detailed and rigid. By the time movepool rolls around (the final competitive step), the Topic Leader should have a very solid idea of what the finished product will look like (competitively, not artistically), and should be very specific in directing movepool creators as to what moves are allowed/disallowed. Arguments may erupt, and people may propose many alternative ways to implement the TL's competitive vision -- but no major competitive direction changes should arise in the midst of the movepool creation. In this way, the movepool discussions should be the most focused discussions in the entire process. As opposed to now, where movepool threads are the most chaotic and out of control.

Through the project progression, the Topic Leader's vision and plan should be a bellwether for the project as a whole. If the Topic Leader presents clear and constant communication as to their opinions and plans -- the community can support or oppose the Topic Leader in active discussions. In a nutshell -- the TL's job is two-fold:

1) To proactively incite the community to generate ideas and submissions for an interesting competitive pokemon. If people are not producing workable ideas, then the TL needs to give more leadership and direction to provoke better ideas and submissions.

2) To reactively assimilate community ideas and suggestions into a cohesive whole. If the TL cannot see a reasonable way to incorporate an option into the current pokemon, in a way that is consistent with an interesting possible end result -- then the idea should be rejected by the TL, and not allowed into the poll.​

Let's Give It A Shot

On various past CAP projects, there have been certain users that have "imposed their will" on the end result. That wasn't necessarily a bad thing, since the direction imposed on the project was preferable to no direction at all. I want to embrace and endorse this concept. Instead of leaving it to chance as to who will "step up" in a given CAP, I want to overtly state that the Topic Leader is expected to regulate and control their CAP projects, even if that requires them to make some subjective decisions and use their power over voting slates as a tool to encourage a cohesive result. Let's make that the expectation from all sides of the community, and see if that works better than our current community mindset and traditions.

 

[DougJustDoug]

OP Appendix A

If we decide to endorse the proposal above, I have a few changes to the CAP process that I think we should make to accommodate the presence of a strong, subjective Topic Leader. The current process has a few kinks that can make it quite difficult for a TL to get their arms around the project. I won't write a detailed guide on these yet, since I want to get feedback on the idea of a strong, subjective Topic Leader. But, keep these in the back of your mind, and we can flesh them out in more detail later, if the proposal gets any traction:

1) I think we should replace the Style and Build polls, with a Style Discussion and a Build Discussion. At the end of the discussion, the Topic Leader will announce the ODB, PSB, and BSR limits for the Stat Spread creators. All those polls are boring as hell, and everyone votes for mixed/balanced anyway. By holding a discussion, everyone can lobby the TL with their ideas. The Topic Leader can set guidelines for the stat spreads in accordance with his vision of the project. However, because ODB, PSB, and BSR are not specific anyway -- it's not like the Topic Leader is creating his own pokemon. It just narrows the field for the stat spread, which can have a huge effect on the pokemon we make.

2) I want to make a new discussion thread early in the process and leave it open for the duration of the project -- it will be called "The Kitchen". The Kitchen is a thread to discuss flavor. Get it? Kitchen?...flavor?... yeah, bad pun, I know. But, I'm a dork like that, so deal with it. Anyway, the Topic Leader will be the THE SOLE JUDGE of all flavor issues with the pokemon. In the past we have said "Flavor doesn't matter" -- when it does matter... just not as much as competitive stuff. Well, in the hands of a strong, respectable Topic Leader, we can actually address certain flavor concerns -- and let the TL have final say on all flavor debates. The Kitchen will be the place to lobby the TL on flavor issues, and where the TL will announce his judgments on flavor.

3) We should leave the Concept Assessment thread open for most of the CAP project. It will be a thread for the Topic Leader to discuss his "forward vision" of where we are heading. Basically, it's a thread for the Topic Leader to intentionally poll-jump. Since the Topic Leader will be expected to evaluate "what if" scenarios as the CAP unfolds, I think it's only appropriate for us to have a forum for the TL to discuss forward vision. I'm a little wary of this thread turning into a shitstorm of poll-jumping submissions and ideas, so we will have to figure out a way to keep a lid on it. I'm not sure how to do that yet...
​

Those are the three process changes I would like to make, if we go with my idea in the OP. We may need even more.

 

[DougJustDoug]

OP Appendix B

After every Topic Leader is selected, I usually send them a PM congratulating them and giving them a little advice and encouragement. If we adopt the proposal above, I'm thinking of expanding that PM into a full-fledged guide. Here's a link to the first few parts of the guide. It's not finished, because I'm sick of writing right now, and the first few parts give you a pretty good idea of what I'm going for. Here's a link to the guide on Google Docs:

CAP Topic Leadership Guide

I don't want to take up any more space in this thread, by publishing it here. If I finish it out, I'll link it in the EnCAPlopedia or something.

 

[Umbreon Dan]

First of all, I can't tell you how happy I was to see that only about half of the guide was written. I would have given up completely if the whole thing was there.

Anyway, I'm completely in favour of the three changes to the process that you outlined in the second post. Revising the process will always be a relatively simple way to improve the quality of CAP, but I wonder if there isn't any more we can do as well. Also, I would suggest another "kitchen" thread, but for the competitive aspects of the Pokemon - unless that's what you intended to do by leaving the Concept Assessment thread open.

What you said about the TL imposing limits to the Stat Spreads and such (I'm not going to hunt for your exact words, but I remember reading it) doesn't seem, to me, to be the best way to solve the issue. Why not let the TL create the spreads himself, or allow people to submit a spread but modify them all to his/her liking before allowing them into the poll?

 

[tennisace]

blue

So let me get this straight. You want to give the TL the most influence on the project, taking power away from people who can walk in with a popular fanboy idea and clean up in the polls? I like it. This is actually what the CAP Project needs: guidance. It brings the TL role from a popularity contest of "who can make threads the best" to one where the TL actually makes a difference on the Pokemon, something I would have liked to see when I was TL. I felt that Stratagem was spiraling out of control, but I didn't really have the power to do anything. Don't get me wrong it ended up pretty cool, but in reality the past few concepts that won shouldn't have ended up in the first poll.

This is why I'm proposing a slight corollary to your proposal:
The TL should choose the final concept, out of a slate of five final polled options.

The reason for this is: people automatically go for the "cool concept". However, all the cool concepts are horrible with no direction. I'd like to entrust the TL with the power to kickstart the CAP project in the right direction, by giving it a good concept to work around.

How this would work is that every (legal!) option will make it to the first poll. Then, there will be 1-2 polls in which all the options are whittled down to the five most popular. Then, there will be a short discussion on which concept is the best, and each submitter will have a chance to plead their case either in the thread or in person to the TL, whichever is easier. Then, the TL will decide which concept, in their opinion, will make the best Pokemon with regards to direction and vision. "Mold Breaker" and "Neglected Ability" had no direction, and the vision could be anything. It needs to be like "Kingdra of the Sun", in that it can go several different ways according to the TL's preferences, but still follows a general mold.

collary What you said about the TL imposing limits to the Stat Spreads and such (I'm not going to hunt for your exact words, but I remember reading it) doesn't seem, to me, to be the best way to solve the issue. Why not let the TL create the spreads himself, or allow people to submit a spread but modify them all to his/her liking before allowing them into the poll?

Its not imposing the spreads in all actuality, it's only limiting the BSR. I can create two spreads with wildly different stats and the exact same BSR if I wanted to.

Ex:
-150/80/60/80/60/110 has a PSB of 0, an ODB less than 1, and has a quite good rating.
-55/105/115/105/115/65 has a PSB of 0, an ODB less than 1, and has a quite good rating.

The two spreads perform totally different roles, yet have the same Style/Build.

However, I don't know whatever happened to the TL choosing the spreads he liked most and asking people to submit a final spread for the poll. It kind of went away somewhere in-between CAP4 and CAP5, and I'd like to see it come back.

 

[Stellar]

I've read through the entire thing and I agree with all your proposals with tennisace's corollaries.

One thing I'm completely confused by is "the Kitchen" concept. If you wouldn't mind, could you elaborate on that please?

I would have gone more in-depth in this post, but I was asleep and other people covered what I wanted to talk about already. -.-

 

[latinoheat]

Sorry for going a bit off topic at the start but just wanted to clear some things up

Our goal is to learn about the current competitive metagame

This i never really got which metagame are we exactly learning about?

The OU pokemon metagame, because if this is the case we are nine good to excellent pokemon removed from the actual platinium metagame, so it is certainly not that one. No matter how good your TL, concept or whatever else will change that fact.

If its the "CAP" metagame then what is the actual purpose of learning about this metagame? Its certainly not really competitive pokemon at this point, why is it even on the forum.

Fine i guess you could make a slight case if we stuck to the actual mechanics of the game, but we have been adding new moves, traits and break the "rules" of pokemon, at this point its a metagame with loose connections to pokemon.

Even if you want to kid yourselves that we are learning about the OU metagame, what have we actually learnt?

Making a pokemon with good stats, typing, movepool will make it a good OU pokemon?

Giving a pokemon all the utlity moves, great typing and stats will make it a good utility pokemon?

These are hardly a revelation, we already knew this literally the only thing i can remember people being a bit suprised about is the power of Rest/Shed Skin. These creations have so many fail safes that we are not learning anything about them because there is literally no chance of them failing.

How are we actually learning something each project? How is it actually relevant to competitive pokemon when the game we are playing isn't even competitive pokemon?

Maybe if we didn't have this idea then people wouldn't come up with shitty concepts that have to try a meet a very flimsy goal.

We allow everyone to participate

I am not talking about playtesting every pokemon or even going on the server, i mean absolute basics like knowing the abilities of some of the other CAPs or even more basic actually knowing the weakness and resistance of a type combination.

When numerous people didnt't even have the knowledge to know what a neglected ability whether it be on the CAP server or in the standard platinium metagame, and because of this keep posting shit about using Intimidate in the last project. Why are they even contributing to a supposed competitive project and allowed to spam the topics.

Not allowing people to contribute to a supposed competitive project when they seemingly do not know the absolute basics of pokemon is not elitism. A RMT topic would get closed if the person clearly didn't have the absolute basics down.

Anyway on to the actual purpose of this topic.

The general public should determine every specific aspect of a CAP pokemon, but have little to do with determining the shape and direction of a CAP pokemon.

This is meant to have been happening for ages, its why we have numerous policy review topics to guide the TL's at what should and shouldn't be allowed. Yet we are still at this point, why would this be any different.

How much is it the TL's project when they cannot even delete threads, this isn't even about badges or recognition or anything fuck don't give them a badge or anything, just the ability to make the process run smoother.

To get a post deleted or a topic closed the TL currently has to first spot the shit post, then alert the mod. Sometimes because of time differences or whatever, this one shit post turns into a page of people posting shit discussing that shit idea. Suddenly we have some bad idea that has escalated and then gets discussed every single topic and somehow suddenly wins.

Not being able to close polling topics early then having idiots post after the deadline is also happening because of this.


If the TL could just delete posts and close topics it then you don't have this problem.

Then there is also the idea that they have to get everything verified by the mod what one person thinks is a good competitive idea might not be someone elses, if this is the case isn't it really still Bass/Darkie whoever's project with the TL just making the topics.

2) I want to make a new discussion thread early in the process and leave it open for the duration of the project -- it will be called "The Kitchen". The Kitchen is a thread to discuss flavor. Get it? Kitchen?...flavor?... yeah, bad pun, I know. But, I'm a dork like that, so deal with it. Anyway, the Topic Leader will be the THE SOLE JUDGE of all flavor issues with the pokemon. In the past we have said "Flavor doesn't matter" -- when it does matter... just not as much as competitive stuff. Well, in the hands of a strong, respectable Topic Leader, we can actually address certain flavor concerns -- and let the TL have final say on all flavor debates. The Kitchen will be the place to lobby the TL on flavor issues, and where the TL will announce his judgments on flavor.

Yeah i am probably sounding like a broken record at this point. Why are we encouraging even more flavor, when a supposed competitive project is literally run by it already.

Any single art threads get double if not treble the amount of posts that any single competitive topic does.

Art threads get probably 2 weeks to be open, where as not one competitive topic is usually open more then 3 days whether discussion is still ongoing and its hardly encouraged by the process to step outside that 3 day deadline. I know art takes awhile to make but seriously two weeks, is it that important when considering the supposed goals of the projects?

Maybe we should be looking at ways to stop competitive discussion being about the same few individuals having good discussion and then it kinda dying within two days. Looking in to getting more people involved so discussion does not die out, instead of giving yet more time to and encouraging flavor.

Strict deadlines are normally kept on the competitive discussions yet not on the art threads. So the threads that are supposedly most important are getting cut off early yet art threads don't. The laid back attitude to these supposed Art deadlines gives me the impression that the Art is more important and encourages more flavor.

All it is doing is encouraging people who are only here because of the Artwork, fuck people have admitted it in the past, the fact they don't see a problem with that either shows how much it is encouraged. At the end of the day this is not meant to be Smeargle's Studio.
You can argue that we can just delete these people but if there wasn't so much encouragement then they wouldn't be doing this shit as much in the first place.

Allowing people to post full length fucking stories seem to encourage this as well but that's another point.

I know you probably don't agree with this but maybe you can be a bit bias as you yourself are artist and a lot of the top contributors to CAP are also artists.
Maybe we should be doing more about the competitive parts then looking at something that is by far the most popular part of the CAP forum and hardly needs fixing.

3) We should leave the Concept Assessment thread open for most of the CAP project. It will be a thread for the Topic Leader to discuss his "forward vision" of where we are heading. Basically, it's a thread for the Topic Leader to intentionally poll-jump. Since the Topic Leader will be expected to evaluate "what if" scenarios as the CAP unfolds, I think it's only appropriate for us to have a forum for the TL to discuss forward vision. I'm a little wary of this thread turning into a shitstorm of poll-jumping submissions and ideas, so we will have to figure out a way to keep a lid on it. I'm not sure how to do that yet...

The TL should choose the final concept, out of a slate of five final polled options.

The reason for this is: people automatically go for the "cool concept". However, all the cool concepts are horrible with no direction. I'd like to entrust the TL with the power to kickstart the CAP project in the right direction, by giving it a good concept to work around.

How this would work is that every (legal!) option will make it to the first poll. Then, there will be 1-2 polls in which all the options are whittled down to the five most popular. Then, there will be a short discussion on which concept is the best, and each submitter will have a chance to plead their case either in the thread or in person to the TL, whichever is easier. Then, the TL will decide which concept, in their opinion, will make the best Pokemon with regards to direction and vision. "Mold Breaker" and "Neglected Ability" had no direction, and the vision could be anything. It needs to be like "Kingdra of the Sun", in that it can go several different ways according to the TL's preferences, but still follows a general mold.

A single TL in my opinion is a bad idea, because we all make mistakes. I don't really want to single people out but take cyberzero, he contributes a lot and made a good TL. Yet look at the winning concept he let through "Neglected Ability".

A lot of people on the server discussed the winning concept and a lot rightly predicted that the pokemon's ability would be average, that it would not make a difference and literally make the concept pointless.
So how come cyberzero someone who has more experience on the CAP ladder and server then most didn't see this. Is he not good enough to be a TL? No i think this was an oversight and could happen to anyone at some point and has in the past. So why can't we have a group of TL's discussing there is more chance of spotting potential flaws with a group of people then one.

I agree with tennis that the concept thread needs something done about it, i think the concept poll is the root of these problems . People are running out of ideas and have started throwing any old shit at the wall. Its become like a contest of people not giving a shit about what concept they submit as long as it is their concept that wins. It is no coincedence that the last few pokemon are the ones that had the "worst" concepts" Maybe the concept idea needs more discussion.

 

[DougJustDoug]

This is why I'm proposing a slight corollary to your proposal:
The TL should choose the final concept, out of a slate of five final polled options.

I like this suggestion. It continues in the spirit of the other changes I proposed -- I am trying to foster a process that allows the Topic Leader to prevent certain key pieces of the CAP process from ending up in the inevitable middle-of-the-road. Concept certainly falls in that category of problem steps that sometimes tend toward ambiguous lack of real direction. Yes -- Concepts are always vague, and HAVE to be vague in order to be legal. But they should not be completely directionless.

Yeah, the whole Concept Step has not worked out like I thought it would, and needs to be improved. I think picking a Concept is a good thing, and it is better than what we had before that in CAP 1-3. Actually, now that I bring it up -- we kinda had a concept in CAP 1 and 2. Syclant was designed as a "glass cannon" (with constant references to "like Infernape") from very early on in CAP 1. On CAP 2, we latched onto the idea of "a great Bulk-Up user" somewhere early, and we kept hammering that theme throughout the project. CAP 3 was the first CAP where we really had no commonly accepted direction, and different people tried to pull the project in their own private directions. After that, we instituted the Concept Poll, in an attempt to solve the problem. It worked great for CAP 4 (Fidgit), but started going awry with CAP 5. I think that's when people started figuring out how to "game the system" when I came to Concepts. Which is where we are now.

I want to adjust the process in such a way so as to allow the Topic Leader to prevent people from "gaming the system"; particularly if they do it by appealing to the community's inherent democratic weakness of tending to vote down the middle. We have to get some more "edge" in our CAP's.

However, I don't know whatever happened to the TL choosing the spreads he liked most and asking people to submit a final spread for the poll. It kind of went away somewhere in-between CAP4 and CAP5, and I'd like to see it come back.

It damn well better come back. It's even written into the process that way. It ALWAYS has been written that way. I don't know why Topic Leaders started allowing Stat Spread submissions to be an open cattle-call, but I never intended it to be like that.

I think our recent past in handling bias and spreads has been total crap. It's boring as hell, and the project always loses momentum when we go into the bias polls. The stat spread polls are a big wall of text that most voters don't read, and there are WAY too many options anyway.

Let's be honest - how many "distinctive" stat spreads can you make for a given set of bias limits (ODB, PSB, and BSR)? Not many, really. Out of the 10 spreads available in our first poll -- there's really only 2 or 3 "types of spread", at most. Most of the spreads are incredibly similar, and all the duplication is off-putting and boring. The Topic Leader needs to pick out a few people that have different ideas of how to make a spread, and have been active and convincing in the Stat Spread Discussion. We don't need 10 spreads in the first poll, and we don't need 30-40 random users making "submissions" in the discussion thread. The discussion should be just that -- a discussion.

(concerns about the metagame we are learning about)

The change to force playtesting in isolation with OU is an attempt to get the project focused on OU -- not the "CAP Metagame". I don't know if it is working, but I think it is helping.

As for your comments that the project goal of learning about the metagame is a "flimsy goal" -- I'm not covering that here. Perhaps it can be a topic for a different policy review, but it's not up for discussion in this thread.

(giving TL's mini-mod privileges)

I have no objection to the idea of letting TL's have total control of the posts in their topics. Unfortunately, AFAIK, there is no way to give moderator privileges on a thread-specific basis. I am not going to promote TL's to Smogon forum staff, just so they can run a CAP project. Forum staff have privileges and abilities that extend beyond their individual forums, and we aren't going to convey that to Topic Leaders. If someone knows how to give thread-specific mod-like privileges in vBulletin, let me know. If it's possible, I'm willing to do what I can to make it happen.

Why are we encouraging even more flavor, when a supposed competitive project is literally run by it already.
(more comments along those lines)

I proposed The Kitchen, as a way to give an outlet for something that has been a constant struggle to keep it OUT of the competitive threads. By allowing flavor to be discussed openly in The Kitchen, and allowing the Topic Leader to be the judge and jury when it comes to making flavor decisions -- I think it will actually improve the quality of the competitive discussions.

A single TL in my opinion is a bad idea, because we all make mistakes.
(more comments along those lines)

Maybe Topic Leadership is too big for just one person. But then again, it's really hard to make decisions when a committee of people is involved in arriving at a conclusion. Since the point of my entire proposal is to increase the focus and direction of the project, I'm not sure we could do that by spreading out the leadership responsibility. But, I am curious to see what others think about your suggestion for multiple TL's.

 

[hydrolphin]

1) I think we should replace the Style and Build polls, with a Style Discussion and a Build Discussion. At the end of the discussion, the Topic Leader will announce the ODB, PSB, and BSR limits for the Stat Spread creators. All those polls are boring as hell, and everyone votes for mixed/balanced anyway. By holding a discussion, everyone can lobby the TL with their ideas. The Topic Leader can set guidelines for the stat spreads in accordance with his vision of the project. However, because ODB, PSB, and BSR are not specific anyway -- it's not like the Topic Leader is creating his own pokemon. It just narrows the field for the stat spread, which can have a huge effect on the pokemon we make.

This, I believe is the most important of the three proposals. Currently, people can submit anything they want pretty much, even if it doesn't really follow the guidelines that were voted on. To prevent bad submissions, and keep the process going how the TL and the competitive community wants it to go, this should be the order of events. Doug touched on something similar to this in his last post.
Step 1.TL opens the style and build discussions. The community argues like normal, some people become sort of heads of discussion.
Step 2. The thread is closed, and the TL takes the community input and forms guidelines for the spreads to follow.
Step 3. The TL contacts the heads of discussion to make threads that follow the guidelines. They are given a bit of license to go outside the guidelines if it makes the CAP better, but they can't do stuff like give a defensive pokemon 130 SpA and 75 HP.
Step 4. The TL then picks 3 or 4 best. These should be different yet still fitting the guidelines. For example, this is a good selection for a Cyclohm-like CAP:

[COLOR=black][COLOR=black]A: 100/45/110/125/95/60; ODB -8.5, PSB -36.6[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]B: 110/60/110/90/115/45; ODB -34.6, PSB -17.8[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]C: 95/55/125/105/80/70; ODB -16.2, PSB -8.6[/COLOR][/COLOR]

These are different enough to give someone an actual choice, but similar enough to keep the process going in the direction the TL wants. However, recently, weve gontten choices like this:

[COLOR=black][COLOR=black]A: 100/45/110/125/95/60; ODB -8.5, PSB -36.6[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]B: 102/46/116/123/88/60; ODB -12.4, PSB -29.0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]C: 100/90/70/60/130/100; ODB -16.7, PSB -7.7[/COLOR][/COLOR]

A and B are so similar that the vote will be split between them. So even if the idea of that spread could get 60% of the vote, C, which is completely different, wins with 40%.

Step 5. The poll is opened. The community chooses their favorite. The poll goes on as normal.

This process would keep out bad polls like that second group of choices, and gives both the community and the TL the power to create the CAP.

2) I want to make a new discussion thread early in the process and leave it open for the duration of the project -- it will be called "The Kitchen". The Kitchen is a thread to discuss flavor. Get it? Kitchen?...flavor?... yeah, bad pun, I know. But, I'm a dork like that, so deal with it. Anyway, the Topic Leader will be the THE SOLE JUDGE of all flavor issues with the pokemon. In the past we have said "Flavor doesn't matter" -- when it does matter... just not as much as competitive stuff. Well, in the hands of a strong, respectable Topic Leader, we can actually address certain flavor concerns -- and let the TL have final say on all flavor debates. The Kitchen will be the place to lobby the TL on flavor issues, and where the TL will announce his judgments on flavor.

I like this idea for one reason. Hopefully, a place to discuss flavor will keep flavor advocates out of competetive threads. However, it also allows us to emphasize the import parts of flavor: It brings people to the project and makes it more fun. However any dicussion about Wooper learning Focus Punch or Sucker Punch being called Ambush in Japanese should be banned. Everytime someone brings Wooper learingFocus Punch up, my head explodes.

3) We should leave the Concept Assessment thread open for most of the CAP project. It will be a thread for the Topic Leader to discuss his "forward vision" of where we are heading. Basically, it's a thread for the Topic Leader to intentionally poll-jump. Since the Topic Leader will be expected to evaluate "what if" scenarios as the CAP unfolds, I think it's only appropriate for us to have a forum for the TL to discuss forward vision. I'm a little wary of this thread turning into a shitstorm of poll-jumping submissions and ideas, so we will have to figure out a way to keep a lid on it. I'm not sure how to do that yet...
Those are the three process changes I would like to make, if we go with my idea in the OP. We may need even more.

I say that this thread could be a generic competetive discussion. It would be a place to develop ideas, like if the CAP needs a new STAB move, or to say X Ability would be broken with to much defense without being flamed for poll jumping.

As for the multiple TLs idea, I would say there should be a sort of TL Commity along side the TL. It would be 3 or 5 people who are sort of a power check to prevent the TL from being a dictator, but would also keep the community from swarming over the TL and taking over the project. These would be members of the PC, who are chosen in some way. It could be election by the PC, selection by the TL, selection by the previous TL commity, or some other way to make sure we get a good group of people.

 

[Tint]

I've read through all of your posts Doug, and Latinoheat's aswell.

I feel like giving more power to the TL would greatly help the overall quality of Pokemon we put out. But I think another issue would still prevent success. It seems to me that these Pokemon all seem to have one thing in common:

They are built to succeed.

Now, hold on. I know how pointless it is to take weeks of people's time to make a Pokemon that won't ever be used. But we make these pokemon so fail-proof that they are quite easy to shove onto a team, if nothing but to just use a new pokemon. I think that we should tone down on how powerful we make these, limit the movepool some, base stats, etc. My main examples are the two most recent CAPs.

Cyclohm has about two pokemon you can switch into it, Blissey and Snorlax. Maybe some others, but mainly those two. We shouldn't give it a movepool as varied as it has, because now it's pretty much forced most players to have one of these two pokemon on a team. This was built on a concept of a neglected ability. I've never put Cyclohm on a team because I was Iron Head Jirachi weak, or I'd be 6-0'd by a Togekiss, it's because it's an above average OU poke with very few weak points.

Kitsunoh was made as a scout, the ultimate scout. I think because of wild voting, it got to the point of fast standalone sweeper, who can weaken the team with U-Turns. Frisk, the epitome of scouting, is hardly used. Limber is the choice of most high-quality battlers, showing how far off base it has become.

Now you might be saying, well nizik, we know that already, I just said it all up there. My idea, keeping in mind what LH said, is to have multiple TL's. I think it's too much to put on one person all the responsibilities you suggested, and combined with the fact that no one can possibly forsee all problems that can arise, case in point Revy. The community as a whole didn't see a broken Bulk-Up set when they compiled that group of stats, move poll, and ability. Chances are that if one TL had a larger stake in things, they would get all the blame for a failed CAP. With two (or maybe three) TL's, more ideas can flow, more concerns shared, and a better judgement overall.

My other suggestion is to create attachments to the pokemon itself. Flavor is looked down on, but it's THE reason your favorite pokemon is your favorite pokemon. I'm sure Jumpman16 didn't love Espeon because it had a Synchronise ability or it could outspeed Lucario, he probably likes it cause it looks cool, or he used it when he was younger. We should create this attachement or CAPs with more flavor. One big thread started by a non-TL can house all discussion, and then have a vote on everything. This gives something to do during the process, and allows creativity.

Thank you for hearing me out.

btw, doesn't Firebot have it's own Mods and powers? Maybe I'm confused, but it could probably help...

 

[Mario With Lasers]

Maybe Topic Leadership is too big for just one person. But then again, it's really hard to make decisions when a committee of people is involved in arriving at a conclusion. Since the point of my entire proposal is to increase the focus and direction of the project, I'm not sure we could do that by spreading out the leadership responsibility. But, I am curious to see what others think about your suggestion for multiple TL's.

If the idea is to have more than one TL per CAP project, then I suggest two. It's the smallest number of people necessary to have a debate, and you can't have one side of the argument outnumbering the other. Both have to come to an agreement.

As for the multiple TLs idea, I would say there should be a sort of TL Commity along side the TL. It would be 3 or 5 people who are sort of a power check to prevent the TL from being a dictator, but would also keep the community from swarming over the TL and taking over the project. These would be members of the PC, who are chosen in some way. It could be election by the PC, selection by the TL, selection by the previous TL commity, or some other way to make sure we get a good group of people.

...However, this committee also sounds good. The main problem I see with it, however, is the fact that the committee would have the same people every CAP or two. I believe it was already discussed in one of the most recent PR threads, even.

 

[Tint]

If the idea is to have more than one TL per CAP project, then I suggest two. It's the smallest number of people necessary to have a debate, and you can't have one side of the argument outnumbering the other. Both have to come to an agreement.



...However, this committee also sounds good. The main problem I see with it, however, is the fact that the committee would have the same people every CAP or two. I believe it was already discussed in one of the most recent PR threads, even.

I'm throwing out the idea of a two person TL team, with a committee to resolve any true stalemates with a vote. This stops long periods of argueing and stubborness, while still keeping the TL's power.

 

[latinoheat]

Anything more then two or three is not practical, it takes enough time for everyone to vote on who should be the TL. Imagine is something like that had to be done for every step of the project.

 

[Naxte]

Not so sure how keen I am on the idea of having multiple Topic Leaders or a committee running the show. If we do that, I'm fearful that the TLs/Committee will end up going more towards compromises and middle grounds in order to solve disputes, rather than simply picking an option. Granted, this isn't always bad, but more often than not middle grounds will lead to the same problem listed in the first post: the Pokemon becoming more plain and generic. And even if the committee/TLs don't simply go for some center-line, they would basically be having the same discussions that should be being held in the discussion thread to chose the best-looking option anyway: the arguments amongst TLs/Committee Members would be one and the same as the ones going on in the threads anyway, eliminating the real point, at least as far as I'm understanding it.

If an option really is bad, that should be being discussed in the discussion thread, which the TL should be keeping tabs on and participating in. It's then his/her call as of that point. Having more TLs doesn't really change that, especially since the problem really wasn't with the recent TLs not catching bad options, but simply letting pretty much everything that doesn't really break one of the submission rules through, instead of simply going through the submissions and choosing the best, and most varied, options to make it to the poll. Regardless of the number of TLs, that's what needs to start being done again.

As a result, I really think we should be fine with one Topic Leader, as the actual abilities of the TLs don't seem to really be the issue, but rather how willing they are to influence and push the project, and also to simply say no to some things that have to be wormed out for whatever reason so that we don't have polls with like 35 options. If it does seem to be being too much work after we complete the next one or two CAPs, then we really might want to try more than one TL, but I really think that we should continue to stick with one for now.

Beyond that, I really am in agreement with all three of the suggestions Doug made in the second post.

Edit: To be more clear, I suppose that I'm just not understanding the reason why we would want to have more than one TL. From my understanding, it wouldn't exactly cut down on the workload, as they wold all still have to be following the threads and having discussions with each other to come to an agreement.... which is basically what should be happening with one TL regardless: the threads being read, the TL participating in the discussion, and coming to a conclusion. That is, unless you want to have separate TLs for different parts of the process or something, I don't see how it would make terribly much of a difference, other than perhaps forcing some discussion that should be happening regardless to occur. Perhaps it's just that I've missed something somewhere, but right now, I'm just not quite getting the reasoning that multiple TLs would be that beneficial. To me, it just seems to make things more complicated.

 

[zarator]

I don't see all this problem with the whole TL thing. I mean, if the TL needs some kind of advice, there is always a community which can answer his questions. As Doug said, there is nothing wrong if the TL ask the community to throw out a suggestion or 2 in moments where the project needs a direction. I think - or maybe, I love to think - that the community is mature enough to help him in the right way. At least, its elder members.

About the subject more in general, I overall agree with DJD's proposal, especially the point about the TL deciding the build/style bias and the stat spread poll slate. I mean, even with the utmost care I could put into, it was impossible to responsibly judge every single submission in the first, HUGE slate.

@nizik: I understand your concern, but these mons are built for OU, and if you want to thrive in OU, you HAVE to succeed, to a certain degree. I mean... Espeon is UU after all^^

 

[Cartoons!]

@nizik: I understand your concern, but these mons are built for OU, and if you want to thrive in OU, you HAVE to succeed, to a certain degree. I mean... Espeon is UU after all^^

I think nizik's point was that we're approaching the creation of CAPs with too large an emphasis on building Pokemon that will succeed in the metagame. If we continue to build CAPs with its own success as the primary goal, we're going to continue playing it 'safe', taking fewer risks, with accordingly bland results.

Perhaps, we'd get more interesting results if we redefined 'success' from having a Pokemon that consistently tops the usage charts to how closely we've come to distilling the chosen Concept to its purest form.


edit to Naxte:
right, not saying we should disregard the Pokemon's viability when creating it (and a well chosen concept implies a certain level of viability anyway ie: Fidgit wouldn't be the great Supporter it is without the bulk and speed to back its movepool). It just seems that somewhere along the way, people become more focused on a Pokemon's ability to succeed under ALL conditions, rather than focusing on creating key strengths.

 

[Naxte]

I think nizik's point was that we're approaching the creation of CAPs with too large an emphasis on building Pokemon that will succeed in the metagame. If we continue to build CAPs with its own success as the primary goal, we're going to continue playing it 'safe', taking fewer risks, with accordingly bland results.

Perhaps, we'd get more interesting results if we redefined 'success' from having a Pokemon that consistently tops the usage charts to how closely we've come to distilling the chosen Concept to its purest form.

I don't exactly agree with this (as in, yes fulfilling the concept should be the primary goal, but we shouldn't let ourselves be unconcerned with a CAP's likely viability in the metagame). If a concept like "Ultimate Scout" would truly require us to simply make a Pokemon that would barely get any use due to being outclassed by more versatile Pokemon (in this case, ones like Scizor, Flygon, Azelf, Gliscor, and so forth, which all get U-turn and can use it to scout but can also serve very useful purposes in teams outside of scouting and therefore would be more useful overall than a pure-scout version of Kitsunoh would have been), then the concept shoud simply be ignored and we should go with something else. After all, we can't exactly learn much about the metagame if we know off the bat that a concept will totally bomb and will wind up as something not really worth using. We might be able to pick up some stuff, but not as much as if were actually a much more viable choice, due to it not being to impact the metagame much. Therefore, I think we really should strive to make Pokemon that are actually decent enough to impact the metagame, and if a concept doesn't really allow for that or we'd have to stray from it to do so, then we should just look for another concept.

(On a bit of a side note, I personally believe that it was fine in the case of Kitsunoh to make it a sweeper, as the concept allowed for that. The concept was Ultimate Scout, not Pure Scout. Thus, it should live up to that name and be able to scout without simply being outclassed by some Pokemon like Scizor that can scout, but can also serve other roles. Thus, making it a sweeper worked just fine in my mind, as that allowed it to better serve and complte it's purpose in my mind by allowing it to come in, scout the opponent's team for weaknesses, and either exploit them itself or switch to a member than can if it finds one, instead of the alternative, which was basically being dead-weight compared to other viable options. Of course, this is getting off-topic, so I'll leave it at that.)

 

[DougJustDoug]

I've received a few questions about art, and how it relates to the proposal in the OP. Let me make it clear:

The proposal in the OP is not intended to affect ANYTHING pertaining to CAP art or sprites.

There are a few minor issues that may be tweaked with our art and sprite process and voting, but nothing major. CAP art and sprites totally kick ass, and are wildly popular. If end results are an indicator of process efficiency, our art and sprite processes are the most well-oiled parts of the CAP machine. So, I really don't think we need to mess with it much. I am not advocating that the TL start sketching out designs for CAP artists to follow, nor do I think that the TL should pick out which sprite he thinks is the best according to his grand plan for the pokemon. For all intents and purposes -- expect the art and sprite threads to remain pretty much unchanged, regardless of what we do with our Topic Leader.

One thing I'm completely confused by is "the Kitchen" concept. If you wouldn't mind, could you elaborate on that please?

I've gotten several questions about The Kitchen proposal, and I realize my description was pretty vague. I've been writing A TON over the past several days. I was sick of it, and so I just kinda threw my Kitchen idea out there without explaining it too much. I've decided to make a separate PR thread for The Kitchen proposal, since it is really an independent proposal from the TL stuff in this thread. Please see that PR thread for more information about The Kitchen.

 

[zarator]

I was reading your guide more carefully, DJD, and you said something that made me think:

The minute you are chosen as a Topic Leader, start thinking of what sort of pokemon you think you can direct. What kind of pokemon do you want? Not specific, just in general. What kinds of teams do you play? Everyone can play a balanced team - are you good with stall or hyper-offense? Do you play a lot of UU or Ubers? Which existing pokemon are your favorites? Are there any general battling concepts that you would like to get your hands on? Are there any moves or abilities that you find intriguing? At the very beginning, put this information out on the table for everyone to see. This is not to tell everyone specifically what we are going to build -- but it gives everyone a frame of reference of what you like and dislike. Since you are the one determining the voting slates, it is very important for people to know your outlook and opinion on everything. So, give it to them.

What do you mean by "at the very beginning"? Because if you mean in the TL Nominations, this could make a huge impact on the process. I mean, generally committee members vote whichever TL they feel will be more reliable/experienced/active. But with this new concern in mind, I may decide not to vote someone because "it is the best prepared to the job" but because "it has the mindset I feel closest to". While it may not be a wrong change, it is surely an issue we should all be aware of - especially whoever dreams to nominate himself for Topic Leading (and I'd like to know who these brave souls are, nowadays^^ seriously, CAP9 will probably be the hardest one to lead besides the first 2 or 3 probably)

 

[DougJustDoug]

Interesting that you caught that, Zarator. Yes I debated that exact question shortly after I wrote that part of the guide. Since I already wrote so much by that point, I decided not to spend any more time fiddling with the guide. So I just uploaded it to Google Docs and said, "I'll figure it out later."

But, it's a good question. Should Topic Leaders publish that information (listed in the guide) during nominations or at the start of the Concept thread? I think there are pros and cons to both. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

 

[Plus]

Interesting that you caught that, Zarator. Yes I debated that exact question shortly after I wrote that part of the guide. Since I already wrote so much by that point, I decided not to spend any more time fiddling with the guide. So I just uploaded it to Google Docs and said, "I'll figure it out later."

But, it's a good question. Should Topic Leaders publish that information (listed in the guide) during nominations or at the start of the Concept thread? I think there are pros and cons to both. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Through the TLs we've had throughout the CaP Project, each and every one of them had a distinct playing style I remember. I think it would be a great idea for the TLs to display their thoughts to the public. For example, there were TLs like tennisace who had a strong offensive playing style. Then, there were other TLs such as cyberzero who focused on a more bulkier type of play. Notable styles from the TL, such as Offense or Stall, can definitely give some important insight to the community as to what exactly our "director" has to give to the project.

However, showing this information during Nominations does kind of shift the purpose of this. It would much rather be "Which TL has preferences similar to yours?", rather than "Which TL is fit for the job?". I think that this information is best kept to the TL himself until the start of the concept polls. Furthermore, there have been TLs that have not really emphasized their stance in the battling field, yet are very capable of handling a project, such as Cyzir Visheen, who ran last time. Potential TLs who do not have much battling experience but certainly have some leadership qualities still deserve a fair shot at being TL.

Nonetheless, I must say I really do like this idea. This gives the TL a bit more recognition for the project they are doing, and it does give a better direction to where the project may head in the future.

 

[Umbreon Dan]

I think the TL nominees should tell the voters what their general ideas are, so that the people can vote for what they want. Right now, becoming TL is somewhere between a popularity contest and an argument about who could open and close threads more reliably. I think if the candidates put their ideas out there, people will have a better idea of who to vote for.

In real politics, candidates always speak about what they intend to do is elected. "I will lower taxes", "I will bring change" or whatever.

The best part is, it forces the TL nominees to actually have an idea of what they want before they run. We eliminate the risk of TLs not knowing what they want.

 

[zarator]

I support Umbreon on this. The fairest thing to do would actually be declaring this "battling style bias" or whatever in the CAP TL nominations thread. As Umbreon itself outlined, it would also given a real meaning of competition along the nominees apart from a badge or two and some CAP popularity.

 

[DougJustDoug]

Here's a chat we just had on IRC that pertains to questions about a Topic Leader's battle style and preferences, and how they will impact a CAP project:

------------
[11:48:48a] <%Mag> So, when it's said that the TL should outline the kind of things they prefer
[11:48:56a] <%Mag> would that be in the application?
[11:49:04a] <%Mag> Or something to put up when you're starting off?
[11:50:58a] <&tennisace> when you're starting off
[11:51:21a] <&tennisace> to prevent people from voting based on what pokemon they want and making them vote on the merit
[11:52:55a] <@beej> I'm actually really confused by this issue.
[11:53:07a] <@beej> Why should a TL have any idea of what kind of Pokemon they're building until the concept is chosen?
[11:53:50a] <@beej> *before the concept is chosen
[11:57:31a] <&DougJustDoug> Beej - I'll quote the guide:
[11:58:35a] <&DougJustDoug> "This is not to tell everyone specifically what we are going to build -- but it gives everyone a frame of reference of what you like and dislike. Since you are the one determining the voting slates, it is very important for people to know your outlook and opinion on everything."
[11:59:02a] <&DougJustDoug> Does that answer your question, Beej?
[11:59:09a] <@beej> Yeah, I see where you're coming from, but I think this is where the role of a TL and a director differ to an extent.
[11:59:33a] <@beej> If I have a primarily offensive playing style, I'm not letting that affect my ability to run a CAP project that's clearly meant to be defensive.
[12:00:10p] <&DougJustDoug> Then perhaps the wording needs to be changed.
[12:00:14p] <@beej> We absolutely do need a clear sense of direction, but a good TL is flexible and able to work with any concept.
[12:00:14p] <&DougJustDoug> They key is...
[12:00:48p] <&tennisace> beej, you should put offensive concepts in the poll slate in that case!
[12:00:55p] <&DougJustDoug> If you know from the outset that you are highly biased towards offensive designs -- then you should tell everyone that up front.
[12:02:19p] <&DougJustDoug> We are encouraging TL's to be MORE subjective (not totally subjective) -- so we need to know their basis for subjectivity.
[12:02:32p] <&DougJustDoug> Whatever that is.
[12:02:50p] <&DougJustDoug> Personally, I'd like to see this stuff in the nominations.
[12:02:58p] <&DougJustDoug> At least some of it.
[12:03:46p] <&DougJustDoug> Then when the TL is selected, there should be some more stuff about the TL's vision put in the Concept Thread OP.
[12:04:00p] <%Mag> All right
[12:04:05p] <%Mag> I'm going to head out for lunch
[12:04:12p] <%Mag> and come back and get on the guide.
[12:04:18p] <%Mag> bbl
[12:04:40p] <@beej> Well, I honestly don't think a TL should necessarily have a good vision until the concept has been selected.
[12:04:47p] <&DougJustDoug> If we have a diverse TL -- maybe they won't have too many predispositions or leanings.
[12:04:57p] <&DougJustDoug> That's fine.
[12:05:04p] <@beej> My concern isn't whether a concept fits a vague, pre-existing vision. It's whether the concept is good.
[12:06:26p] <@beej> What I'm saying is that a TL really needs to be diverse, and being limited by their own playing style is somewhat of a handicap.
[12:07:34p] <&DougJustDoug> Then lets clarify terms -- the TL should not have any "vision" before the concept thread. But they may have "predispositions". And don't focus so much on playing style. That's just one facet of it.
[12:07:53p] <@beej> Alright, maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.
[12:08:24p] <&DougJustDoug> Maybe the TL's predisposition is "I really like weird quirky pokemon"
[12:08:35p] <&DougJustDoug> Wouldn't that be good to know ahead of time?
[12:09:42p] <&DougJustDoug> What if they say, "I'd like CAP to make a pokemon that can participate with the very best in OU"
[12:10:08p] <&DougJustDoug> That's different than "I'd like to see us try to fill an obscure niche in the metagame."
[12:10:13p] <@beej> Okay, I think I understand better.
[12:10:38p] <@beej> A TL should outline little predispositions they have that may skew the vision they produce for the Pokemon throughout the course of the CAP project.
[12:10:41p] <&DougJustDoug> I really don't care about "I like stall" or "I want to make stat-up sweeper"
[12:10:52p] <@beej> That's fair.
[12:11:13p] <@beej> I was worried about a TL bringing in certain biases well before the concepts were submitted...thanks for the clarity.
[12:11:15p] <&DougJustDoug> But, that sort of thing IS part of the "personality" of the TL -- so it might be worth disclosing it.
[12:11:40p] <&DougJustDoug> I agree that Topic Leaders should be open-minded.
[12:12:00p] <&DougJustDoug> I said in the guide:
[12:12:03p] <&DougJustDoug> "Don't be too specific in the early stages. Be open to lots of ideas. There are tons of concepts that are workable -- don't focus too closely on just one or two favorites."
[12:12:46p] <&DougJustDoug> Maybe that should be expanded and explained better.
[12:13:20p] <&DougJustDoug> I DID write several sentences related to playing style -- which is probably skewing the perception of what I'm getting at.
[12:14:38p] <@beej> Yeah, I think that playing style should affect the vision of a CAP very little if at all.
[12:15:04p] <&DougJustDoug> Yeah, I wrote a bit too much on that.
[12:15:41p] <&DougJustDoug> I was trying to say "Look within yourself and take a personal inventory of what predispositions you will bring to the table as TL"
[12:15:58p] <&DougJustDoug> Unfortunately -- I don't think most people would understand how to do that.
[12:16:17p] <&DougJustDoug> So I gave a bunch of hypothetical questions to ask yourself as TL.

[12:25:16p] <&DougJustDoug> I'm posting the recent chat log in the PR thread. Other people should see that convo between Beej and me.
[12:25:56p] <@beej> That's a good idea. So people don't make my same mistake, heh.
[12:26:42p] <&DougJustDoug> Well, I think we need to clarify it in the rules and guides. Because it's important we don't start TL's off with the wrong impression.

 

[DougJustDoug]

Tennisace, Magmortified and I are trying to get the TL Guide finished up. I changed some stuff in that guide to clarify the things discussed in the chat with Beej above. Current version is here:

CAP Topic Leadership Guide

I'm also thinking of including this in the guidelines for Topic Leader Nominee Posts (in addition to history of involvement with the CAP project):

As a Topic Leader, you will be making judgement calls on all sorts of stuff. Everyone is going to bombard the project with their ideas, and in many cases, you will be the first person to judge whether an idea is "good" or not. You are expected to be open-minded and fair, but it's impossible to leave all your personal preferences aside. So, when nominating yourself for Topic Leader, give people a little insight into your personal outlook on pokemon and the CAP project. The purpose is not to tell everyone, "Here's what I think, and I will force my preferences on everyone at every opportunity." No, the goal is to be honest and upfront with people as to what things you generally like and dislike. Since you are the one determining the voting slates, it is very important for people to know your general outlook and opinion.

What kinds of pokemon do you like? Not specific, just in general. What kinds of teams do you play? Are you an avid fan of ingame play, or do you focus primarily on simulator play? Do you play a lot of UU or Ubers? Which existing pokemon are your favorites? Are there any general battling concepts that you would like to get your hands on? Are there any moves or abilities that you find intriguing?

In your nomination post, don't literally answer each question above. But that is the sort of thing you should put out on the table for everyone to see. This is not to tell everyone specifically what we will build if you are selected as Topic Leader -- but it gives everyone a frame of reference of what you like and dislike. If selected, you will be the one determining the voting slates. So, it is very important for people to know your general outlook and opinions.