Process Update Threat Discussion and Counter Discussion [Copyedit]

[tennisace]

Hi there.

Here are the drafts of two new pages to go into the SCMS. Copyediting and comments would be much appreciated.

Threat Discussion

[title]
Threat Discussion
[page]
<p>After the Typing Poll, the topic leader should post a thread asking questions about which Pokemon should be able to check or counter the CAP. Specifically, these questions should be posted in the OP:</p>

<div style="
	border: 1px solid black;
	background-color: #E4E4FF;
	margin: 0 10em 2em 5em; 
	padding: 0 1em 0em 1em; 
	height: 20em; 
	overflow: auto;">
<ul>
<li><p>Going specifically by typing, what Pokemon found in the OU (or relevant) metagame will be able to comfortably give this CAP project trouble?</p></li>
<li><p>What Pokemon will be major threats to this project right off the bat?</p></li>
<li><p>What Pokemon have the potential to become counters?</p></li>
<li><p>What Pokemon may end up as threats, but must be contained or dealt with per the concept?</p></li>
<li><p>Will the concept succeed with these set list of threats?</p></li>
<li><p>Is this list of threats acceptable for the project?</p></li>
<li><p>What Pokemon will be threatened by the CAP based off of typing?</p></li>
<li><p>Are these Pokemon targets that we want CAP to hit?</p></li>
<li><p>Will these targets be "unavoidable" to threaten based solely on the typing?</p></li>
<li><p>What direction must the project go in now that a set list of basic threats has been identified?</p></li>
<li><p>What must be done in order to make these threats "wanted counters" or these threats be eliminated from counter discussion?</p></li>
<li><p>What Pokemon do we want this project to counter entirely?</p></li>
</ul>
</div>

<p>Be aware that this list of questions is not a checklist, and not every question must be definitively answered in every response. </p>

Counters Discussion:

[title]
Counters Discussion
[page]

<p>The Counters Discussion occurs before the Movepool Discussions and is a continuation of the Threat Discussion. The difference between the two is that the Counters Discussion is more concrete given that the Stat Spread, Typing, and Abilities of the Pokemon will be decided already, narrowing (or maybe widening) the list of potential checks and counters. The TL will post these guide questions in the OP of the Counter Discussion thread:</p>

<div style="
	border: 1px solid black;
	background-color: #E4E4FF;
	margin: 0 10em 2em 5em; 
	padding: 0 1em 0em 1em; 
	height: 20em; 
	overflow: auto;">
<ul><li><p>Given the combination of typing, ability, and stat pool now decided, which previously defined threats are considered hard counters to the project?</p></li>
<li><p>Which Pokemon are regarded as basic counters?</p></li>
<li><p>Which Pokemon are checks?</p></li>
<li><p>Are the Pokemon that are currently able to counter the project the Pokemon we want/need to counter the project?</p></li>
<li><p>If not, what must be done to handle these Pokemon? Is it unavoidable?</p></li>
<li><p>What Pokemon have arisen in discussions that were not brought up before? As in, are there Pokemon that counter/check this concept on concepts that are not focused around its typing? Where should they be placed in the discussion?</p></li>
<li><p>Which Pokemon have been taken out of the counters discussion due to the stat pool and ability?</p></li>
<li><p>Which Pokemon have moved from threats purely by typing to checks? To neutral match-ups?</p></li>
<li><p>Which Pokemon are now countered by the project fully? Which are checked by the project? Which have become neutral match-ups against the project?</p></li>
<li><p>With this set list of counters and checks, does this fulfill the concept's goal?</p></li></ul>
</div>

<p>The end goal of the Counters discussion will be the basis for limiting Attacking Moves and non-Attacking Moves. A few Pokemon will be selected as Pokemon that should Hard Counter the CAP based on fulfilling three of six criteria:</p>


<ul>
<li><p>Can switch into this CAP's Strongest reliable STAB attacks at least three times from full health.</p></li>
<li><p>Can switch into this CAP's strongest possible coverage move at least twice from full health.</p></li>
<li><p>Can stall this CAP indefinitely using its recovery options either forcing the CAP out or healing enough that the stalling Pokemon can alternate between recovery and attacking.</p></li>
<li><p>Can OHKO or 2HKO the CAP with one of the moves on that Pokemon's relevant official Smogon moveset.</p></li>
<li><p>Can cripple this CAP with a permanent status move without risking a OHKO.</p></li>
<li><p>Can set up, use hazards, weather, or otherwise execute an opponent's strategy without risking a 2HKO.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>Attacking Moves that would turn Pokemon on the CAP's list of Hard Counters into Checks under ordinary circumstances will not be allowed. Non-Attacking Moves such as stat boosters or Taunt that would turn Pokemon on the CAP's list of Hard Counters into Checks will not be allowed.</p> 

<p><em><b>Note:</b> If it would take both an attacking and a non-attacking move to alter a Hard Counter, whichever discussion comes first will limit the second discussion.</em></p>
<p>For example, if Dragon Dance + Close Combat would turn a Pokemon from a Hard Counter into a Check, where neither Dragon Dance nor Close Combat alone would do so (e.g. Only +1 LO CC OHKOs, but the counter is ordinarily faster and can OHKO the CAP after taking a +0 LO Hit from Close Combat) then if Dragon Dance is selected first, Close Combat cannot be selected. If Close Combat is selected first, then Dragon Dance cannot be selected.</p>

 

[bojangles]

I can't take a deep look at it right now, but it would probably be better to put this in

 tags to make sure all the tags are working.

Also, as far as I know, Smogon reserves underlined works and phrases for links. Use <em></em> instead of <u></u>.

 

[Zystral]

[title]
Threat Discussion
[page]
<p>After the Typing Poll, the topic leader should post a thread asking questions about which Pokemon should be able to check or counter the CAP. Specifically, these questions should be posted in the OP:</p>

<div style="border: 1px solid black;
background-color: #E4E4FF;
margin: 0 10em 2em 5em; 
padding: 0 1em 0em 1em; 
height: 20em; 
overflow: auto;">
<ul><li>Going specifically by typing, what Pokemon found in the OU (or relevant) metagame will be able to comfortably give this CAP trouble?</li></ul>
<ul><li>What Pokemon will be major threats to this project right off the bat? </li></ul>
<ul><li>What Pokemon have the potential to become counters?</li></ul>
<ul><li>What Pokemon may end up as threats, but must be contained or dealt with per the concept?</li></ul>
<ul><li>Will the concept succeed with these set list of threats?</li></ul>
<ul><li>Is this list of threats acceptable for the project?</li></ul>
<ul><li>What Pokemon will be threatened by the CAP based off of typing?</li></ul>
<ul><li>Are these Pokemon targets that we want CAP to hit?</li></ul>
<ul><li>Will these targets be "unavoidable" to threaten based solely on the typing?</li></ul>
<ul><li>What direction must the project go in now that a set list of basic threats has been identified?</li></ul>
<ul><li>What must be done in order to make these threats "wanted counters" or these threats be eliminated from counter discussion?</li></ul>
<ul><li>What Pokemon do we want this project to counter entirely?</li></ul>
</div>

<p>Be aware that this list of questions is not a checklist, and not every question must be definitively answered in every response. </p>

[title]
Counters Discussion
[page]

<p>The Counters Discussion occurs before the Movepool Discussions and is a continuation of the Threat Discussion. The difference between the two is that the Counters Discussion is more concrete, as it takes into account the fact that the Stat Spread, Typing, and Abilities of the Pokemon are already defined, narrowing (or maybe widening) the list of potential checks and counters. The TL will post these guide questions in the OP of the Counter Discussion thread:</p>

<div style="border: 1px solid black;
background-color: #E4E4FF;
margin: 0 10em 2em 5em; 
padding: 0 1em 0em 1em; 
height: 20em; 
overflow: auto;">
<ul><li>Given the combination of typing, ability, and stat pool now decided, which previously defined threats are considered hard counters to the project?</li></ul>
<ul><li>Which Pokemon are regarded as basic counters?</li></ul>
<ul><li>Which Pokemon are checks?</li></ul>
<ul><li>Are the Pokemon that are currently able to counter the project the Pokemon we want/need to counter the project?</li></ul>
<ul><li>If not, what must be done to handle these Pokemon? Is it unavoidable?</li></ul>
<ul><li>What Pokemon have arisen in discussions that were not brought up before? As in, are there Pokemon that counter/check this concept on concepts that are not focused around its typing? Where should they be placed in the discussion?</li></ul>
<ul><li>Which Pokemon have been taken out of the counters discussion due to the stat pool and ability?</li></ul>
<ul><li>Which Pokemon have moved from threats purely by typing to checks? To neutral match-ups?</li></ul>
<ul><li>Which Pokemon are now countered by the project fully? Which are checked by the project? Which have become neutral match-ups against the project?</li></ul>
<ul><li>With this set list of counters and checks, does this fulfill the concept's goal?</li></ul>
</div>

<p>The end goal of the Counters discussion will be the basis for limiting Attacking Moves and non-Attacking Moves. A few Pokemon will be selected as Pokemon that should Hard Counter the CAP based on fulfilling three of six criteria:</p>

<p><ul>
<li>Can switch into this CAP's Strongest reliable STAB attacks at least three times from full health.</li>
<li>Can switch into this CAP's strongest possible coverage move at least twice from full health.</li>
<li>Can stall this CAP indefinitely using its recovery options either forcing the CAP out or healing enough that the stalling Pokemon can alternate between recovery and attacking.</li>
<li>Can OHKO or 2HKO the CAP with one of the moves on that Pokemon's relevant official Smogon moveset.</li>
<li>Can cripple this CAP with a permanent status move without risking a OHKO.</li>
<li>Can set up, use hazards, weather, or otherwise execute an opponent's strategy without risking a 2HKO.</li>
</ul></p>

<p>Attacking Moves that would turn Pokemon on the CAP's list of Hard Counters into Checks under ordinary circumstances will not be allowed. Non-Attacking Moves such as stat boosters or Taunt that would turn Pokemon on the CAP's list of Hard Counters into Checks will not be allowed.</p> 

<p><em><b>Note:</b> If it would take both an attacking and a non-attacking move to alter a Hard Counter, whichever discussion comes first will limit the second discussion.</em><br />
For example, if Dragon Dance + Close Combat would turn a Pokemon from a Hard Counter into a Check, where neither Dragon Dance nor Close Combat alone would do so (e.g. Only +1 LO CC OHKOs, but the counter is ordinarily faster and can OHKO the CAP after taking a +0 LO Hit from Close Combat) then if Dragon Dance is selected first, Close Combat cannot be selected. If Close Combat is selected first, then Dragon Dance cannot be selected.</p>

bojangles is correct in that underlined stuff shouldn't be used, and so I used <em> which is italics instead.
I gave it a brief combing for grammar, cleaning up bits here and there.
I also made it so the NOTE: was its own section and the explanation came under it, as opposed to the note coming under a paragraph with the explanation its own section.
I'm also p. sure lists when they are their own section still need <p> tags, so I added those.

Looks good.

 

[bojangles]

You don't need <ul> for every item in an unordered list. Just do:
<p><ul>
<li>thing 1</li>
<li>thing 2</li>
<li>etc</li>
</ul></p>

 

[tennisace]

I know the <ul> isn't necessary, however, in some cases it looks better on-site than just one list. I pulled the html from http://www.smogon.com/cap/process/events/ which makes it look nice and organized, especially with a lot of longer sentences.

edit: wow aesoft thank you for that! i figured there was an easier way but i had literally have no background in html

 

[Zarel]

If you want to do that, just put the <p> tags inside the <li> tags:

<ul>
<li><p>thing 1</p></li>
<li><p>thing 2</p></li>
<li><p>etc</p></li>
</ul>

That's what the standards say you're supposed to do if you want a spaced-out bulleted list. u_u Having ten <ul>s means having ten different lists, which is semantically very different from having one list with ten different spaced-out list items.

cf. the source of this page: http://guide.wz2100.net/weapons

(Fun fact: I wrote that page... well, I wrote that entire site. Warzone 2100 is what I worked on before I moved over to Smogon.)

 

[jumpluff]

alternatively, you can just use css, since the spacing is purely presentational (which falls under css's domain), and the paragraph tag has semantic meaning.

lists don't need p tags; <ul> and <p> are both block-level element and there's no need to surround ul in p, it won't validate

also, <br> is deprecated for lack of a better word; the correct way to write it is <br />

 

[Zarel]

alternatively, you can just use css, since the spacing is purely presentational (which falls under css's domain), and the paragraph tag has semantic meaning.

It's thinking like this that got the <b>, <i>, and <small> tags and the value attribute of the <li> tag deprecated in HTML4 (fortunately, they were undeprecated in HTML5 as people realized they actually have semantic meaning). You can't just say "This is presentational, therefore it's not semantic". Tags like <code> and <cite> are as semantic as they get, and they make text look different, too.

Anyway, the spacing here is very semantic: There's a difference between a list of paragraphs and a list of nouns.

lists don't need p tags; <ul> and <p> are both block-level element and there's no need to surround ul in p, it won't validate

Block level elements can go inside each other, as anyone who's ever put a <div> inside a <div> will know.

 

[jumpluff]

Yeah, I changed 'so there's no need' to 'and there's no need' because I realised that was a mistake, but felt too lazy to change the wording, but you're quite right :p But it's true that it won't validate. I tried it myself.

Also, I don't mean to create a dichotomy between 'semantic' and 'presentational', particularly since presentation is an important way of representing semantics. But I don't think there's any non-presentational meaning in the spacing; the only reason I'm getting from this discussion is 'it looks nicer', which is purely presentational...

But I guess this has nothing to do with the thread ^^;

 

[Zarel]

Yeah, I changed 'so there's no need' to 'and there's no need' because I realised that was a mistake, but felt too lazy to change the wording, but you're quite right :p But it's true that it won't validate. I tried it myself.

HTML5: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://pokemonshowdown.com/asdf.html

XHTML 1.0 Strict: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...0+Strict&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator/1.2

It just validated both in XHTML 1.0 Strict and HTML5, the strictest and most lenient versions of HTML, respectively. Whatever you did to make it not validate, it wasn't putting a paragraph inside a list item.

Also, I don't mean to create a dichotomy between 'semantic' and 'presentational', particularly since presentation is an important way of representing semantics. But I don't think there's any non-presentational meaning in the spacing; the only reason I'm getting from this discussion is 'it looks nicer', which is purely presentational...

But I guess this has nothing to do with the thread ^^;

I didn't mean to imply that. I was just pointing out that while most people realize that things with semantic meaning should be presented differently, a lot of people have difficulty going the other way: Many things that have presentational differences have presentational differences because they are semantically different.

Again, the <ul><li> says "this is a list". The <p> says "this is a paragraph". Nesting them says "this is a list of paragraphs".

<p>When you go to the grocery store, be sure to pick up:</p>
<ul>
  <li>eggs</li>
  <li>milk</li>
  <li>bread</li>
</ul>

<p>When you go to the grocery store, be sure to pick up:</p>
<ul>
  <li><p>
    <strong>eggs</strong> &ndash; We need these for scrambled eggs on Tuesday.
  </p></li>
  <li><p>
    <strong>milk</strong> &ndash; It's our most important source of calcium.
  </p></li>
  <li><p>
    <strong>bread</strong> &ndash; Toast is delicious. Enough said.
  </p></li>
</ul>

Do you see the semantic difference between these two lists?

 

[tennisace]

Help this has been overrun by code! If one of you can talk to me on IRC and explain what I should do and or which way is "better", that would be swell (considering I see you both every day xD).

As for the grammar changes, Zystral if you could just point out exactly what changes you made that would be great also; I don't want to just copypaste since I (apparently) have to make large formatting changes and I forget what I already changed.

Anyone else have any other comments on the prose and/or content? I'm going to be posting a couple more threads like this to fully update /cap/ within the next few days (read: hours).

 

[Zystral]

This is the only major one.

<p>Attacking Moves that would turn Pokemon on the CAP's list of Hard Counters into Checks under ordinary circumstances will not be allowed. Non-Attacking Moves such as stat boosters or Taunt that would turn Pokemon on the CAP's list of Hard Counters into Checks will not be allowed.</p>

<p><em><b>Note:</b> If it would take both an attacking and a non-attacking move to alter a Hard Counter, whichever discussion comes first will limit the second discussion.</em><br />
For example, if Dragon Dance + Close Combat would turn a Pokemon from a Hard Counter into a Check, where neither Dragon Dance nor Close Combat alone would do so (e.g. Only +1 LO CC OHKOs, but the counter is ordinarily faster and can OHKO the CAP after taking a +0 LO Hit from Close Combat) then if Dragon Dance is selected first, Close Combat cannot be selected. If Close Combat is selected first, then Dragon Dance cannot be selected.</p>

Any other changes I made were just to the questions and how they were phrased;
First question of Counters Discussion is now:

Given the combination of typing, ability, and stat pool now decided, which previously defined threats are considered hard counters to the project?

There are a few others I can't quite pinpoint, but there was pretty much nothing really important except that last paragraph.

 

[Zarel]

Well, this should probably be two paragraphs:

<p><em><b>Note:</b> If it would take both an attacking and a non-attacking move to alter a Hard Counter, whichever discussion comes first will limit the second discussion.</em></p>
<p>For example, if Dragon Dance + Close Combat would turn a Pokemon from a Hard Counter into a Check, where neither Dragon Dance nor Close Combat alone would do so (e.g. Only +1 LO CC OHKOs, but the counter is ordinarily faster and can OHKO the CAP after taking a +0 LO Hit from Close Combat) then if Dragon Dance is selected first, Close Combat cannot be selected. If Close Combat is selected first, then Dragon Dance cannot be selected.</p>

You might want to wrap it in a <blockquote> tag if you want a stronger indication that the two paragraphs are part of the "note".

 

[Zystral]

I don't think so, it's not two separate paragraphs. The first section expands on the aftermath of the Counters Discussion, and then there is a note giving examples. Separating the note into its own paragraph would distance it.
The note is only a sentence that is part of a paragraph, it just stands out from the paragraph more, hence why I put a line break to indicate that the rest of the paragraph was part of it.

 

[tennisace]

I agree with aesoft in that it looks better as two separate paragraphs actually, it emphasizes that it is a separate example. It's a totally stylistic change though.

I'm editing in my changes now, and I think I'm going to go with aesofts method of paragraphs-in-lists to make it look pretty (since i know nothing about css). Once thats done I'm giving this another day or so and then its going on-site.

 

[Zystral]

I suppose one way of really emphasizing the importance of the Note and giving the paragraph the feel of a separate example is to make the Note itself <h2> or <h3> so that it really stands out from the page, and with the rest of the paragraph underneath it can be used as an elaborative example.

 

[tennisace]

Yeah we're done here. Thanks for all the help guys!