Deck Knight
Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
Approved by darkie:
Policy Review: Attacking / Non-Attacking Move Revisions:
However, it is difficult to start a discussion when the thread literally begins a blank OP. This is why the first few posts invariably list 4-5 and sometimes more moves for suggestion. There is absolutely nothing to discuss until a poster actually brings something up. It is patently unfair to complain about the quality of a discussion when it is effectively required to arise spontaneously from random poster ideas. Plenty of experienced CAP members gripe about random inexperienced posters infecting certain aspects of CAP, yet we let a critical part of the process be governed entirely by the ideas random posters bring up.
This leads me to Revision 1:
Attacking/Non-Attacking Move polls will begin with a canonically supportable list of Allowable attacks already in the OP. Do not worry about creating such a list; I have already done the legwork. The Attack and Non-Attack moves are attached solely to types and serve only as an initial listing. There is no guarantee these moves will be on the final movepool.
This Revision serves two purposes: First, it means STAB Moves and common type-linked support moves do not need to be brought up in a post. Second it allows an actual discussion to take place because there is pre-existing content to discuss. Posters can thus debate which STAB attacks the pokemon should get rather than bringing up a litany of forgotten moves like Force Palm and Wake-Up Slap, for example.
Here are some further revisions I would propose to a lesser degree than the above:
Revision 2:
Move Submission Limit:
Each individual poster may only suggest [3, 4, 5] competitive moves for discussion. This lowers the overall clutter and allows focus on only a few select moves.
Revision 3:
Move Discussion Limit:
Each post may only discuss up to [2, 3] moves at a time. I don’t think discussions are so myopic that they truly require one move argument per post, but there shouldn’t be 5 or 6 different arguments for different moves each post.
Revision 1 is the primary revision and works in tandem with the other two revisions to “clean up” the problems in move discussion threads.
Please consider these revisions and suggest any others that you think would alleviate the problem.
Policy Review: Attacking / Non-Attacking Move Revisions:
The biggest problem I have seen with Move threads is that posters are asked not to post lists of moves. This policy is sound insofar as we want a thread that discusses moves rather than throws them up on a wall and hopes a favored move sticks.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.
However, it is difficult to start a discussion when the thread literally begins a blank OP. This is why the first few posts invariably list 4-5 and sometimes more moves for suggestion. There is absolutely nothing to discuss until a poster actually brings something up. It is patently unfair to complain about the quality of a discussion when it is effectively required to arise spontaneously from random poster ideas. Plenty of experienced CAP members gripe about random inexperienced posters infecting certain aspects of CAP, yet we let a critical part of the process be governed entirely by the ideas random posters bring up.
This leads me to Revision 1:
Attacking/Non-Attacking Move polls will begin with a canonically supportable list of Allowable attacks already in the OP. Do not worry about creating such a list; I have already done the legwork. The Attack and Non-Attack moves are attached solely to types and serve only as an initial listing. There is no guarantee these moves will be on the final movepool.
This Revision serves two purposes: First, it means STAB Moves and common type-linked support moves do not need to be brought up in a post. Second it allows an actual discussion to take place because there is pre-existing content to discuss. Posters can thus debate which STAB attacks the pokemon should get rather than bringing up a litany of forgotten moves like Force Palm and Wake-Up Slap, for example.
Here are some further revisions I would propose to a lesser degree than the above:
Revision 2:
Move Submission Limit:
Each individual poster may only suggest [3, 4, 5] competitive moves for discussion. This lowers the overall clutter and allows focus on only a few select moves.
Revision 3:
Move Discussion Limit:
Each post may only discuss up to [2, 3] moves at a time. I don’t think discussions are so myopic that they truly require one move argument per post, but there shouldn’t be 5 or 6 different arguments for different moves each post.
Revision 1 is the primary revision and works in tandem with the other two revisions to “clean up” the problems in move discussion threads.
Please consider these revisions and suggest any others that you think would alleviate the problem.