-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
OPEN DISCUSSION - Gym Concerns and Issues
- Thread starter Texas Cloverleaf
- Start date
Well yea, in the case of some people wanting doubles and some wanting singles for a qualifier, if the options are:
A) choose either singles or doubles for everyone based on some mechanism [majority rule; need complete consensus for doubles; flip a coin; just let committee do whatever]
or
B) battle people in the format they want
I'm gonna go with A -- maybe not necessarily with the majority rule mechanism I stated in the last post (if you guys have better options I'm all ears). But I think A is the lesser of two evils of those choices. I'm really trying to make it so that determining "who played best/who is most skilled/however you wanna phrase this" is as easy as possible, because why make something subjective even more prone to complaints?
If I'm missing something let me know though
A) choose either singles or doubles for everyone based on some mechanism [majority rule; need complete consensus for doubles; flip a coin; just let committee do whatever]
or
B) battle people in the format they want
I'm gonna go with A -- maybe not necessarily with the majority rule mechanism I stated in the last post (if you guys have better options I'm all ears). But I think A is the lesser of two evils of those choices. I'm really trying to make it so that determining "who played best/who is most skilled/however you wanna phrase this" is as easy as possible, because why make something subjective even more prone to complaints?
If I'm missing something let me know though
soooooo
if nobody has anything more to say on this can we move forward on this finally? i'll give anyone with any grievances about this proposal another day
if nobody has anything more to say on this can we move forward on this finally? i'll give anyone with any grievances about this proposal another day
I would make this as simple as possible, singles.
OK, gonna just stick with what I posted then. Nothing that's been proposed is perfect, so the first qualifiers we do with this will very much be test cases where things can be tweaked afterwards, but I think what we have is a very solid starting point. I'll have to figure out a good place to formally put this info later (as well as maybe some other stuff we've decided on in this thread).
ANDDD since we're finally done with this topic, we can move towards discussion of another topic!!
--------------------
Leader Disqualification
Prefacing this with: I haven't had time to discuss this with the rest of the committee. The below rambling comes from me and isn't a stance we as a whole officially have.
I actually had wanted to discuss other stuff before this next topic, however "recent" events have pushed this to the front of the list. That said, this has always been an issue. We have (and have basically always had) gym leaders that range from 'pushing DQ kinda often' to 'consistently going a day or so over DQ' to 'almost every round flat out johning/going far over DQ for other reasons'. Obviously, this kind of behavior is a problem, but how it's been penalized has varied. There are a couple different subtopics to this that need to be addressed.
Firstly, what should the tolerance be for this? Should it be something quantitative like, 'if you go over DQ X times across Y matches you're penalized?' I personally would prefer some sort of hard metric like that, because it basically ensures consistency across how this is handled from gym to gym... something that's been lacking in how we've done things up until now. Of course it doesn't have to be that specific metric outlined above, and we could even choose to go about it in a more subjective way if people feel there are better options with that avenue. I'm gonna hold off on throwing out anything more specific on this topic until other people have a chance to weigh in, but the ultimate goals from this portion of the topic should be to come up with answers to the following:
Secondly, should the challenger get anything when a leader is DQ'd? I think most people agree that this should be handled case-by-case. In some cases, it's very obvious that they were going to get the badge and they should be given it. However, we shouldn't give out a badge every time a leader gets DQ'd. But... it's also unfair to the challenger to give them nothing. They've had their time and one of their gym slots wasted. This is also a problem because it gives the challenger very little incentive to actually DQ the leader, which ultimately exacerbates the problem.
An idea that I've been toying around with and tossed around IRC a bit recently is the following: In the event that a gym leader is DQ'd, the committee will discuss and determine whether the badge should be awarded [what we already do]. If the challenger doesn't end up getting the badge, they are given a one-time extra gym slot to compensate for their wasted time. This will hopefully give challengers more incentive to actually DQ leaders, which in turn will also hopefully give leaders more incentive to actually do their jobs!
Thoughts on either topic? Is there anything else related to leader DQs that needs discussion?
--------------------
Also, different topic:
Qualifier dates
Right now, the following gyms are open
I don't think we need to give people too much time to prepare. What do people think about these qualifiers tentatively starting in mid July? This would mean the examiner's Pokemon pools for these qualifiers would be posted about a month before that (just a little over 3 weeks from now). Y/N?
ANDDD since we're finally done with this topic, we can move towards discussion of another topic!!
--------------------
Leader Disqualification
Prefacing this with: I haven't had time to discuss this with the rest of the committee. The below rambling comes from me and isn't a stance we as a whole officially have.
I actually had wanted to discuss other stuff before this next topic, however "recent" events have pushed this to the front of the list. That said, this has always been an issue. We have (and have basically always had) gym leaders that range from 'pushing DQ kinda often' to 'consistently going a day or so over DQ' to 'almost every round flat out johning/going far over DQ for other reasons'. Obviously, this kind of behavior is a problem, but how it's been penalized has varied. There are a couple different subtopics to this that need to be addressed.
Firstly, what should the tolerance be for this? Should it be something quantitative like, 'if you go over DQ X times across Y matches you're penalized?' I personally would prefer some sort of hard metric like that, because it basically ensures consistency across how this is handled from gym to gym... something that's been lacking in how we've done things up until now. Of course it doesn't have to be that specific metric outlined above, and we could even choose to go about it in a more subjective way if people feel there are better options with that avenue. I'm gonna hold off on throwing out anything more specific on this topic until other people have a chance to weigh in, but the ultimate goals from this portion of the topic should be to come up with answers to the following:
- When should a leader be disqualified from battle?
- When should an inactive/johning leader be removed?
Secondly, should the challenger get anything when a leader is DQ'd? I think most people agree that this should be handled case-by-case. In some cases, it's very obvious that they were going to get the badge and they should be given it. However, we shouldn't give out a badge every time a leader gets DQ'd. But... it's also unfair to the challenger to give them nothing. They've had their time and one of their gym slots wasted. This is also a problem because it gives the challenger very little incentive to actually DQ the leader, which ultimately exacerbates the problem.
An idea that I've been toying around with and tossed around IRC a bit recently is the following: In the event that a gym leader is DQ'd, the committee will discuss and determine whether the badge should be awarded [what we already do]. If the challenger doesn't end up getting the badge, they are given a one-time extra gym slot to compensate for their wasted time. This will hopefully give challengers more incentive to actually DQ leaders, which in turn will also hopefully give leaders more incentive to actually do their jobs!
Thoughts on either topic? Is there anything else related to leader DQs that needs discussion?
--------------------
Also, different topic:
Qualifier dates
Right now, the following gyms are open
Grass
Dragon
Dark (*gasp*)
Dragon
Dark (*gasp*)
I don't think we need to give people too much time to prepare. What do people think about these qualifiers tentatively starting in mid July? This would mean the examiner's Pokemon pools for these qualifiers would be posted about a month before that (just a little over 3 weeks from now). Y/N?
"When should a leader be disqualified from battle?"
This is me here (ie the person who complains when people don't get DQed for going over DQ already, including Tournements where DQ is "enforced" and yet it really isn't) so I'm sure I don't have the best picture on how the community as a whole wants things done, but IMO they would be DQed maybe after going over DQ for the second (or maybe more realistically third) time in a match or if they are over DQ by double the allotted time. While I do appreciate that Gym matches are more demanding than regular matches and that people have lives/responsibilities (especially given Gym Leaders also tend to be members of the community who take on additional duties), I don't think a guideline like that is unreasonable nor especially strict.
"When should an inactive/johning leader be removed?"
That's a question I think best answered by people with enough history to know how big a problem johning leaders actually is. Or maybe the fact that is is even being brought up indicates it's a serious problem? Either way I don't have a really solid idea on how many times a match should be called on DQ before a leader gets replaced. Ideally not many but if it leads to too much turnover that wouldn't be good either... Maybe something like two/three in a row or 3 DQs out of 5 matches leads to consideration for dismissal? Just throwing numbers out, maybe that's too lenient I don't know.
Also since I'm not really sure where else to say this: Throwing my hat in for Dark Gym (not really a surprise I'm sure).
This is me here (ie the person who complains when people don't get DQed for going over DQ already, including Tournements where DQ is "enforced" and yet it really isn't) so I'm sure I don't have the best picture on how the community as a whole wants things done, but IMO they would be DQed maybe after going over DQ for the second (or maybe more realistically third) time in a match or if they are over DQ by double the allotted time. While I do appreciate that Gym matches are more demanding than regular matches and that people have lives/responsibilities (especially given Gym Leaders also tend to be members of the community who take on additional duties), I don't think a guideline like that is unreasonable nor especially strict.
"When should an inactive/johning leader be removed?"
That's a question I think best answered by people with enough history to know how big a problem johning leaders actually is. Or maybe the fact that is is even being brought up indicates it's a serious problem? Either way I don't have a really solid idea on how many times a match should be called on DQ before a leader gets replaced. Ideally not many but if it leads to too much turnover that wouldn't be good either... Maybe something like two/three in a row or 3 DQs out of 5 matches leads to consideration for dismissal? Just throwing numbers out, maybe that's too lenient I don't know.
Also since I'm not really sure where else to say this: Throwing my hat in for Dark Gym (not really a surprise I'm sure).
When should a leader be disqualified: Leaders should get a little leeway given that having 2 more serious battles than everyone else can put a toll on someone. But by "leeway" I mean like double the usual DQ interval and/or one or two DQ warnings. Not a fucking month worth of wait. LoAs are a thing and I really feel that are underused -_-
When should a leader be kicked: When both of the below happen:
a) When someone is feasibly capable of filling in. Doesn't need to have 6 maxed mons of that type. Just be decent and have like 3 mons of that typing (and interest). I am of the opinion that it is best to have a john as leader than no leader for 6 months or whatever time necessary for someone good to come up and train mons from 0.
b) Leader reaches a cumulative amount of 30 days of delay and (maybe) 1 DQ on the last 3-5 challenges. I don't like number of DQs as parameters, as people should enforce them more (not hypocrit oh no sire not at all). 30 days of delay is a crapload and if the leader spent a fucking month more than he was supposed to to order, then he really should rethink being a leader. I certainly have.
Also the committee should feel that is the right thing to do. Yeah some subjectivity may make things less predictable, but I suppose having some safety net for when an exception comes makes this extra requirement advisable.
As for qualifiers, can we please not wait a century for them. Mid July is fine. Just don't do like Flying or Grass and have the qualifiers be set up 6 months or more after we know the leader is gone. Having people train 6-8 mons of a typing with full movepools is unnecessary and puts a big strain on challengers. I mean...on flying we will end up with one leader and 3 people with a bunch of flying mons to do nothing with. And many counters that, more often than not, have gone to waste.
When should a leader be kicked: When both of the below happen:
a) When someone is feasibly capable of filling in. Doesn't need to have 6 maxed mons of that type. Just be decent and have like 3 mons of that typing (and interest). I am of the opinion that it is best to have a john as leader than no leader for 6 months or whatever time necessary for someone good to come up and train mons from 0.
b) Leader reaches a cumulative amount of 30 days of delay and (maybe) 1 DQ on the last 3-5 challenges. I don't like number of DQs as parameters, as people should enforce them more (not hypocrit oh no sire not at all). 30 days of delay is a crapload and if the leader spent a fucking month more than he was supposed to to order, then he really should rethink being a leader. I certainly have.
Also the committee should feel that is the right thing to do. Yeah some subjectivity may make things less predictable, but I suppose having some safety net for when an exception comes makes this extra requirement advisable.
As for qualifiers, can we please not wait a century for them. Mid July is fine. Just don't do like Flying or Grass and have the qualifiers be set up 6 months or more after we know the leader is gone. Having people train 6-8 mons of a typing with full movepools is unnecessary and puts a big strain on challengers. I mean...on flying we will end up with one leader and 3 people with a bunch of flying mons to do nothing with. And many counters that, more often than not, have gone to waste.
*just chiming in, be warned that the following may or may not be a completely ignorant comment from the guy who joined like six weeks ago*
About qualifiers, would all of them occur simultaneously? I feel like having, say, four people vying for each gym at the exact same time would be a logistical nightmare. Not that I doubt the capabilities of the gym council or anything, but evaluating twelve people simultaneously, while also having a life outside of ASB and reffing tourney matches and managing their own gyms could be a bit much. Also, would people who apply for a particular gym be kept from qualifiers for other gyms? Maybe doing one after the other would allow for the runner-up of the first qual to apply for a second, and that could give us the best two battlers as Gym leaders.
As usual, I could be wrong tho. Don't listen to me if I am.
About qualifiers, would all of them occur simultaneously? I feel like having, say, four people vying for each gym at the exact same time would be a logistical nightmare. Not that I doubt the capabilities of the gym council or anything, but evaluating twelve people simultaneously, while also having a life outside of ASB and reffing tourney matches and managing their own gyms could be a bit much. Also, would people who apply for a particular gym be kept from qualifiers for other gyms? Maybe doing one after the other would allow for the runner-up of the first qual to apply for a second, and that could give us the best two battlers as Gym leaders.
As usual, I could be wrong tho. Don't listen to me if I am.
"When should a leader be disqualified from battle?"
Player discretion. If the player is sick of an inactive leader and want out, then there should not be anything stopping them from calling DQ and getting their counters even if it means no badge. If the leader has their own DQ policy (like I generally run a three strikes and you are out policy in which strikes are given at the player's discretion) then the challenger should respect it. I do not see much of a reason to change from the current, albeit inconsistent thing we have now. LoA's should be respected fully however as long as the LoA is defined in terms of absence time and not something stupid like "I'M SICK".
"When should an inactive/johning leader be removed?"
Inactive Leaders should be given more leeway than an active player before removal. Sometimes the Inactive player has a legitimate reason for their inactivity (generally explained retroactively like Gerard) and there is not much of a reason to boot them if they have not been active for two months when they are otherwise actively accepting challenges and ordering. If they are gone for good or much longer however, then they can be removed. Players who are active and are deliberately not running their gym like they are supposed to on the other hand, should have much less leeway. This is because deliberately neglecting your duties shows signs of a poor attitude and the only thing that is worse than an inactive leader is a leader who chucks a shit and refuses to order for weeks because of some bad roll.
I would however, remove on a case-by-case basis. I would advise against come up with some discrete criteria for removing a leader since they can just "tread the waters" and potentially get away with it (For example with Frosty's Criteria, I can just stall for 29 days over a period five challenges and get away with the Gym Leadership on an objective basis). Observe their habits, observe their ordering patterns and if they are showing poor attitude, then put them on probation. If they continue to show a bad attitude after being on probation, then boot them. The fact that there is no one ready to take over should not be an excuse to keep a bad Gym Leader (attitude-wise) in that position.
"Secondly, should the challenger get anything when a leader is DQ'd?"
Why shouldn't the challenger get counters? It is still a win even if they may not necessarily get a badge so I do not see why this should be any different.
Player discretion. If the player is sick of an inactive leader and want out, then there should not be anything stopping them from calling DQ and getting their counters even if it means no badge. If the leader has their own DQ policy (like I generally run a three strikes and you are out policy in which strikes are given at the player's discretion) then the challenger should respect it. I do not see much of a reason to change from the current, albeit inconsistent thing we have now. LoA's should be respected fully however as long as the LoA is defined in terms of absence time and not something stupid like "I'M SICK".
"When should an inactive/johning leader be removed?"
Inactive Leaders should be given more leeway than an active player before removal. Sometimes the Inactive player has a legitimate reason for their inactivity (generally explained retroactively like Gerard) and there is not much of a reason to boot them if they have not been active for two months when they are otherwise actively accepting challenges and ordering. If they are gone for good or much longer however, then they can be removed. Players who are active and are deliberately not running their gym like they are supposed to on the other hand, should have much less leeway. This is because deliberately neglecting your duties shows signs of a poor attitude and the only thing that is worse than an inactive leader is a leader who chucks a shit and refuses to order for weeks because of some bad roll.
I would however, remove on a case-by-case basis. I would advise against come up with some discrete criteria for removing a leader since they can just "tread the waters" and potentially get away with it (For example with Frosty's Criteria, I can just stall for 29 days over a period five challenges and get away with the Gym Leadership on an objective basis). Observe their habits, observe their ordering patterns and if they are showing poor attitude, then put them on probation. If they continue to show a bad attitude after being on probation, then boot them. The fact that there is no one ready to take over should not be an excuse to keep a bad Gym Leader (attitude-wise) in that position.
"Secondly, should the challenger get anything when a leader is DQ'd?"
Why shouldn't the challenger get counters? It is still a win even if they may not necessarily get a badge so I do not see why this should be any different.
IAR, the second question means some sort of compensation, as like em said, you can lose a ton of time and a slot for nothing (or almost nothing).
I don't really like the idea of an extra gym slot. Why? Well, because some people don't spend enough time in asb to get mons ready for 3 simultaneous challenges (although this isn't a problem for you end game people). I think giving the challenger a one time queue skip for that gym (although some gyms have no queue, so the challenger would end up with nothing. And battling the same person could end the same way... You could wait for someone else to take the leadership, but that takes ages...). Just as when your ref is dqed and you go to the top of the queue since your challenge was there first but had to go back to queue, I think you should get to be battle first as you challenged first but got your challenge interrupted.
EDIT: oh, there's also the fact that, even if you have a third slot, there's a good chance of you staying in the queue for a looooooooong time (with you maybe finishing a challenge before you get your battle! xD)
I don't really like the idea of an extra gym slot. Why? Well, because some people don't spend enough time in asb to get mons ready for 3 simultaneous challenges (although this isn't a problem for you end game people). I think giving the challenger a one time queue skip for that gym (although some gyms have no queue, so the challenger would end up with nothing. And battling the same person could end the same way... You could wait for someone else to take the leadership, but that takes ages...). Just as when your ref is dqed and you go to the top of the queue since your challenge was there first but had to go back to queue, I think you should get to be battle first as you challenged first but got your challenge interrupted.
EDIT: oh, there's also the fact that, even if you have a third slot, there's a good chance of you staying in the queue for a looooooooong time (with you maybe finishing a challenge before you get your battle! xD)
Last edited:
...Again?
*Sigh* Since I seem to be sticking around, I'll toss my hat into the ring for the Dark Gym. I hope that someone can stick around a long time to keep the gym open.
*Sigh* Since I seem to be sticking around, I'll toss my hat into the ring for the Dark Gym. I hope that someone can stick around a long time to keep the gym open.
I'd like to take a moment to steal ED and TSRD's hats. I'm starting a collection.
Hmm no, this is a good point that I didn't even think about! I will be mostly free from July to August though (no internship, no classes), so I think it's probably do-able, but this is probably something to keep in mind in planning future quals. I'll try to stick to just quals matches (and tournaments) during this upcoming timeframe to make things easier.
Unless people would rather have them be back-to-back? I'll leave this to public opinion.
Will try to post about the other topic later
OK, I mean nobody has posted anything or told me that they'd rather not have qualifiers at the same time, so I guess it's fine to have them concurrently! I guess we'll stick with mid July as dates for this as well, meaning in about 2 weeks we'll post the examiner's pools.
So, if people interested in either Dark, Dragon, or Grass could PM the committee (or post in this thread I guess), I'll keep a running list in this post.
Dark:
- Eternal Drifter
- TSRD
Dragon:
- deadfox081
- AOPSUser
Grass:
- Canis Majoris
---
Maybe I'll triple post later because I still haven't completely gathered my thoughts about leader DQ. Of course, if anyone else has anything to say, they're welcome to.
So, if people interested in either Dark, Dragon, or Grass could PM the committee (or post in this thread I guess), I'll keep a running list in this post.
Dark:
- Eternal Drifter
- TSRD
Dragon:
- deadfox081
- AOPSUser
Grass:
- Canis Majoris
---
Maybe I'll triple post later because I still haven't completely gathered my thoughts about leader DQ. Of course, if anyone else has anything to say, they're welcome to.
Last edited:
Just so you don't triple post
http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/flying-qualifiers-avnomke-vs-leethoof.3534851/page-2
Leethoof advances through DQ
And no I will not make jokes about that. I want to yeah, but I won't.
/me goes outside yell
http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/flying-qualifiers-avnomke-vs-leethoof.3534851/page-2
Leethoof advances through DQ
And no I will not make jokes about that. I want to yeah, but I won't.
/me goes outside yell
About removing inactive Gym Leaders (as in, removing them from being GLs entirely instead of DQ-ing them in their matches for being super-late to order):
Maybe Gym Comm can run a periodic audit or something? Similar to how Council rotates ever few months (Council Members can stay incumbent, but they'd have to reapply and get enough votes to do so), and how the approver status system now works (IAR auditing people and retaining/removing approver status for their work over the past month). Something along the lines of "Gym Committee will go through battle records over the last arbitrary number of months, and contact/warn/remove Gym Leaders who are deemed incapable of maintaining a suitable level of activity". Since it means the committee will be taking a more proactive approach (sorry EM I know you're lazy but somebody's gotta do this), it might work out smoother than "sitting on your thumbs twiddling until somebody complains about a john leader" (I hope I don't get it wrong, sorry if I do).
Maybe Gym Comm can run a periodic audit or something? Similar to how Council rotates ever few months (Council Members can stay incumbent, but they'd have to reapply and get enough votes to do so), and how the approver status system now works (IAR auditing people and retaining/removing approver status for their work over the past month). Something along the lines of "Gym Committee will go through battle records over the last arbitrary number of months, and contact/warn/remove Gym Leaders who are deemed incapable of maintaining a suitable level of activity". Since it means the committee will be taking a more proactive approach (sorry EM I know you're lazy but somebody's gotta do this), it might work out smoother than "sitting on your thumbs twiddling until somebody complains about a john leader" (I hope I don't get it wrong, sorry if I do).
Re: DQ
I feel that since the Gym Leaders are the pinnacle of what everyone considers ASB skill, they should definitely have to set an example of punctuality. The leader sets their own DQ times in challenges, and it should be up to them to abide by it, barring LoAs, etc. If they consistently don't do so, the higher-ups can and should take action. "Ugh I don't feel like ordering against Greininja" is definitely not acceptable.
Re: Quals format
Running them concurrently depends on how many challengers there are in each qualifier. If it's like Water quals then running ten concurrent round-robin matches is definitely a bad idea, but for three people we definitely have the ref power to handle it.
Also going to put my name into Dragon Quals. Deadfox we meet again! I need Dragalge don't I
I feel that since the Gym Leaders are the pinnacle of what everyone considers ASB skill, they should definitely have to set an example of punctuality. The leader sets their own DQ times in challenges, and it should be up to them to abide by it, barring LoAs, etc. If they consistently don't do so, the higher-ups can and should take action. "Ugh I don't feel like ordering against Greininja" is definitely not acceptable.
Re: Quals format
Running them concurrently depends on how many challengers there are in each qualifier. If it's like Water quals then running ten concurrent round-robin matches is definitely a bad idea, but for three people we definitely have the ref power to handle it.
Also going to put my name into Dragon Quals. Deadfox we meet again! I need Dragalge don't I
Sorry, you need a hat.
Also, we really need to get the DQ compensation discussion going, because this is getting more and more common -.-
And I must say that don't think it should take 6 months of constant johnning for a leader to be kicked. If we know that he is procrastinating intentinally, why do we allow him to stay in his positon? Sure, I am all in for giving them a warning and allow them to amend themselves, but if we see he has no intention to change, then let someone else take his place.
Ok maybe we could give them 6 months since this isn't that much time ASB wise but please not much more.
Sorry, I've been busy x.x
As for what happens for challenger in case of DQ, I think tavok brings up a good point. I was thinking we could either go with queue skip like he mentioned, or we could let the challenger choose between either skipping the queue for their next challenge and having a temporary extra gym slot. It doesn't really matter to me as long as they're compensated in some way so... thoughts?
Regarding when leaders should be DQ'd and removed... I still haven't completely gathered my thoughts. Tentatively I feel like leaders should get maybe 2 DQ warnings before they're disqualified? I think any more than that is a bit ridiculous, but any less than that is also a bit unfair. As Frosty said, leaders have 2 more serious battles than everyone else, so they should get some leeway.
I guess it looks like people are leaning more towards using subjective criteria to decide when to boot leaders. That said, if we go that route I'll still probably end up using some sort of objective metrics as a guideline for removal, lol! I do like Zt's idea even though its more work for me x.x.
----
Real reason I'm posting here:
For the upcoming qualifiers, I need to know what format candidates would prefer before I post the pools. If people that have signed up/plan on signing up could get back to me in the next ~84 hours with their preference for the qualifier they signed up for [by this i mean singles or doubles], that would be much appreciated. That said, signups will remain open until the start of the qualifiers -- you just won't be able to have any say in the format if you sign up between after next Saturday and the qualifier start date.
So you should sign up now if you're interested :) [either PM the committee or post itt]
Eternal Drifter TSRD deadfox081 AOPSUser
As for what happens for challenger in case of DQ, I think tavok brings up a good point. I was thinking we could either go with queue skip like he mentioned, or we could let the challenger choose between either skipping the queue for their next challenge and having a temporary extra gym slot. It doesn't really matter to me as long as they're compensated in some way so... thoughts?
Regarding when leaders should be DQ'd and removed... I still haven't completely gathered my thoughts. Tentatively I feel like leaders should get maybe 2 DQ warnings before they're disqualified? I think any more than that is a bit ridiculous, but any less than that is also a bit unfair. As Frosty said, leaders have 2 more serious battles than everyone else, so they should get some leeway.
I guess it looks like people are leaning more towards using subjective criteria to decide when to boot leaders. That said, if we go that route I'll still probably end up using some sort of objective metrics as a guideline for removal, lol! I do like Zt's idea even though its more work for me x.x.
----
Real reason I'm posting here:
For the upcoming qualifiers, I need to know what format candidates would prefer before I post the pools. If people that have signed up/plan on signing up could get back to me in the next ~84 hours with their preference for the qualifier they signed up for [by this i mean singles or doubles], that would be much appreciated. That said, signups will remain open until the start of the qualifiers -- you just won't be able to have any say in the format if you sign up between after next Saturday and the qualifier start date.
So you should sign up now if you're interested :) [either PM the committee or post itt]
Eternal Drifter TSRD deadfox081 AOPSUser
Last edited:
For Dragon Quals I would definitely prefer Singles. My main reasoning for this is that I suck shit at Doubles lol when the gym is actually set up, it will be in Singles, as trying to go Doubles in a typing with no Helping Hand, Trick Room, or STAB spread moves will only end up in disaster. The existence of Blizzard doesn't exactly help.
Also Megas=0 please. Altaria is just a bit too ridiculous otherwise imo.
Also Megas=0 please. Altaria is just a bit too ridiculous otherwise imo.
Singles for Dark quals would be my vote as well if, hypothetically, I were to participate. Also agreeing with AOPS on the no megas thing, even tho that discussion was already held. I feel that whoever is Dark leader will probably make his gym no megas anyway, given that there are aproximately 9595595 megas that crap all over it, but that's just me. But hey, if that's not up for a vote, just ignore that last part.
Have to echo AOPS in favour of singles for the Dragon qualifiers. I think it can be almost universally agreed Dragons work best in singles.
I would however have to argue against zero Megas. There are simply too many useful Dragon Megas and especially Megas who gain their Dragon typing through Mega Evolution that Megas will almost certainly see a use in any future Dragon Gym (heck I'd be pushing for Mega=2 if I were to run the Gym but that's another story for another day). Also AOPS' comments seem to be alluding to the previous qualifier method whereas these will be using the new method. Mega Altaria is hardly an issue when the contender is not being judged against an entirely Dragon team.
I would however have to argue against zero Megas. There are simply too many useful Dragon Megas and especially Megas who gain their Dragon typing through Mega Evolution that Megas will almost certainly see a use in any future Dragon Gym (heck I'd be pushing for Mega=2 if I were to run the Gym but that's another story for another day). Also AOPS' comments seem to be alluding to the previous qualifier method whereas these will be using the new method. Mega Altaria is hardly an issue when the contender is not being judged against an entirely Dragon team.