Matches With Restricted "Possibly" Abilities

[Bobsican]

Bump.
Which staff members are missing from voting at this point? They should be tagged.

 

[Antvasima]

I do not remember this discussion well, but you or somebody else can write a summary and tally if you wish.

 

[Agnaa]

There's a tally just above. Summary is we're fine with matches restricting these abilities, but we're divided on what abilities should be assumed by default.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Sorry about not paying better attention.

I am not sure how to solve this then. There are highly reliable staff members for each option.

 

[Bobsican]

I don't think merging votes that want only "Neither Likely and Possible to default" with the ones of "Likely to default" as something to properly do vote-wise, they are still two different options, so the majority would go to just allowing everything by default.

 

[Agnaa]

I think it's fine; I think it's fair to move the losing option's votes to the next-closest choice.

 

[Bobsican]

I mean, that's fine, the problem is actually using it as a measure to say that the votes are too close between, this is basically merging votes of two losing alternatives that somewhat intersect to the winning option, which doesn't seem as an accurate approach of the voting.
It doesn't help that basing it on votes is an Appeal to Popularity fallacy, so I would recommend actually bringing more discussion over the topic over just going like "I vote for this not even with a FRA".

 

[Agnaa]

Because if we didn't merge the votes between the two losing alternatives and just called it here, the people who actually want no abilities to be allowed by default, would have to lie and bandwagon onto the closest option. Which seems like a much worse approach to voting.

Calling out that fallacy here is a fallacy fallacy. This isn't just appealing to popularity, it's tallying up the opinions of reliable experts and seeing where they lie. In this case it may be more important than argumentation because this doesn't really seem like something that can be argued through, it seems like a way more subjective thing. We're not measuring profiles here, we're talking about the defaults for our match system, which is almost entirely made up of arbitrary and subjectively-chosen conditions.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Lemme say that while my preferred system lies somewhere else the work of updating the notable wins/losses on the profiles, to reflect that possibly/likely was allowed against the theoretical updates SBA, is probably not worth the gain of changing the system. Doing it gradually, and by that having profiles remain in an inconsistent state for a long time, isn't worth it either.
Considering that the matches that are allowed to be done stay the same there just isn't much of an incentive to doing it.

 

[Agnaa]

That is a good point actually, it probably is best to allow all abilities by default since that seems to be the way things have been going thus far.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. That is a very good point. We are likely overcomplicating matters otherwise, and burdening ourselves with a massive and unnecessary amount of work. As such, I agree with DontTalkDT.

 

[Agnaa]

@The_Impress @Qawsedf234 @Sir_Ovens @Dargoo_Faust @Abstractions @Antoniofer How do you all feel about the points that DT just brought up?

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I am in agreement.

 

[Antvasima]

Agnaa, you cannot use notification commands unless you are a part of the staff.

I will help out instead

@The_Impress @Qawsedf234 @Dargoo_Faust @Abstractions @Antoniofer

What do you think about DontTalkDT's points?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I disagree with notions that the system can’t/shouldn’t be improved due to the work of implementation or dissatisfaction with gradual implementation, however with DT and others leaving the side of not allowing likely/possibly matches by default I’m pretty sure that puts the status quo in a sizable majority.

 

[Agnaa]

@Ant I knew, but I knew that someone else would ping my list for me

@Dargoo Well, to draw things towards implementation then:

Ahh, I think I see the rule to change:

It is not fine to restrict abilities in a versus matchup, implicitly or expressly. Matches that are arranged this way should not be added to the character profiles, as they don't involve their full potential, and are only intended for casual entertainment. An exception would be if the restricted ability/technique has a separate tier from the main one. In this case, the match can be added. The match can also be added if Optional Equipments such as optional power-ups and items are restricted.

This should be reworded to say that abilities can only be restricted if they're indexed under a "Likely" or "Possibly", any ideas on how to include that? Maybe add onto the last sentence:

or if the ability being restricted is indexed under a "Likely" or "Possibly" conditional.

Does this idea seem fine?

 

[Antvasima]

Agnaa's suggestion seems fine to me.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I say unless mentioned, "possibly" abilites shouldn't be assumed as default. So I'm okay with it being restricted unless specified.

 

[Agnaa]

@Qawsed You were asked to comment again because DT brought up that actually changing the system to those standards would be either a huge amount of work, or leave profiles inconsistent, all for very little actual gain. I was wondering if that point changed your view from what it was earlier.

@EveryoneElse Is that wording I provided above fine to add as-is?

 

[Antvasima]

I definitely think that we should follow DontTalk's advise.

 

[Agnaa]

Bump.

@EveryoneElse Is that wording I provided above fine to add as-is?

 

[AKM sama]

Yeah, I think it's fine.

 

[Antvasima]

Would your wording lead to any widespread revision work that we do not have the time to apply with all of the other ongoing and upcoming projects?

 

[Agnaa]

Nope, it simply stipulates that people can restrict those abilities in matches if they wish to. There's no change to the default, thus no revisions needed.

 

[AKM sama]

I like that in the new forum whenever I type and there is a new comment, I can view it outright. It prevents me from getting ninja'd ovo.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. As long as the new wprding takes what DontTalkDT said into account, it should probably be fine to apply.

 

[Agnaa]

I can't edit the Versus Thread Rules page. Could someone change it as described here, or unlock it so I can perform the edit?

Ahh, I think I see the rule to change:

It is not fine to restrict abilities in a versus matchup, implicitly or expressly. Matches that are arranged this way should not be added to the character profiles, as they don't involve their full potential, and are only intended for casual entertainment. An exception would be if the restricted ability/technique has a separate tier from the main one. In this case, the match can be added. The match can also be added if Optional Equipments such as optional power-ups and items are restricted.

This should be reworded to say that abilities can only be restricted if they're indexed under a "Likely" or "Possibly", any ideas on how to include that? Maybe add onto the last sentence:

or if the ability being restricted is indexed under a "Likely" or "Possibly" conditional.

 

[Antvasima]

I will unlock it. Tell me here when you are done.

 

[Agnaa]

Done, the thread's finally over!

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. I will close it then.