It's Who Said It, Not What Was Said

This is something that I am fully aware is not something that is going to magically change once I write this (does much change when I write these I sometimes wonder). This is not something that will ever go away. The whole point of this is to get people to realize what they're doing, and at least try to be more aware of this and to do something about it. I'm sure I'm going to get a little flustered with my words and probably rant a lot, but this is a topic which has long since bothered me.

The topic of this one is rather simple, but extremely important; it's the idea that all users make a preconceived judgment of a users post before ever reading it, primarily based on who said it. This is something that is very easily observable in the forums, on Twitter, and even at events. It's a dangerous game we play when doing this. It easily ostracizes users who are trying, but obtained a bad reputation for doing something stupid long ago. I think this contributes to people leaving the community so frequently. It contributes to them perhaps not feeling welcomed or unappreciated. I'm not saying we continuously baby bad users and posters, but we need to try our hardest to evaluate what they say based solely on the content of the post, and not who said it.

To bring up the most recently example of this, I want to look at a casual thread I made a couple days ago. It's intention was purely fun, just to be creative in a stress free environment. Of course, I was met with over a half dozen one liners and posts which failed to add to the discussion within the first hour of the thread being opened, including this one in particular:

This post was one of many hidden in my thread before Rushan made it very clear that posts that do not add to the discussion will not be allowed. What Hydreigone is asking for is something that has been said many times in my thread; he wants a rework of Rock Slide, or at least an alternative to Rock Slide. He didn't expand on his thought process as to why this would be a good thing to add, but it's still a solid complaint a lot of people bring up. People have been using Rock Tomb on occasion, I've seen it on Scarf Brelooms, Jeudy ran it extensively in 2014, and Blake ran it on his 2015 Nats team this year. It hits harder then Rock Slide and people value that. If we had a slightly stronger version of Rock Tomb, Rock Slide might see less usage and we'd probably be less annoyed by it, although people often fear Rock Slide simply for the flinch chance and would use it anyway.

I'm digressing heavily, but the point is he made a half decent complaint, but all he did was fail to explain his thought process. Hydreigone is for all intents and purpose, a random in this instance. He is someone who's name you wouldn't recognize aside from maybe seeing him post on NB. His post is hidden in my thread. I'm not saying it shouldn't, but it is.

Likewise, we have other one-liners from noteworthy users which were posted well after Rushan's post that remain in my thread. Now, these were hidden at one point, but they have since been unhidden, but I'm not going to address that can of worms. I am talking about the questionable posts from Scott and Len, shown below.

I would like to first note that Len's post use to be two separate posts, with the two bulletpoints being one and the sentence below being another. Someone has since had the wisdom to merge these, however it still doesn't quite do much to justify it remaining in my thread.

What's wrong with these posts? you might ask. I think it's very clear what is wrong with these. They did exactly what the 7 or 8 people in the thread before them did, yet they are able to get away scot-free (XDXD I'm so funny). Again, I would like to bring up that it's who said it, not what was said. Compare both of their posts to what Hydreigone said. All three of them want a Rock-type move which is of decent base power that cannot flinch. Okay, we're all in agreement. The only difference between their posts is that Scott has a funny "I work at Pokemon" joke, and Len asks for the removal of Team Preview, without saying a single word about why that is beneficial, or why he thinks so. What is the difference in their posts? I fail to see it.

Maybe I'm just missing something, but Rushan clearly laid the ground rules, yet why are some users not getting punished for doing the exact same shit that another is? This shit pisses me off. I don't care who you are, if you shitpost like that when countless users have been given fair warning, why are you getting away with it? (And you're practically talking to the king of shitposting: see here and here).

There's a time and place for shitposting. I fail to see how anyone can think they can get away with blatantly bad posts after Rushan very clearly said what is and is not acceptable. I think Hydreigone gets why his was hidden, but imagine him checking back on the thread and seeing those two (former three) posts left untouched. He probably doesn't get that. He's probably confused as to why, and wonders what he did wrong that they didn't. To me, he did do something wrong, yes. But they just know people. And are people who are known, and, in this instance, are exempt from the rules.

Their posts remaining in the thread also sets a precedent to others. It shows that one liners are allowed in the thread, and I'm sure some others were posted after which have been hidden. They must wonder the same thing Hydreigone does. It doesn't make sense. Again, it's who said it, not what was said.

Of course I mean no bad blood to either Scott and Len. I certainly did come off a little angry and upset, but I'm upset at the problem at large, and not the two of them in particular. Hope I'm not offending you two, but it is a perfect example.

I hate bringing this topic up, but the community really showed a lot of their true colors, so I'm again going to bring up the Jflynn stuff. This time, I'm not going to look at what either major party said, but a third party.

I am not going to discuss the validity of Angel's argument at all. We have had this argument before and I do not want to bring it back up. What I am going to do is address a comment from someone that attempted to invalidate what he said simply based on who said it.

Who said it? Angel did. Who does Angel know well? Chuppa. Angel's argument is invalid because of that. He's trying to do damage control and has his own bias toward Chuppa. This may very well be true, but I too know Angel very well, and he will tell you, "I agreed with Jflynn until the whole community went insane." Angel may be making a false equivalence, as Evan said, but it's that Evan is trying to devalue Angel's idea simply based on who said it is what I want to draw attention to. Would Evan have said that if someone else had said it? I doubt he would reply if it was a random, but what if it was someone who wasn't affiliated with Chuppa? What if Ben, or Wolfe had said that? Would the response have been the same?

I think it's clear Justin would still have gone off no matter who said it, but would we have reacted the same way if it was someone much more respected? What if Randy went off the chains and told him off? What if Scott decided to ravage him on Twitter? What if Aaron made a "JFlynn is a fraud" video similar to what he did about Verlisify? This is a bunch of hypotheticals, but I do think we react and respond to things differently, and in some cases severely differently, based on who said it.

The final example I want to bring up is two articles we have on NB that I think are valued very differently based on who wrote it. Both are aimed at teaching players how to think about the game, as opposed to our usual articles about teaching players how to build a good team, or make a good EV spread.

I'm talking about Werford's article on cognitive bias, and Zog's article on not losing. Now I don't know much about Werford. I know he got drafted by the Hornets in NPA last season, and that's about it. I think a lot of players had the same mentality going in. Regardless of the article's content, you're wondering, "why am I learning how to think about the game from someone I've never heard of?" This is precisely why when I write my Top Players Talk, I seldom talk. I just ask the questions. I'm by no means a top player, and I'm very aware that my input will be valued less than what any of my guests will say simply because I am not a top player with a plethora of top cuts. It was something I was very aware of going into the process.

Zog on the other hand is a player who has been around a long time. You may not have seen him post on the forums much, or do well at a tournament in a while, but it's hard to forget his 5th Place finish at Worlds in 2011 and his incredibly cheeky mannerisms. Zog hasn't done a whole lot since then, but for whatever reason I value his article more than Werford's, regardless of content. How many people remember Werford even wrote an article? How many people are still waiting on Zog to write part 2?

I would also like to bring up that I think we've done the same thing to MindApe's article about training. I'll be 100% honest, when I first saw the article my response was: "Who the hell is MindApe?" I had never heard of him, and I didn't feel compelled to read the article. I immediately judged his article on who wrote it, not what was said. That being said, I have since read it because I heard from numerous people that it was very well written and useful for everything, not just Pokemon. MindApe has since been an extremely helpful user, and I look forward to what he does in the future, but I can't help but remember how opposed I was to reading the article because of who wrote it.

Changing this mentality is important to me, because it encourages eager users who want to write to post good articles on NB, however we unknowingly have created an environment that doesn't invite them to write. I think if we change this we'll have a lot more users try to write good articles. Of course, we don't know what will happen until they write a bit and it gets approved, but I'm sure we can think of something.

As always thank you for reading. Please direct all comments you have to the NB thread. But before you do, ask yourself: would you value my blog more if someone else had written it? Or are you perhaps valuing it too much because I wrote it? Do you think we'd have everyone in Top 8's Team Report if Rushan called for it instead of me? Or do you think nobody would read these if a random user wrote these? If you take away anything from this, it's to be mindful of trying to avoid that dangerous bias.

Improving NB Forums: The RMT Section

Hey guys! Yes, I'm still alive, no I've not given up. I was just watching The International and got caught up in that, but I'm back and will hope to wrap up the major things I want to hit on before I go to college, so without further ado I will get onto this big eyesore: the RMT section.

Yes, I am fully aware the RMT section is absolute shit. Yes, I am fully aware no one wants to do anything about it. Yes, I am aware we're discussed this before. Time for discussing is over. I want action, and I'm going to explain what I think we should do and why we should do it.

1. New Dedicated Mods for the RMT Section

This one should be intuitive. The current mods (all 16 of them) don't seem very interested in having a massive reworking of the RMT section. On occasion will you see one of them lock a thread and tell the OP why it's locked and what they need to do to change it. That's not enough. We don't need occasional, we need all the time. It's very clear the RMT section is where new players go, players with little to no forum experience who don't get how things work. They don't read the sticky, they don't look at well-written RMTs, they just know they need help and go there and want it as soon as possible. For this reason we need to get a handful of mods who only moderate over the RMT section. They will police over the RMT section with a fist clenched tighter than a virgin asshole, and they will infract, lock, delete, all bad users, threads, and posts until it is clear what is and is not acceptable on the forums. People will learn in time, and it will be a hard road for some users who don't get things, but this is what must be done if the RMT section will ever improve. There are people who would gladly sign up for this position. I wouldn't mind stepping up myself and having some responsibility over the forum, and if a mod is slacking in their duties, the team can ask for another RMT mod to be created to help them in their duties.

While there certainly have ample mods to cover it, a lot of them aren't active and if they wanted to do something about the RMT section they should have a long time ago. This is why I suggest we create new mods who reign over the RMT section. They will be motivated to do something, and will actively and continuously do something to make it better. Also, if being extremely authoritarian and slightly rude to users is what it takes to turn the RMT section from absolute shit to something worthwhile, I am all for it, and I think others will be inclined to agree with me. I'm not saying we tell users their teams are garbage, but be strict and consistent with rulings and make examples out of troublesome users to encourage better quality. It will always be a work in progress, but something must be done about it.

2. Dedicated RMT Raters

This is something Smogon does, and for a very very good reason. It makes it very clear to the OP who is experienced enough to offer good advice, and who's advice you could take with a grain of salt. Of course, other posters may feel less valued, but the fact of the matter is that it is an obtainable goal to work toward and people will strive to obtain a user title, or to have to say "RMT Rater" under their username instead of member. The best thing Smogon ever did was get a stupid 8-bit trophy system. People work so hard all the time for those trophies because they carry weight and bring prestige to the user and that garners respect from others. It would be much of the same here. It's not as flashy as having a million in a half trophies like Obi or Phillip do on Smogon, but it makes you feel important, and people will always work toward that. It's hard to gain respect on NB nowadays when now a lot of the big names are around, and this is a sure fired way to get noticed and I think people will try to obtain that.

But how do we get these dedicated raters? Do we just pick good users and ask them to step up? Or do we pick people who volunteer? Once again, we steal an idea from Smogon. Very frequently, Smogon does something called "Rating Practice" where a user posts a team with obvious flaws that users then have to pick out for practice. This is something we would use to test people who want to be dedicated raters. They would try out. We would do a handful of rounds and then have the modding team decide which raters did the best job and then ask them to be dedicated raters. Again, it is the RMT mods who will run this, the RMT section should be almost run entirely by them since they are the ones interested in making it not shit.

Also, if the modding team feels a particular rater is slacking in their duties or aren't perform as well as they use to, it is easy to remove their user title and give it to someone else. They can PM the user and say "ayy fam you gotta step up" as a warning, but they need to make room for new users who are trying to make a name for themselves.

3. Temporarily Lock the RMT Section

The RMT section needs help, so I am suggesting we temporarily close it and then pick the modding staff, start the rating practice, pick the dedicated raters, and then open it back up for the public. It shouldn't take a whole lot of time and it will be open before Fall Regionals for new players to get advice on their team. This is the perfect time to do it. No world's players are posting their teams in the RMT section and the metagame is going to massively shift after Worlds anyway, so there's no need to make an RMT at the moment. Players who want to can just ask in Showdown or PM a user for help. But we need to get it open before Regionals. It will be the first major test to see if the RMT section can be improved, so we need to start soon if we want shit to get in order.

4. New Stickied Threads Showing Examples

The Stickied threads we have now are good, but they explain what needs to be done instead of showing what needs to be done. We need to show them what a good RMT looks like, what a good rate looks like, and how to format them. A simple guide explain how to use the forum toolbar would be much needed to users trying to format their thread, and a very simple to follow guide about how to format an RMT prevents people from making bad threads (in theory). If they do not, then it is very simple to lock the thread, redirect them to the thread and say once they meet the qualifications set by the forum modding team then they thread will be unlocked. Simple, effective, clear. This is what it will take to get the RMT section out of the cesspool it currently wallows in.

Once again thank you for reading. I hope this one gets the ball rolling ASAP because we desperately need to change this one. As always, please send comments to the NB thread, please share this on Twitter or whatever. (Much appreciated)