PDA

View Full Version : Petition for the Repeal of the Item Clause



Triforce Saturn
07-19-2010, 11:02 PM
To: The current administrators of The Speed Gamers Pokemon League.

This petition is to show the dislike for and the unfairness of the item clause in the TSG League, and that it should be done away with.

For those who are not aware, the item clause is a rule banning all participants of the league to require all of their pokemon hold separate items, not being allowed to use more than one of any of them.

By signing this topic petition, you are in agreement that the item clause is superfluous and unnecessary, and should be cast aside.

1. Triforce Saturn
2. AtrumLevitas
3. gama-chan
4. pkGamerB
5. the1stpkmnfan
6. NicoCW
7. Luigi110
8. CodeZTM
9. Shiron
10. Lindbum
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

Muzy72
07-19-2010, 11:03 PM
I dunno, I think I'm starting to like Item Clause... >_>

AtrumLevitas
07-19-2010, 11:09 PM
I'll support this. The Item Clause puts restrictions on people's strategies. This league is suppose to be a form of fun for the challengers and leaders, and since this rule causes frustration it should be removed.

gama-chan
07-19-2010, 11:10 PM
It's sort of unfair and a little silly, and it makes for a HUGE disadvantage to teams that rely on more than one type of item (Leftovers being the primary one). Plus I'm sure a lot more people agree :P I support this, as a former gym leader of the league I can say it poses a huge disadvantage to both challenger and gym leader.

pkGamerB
07-19-2010, 11:11 PM
You can count me in, too. The only items I really think are worth using more than one of are Leftovers, Life Orb, and maybe Lum Berry. There are more than enough good items now for this not to be abused should we remove the clause.

the1stpkmnfan
07-19-2010, 11:12 PM
Ill be happy to support you guys. I can agree on the thoughts it would limit those's strategies and ideas. Plus, it's not always so bad. But no matter, I'm here for yall over this.

NicoCW
07-19-2010, 11:18 PM
Item Clause smells like dookie and Freeze Clause isn't even avoidable. Put me down. Item Clause died a long time ago. There's no excuse why it should still be in effect.

Luigi110
07-19-2010, 11:26 PM
I'm all for this. SIGN MY NAME GOOD SIR

CodeZTM
07-19-2010, 11:30 PM
You have the support of the spinning frontier brain. _awesome_

EDIT: And as I have posted many times, item clause only limits creative teams and makes it so everybody uses only OU pokemon. UU/NU/BL pokemon have NO chance if we are only permitted one of each items,and variety teams are pretty much not gonna happen.

Shiron
07-19-2010, 11:31 PM
I'm not a Wi-Fi battler or anything, but Item Clause makes me rage whenever I see it nowadays, so I can't help but chime in.

Item Clause may have had use back in Gen II, but now, with a multitude of useful items, it's mostly just a relic. People using multiple of the same item doesn't hurt anyone--it comes with both its pros and its cons. The only thing Item Clause really does is make it a lot more difficult to form a decent stall team. Now, stall's not everyone's thing, but then again, neither are completely offensive teams or balanced one. Everyone has their own taste in teams and it's just silly to say that someone's preference is right and another is wrong in these things.

In any case though, because it makes it harder to do things like form a decent stall team, Item Clause, instead of increasing diversity like it was intended to in GSC, now only limits it. As a result, even though this doesn't really affect me myself at all, for the sake of increased diversity of teams here, I definitely sign and give this my full support.

Lindbum
07-19-2010, 11:43 PM
I agree to this.

Sonic62
07-20-2010, 12:08 AM
No. Anti-sign!

Yuso
07-20-2010, 12:11 AM
This is competitive gaming here. There are rules set for competition. If you want to have a rule-free battle, then battle each other for fun. But if you want to compete within the league, go along with the league rules. That's all I have to say on this matter.

kmmgreen5
07-20-2010, 12:30 AM
STONE THE NON-BELIEVER! STONE HIM!!!

dryuriev7777
07-20-2010, 12:34 AM
STONE THE NON-BELIEVER! STONE HIM!!!

NicoCW
07-20-2010, 12:37 AM
This is competitive gaming here. There are rules set for competition.Item Clause was only set back in generation 2. As I mentioned before, it's obsolete. These games AREN'T Gold and Silver, they're ten years older. The game changes. Rules can change, too.
If you want to have a rule-free battle, then battle each other for fun.We're not asking for a removal of every rule, we're asking for a removal of one single rule that has no competitive value, is outdated, unbalanced and does nothing but limits teams and nerf some Pokemon that need specific items.

I don't want to start an argument, but I haven't seen any reasons provided on why Item Clause SHOULD be enforced. I see tons of good ones for why it shouldn't be enforced, but it seems like the only thing supporting Item Clause is "FOLLOW THE RULES," which isn't even a reason. If there's any good reason for why it should stay, I'd love to hear it.
also i say we keep the item clause, else battles where everyone using leftovers takes forever and can be really cheapAnyone who uses Leftovers on all six of their Pokemon is most likely to lose. Plus, I don't even see why anyone would do that. Only stalling Pokemon need Leftovers, and I'm sure nobody has a team of six defensive walls, and if they did, it will still be a giant stallfest without the Leftovers.

kmmgreen5
07-20-2010, 12:39 AM
some people arent about winning, it's just trolling with lots and lots of left overs, i m not gonna say any names but ZACH2M1 ....

Shiron
07-20-2010, 12:48 AM
This is competitive gaming here. There are rules set for competition. If you want to have a rule-free battle, then battle each other for fun. But if you want to compete within the league, go along with the league rules. That's all I have to say on this matter.
It's not about being completely rule-free--that's a red herring. It's really just about Item Clause in particular being a silly rule, for reasons like those that I listed. It also has nothing to do with competitive gaming. After all, Smogon is one of the largest competitive Pokemon sites around, but yet Item Clause is not a standard rule on their Shoddy Battle server, nor is it one on the sever of their Create-A-Pokemon project.

Pretty much, the point of this petition is that the people who support it want to be able to do their battles here without being bound by this rule in particular, as all it really does is decrease the diversity of team-types, the exact opposite of what it was intended to do when it was originally created in the second generation. The fact that this change has occurred, along with it not being game-breaking or any such thing, is the reason sites like Smogon no longer have the clause in their standard rules.

To sum it up, while it was a good rule for it's time, that time's passed, and we battle at sites like this, people like myself would prefer to not be bound by rules that are doing the opposite of what they originally intended to. As a result, unless a good reason can actually be come up with as to why it's there/why it should be kept and is actually a good rule, beyond just fallacious appeals such as "well, those are the rules", or "that's what the rules started as, so that's how they should they", it really should be removed, IMO.

CodeZTM
07-20-2010, 01:01 AM
If it's any consolation, I have removed item clause from the Battle Academy's operations. Can't say I agree with the decision, but there's apparently not much we can do about it.

EDIT: NIco really does summarize my points rather well.

gama-chan
07-20-2010, 01:06 AM
If it's any consolation, I have removed item clause from the Battle Academy's operations. Can't say I agree with the decision, but there's apparently not much we can do about it.

We can keep getting signatures in an effort to be efficient and hope that change can occur as it has in past situations when non violent forms of protest have proved to be good in an efficient and effective manner thus establishing...I mean keep trying? >_>

Yuso
07-20-2010, 01:13 AM
Is it really that challenging to come up with strategies on your own with these given rules?

NicoCW
07-20-2010, 01:21 AM
A lot more challenging than it would be to come up with strategies if Item Clause wasn't in effect. Even if strategies can still be thought up with Item Clause, it only makes them harder to think of, and accomplishes nothing in the end.

kmmgreen5
07-20-2010, 01:33 AM
http://i32.tinypic.com/289iy6f.jpg

Tanexion
07-20-2010, 01:38 AM
No. Anti-sign!
^

But I guess it couldn't hurt to give it a try. (Not that I support it)

NicoCW
07-20-2010, 01:43 AM
For those who support Item Clause, give reasons why. We gave reasons why we don't support it, so now it's your turn.

Sonic62
07-20-2010, 01:53 AM
For those who support Item Clause, give reasons why. We gave reasons why we don't support it, so now it's your turn.
Why? So you can crap all over them? I'll pass.

I've been around enough Pokmon arguments to know how this works.

kmmgreen5
07-20-2010, 01:56 AM
http://i28.tinypic.com/ztw6ds.png

Yuso
07-20-2010, 02:38 AM
Okay well. You all brought up some good points. But I'm not going to make a rule amendment over a petition, which in my opinion is just a well organized complaint.. and complaining doesn't get you anywhere in a productive sense with people..

But I will look into this and think about a possible solution to all this that has been said.

AtrumLevitas
07-20-2010, 03:01 AM
I would just like to make a note that this League was made with the Community's Pokemon interests in mind. So why is it when the Community tries to speak up for a change in the system that they participate in that they get completely overruled and denied so easily? Like others have stated before me, we've put our cards on the table but what you've done is tear them up and refuse to play the game. Now I don't care what anybody thinks anymore, I just want to see this dealt with fairly instead with an authoritative fist in the Community's face.

Sonic62
07-20-2010, 03:08 AM
Alright, let's allow 6 Garchomp, because apparently it's really hard to pick 6 different things.

ck14500
07-20-2010, 03:16 AM
its pretty much what it is, i understand that you guys want to use some of the same items, but eventually it will just cause for more repeal of other clauses down the line and don't say that it won't, we won't know that, but thats what everyone is asking for pretty much... and don't blame this on the person in charge okay, when the league first started and when we all looked at the rules, we all were to agreed to it even though we had our issue with the same clauses... i understand that it has the community interest in mind, but this is suppose to be a challenge isn't it... yes it is suppose to be for fun...but to some people it may never be fun if you guys just have it the way you want it...

Shiron
07-20-2010, 03:35 AM
Alright, let's allow 6 Garchomp, because apparently it's really hard to pick 6 different things.
Strawman. Species Clause and Item Clause are completely different issues. And it has nothing to do with it being too hard to pick 6 different items--that's not the issue, as it really is perfectly simple to do so. The real question is, why shouldn't we be able to use multiples of the same item? Species clause does have the obvious problem of things like 6 Salamence or 6 Garchomp being too much to handle, which is why it's still a clause on sites like Smogon. Item Clause, however, is completely different--having 6 Pokemon with Leftovers is hardly broken. That's just nothing more than what's most likely a stall team (and probably a bad one at that, but that's neither here nor there), which can still be done either way, albeit less effectively with Item Clause on. In any case though, a clause or rule really needs a purpose for being there. If Item Clause isn't preventing anything broken (like Species, OHKO, and Evasion clauses), the game goes on just fine with it gone, and it's just limiting team choices, I really don't see the reason for it being there.

@calvin: That is just a slippery slope fallacy though. You don't keep a rule in place just because it might lead to other clauses being undone. As mentioned, the other clauses, like OHKO, Evasion, and Species, all have their purposes. Item Clause is the only one that's a bit outdated and is the only one in question here. Appealing to the other rules or worrying about what might happen (which won't, and I can assure you is just paranoia, but still) to the other rules in Item Clause in no way changes or removes Item Clause of its flaws. If Item Clause is indeed an outdated and flawed rule, it should be gotten rid of; if not, it should be left alone. In any case though, the other rules have absolutely no baring on whether or not Item Clause should be left in tact and trying to appeal to a non-existent problem of what in all likeliness won't happen to the other rules is just a total scapegoat of this issue.

Sonic62
07-20-2010, 03:40 AM
^And there you have it. Why it's pointless to discuss it. We're always wrong.

Shiron
07-20-2010, 03:50 AM
Wait ...What? Not following you there. Like I said, every rule but this one is fine, and has very good reasoning behind it. It's only Item Clause that may be wrong, so you're not always wrong--it's just this one thing, which can be argued to be unnecessary. But really, I just have no clue what you're saying there.

Sonic62
07-20-2010, 03:56 AM
I'm saying anything we say in favour of it won't matter, those against will not want to hear it. Nothing will ever be solved. You'll keep coming up with your fancy terms like this "strawman". I'm sure this post will be responded to in kind. It's just pointless. The rule is fine and it's in place. Leave it alone and move on.

ck14500
07-20-2010, 04:24 AM
^ agreed with sonic on this one

DrewStern
07-20-2010, 05:26 AM
I'm fine with item clause. I mean, its not like Yuso will really care.

Dark_Weavile
07-20-2010, 06:30 AM
i'm sorry bbout this but i'm not signing, i've been using the item clause so long i've gotten used to it

DrewStern
07-20-2010, 06:34 AM
For those who support Item Clause, give reasons why. We gave reasons why we don't support it, so now it's your turn.
Why? So you can crap all over them? I'll pass.

I've been around enough Pokmon arguments to know how this works.
Seriously, you crap over our generation three opinions, why not this?

Anyways, item clause is necessary to have fluent play.

If one rule disappears, another one will too. If you give a mouse a cookie, hes gonna want some milk.

Dark_Weavile
07-20-2010, 07:00 AM
For those who support Item Clause, give reasons why. We gave reasons why we don't support it, so now it's your turn.
Why? So you can crap all over them? I'll pass.

I've been around enough Pokmon arguments to know how this works.
Seriously, you crap over our generation three opinions, why not this?

Anyways, item clause is necessary to have fluent play.

If one rule disappears, another one will too. If you give a mouse a cookie, hes gonna want some milk.
my reason is that a game isnt fun when u see the same 5 items (choice items, life orb, leftovers) on every single team. it forces people to think of new strategies that work better with other options, just loike the species clause and the uber tier (imagine a team of 6 arceuses and u'll see my point even if fits on a smaller scale)

the1stpkmnfan
07-20-2010, 08:15 AM
Yeah, I guess new strategies would be thought of anyways with or without Item Clause. I dont wanna get in this deep, but I never had a issue with this rule. Everyone of my team members have an item that supports them with their respective type or ability.

NicoCW
07-20-2010, 08:32 AM
Why? So you can crap all over them? I'll pass.Unlike you, I have REASONS for why it's not necessary. You haven't provided any.
I've been around enough Pokmon arguments to know how this works.If that's the case, then explain how it works.

Seriously, you crap over our generation three opinions, why not this?Again, I have reasons to back up my arguments. I mainly explain why it's underrated and why I think the reasons that people give for why it's the "WORST" don't make any sense. If you don't want to like it, fine, I never said you couldn't.
Anyways, item clause is necessary to have fluent play.Why does provide fluent play? As it's been stated plenty of times before, it does nothing but hinder Pokemon and teams. How does that make it more fluent?
If one rule disappears, another one will too. If you give a mouse a cookie, hes gonna want some milk.Like Shiron said, that's not how it works. All the other rules have their purposes, while this one doesn't.

It's not that I'm going to "crap on" the reasons, it's that I currently have none to crap on. I'm only asking for reasons why, and it shouldn't be that hard to provide them unless Item Clause is here for no reason at all, which in other words, would be here just for the lulz. So unless you guys back up Item Clause with viable reasons why it's necessary, I'm basically arguing with a wall. Also, if "crapping on" reasons is the same thing as countering them with other reasons, then I'm ready to take a huge dump, because that's how debating works.

Sonic62
07-20-2010, 08:36 AM
^Not making things any easier on yourself there saying garbage like that. If both gym leader and challenger want to forgo certain rules like that, fine, but otherwise the rule stays. End of story.

NicoCW
07-20-2010, 08:46 AM
Why didn't you just say that in the first place? I thought Gym Leaders couldn't lift rules, only enforce more.

And I'm trying to find where my arguments contained more garbage than yours. Please tell me where I was spouting out garbage, and I'll shut up.

Sonic62
07-20-2010, 08:49 AM
Why didn't you just say that in the first place? I thought Gym Leaders couldn't lift rules, only enforce more.


If it's any consolation, I have removed item clause from the Battle Academy's operations.
This.


And I'm trying to find where my arguments contained more garbage than yours. Please tell me where I was spouting out garbage, and I'll shut up.
That first line right there is exactly what I'm talking about.

Tanexion
07-20-2010, 08:56 AM
So at this point, it seems like everyone can just take:


If both gym leader and challenger want to forgo certain rules like that, fine

and exit gracefully. If he means what I think he means, there's really no need to keep arguing the issue (not here anyway) because as an outsider looking in, this topic really hasn't gone anywhere (and I don't think that it will).

Sonic62
07-20-2010, 08:58 AM
So at this point, it seems like everyone can just take:


If both gym leader and challenger want to forgo certain rules like that, fine

and exit gracefully. If he means what I think he means, there's really no need to keep arguing the issue (not here anyway) because as an outsider looking in, this topic really hasn't gone anywhere (and I don't think that it will).
Agreed. I think you're thinking what I'm thinking. If both parties agree to it, then go ahead and not use it. But it will still take precedence otherwise.

NicoCW
07-20-2010, 09:02 AM
As far as I'm concerned, I think my reasons smell much better than anything along the lines of "Because I said so." I've concluded that Item Clause is here for no reason, and asking for reasons is considered posting garbage.

So as Tanexion said, let's leave this thread alone. If both people agree to not use it, then it's fine, although when I was a gym leader, I remember it saying that we couldn't lift rules, but if that's changed, then it sounds fine.

Tachyon
07-20-2010, 09:05 AM
I swear this topic is just a bunch of double negatives.
Oh, and whoever said that complaining and petitioning wont get your attention, then clearly you need to realize we're in a vocable world.
If everyone just drew in the sand there opinions on matters, would any one care? Over a petition?

Dark_Weavile
07-20-2010, 09:09 AM
Why does provide fluent play? As it's been stated plenty of times before, it does nothing but hinder Pokemon and teams. How does that make it more flient?
How does it hinder teams, just like the species clause, it prevents people from running the same strategy multiple times on the same team, and do u know how many hold items exist, u may sat most of them suck, but alot more than u think have extremely viable uses, many of which cannot be copied by other, more common items, my gym team has now choice items, no life orb, and plays by item clause, yet i mangaed to figure out strategies that would never work with other items, and yes I win plenty of matches with my all dark team that plays under item clause and doesnt have choice items or life orb, even when playing outside my gym against someone not using item clause, creativity doesnt neccisarilly mean hinderance, dont blame the item clause just becuase ur too lazy to think of 6 different strategies on 1 team, thats part of the game. I'm sorry that both ur Heracross and Flygon can't both use Choice scarf to become super fast, but it also means that they can use a different item and switch attacks freely so If u used ur head u could figure out an equally good, (if not better) strategy.

NicoCW
07-20-2010, 09:20 AM
It has nothing to do with not being able to think of strategies. I'm saying that if you have a unique strategy that requires two Pokemon to use the same items, then it's tough luck for you. Plus, battling isn't about creativity. It's about thinking of the best strategies to win. Species Clause exists because a team 6 Salamence would be cheap and unfair. The only purpose to Clauses is to prevent the game from being cheap. Item Clause doesn't prevent cheapness, it prevents full use of strategy, which is the point of the game. Plus, the game has plenty of strategies. Not everyone is gonna use the same Pokemon with the same moves and same items.

CodeZTM
07-20-2010, 10:22 AM
I'm kind of shocked how this spiraled out of control. Both sides seem to be REALLY sensitive to this issue, so I move for a topic lock.

About 2 pages ago, Yuso stated that he is working on a compromise to this issue. From what I understand, it is my hope that we can find resolution in this compromise.

While I support the removal of the item clause, I also understand the underlying reasoning why Sonic62 and Yuso don't want to change a bunch of rules every season to appease the mob mentality. If everyone complaining about something got us what we wanted each and every time, then eventually it could make the purpose of the rules moot. I'm kind of glad I had a chance to really get into the other side's argument through messaging, because now I kind of understand where they are coming from.f

I've already made my points to Yuso last night [and I don't feel like posting my essay like thing I had prepared for this], but I would like to add one thing regarding my argument. The Pokemon League needs to remain FUN and COMPETITIVE. That's the real point of the league, or at least my point in doing everything I do to assist it. If a majority of the players don't like something, they're going to quit coming and having fun. However, this is only one side of the equation. We also need to keep it COMPETITIVE. IN order to do this, we need gym leaders that can allow for a challenge and the capability of players being able to think outside the box. This is why my gyms and facilities all have multiple challenges. Item clause [believe it or not], requires people to think outside of the box. But also banning items makes people think outside of the box, or the allowance of 1-2 ubers with a team of nothing but NU pokemon require outside the box thinking. Therefore, Item Clause DOES have a purpose. But it shouldn't be the only purpose. Gym leaders like WEavile offer a stricter item clause. Do they all have to do it that way? No! And they shouldn't. Each gym needs to offer a unique and challengeing [yet passable] experience.

So allowing gym leaders to decide adding/subtracting rules seems [to me] to be reasonable. However, I can also understand the tempation as a leader myself to not allow people to overpower me, and give them a far too challenging experience. Therefore, placing extra restrictions on gym leaders seems to be a prudent way to allow for this.

However, I still think a compromise can easily be made to, but only if everyone in the thread kind of just calms down [on both sides] and waits to see what comes of the compromise.

Nico, Sonic/Yuso have excellent points regarding Item Clause's being necessary. At least how Yuso explained it to me last night. Item cluase both fosters and restricts creativity at the same time. It's a double edged sword that cuts everybody equally. Let's also put ourselves in their shoes for a moment. If they change one rule, there is nothing to stop 10 petitions for other rule/tier changes from popping up and going "You changed item clause, so you HAVE to change ours", which would really cause more negativity and the illusion of preferential treatment.

Sonic/Yuso, Nico and the others also have excellent points regarding Item Cluase being necessary to be banned. I think we've all made our points and feelings regarding that. While you are correct that it requires more thought to come up with strategies that rely on only one of each item, it also destroys strategies that would otherwise be able to be used, and not all of them are cheap.

Yuso
07-20-2010, 12:01 PM
Okay. I've come to a conclusion and have decided what to do with this. Sonic pretty much gave the idea out. If both the gym leader and challenger want to exclude that clause then by all means. However, in compromise, there will be some rules that cannot be excluded. I will update the rules showing which rules remain absolute and which can be excluded exclusively. BUT - if a challenge who wishes to battle with certain rules that were removed, I will ask that the gym leaders respect the requests and accept the challenge. Otherwise if no specifications are made to their "custom" match, then the challenger must abide by the gym leader's set rules.

xClutchxF
07-20-2010, 12:36 PM
/signs :D

DarkMaster
07-24-2010, 11:48 AM
I would say yes except for the fact this could give gym leaders who are probably more expierenced at the games then challengers who are new to this, have no clue what they are doing, and get destroyed.

Mr.A
07-30-2010, 11:36 AM
I'll sign. I only ever use 2 of the same item on my team, anyway,and it's always leftovers.

Dark_Weavile
07-30-2010, 12:00 PM
I'll sign. I only ever use 2 of the same item on my team, anyway,and it's always leftovers.
this debate ended in comprimise already

Sonic62
08-01-2010, 11:21 PM
On that note...