Meta-PokéBase Q&A
2 votes

I think most competitive battling questions are already opinion-based enough and difficult to objectively answer, and "theorymon" questions ("what if this Pokemon learned that move?", "what if that Pokemon was banned?", etc.) are even worse. Are those questions really not as opinion-based as I think, or are there other reasons to allow them?

Do you have examples of questions which we have allowed, but that you think we shouldn't allow? I don't recall many of these being posted, but you're right that they present a 'grey area'.
There are way too many opinion based questions that slide by imo... Basically anything that can be answered with "Gamefreak logic", too.
I answered questions that others answered as GameFreak logic.
And other things idk
Not all Game Freak logic questions are bad. Some of them, like "why does curse have 2 effects?" or "why is dragon ascent flying type?", have real, possibly interesting answers. Has there ever been a good "theorymon" question?
Again, hit me up with examples if there are things you don't like @Flappers. I will always change my approach to each kind of question if a lot of people want that.
And yeah, it's not as simple as hiding every question that asks for an explanation on 'why x is a certain way'. There are some ways to guide decision-making, such as to allow 'Game Freak logic' questions where an obvious, conscious decision was made (e.g. to give Lugia Psychic type), since those are more likely to have explanations. But, of course, there are many exceptions to this.

1 Answer

1 vote
Best answer

I looked at the question you linked as an example; and to be honest, I don't see a need to remove that. In fact, I'd argue it's better than the average PokeBase thread, because it has good, well-reasoned responses, and an interesting premise. These are the same qualities I want to promote in this community overall.

I can see how that whole post is a bit pointless, and how it's difficult to answer 100% conclusively. But I don't have an issue with either of those things in principle, so long as there are actual arguments you can present to reach a conclusion for the question. I actually think that characterises the answer you wrote.

However, this is only one example of a 'theorymon' question, and there are certainly others I don't think we should allow. For example, if someone designed a completely new Pokemon and wanted to know if it would be viable, I wouldn't allow a question about it. That's where the whole discussion becomes entirely speculative, and the most correct answer turns from yes or no, to a tentative 'maybe?'

I can't make a hard-and-fast rule for where I draw the line with this -- it's just another one of these times where things are left to mod discretion. However, I am currently drafting a couple new threads which should give some structure to rules like this, so stay tuned for that.

But for now, in short: if the question sounds very speculative, then it isn't allowed. However, if good and decisive arguments can be made about the question, then it's fine.

selected by
As both the rules page and you have said, "PokeBase is not a traditional forum - questions should be answerable, not discussed endlessly." I don't see how that Shedinja question is any more objective than some of the stuff moderators closed in the past. If you like questions asking for arguments, why don't you like "what's the best Pokemon?"? Or this question ( )?
Also I found 3 more examples of "theorymon".
Also also a confession: I posted that answer only because I was a pedant who thought the other answer was wrong and wanted to prove it.
I don't see how theorymon questions are going to be 'discussed endlessly'. None of the examples you've linked so far have triggered endless discussions, and I don't believe that's within the capacity of these threads so long as we keep them contained. I explained above why I think they are 'answerable' as well.
I don't like 'What's the best Pokemon?' because it is vague, imprecise, and directionless. By contrast, a theorymon question selects one clear concept or idea, and gets other people to make an assessment of it using their knowledge. I don't think these are comparable questions.
I didn't hide that question, but it was removed due to its poor wording (what does 'maximum benefit' entail?) and because its answer mostly came down to personal preference. By contrast, I couldn't say Shell Smash Shedinja will be unviable because that's how I personally prefer it to be. I would need to present concrete arguments and an explanation to be taken seriously.
I don't have an issue with anything on that account page, for the same reasons as above. The questions are all answerable using fact and experience in competitive Pokemon, and again, have good quality responses.
Would "what is the best Pokemon in OU?" be less vague?
Yes, because it narrows down the selection of Pokemon substantially, and heavily implies that 'the best' is in terms of viability in that metagame. However, if you were to just put that in a title and provide no further direction, then I still wouldn't allow it.
If you want a point for comparison, 'What are the best physical sweepers in OU?' is one I would definitely allow.