1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Rules of writing analyses

Discussion in 'Competitive Analyses' started by pokemonnerd, Feb 22, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pokemonnerd

    pokemonnerd Only uso listens to pnerd. Devo too. Article Contributor Article Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,896
    Likes Received:
    888
    Exactly what it says on the title: these are the rules you must follow while writing an analysis. Note that QC means "Quality Control," the people in charge of making sure an analysis is as good as it can be. These are also subject to be modified a little bit in the near future to account for anything that might need to be added. If you have suggestions about that PM me.

    Note that QC means "Quality Control," the people that are in charge of ensuring that analyses are as good as they can be.

    1.) You should know the metagame with which you are dealing.
    If you're going to try and write an analysis for any pokemon in any tier, you need to have experience in said tier. Theorymoning does not get you very far in most suspect discussions, and the same holds true here. If you show through your posts that you have no idea what you're talking about, your analysis can and will be locked by one of the QC members of the tier in question or myself and xdevo. There's no way to measure what is "enough" experience in a tier; as long as you can show that you have a decent idea about the dynamics of a tier's metagame, that's good enough.

    2.) You should have experience with the Pokemon about which you are writing
    If you have never used a Genesect in your life before, please do not try and write about how amazing or horrible it may be. It's fine if your favorite pokemon is Swampert, however if you've never used it in OU, do not try and pass off an analysis for it. You have to had used the pokemon enough to get a grasp on what moves, natures, EV spreads and IV values work on a pokemon, and more importantly WHY they work in the tier you are writing them for.

    3.) Please finish what you start.
    Don't start on a pokemon like Tyranitar, that has several sets that all work very well in the tier, and just leave it to rot in this forum. If the QC members give you feedback on things you should change and show no sign of activity on your analysis itself or in the analysis' thread in 5 days, it will be locked by an appropriate QC member or myself and xdevo. We can tell if you've added something to your analysis by the edit dates on the bottom of them.

    4.) DO NOT PLAGIARISE
    We all expect your work to be 100% yours, with QC's advice added into it. If we find out you have gone to any site and copied anyone's analysis and claim it as your own you will be infracted.

    5.) Follow format rules, this includes grammar.
    Grammar is not that big of a deal, as we'll have people to grammar check analyses as QC approves them. Just make them readable and it'll be fine. The format however you should follow to the letter, as it makes uploading the finished analysis much less tedious.

    6.) Listen to QC; they are there because they know what they are talking about.
    Arguing with the QC members and having discussion within the analysis thread is fine. Blatantly insulting them or otherwise ignoring what they're saying is not. It's fine if you disagree and want to argue your point, however QC members can reject analyses if they feel the analysis of a particular pokemon is not adequate without certain information, moves on a set of the pokemon in question or EV spreads.

    7.) No jokes and especially no puns.
    You are not as funny as you think you are. Trust me on this.
     
  2. pokemonnerd

    pokemonnerd Only uso listens to pnerd. Devo too. Article Contributor Article Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,896
    Likes Received:
    888
    If you need the QC team to weigh in on your analysis changes, don't hesitate to double post to bump it asking for them to take a look.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.