Should you have to ask permission to use "Their" (/so called) Moveset.

First off. I didn't make this a poll because I didn't want people to vote without reasoning or without reading the current posts.
The question is "Should you have to ask permission to use "Their" (/so called) move set?"
My Answer: No, Millions of people have played Pokemon and most the set the person claims to be "theirs" has actually been used by 100s of people. Ask yourself when you make a Sig or w.e. Do you credit the program or inventor of one of your brushes? No you don't. This is just like that. When you paint a painting do you credit the manufacturer of the paper or the brushes. Absolutely not. If you win using your friends so called "Set" should your friend be credited when you win or win you lose? TBH no. They didn't help you use it in the battle. You could have a wonderful set, but if it's not used correctly it can suck. Should you say your friend made this crappy set when you lose because you used it incorrectly? No, because it was your fault for using so ineffectively.
This is just my opinion feel free to state yours. I'm open for discussion.

The Pokemon are each different paintings that fit together, in this case. The brushes and tools are the moves, the pokemon, and how they work. Someone made the set. You didn't think of it yourself, but found out about this yet, and, for the most part, when someone sees a non-smogon set, they assume it is their opponent who made it. Basically, you're taking credit for having thought of a set that you didn't create, which, even if other people out of millions that play the game, some have, I'll admit, thought of it, it's just that, they thought of it. Books can be similar, as can paintings. But you don't take someone else's.

Beastof2000 wrote:

Ask yourself when you make a Sig or w.e. Do you credit the program or inventor of one of your brushes? No you don't. This is just like that. When you paint a painting do you credit the manufacturer of the paper or the brushes. Absolutely not. If you win using your friends so called "Set" should your friend be credited when you win or win you lose? TBH no. They didn't help you use it in the battle. You could have a wonderful set, but if it's not used correctly it can suck. Should you say your friend made this crappy set when you lose because you used it incorrectly? No, because it was your fault for using so ineffectively.
This is just my opinion feel free to state yours. I'm open for discussion.

Okay, I want to elaborate on that signature comment. Yes, people don't always credit what they use when they created something off of, say Photoshop, but that's only relevant to the making of Gamefreak's sprites. You don't say, "Oh I made this set with this Ampharos so I should credit Gamefreak because they made Ampharos for me to use." Rather, when you make a signature, you add your own flair and taste to it, something unique that most people could not copy. Now, that's relevant to making your own set. You took the time to use different EV spreads, different moves to see what works until you feel that you perfected it. If I wanted a signature from GaiaAero, I wouldn't take Uutton's copy without any permission, or claiming it as my own.
Now, what you say to 100's of people using it prior to, that's not necessarily true, mainly because the vast difference of EV Spreads that could be made or (depending on the Pokémon) the vast movepool.

Coaster wrote:

Beastof2000 wrote:

Ask yourself when you make a Sig or w.e. Do you credit the program or inventor of one of your brushes? No you don't. This is just like that. When you paint a painting do you credit the manufacturer of the paper or the brushes. Absolutely not. If you win using your friends so called "Set" should your friend be credited when you win or win you lose? TBH no. They didn't help you use it in the battle. You could have a wonderful set, but if it's not used correctly it can suck. Should you say your friend made this crappy set when you lose because you used it incorrectly? No, because it was your fault for using so ineffectively.
This is just my opinion feel free to state yours. I'm open for discussion.

Okay, I want to elaborate on that signature comment. Yes, people don't always credit what they use when they created something off of, say Photoshop, but that's only relevant to the making of Gamefreak's sprites. You don't say, "Oh I made this set with this Ampharos so I should credit Gamefreak because they made Ampharos for me to use." Rather, when you make a signature, you add your own flair and taste to it, something unique that most people could not copy. Now, that's relevant to making your own set. You took the time to use different EV spreads, different moves to see what works until you feel that you perfected it. If I wanted a signature from GaiaAero, I wouldn't take Uutton's copy without any permission, or claiming it as my own.
Now, what you say to 100's of people using it prior to, that's not necessarily true, mainly because the vast difference of EV Spreads that could be made or (depending on the Pokémon) the vast movepool.

True but there is bound to be someone to have the same: IV's, EV's and Moves. There must be at least one person with the exact same set as you.

But they thought of it on their own, SSHG. They didn't just take it from someone else, and leave the assumption that they made it.

Elfar wrote:

But they thought of it on their own, SSHG. They didn't just take it from someone else, and leave the assumption that they made it.

Nope, but the moment they posted the set, they risked themslves to get it stolen, if you post a good set, you cant expect people not to use it

L wrote:

Elfar wrote:

But they thought of it on their own, SSHG. They didn't just take it from someone else, and leave the assumption that they made it.

Nope, but the moment they posted the set, they risked themslves to get it stolen, if you post a good set, you cant expect people not to use it

No? But what if they saw the Pokemon under context of not having it shown to public?

Elfar wrote:

L wrote:

Elfar wrote:

But they thought of it on their own, SSHG. They didn't just take it from someone else, and leave the assumption that they made it.

Nope, but the moment they posted the set, they risked themslves to get it stolen, if you post a good set, you cant expect people not to use it

No? But what if they saw the Pokemon under context of not having it shown to public?

Then well done to those being able to see what set it was, they are allowed to use it. Claiming it as their own, is a different story however.

boris5000 wrote:

Elfar wrote:

L wrote:

Elfar wrote:

But they thought of it on their own, SSHG. They didn't just take it from someone else, and leave the assumption that they made it.

Nope, but the moment they posted the set, they risked themslves to get it stolen, if you post a good set, you cant expect people not to use it

No? But what if they saw the Pokemon under context of not having it shown to public?

Then well done to those being able to see what set it was, they are allowed to use it. Claiming it as their own, is a different story however.

My point is that when someone battles another, if they see a non-smogon set, they generally assume it is their opponents. Without asking, they are basically claiming it as theirs.

Elfar wrote:

L wrote:

Elfar wrote:

But they thought of it on their own, SSHG. They didn't just take it from someone else, and leave the assumption that they made it.

Nope, but the moment they posted the set, they risked themslves to get it stolen, if you post a good set, you cant expect people not to use it

No? But what if they saw the Pokemon under context of not having it shown to public?

Well if you show someone a set your taking the risk if you do not want it to be exposed.

Im not going to lie, ive used someone's set without even knowing who they are. but when i was questioned about the set i didnt say it was mine. i'd say there is a major difference between using someones set and stealing someones set. and also showing to the public is pretty much making it public domain. if any of you have ever used a set ive made (or ever want to) go ahead, since i post to share.

also, with the whole changing EV's and everything, i'd say that makes it a new pokemon. and smogon goes back to the whole public domain part of my shpeal. and i say that claiming to own a set is just plain sad. and i also say that if you dont MAKE the set, you cant USE the set. it must be my set to be used correctly. like that one set that i brought up being someone elses, i dont know what the EV's are, so I made it my own Special Tank with the same tank.

Beastof2000 wrote:

Elfar wrote:

L wrote:

Elfar wrote:

But they thought of it on their own, SSHG. They didn't just take it from someone else, and leave the assumption that they made it.

Nope, but the moment they posted the set, they risked themslves to get it stolen, if you post a good set, you cant expect people not to use it

No? But what if they saw the Pokemon under context of not having it shown to public?

Well if you show someone a set your taking the risk if you do not want it to be exposed.

The assumption is still made that they created the set.

Elfar wrote:

Beastof2000 wrote:

Elfar wrote:

L wrote:

Elfar wrote:

But they thought of it on their own, SSHG. They didn't just take it from someone else, and leave the assumption that they made it.

Nope, but the moment they posted the set, they risked themslves to get it stolen, if you post a good set, you cant expect people not to use it

No? But what if they saw the Pokemon under context of not having it shown to public?

Well if you show someone a set your taking the risk if you do not want it to be exposed.

The assumption is still made that they created the set.

So? You created a set, someone else used it, the opponent assumes the person who used it is the creator....nothing else happens, the set is still as effective/ineffective as it was when you created it, you are not losing anything over someone else using it

L wrote:

Elfar wrote:

Beastof2000 wrote:

Elfar wrote:

L wrote:

Elfar wrote:

But they thought of it on their own, SSHG. They didn't just take it from someone else, and leave the assumption that they made it.

Nope, but the moment they posted the set, they risked themslves to get it stolen, if you post a good set, you cant expect people not to use it

No? But what if they saw the Pokemon under context of not having it shown to public?

Well if you show someone a set your taking the risk if you do not want it to be exposed.

The assumption is still made that they created the set.

So? You created a set, someone else used it, the opponent assumes the person who used it is the creator....nothing else happens, the set is still as effective/ineffective as it was when you created it, you are not losing anything over someone else using it

I don't know, you're right, and I actually can't pose an argument against you, which is very odd and surprising for me. But, to some people, it matters if they have the credit.

and everyone says after all, imitation is the best form of flattery.

dragonmxz wrote:

and everyone says after all, imitation is the best form of flattery.

And one of the best ways to annoy people, as well.

well yes, but im not talking about becoming a copycat here and saying whatever you say. nobody can lay claim to a strategy in a game. That's just ridiculouse. However, i am aginst people copying entire teams. A set is okay, a team no.

No, not permission. I create my own sets all the time, and I use other people's sets as well. However when asked or RMTing, I always credit the creator. I mean its not always the case if its similar to a smogon set, but when they are unique, I think the creator should be credited upon questioning. As for permission, god no, there is nothing stopping you from using someone else's pokemon set. However copying teams and using them as your team is.....pathetic?

Since I'm going to make a comparison and if this makes any sense to what we're talking about then that's great. So basically in Starcraft the person who popularized the game gets most of the credit. Say a person made a strategy but it wasn't that known when that person used it, say another player uses it and it gets recognition, well the creator gets credit but the person who popularized the build is the one who gets the most credit because they brought the set to life. Look at Michael Jackson, did he create the moonwalk? No, he popularized the move, and so he is largely considered the creator of the move. I see pokemon as the same way, if a person copies a set from some random battler, and starts to use it, then he starts battling more people with that set and another person copies that set and so on, then that person is the person who popularized it and largely the creator. I have no idea if what I am saying is making any sense at all.